Transfers, 2023-24 season

[PaddockLad 14819]

8 minutes ago, Andrew said:

 

Do you want me to actually answer before fish shows up? 

Am sure you’d give the best answer Andrew so please go ahead ☺️

[Rayvin 4964]

4 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Not every team plays with what you’re calling a 10 though, we don’t and there’s no actual evidence that we’re going to. Our two main attacking midfield targets appear to me to be attacking midfielders who can do an extensive range of things on the pitch. Which is why the absence of a what you kids are calling a 6 is bugging me a bit as I was informed that getting one in was key to releasing Bruno . Which makes me think who’s on the bench out of these 3? It’s just not adding up for me at the moment but am sure all will become clear 👍

 

Agree with this tbh, I feel like a 6 should at the very least be on the radar but Rice is the only one we've been linked to (that I know of) and we'll almost certainly not manage that.

[Dr Gloom 20027]

9 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Not every team plays with what you’re calling a 10 though, we don’t and there’s no actual evidence that we’re going to. Our two main attacking midfield targets appear to me to be attacking midfielders who can do an extensive range of things on the pitch. Which is why the absence of a what you kids are calling a 6 is bugging me a bit as I was informed that getting one in was key to releasing Bruno . Which makes me think who’s on the bench out of these 3? It’s just not adding up for me at the moment but am sure all will become clear 👍

 

yeah, this is my point about maddison. i love him as a player, but wonder how he fits into the way we play currently without playing him out of position. unless howe is thinking of switching from the 4-3-3, which has served us so well. 

[Andrew 4257]

15 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Am sure you’d give the best answer Andrew so please go ahead ☺️

 

Glooms pretty much nailed it tbh and, as you said, we don't play with a 10 currently, we have two 8s in our 4-3-3.

 

We are being linked with a lot of players who like the 10 position though so it does have me wondering if we're going to move to more of a 4-2-3-1 for some games as we're considered a bigger team and will be looking to dominate games more, and have teams play deeper against us, a few teams realised that we'd struggle to unlock them if they did that this season.

 

If we stick to the 4-3-3 I agree with you again that a 6 would be a bigger priority as it would free up Bruno to play further forward which improves our prospects of staying with that formation but not struggling as much against deeper opponents.

 

Who we pick up in midfield, which spot they favour is going to have a big influence on how we play next season and it will be telling to see who we prioritise one we cut through all the newspaper bullshit.

[Dr Gloom 20027]

the man himself reckons he can play as a "number 8"

 

 

[Dr Gloom 20027]

just when it was looking like a done deal, this bloke pops up and puts the hex on it 

 

 

[PaddockLad 14819]

30 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

the man himself reckons he can play as a "number 8"

 

 

Yeah that was pretty much my point . He’s an attacking midfielder. This number shit is a bit wanky tbh

[Dr Gloom 20027]

1 hour ago, PaddockLad said:

Yeah that was pretty much my point . He’s an attacking midfielder. This number shit is a bit wanky tbh

 

the "number 8"/"number 10" bollocks is nothing new. it's just the hipster way of saying something we used to say differently. "number 8" is your box to box midfielder. "number 10" is the attacking midfielder who plays in the hole behind the striker, almost like a second striker with more of a license to create. 

 

in some cases, i would agree with you, but not always. you wouldn't want beardsley playing in CM for example, would you? you'd want him much higher up the pitch, as a second striker. that's the classic "number 10 role". some players can play "number 10" and "number 8". i'm not sure if maddison was one of those or whether you get more out of him he plays higher up the pitch though he seems to think he is so wtf do i know? 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Dr Gloom

[RobinRobin 9386]

Still need a proper defensive midfielder. Is that 6?

[PaddockLad 14819]

17 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

the "number 8"/"number 10" bollocks is nothing new. it's just the hipster way of saying something we used to say differently. "number 8" is your box to box midfielder. "number 10" is the attacking midfielder who plays in the hole behind the striker, almost like a second striker with more of a license to create. 

 

in some case, i would agree with you, but not always. you wouldn't want beardsley playing in CM for example, would you? you'd want him much higher up the pitch, as a second striker. that's the classic "number 10 role". some players can play "number 10" and "number 8". i'm not sure if maddison was one of those or whether you get more out of him he plays higher up the pitch though he seems to think he is so wtf do i know? 

Probably more than me…..but seemingly not by much  

 

Dave will be along in a bit with his muckle fitba brain to explain all 🤗

 

[ackas 305]

38 minutes ago, RobinRobin said:

Still need a proper defensive midfielder. Is that 6?

 

Wasnt that long ago that 6 was one of your centre backs

Who approved that change?

[Polarboy 2124]

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

 

 

If we stick to the 4-3-3 I agree with you again....

 

That's 12 players mate 😉👍

[Dr Gloom 20027]

53 minutes ago, RobinRobin said:

Still need a proper defensive midfielder. Is that 6?

 

correct. though bruno will play there, when he's not playing as a number 8 

 

[Polarboy 2124]

I'm seeing a lot of "ITK" accounts saying that Maddison is basically done. Of course they are likely just guessing based on the update from Sky Sports the other day. Tierney and Maddison in early would be a ridiculously good start to the window. 

[David Kelly 1117]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

the "number 8"/"number 10" bollocks is nothing new. it's just the hipster way of saying something we used to say differently. "number 8" is your box to box midfielder. "number 10" is the attacking midfielder who plays in the hole behind the striker, almost like a second striker with more of a license to create. 

 

in some cases, i would agree with you, but not always. you wouldn't want beardsley playing in CM for example, would you? you'd want him much higher up the pitch, as a second striker. that's the classic "number 10 role". some players can play "number 10" and "number 8". i'm not sure if maddison was one of those or whether you get more out of him he plays higher up the pitch though he seems to think he is so wtf do i know? 

Used to try and explain this to my dad with the use of Pedro as an example.  All I ever got back was "what difference does it make what number he has on his back".  I think there is an age limit to who can understand this concept.  Mind I'm also with ackas, 6 was always a central defender for me.  4 was the defensive midfielder, David McCreery in my formative years.

[PaddockLad 14819]

3 minutes ago, David Kelly said:

Used to try and explain this to my dad with the use of Pedro as an example.  All I ever got back was "what difference does it make what number he has on his back".  I think there is an age limit to who can understand this concept.  Mind I'm also with ackas, 6 was always a central defender for me.  4 was the defensive midfielder, David McCreery in my formative years.

Keegan played Pedro fairly regularly in centre mid, especially after after we signed Tino. But yeah. No. 10 plays “between the lines” and dinks the ball into the box, scores a fair few themselves . An 8 is a “midfielder” , there to create and defend, weigh in with a few goals. 6 was definitely 4 a la Davey Mac, Roeder was 6 I think?…Alan Hansen definitely was… all goes back to old fashioned “half backs” which were 4,5 & 6 …. 

[David Kelly 1117]

28 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Keegan played Pedro fairly regularly in centre mid, especially after after we signed Tino. But yeah. No. 10 plays “between the lines” and dinks the ball into the box, scores a fair few themselves . An 8 is a “midfielder” , there to create and defend, weigh in with a few goals. 6 was definitely 4 a la Davey Mac, Roeder was 6 I think?…Alan Hansen definitely was… all goes back to old fashioned “half backs” which were 4,5 & 6 …. 

Aye I always considered 6 as a more ball playing centreback such as Roeder and Hansen and associated 5 with your Jeff Clarkes.

[Dr Gloom 20027]

27 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Keegan played Pedro fairly regularly in centre mid, especially after after we signed Tino. But yeah. No. 10 plays “between the lines” and dinks the ball into the box, scores a fair few themselves . An 8 is a “midfielder” , there to create and defend, weigh in with a few goals. 6 was definitely 4 a la Davey Mac, Roeder was 6 I think?…Alan Hansen definitely was… all goes back to old fashioned “half backs” which were 4,5 & 6 …. 

 

he moved pedro to right wing rather to accommodate tino though, didn't he? i don't remember him playing CM. i don't think RM was pedro's best position either tbh

[ackas 305]

2 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

Keegan played Pedro fairly regularly in centre mid, especially after after we signed Tino. But yeah. No. 10 plays “between the lines” and dinks the ball into the box, scores a fair few themselves . An 8 is a “midfielder” , there to create and defend, weigh in with a few goals. 6 was definitely 4 a la Davey Mac, Roeder was 6 I think?…Alan Hansen definitely was… all goes back to old fashioned “half backs” which were 4,5 & 6 …. 

 

I dont remember the time when half backs where a thing. I'm presuming thats the position that John Stones has been occupying for City recently?

If so, I wonder if we are looking for a centre half that can fulfill that role for us?

Makes the Maguire rumours I heard today a bit more understandable, if so.

Although, that signing would be a strenuous test of Eddie's miraculous transformative powers...

[ewerk 26737]

24 minutes ago, ackas said:

Makes the Maguire rumours I heard today a bit more understandable, if so.

 

[Holden McGroin 5015]

2 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

he moved pedro to right wing rather to accommodate tino though, didn't he? i don't remember him playing CM. i don't think RM was pedro's best position either tbh

 

Aye, I don't remember him ever playing CM. He played the 10 (in behind the striker) role mainly and was shunted to the wing when Tino turned up.

[PaddockLad 14819]

57 minutes ago, ackas said:

 

I dont remember the time when half backs where a thing. I'm presuming thats the position that John Stones has been occupying for City recently?

If so, I wonder if we are looking for a centre half that can fulfill that role for us?

Makes the Maguire rumours I heard today a bit more understandable, if so.

Although, that signing would be a strenuous test of Eddie's miraculous transformative powers...

Half backs were a function of the 2-3-5 system that was commonplace in English football up to the 50s/60s (and we won our primary school league with it in 1981 so I have a bit of insight here )

 

1: gk 

2 right back

3 left back

 

4 right half back

5 Centre half back

6 left half back

 

7 right wing 

8 right inside forward 

9 centre forward 

10 left inside forward 

11 left wing 

 

Your 8 & 10s were basically attacking midfielders, especially so In time when the defence gained 5 & 6 as new ideas for tactics and formations became commonplace.
 

Stones, and this is a purely personal POV, is doing what Beckenbauer did, nominally a defender but more often than not in midfield dictating play. So although Pep has rightly been lauded in the press in the last few days for his current and former teams, it’s all variations on a theme. If your other centre backs are good enough to play as a three (and that’s what we’ve done last season, the difference is Tripps is the playmaker) they can take care of teams with one only main attacker who play on the counter against decent teams like us. Whether any of that applies to Maguire I have absolutely no idea  

 

(as an aside, it looked to me as Inter’s main tactic on Saturday was to leave two up front more often than not, meaning Stones was a bit restricted to defensive duties more often than he’s been used to lately, probably why Inter gave them a hard time for over an hour….until Lukaku came in, obvs  ) 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by PaddockLad

[Howay 12495]

I find a lot of the reaction about Maddison on twitter weird, lots of stuff about his attitude and how he doesn’t run as much etc. The thing is Leicester don’t play that way so weren’t asking him to press like our team does, I’m fairly comfortable in thinking that Howe/Ashworth would ensure he had the right attitude and would do what was asked of him before they spent £50m on the bloke. 

[PaddockLad 14819]

6 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

 

Aye, I don't remember him ever playing CM. He played the 10 (in behind the striker) role mainly and was shunted to the wing when Tino turned up.

You’re probably right, but because he was out wide often with more defensive duties than he’d like he did tuck in a lot alongside Batty and Watson would gallop up  or Lee would swap etc

Edited June 12, 2023 by PaddockLad

[NJS 3989]

6 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Half backs were a function of the 2-3-5 system that was commonplace in English football up to the 50s/60s (and we won our primary school league with it in 1981 so I have a bit of insight here )

 

1: gk 

2 right back

3 left back

 

4 right half back

5 Centre half back

6 left half back

 

7 right wing 

8 right inside forward 

9 centre forward 

10 left inside forward 

11 left wing 

 

Your 8 & 10s were basically attacking midfielders, especially so In time when the defence gained 5 & 6 as new ideas for tactics and formations became commonplace.
 

Stones, and this is a purely personal POV, is doing what Beckenbauer did, nominally a defender but more often than not in midfield dictating play. So although Pep has rightly been lauded in the press in the last few days for his current and former teams, it’s all variations on a theme. If your other centre backs are good enough to play as a three (and that’s what we’ve done last season, the difference is Tripps is the playmaker) they can take care of teams with one only main attacker who play on the counter against decent teams like us. Whether any of that applies to Maguire I have absolutely no idea  

 

(as an aside, it looked to me as Inter’s main tactic on Saturday was to leave two up front more often than not, meaning Stones was a bit restricted to defensive duties more often than he’s been used to later, probably why Inter gave them a hard time for over an hour….until Lukaku came in, obvs  ) 

 

From what I've read when we were the kings of football in Edwardian times and for a few decades more to a degree, the number 5 was the main man of the team and not just a defender - probably just like Beckenbauer etc. 

 

We had Andy Aitken followed by Colin Veitch there in those glory days.