What is 'the no 10' to YOU?

[Pirate55]

I'd say in this country at least there seems to be a difference between a creative forward who drops deeper (10) than an attacking midfielder who plays in the hole who is traditionally a number 8 (Gazza, Scholes etc) but who cares - Merry Christmas you lot

Spot on Rob. And Right back at you re Chrimbo!!

Potentially one way to differentiate between a number 10 who is primarily an auxiliary forward (eg Sheringham, Cantona, Rooney) and an attacking CM who is primarily a midfield player,(eg Gazza, Hoddle, Scoles)is the role they play.The former is ((among other things) expected to get on the end of moves, while the latter is primarily there to dictate play.

Keane was a great no 10 when playing the former role but useless when he tried to play the latter role in his last spell with us.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

Surprised that no one has pointed out that the "no 10" is actually the number that falls between 9 and 11....

 

[thfcsteff]

What would you call the Fabregas role at Chelscum?

great question, and TBH, I'd need to watch him more. But in that side he's co-running games, thus certainly a candidate for no 10 although Hazard absolutely ticks the boxes too. Perhaps Chelski have two hahaha?! I'll tell you this; for me, Fabregas is getting the headlines but that side ticks because of Matic. His work is essential to everything they do.

 

[thfcsteff]

Once again that is because of Matic. He is literally like 2 players. Also one of Mourinhos remits is to be more attractive at Chelsea and to score more goals. Their defense still isn't as solid due to Cesc going forward alot and leaving Matic to hold on his own. The last game this pattern was broken when Mikel and Matic sat deep.

Also Fabregas is a very special player. One of best triangle button passers around. Modric doesn't have that passing ability.

Just saw your post. Agreed.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think this thread, and the excellent contributions to it, show that there are clearly some very different ideas as to what "no 10" means and what they do. Good stuff. Interesting reading...

 

[Modric THFC]

In Argentina its the enganche the playmaker who plays behind the two strikers in a 3412 or 4312 formation.
In Italy its the Trequartista, literally a three quarters. The archetypal Italian number ten who roamed between the lines, orchestrating attacking moves and creating goal-scoring opportunities.
Whereas in 442 Britain its the second striker, at best a Sheringham but sometimes a Robbie Keane like creator/poacher.
In Britain the 10 still is expected to get goals, he was to get on the end of the number 9 knockdowns etc. Whereas in Italy/Argentina they are just a playmaker and would often play behind 2 strikers.

433 effectively killed off number 10s for a while moving the likes of Messi and Ronaldo out wide where there was space.
But 4231 has brought the term back in.

The debate here I think is the difference between how Eriksen and Kane can play that role for us. Eriksen more a playmaker, Kane a second striker.

 

[thfcsteff]

In Argentina its the enganche the playmaker who plays behind the two strikers in a 3412 or 4312 formation.
In Italy its the Trequartista, literally a three quarters. The archetypal Italian number ten who roamed between the lines, orchestrating attacking moves and creating goal-scoring opportunities.
Whereas in 442 Britain its the second striker, at best a Sheringham but sometimes a Robbie Keane like creator/poacher.
In Britain the 10 still is expected to get goals, he was to get on the end of the number 9 knockdowns etc. Whereas in Italy/Argentina they are just a playmaker and would often play behind 2 strikers.

433 effectively killed off number 10s for a while moving the likes of Messi and Ronaldo out wide where there was space.
But 4231 has brought the term back in.

The debate here I think is the difference between how Eriksen and Kane can play that role for us. Eriksen more a playmaker, Kane a second striker.

A pretty good summary IMV, and I'd add that for me, the definition of a 'no 10' has changed over the decades as tactical shapes have 'developed' to make different shapes. Hoddle, to me, was always the quintessential no 10, there again so was Cruyff, so was Maradona, so was Gazza. But in the modern game, I think there' a very fair argument for the no 10 role to be that of the playmaker/heartbeat and not just the most skilled craftsman on the pitch. Sometimes you have both, but it's rare. For example, I do not see Ronaldo as RM's playmaker, I still see Modric as much more the no 10 and dictator of their day's work.

In many ways, if Eriksen continues to work hard and grow, he could become the perfect old-schools/new-school hybrid no 10 which would be wonderful.

 

[Modric THFC]

A pretty good summary IMV, and I'd add that for me, the definition of a 'no 10' has changed over the decades as tactical shapes have 'developed' to make different shapes. Hoddle, to me, was always the quintessential no 10, there again so was Cruyff, so was Maradona, so was Gazza. But in the modern game, I think there' a very fair argument for the no 10 role to be that of the playmaker/heartbeat and not just the most skilled craftsman on the pitch. Sometimes you have both, but it's rare. For example, I do not see Ronaldo as RM's playmaker, I still see Modric as much more the no 10 and dictator of their day's work.

In many ways, if Eriksen continues to work hard and grow, he could become the perfect old-schools/new-school hybrid no 10 which would be wonderful.

In italy though they have always had a Regista (director) as well as a Trequartista. This is the deep lying playmaker as I see Modric now is. The italian would call Pirlo a Regista.

 

[thfcsteff]

In italy though they have always had a Regista (director) as well as a Trequartista. This is the deep lying playmaker as I see Modric now is. The italian would call Pirlo a Regista.

I see that for sure. But in our side under Redknapp (to me eyes anyway!) Modric was absolutely our no 10 and his only failing was that he did not score as many goals as he should have. VdV was the 'tabloid' no 10 who showed up for 50 minutes and disappeared beyond that. I liked VdV but I always felt he was a little overrated; did brilliant things but I never felt we could rely on him game in game out to make the difference,indeed, I often found myself going he was in a good mood LOL.

 

[milo]

I see that for sure. But in our side under Redknapp (to me eyes anyway!) Modric was absolutely our no 10 and his only failing was that he did not score as many goals as he should have. VdV was the 'tabloid' no 10 who showed up for 50 minutes and disappeared beyond that. I liked VdV but I always felt he was a little overrated; did brilliant things but I never felt we could rely on him game in game out to make the difference,indeed, I often found myself going he was in a good mood LOL.

I don't agree. Just because Modric was creative it does not mean that he was a number 10. A number 10 is a specific position and that is between the lines.

 

[milo]

The debate here I think is the difference between how Eriksen and Kane can play that role for us. Eriksen more a playmaker, Kane a second striker.

They have different instincts and bring different qualities to the position but they are both playing between the lines.

 

[jts1882]

In Argentina its the enganche the playmaker who plays behind the two strikers in a 3412 or 4312 formation.
In Italy its the Trequartista, literally a three quarters. The archetypal Italian number ten who roamed between the lines, orchestrating attacking moves and creating goal-scoring opportunities.
Whereas in 442 Britain its the second striker, at best a Sheringham but sometimes a Robbie Keane like creator/poacher.
In Britain the 10 still is expected to get goals, he was to get on the end of the number 9 knockdowns etc. Whereas in Italy/Argentina they are just a playmaker and would often play behind 2 strikers.

433 effectively killed off number 10s for a while moving the likes of Messi and Ronaldo out wide where there was space.
But 4231 has brought the term back in.

The debate here I think is the difference between how Eriksen and Kane can play that role for us. Eriksen more a playmaker, Kane a second striker.

The Argentinian "Enganche" is playing behind two forwards in those formations. This to me is the classic #10. He is clearly a playmaker with others primarily designated the goalscoring role. His goals are a bonus, although a good one can provide many bonuses (e.g. Maradona). If this type of player is a #10, then British second strikers like Sheringham and Keane are not #10s.

The Italian "Trequartista" confuses things. In practice, they tend to be similar to #10s to the Argentinian "Enganches". The name though, "literally a three quarters", suggests a deep lying playmaker sitting just in front of the defenders, behind the half backs. This is a good name for a Pirlo rather than a Totti.

Positionally the number 10 is not a threequarters, but a quarterback playing centrally. The quarterback term seems appropriate for the three in the 4-2-3-1 (fullbacks-halfbacks-quarterbacks-forwards). A left (or right) sided playmaker becomes the left (or right) quarterback. The classic midfield diamond becomes a system with a threequarters (holding). two halfbacks, and a quarterback at the tip of the diamond, who would be a #10 in the Argentinian "Enganche" sense.

P.S. We can agree to disagree on meanings, but it makes discussion of tactics difficult. We really need a house-style for Glory-Glory, what we mean by a #10, although that would probable become the Lesser Spotted Flycatcher.

 

[Modric THFC]

The Argentinian "Enganche" is playing behind two forwards in those formations. This to me is the classic #10. He is clearly a playmaker with others primarily designated the goalscoring role. His goals are a bonus, although a good one can provide many bonuses (e.g. Maradona). If this type of player is a #10, then British second strikers like Sheringham and Keane are not #10s.

The Italian "Trequartista" confuses things. In practice, they tend to be similar to #10s to the Argentinian "Enganches". The name though, "literally a three quarters", suggests a deep lying playmaker sitting just in front of the defenders, behind the half backs. This is a good name for a Pirlo rather than a Totti.

Positionally the number 10 is not a threequarters, but a quarterback playing centrally. The quarterback term seems appropriate for the three in the 4-2-3-1 (fullbacks-halfbacks-quarterbacks-forwards). A left (or right) sided playmaker becomes the left (or right) quarterback. The classic midfield diamond becomes a system with a threequarters (holding). two halfbacks, and a quarterback at the tip of the diamond, who would be a #10 in the Argentinian "Enganche" sense.

P.S. We can agree to disagree on meanings, but it makes discussion of tactics difficult. We really need a house-style for Glory-Glory, what we mean by a #10, although that would probable become the Lesser Spotted Flycatcher.

No the the three quarters is supposed to refer to being three quarters way up the pitch.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't agree. Just because Modric was creative it does not mean that he was a number 10. A number 10 is a specific position and that is between the lines.

In turn, I disagree with what a no 10 is (to me anyway)...for me, the no 10 is basically the conductor of the team, the string-puller, the tune-getter, the one who knits it all together and through whom the side ticks. It's heart. I understand what your view of a no 10 is, I just don't agree that it's a no 10 ...it's one of the main reasons I started this thread, as I think sometimes we will all use phrases thinking we all mean the same thing when, in fact, we have different viewpoints on what their core definition is. Again, I'm really enjoying both the discussion and the different viewpoints coming up! Happy Holidays my friend.

 

[Modric THFC]

In turn, I disagree with what a no 10 is (to me anyway)...for me, the no 10 is basically the conductor of the team, the string-puller, the tune-getter, the one who knits it all together and through whom the side ticks. It's heart. I understand what your view of a no 10 is, I just don't agree that it's a no 10 ...it's one of the main reasons I started this thread, as I think sometimes we will all use phrases thinking we all mean the same thing when, in fact, we have different viewpoints on what their core definition is. Again, I'm really enjoying both the discussion and the different viewpoints coming up! Happy Holidays my friend.

Some people are wrong though.
If i decide to call all centre half number 6's and keep on mentioning it in threads I am wrong.

Some people hear something and interpret it wrong. Some people say top draw. Some people say literally when they mean figuratively.

 

[OleBoot]

Inside Right. Jimmy Greaves. Ok, I'm old. Was talking to my football mad nephew over Xmas, and his jaw came out of its socket when I told him that up until the late 60's there was really only one formation, and it was 2-3-5. In England at least, we can probably blame Alf Ramsey, and his "wingless wonders" England team for getting us into the continental style of 4-2-4, then the game went onward to 4-4-2 as everything got more defensive. I wrote the history lesson to explain that I don't understand where the modern "No 10" role (whatever it is) originated. As far as I remember, shirt numbers indicating positions died out long, long ago. Any footy history buffs out there care to comment?

As far as the current perception of "No 10" goes, I had always thought it meant someone who was in there to feed a lone striker, with a pretty fluid brief as to what spaces they had to occupy. Where, for us, IMHO, Eriksen should be operating rather than the deeper or wing role he often appears to be in, and not the likes of Lamela and Kane. Lamela should be sold to the Bolshoi Ballet, and Kane should be kept as a striker, which is what he is - an old fashioned big strong, center forward with little ball control and hold up capability, but superb instinct and positional sense. Sorry, couldn't help relating this thread to us.

 

[milo]

In turn, I disagree with what a no 10 is (to me anyway)...for me, the no 10 is basically the conductor of the team, the string-puller, the tune-getter, the one who knits it all together and through whom the side ticks. It's heart. I understand what your view of a no 10 is, I just don't agree that it's a no 10 ...it's one of the main reasons I started this thread, as I think sometimes we will all use phrases thinking we all mean the same thing when, in fact, we have different viewpoints on what their core definition is. Again, I'm really enjoying both the discussion and the different viewpoints coming up! Happy Holidays my friend.

It is a string puller when played in a specific place, in a specific formation.

 

[jts1882]

No the the three quarters is supposed to refer to being three quarters way up the pitch.

I assume that is the origin of the Italian term, but that is more modern and inconsistent with more traditional terminology.

Historically, we had forwards and full backs, with half backs inbetween. This terminology goes back to the origins of Association Football and predates the classic pyramidal scheme. So logically, the three quarters are the backs between the half-backs and full-backs, while the quarterback is between the half-backs and forwards. Other codes of football use the terms in this sense, i.e. the threequarters (and even 5/8ths) in rugby and the quarterback in American football. In English the quarterback plays nearest the forwards and larger fractions closer to the fullback.

Overtime we have dropped the halfback term in favour of midfielder, but now we regularly see teams lined up in four lines it is time for a revival. The two in the 4-2-3-1 is very similar to the two halfbacks in the classic WM, with Blanchflower and Mackay being our best examples. We don't have a convenient term for the three and the quarterback line fits the bill. You could also imagine the 4-4-2 diamond as being composed of a threequarter-back (holding), two halfbacks and a quarterback at the tip (as the #10).

 

[diego_maradona]

In turn, I disagree with what a no 10 is (to me anyway)...for me, the no 10 is basically the conductor of the team, the string-puller, the tune-getter, the one who knits it all together and through whom the side ticks. It's heart. I understand what your view of a no 10 is, I just don't agree that it's a no 10 ...it's one of the main reasons I started this thread, as I think sometimes we will all use phrases thinking we all mean the same thing when, in fact, we have different viewpoints on what their core definition is. Again, I'm really enjoying both the discussion and the different viewpoints coming up! Happy Holidays my friend.

It's a good discussion Steff, some good opinions. Would you define Guardiola, De La Pena, Xavi, Pirlo as number 10s? Or even Matthäus or Beckenbauer from their quarterback/sweeper position. Or Dunga in the 94/98 World Cups?

 

[Hashegotthesackyet?]

Kane is a 9 and a half