What is 'the no 10' to YOU?

[billyiddo]

...in four beers time

 

[supie]

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?

A good discussion no doubt.

I lived in Spain for over 11 years and it was the "media punta" (in the UK the role normally referred "in the hole") and the "segundo delantero" (second striker) who were generally the guys who made it all happen and the players who wore the #10 shirt.

The interesting part about those two positions in Spanish football is that rarely, if ever, did you have teams who deployed both. Generally, in a 4-2-3-1 at least, it was felt that there wouldn't be the need for both and accommodating both would mean one, or both, would be stifled.

The great Madrid Galacticos team had the players with the right kind of skills to be able to deploy both; however tactical balance was always an issue and eventually Zidane had to operate as an inside left while Raúl roamed behind the original Ronaldo or Morientes before him. Both of these guys would have considered themselves "#10s"; however in effect and for the balance of the team, Madrid ended up playing the best "media punta" of that generation on the left side and that way accommodated one of the best "segundo delanteros" of that generation also. This accommodation of a "media Punta" on the wing necessitated Roberto Carlos operating as an unorthodoxy wingback and that way Madrid could free up Zidane for attacking duties only.

Another fascinating development in Spain happened later with Guardiola's Barca. He, Guardiola (and indeed Cruyff before him) availed of a decision made by the Barca academy in the 90s which involved finding the most skillfull, dynamic and tactically aware kids irrespective of size, strength or natural positioning and; via their renowned academy system, moulding them into attacking players who could be positionally agnostic and capable of playing with players of a similar style to themselves.

Guardiola, who played under Cruyff and was influenced by the Dutch notion of total football, took these players and created a team, which not only adopted the "total football" notion of the Dutch, but also introduced a work ethic and pressurising dimension that similar teams who had adopted the Dutch approach previously had failed to grasp - the results are not only the success of that Barca team, but also the creation of a blueprint for the Spanish national team, who won all before them. Ironically it is also the model for Madrid's current team where the likes of James and Modric fit in seamlessly but are also expected to work their ar#es off for the good of the team.

I think the future of football is going to be one where certain characteristics in players will be coveted and the good coaches will be entrusted with ensuring such players can be moulded together and a coherent and effective team unit created.

Madrid are currently doing this, as are Barca, although less successfully for the time being. The Germans did something similar at the World Cup and had the likes of Ozil, and Muller working well in tandem together and the balance of the team not being affected.

Closer to home Van Gaal is attempting this at Man U and again significant changes to where people have to play are being made e.g Rooney dropping further back. Even Poch is trying to make it all work and his goal it would seem is to have; Eriksen, Kane and Lamella all in the same team.

It's an interesting time for the game and on the back of coaches like Guardiola I think we are already seeing more and more people focusing on dynamic intelligent players who are capable of interchanging positions as opposed to players who are rigid, one dimensional and static only capable of occupying fixed positions.

So, perhaps the answer to the original question is that the #10 can have many roles and indeed there can be many #10s, assuming there is a coach capable of making them all play seamlessly together.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[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.

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).

The Italian "Trequartista" confuses things only to you.
Its a player who plays 3/4 up the pitch between the lines in Italian football.
It has nothing to do with English football.

 

[thfcsteff]

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?

Sorry mate, just saw this.

Pirlo = #10
Xavi? Not so sure I ever saw him as #10 as he works with Iniesta but not quite as well alone IMO.

Dunga? Anchor but not #10
Beckenbauer? Wonderful player but let's be fair, that (West) Germany had Uli Hoeness who was the closest to a #10.

Modric THFC...yes, calling a CB a #10 is wrong. But I suspect that you know the point I was making and are just being obtuse for the sake of it?

Milo...I think we said the same thing? String-puller. Conductor.

 

[thfcsteff]

A good discussion no doubt.

I lived in Spain for over 11 years and it was the "media punta" (in the UK the role normally referred "in the hole") and the "segundo delantero" (second striker) who were generally the guys who made it all happen and the players who wore the #10 shirt.

The interesting part about those two positions in Spanish football is that rarely, if ever, did you have teams who deployed both. Generally, in a 4-2-3-1 at least, it was felt that there wouldn't be the need for both and accommodating both would mean one, or both, would be stifled.

The great Madrid Galacticos team had the players with the right kind of skills to be able to deploy both; however tactical balance was always an issue and eventually Zidane had to operate as an inside left while Raúl roamed behind the original Ronaldo or Morientes before him. Both of these guys would have considered themselves "#10s"; however in effect and for the balance of the team, Madrid ended up playing the best "media punta" of that generation on the left side and that way accommodated one of the best "segundo delanteros" of that generation also. This accommodation of a "media Punta" on the wing necessitated Roberto Carlos operating as an unorthodoxy wingback and that way Madrid could free up Zidane for attacking duties only.

Another fascinating development in Spain happened later with Guardiola's Barca. He, Guardiola (and indeed Cruyff before him) availed of a decision made by the Barca academy in the 90s which involved finding the most skillfull, dynamic and tactically aware kids irrespective of size, strength or natural positioning and; via their renowned academy system, moulding them into attacking players who could be positionally agnostic and capable of playing with players of a similar style to themselves.

Guardiola, who played under Cruyff and was influenced by the Dutch notion of total football, took these players and created a team, which not only adopted the "total football" notion of the Dutch, but also introduced a work ethic and pressurising dimension that similar teams who had adopted the Dutch approach previously had failed to grasp - the results are not only the success of that Barca team, but also the creation of a blueprint for the Spanish national team, who won all before them. Ironically it is also the model for Madrid's current team where the likes of James and Modric fit in seamlessly but are also expected to work their ar#es off for the good of the team.

I think the future of football is going to be one where certain characteristics in players will be coveted and the good coaches will be entrusted with ensuring such players can be moulded together and a coherent and effective team unit created.

Madrid are currently doing this, as are Barca, although less successfully for the time being. The Germans did something similar at the World Cup and had the likes of Ozil, and Muller working well in tandem together and the balance of the team not being affected.

Closer to home Van Gaal is attempting this at Man U and again significant changes to where people have to play are being made e.g Rooney dropping further back. Even Poch is trying to make it all work and his goal it would seem is to have; Eriksen, Kane and Lamella all in the same team.

It's an interesting time for the game and on the back of coaches like Guardiola I think we are already seeing more and more people focusing on dynamic intelligent players who are capable of interchanging positions as opposed to players who are rigid, one dimensional and static only capable of occupying fixed positions.

So, perhaps the answer to the original question is that the #10 can have many roles and indeed there can be many #10s, assuming there is a coach capable of making them all play seamlessly together.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

Great post.

 

[milo]

Sorry mate, just saw this.

Pirlo = #10
Xavi? Not so sure I ever saw him as #10 as he works with Iniesta but not quite as well alone IMO.

Dunga? Anchor but not #10
Beckenbauer? Wonderful player but let's be fair, that (West) Germany had Uli Hoeness who was the closest to a #10.

Modric THFC...yes, calling a CB a #10 is wrong. But I suspect that you know the point I was making and are just being obtuse for the sake of it?

Milo...I think we said the same thing? String-puller. Conductor.

I have been doing a bit of reading up online since you started this thread and I am struggling to find a definition of a number ten that fits with how you are describing it. Everything I have seen supports it being a play maker who is positioned between the lines. I'd love to read something that contradicts this because I think that we understand what we each mean but it feels like the terminology is getting in the way.

 

[Kandi1977]

#10 is a number on the back of the players shirt. In the spurs team it's currently on the back of Adebayors shirt.

 

[thfcsteff]

I have been doing a bit of reading up online since you started this thread and I am struggling to find a definition of a number ten that fits with how you are describing it. Everything I have seen supports it being a play maker who is positioned between the lines. I'd love to read something that contradicts this because I think that we understand what we each mean but it feels like the terminology is getting in the way.

It will never bother me whether my idea of something like this fits in with a general consensus mate. I can only first of all repeat this

<<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.>>

You were saying it is a 'playmaker who is positioned between the lines' and this is where things get semantical for me. What lines specifically? In which formation?
Your heartbeat and string-puller usually sits in the middle of the park with a license to go where they need to IMV. Most string-pullers are the originating fulcrum for an attack. Where does that ball go to from defense (or where should it go?)...who wants to orchestrate the attack? Who wants to initiate the move/engagement to come? And who wants to perhaps become a finishing part of that? The playmaker/string-puller for me.

In our system, or should I say the 4-2-3-1 Poch plays, the debate about our #10 role comes from whether you believe that he is in the hole behind the striker or sitting a little deeper and prompting from the 2. Let's face it, even if Eriksen played deeper, with Bentaleb sitting, Eriksen is still essentially playing just behind the forwards!

Right now, I think it's pretty clear that Eriksen is our most natural conductor/string-puller/#10, but it's from where that becomes the question. For me, against Chelski he started to work really well once Chadli started moving more (after the first 20 mins) as it allows Eriksen the latitude and freedom to drift a bit/create/bring people with him. My argument for Eriksen starting deeper sometimes comes in games where we are facing 'the bus'. In such situations if we played him alongside Bentaleb, we could
a) get an extra striker out there and
b) he would either have more space to create OR draw markers into deeper positions to try and snuff him. Given that this will also happen with Kane, providing the likes of Chadli and Soldado are ready to make the moves, we end up with space to do damage.

We both watched Hoddle. He played alongside Ardiles (his 'Bentaleb') and behind Archie and Crooks with Galvin and Villa or Hazard playing 'wider'. IF we were to deconstruct that into today's formation, it would likely look like this

Archie
Galvin Crooks Villa

Hoddle Ardiles

Hughton Maxi Robbo Stevie p

Clem

There is surely no debate that even in this shape, Glenn is the playmaker/conductor/string-puller and thus 'no 10'...I personally think that if he continues to show the appetite and growth he has the last few months Eriksen could well be our most effective of this type since Glenn. This is something he has always had the potential for but which I doubted he had the mental fortitude to take on. He has deliciously proven me wrong on that count and I am delighted. As a footnote, the other intriguing thing about this comparison is whether Ardiles and Modric are the natural comparison. They always were for me, indeed, it was why I felt Luka would be fine in British football despite his size. Yet I find myself thinking of Eriksen as potentially Modric-esque too. And I think of Luka as our heartbeat/playmaker for Harry's entire tenure. What it tells me is that Eriksen is on the cusp of being a very very special player in the next two years.

As for our no 10 definitions, I'm not sure where this leaves us hahahaha, but I feel robustly clear in how I personally view it. ;-)

 

[metalgear]

yeah i agree... definition of no.10 depends on the formation and the player assigned to those roles.... creativity can come from any source, even the wings.

too simplistic to pigeonhole the role of the no.10, except for its position viz a viz striker and midfielders

 

[milo]

It will never bother me whether my idea of something like this fits in with a general consensus mate. I can only first of all repeat this

<<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.>>

You were saying it is a 'playmaker who is positioned between the lines' and this is where things get semantical for me. What lines specifically? In which formation?
Your heartbeat and string-puller usually sits in the middle of the park with a license to go where they need to IMV. Most string-pullers are the originating fulcrum for an attack. Where does that ball go to from defense (or where should it go?)...who wants to orchestrate the attack? Who wants to initiate the move/engagement to come? And who wants to perhaps become a finishing part of that? The playmaker/string-puller for me.

In our system, or should I say the 4-2-3-1 Poch plays, the debate about our #10 role comes from whether you believe that he is in the hole behind the striker or sitting a little deeper and prompting from the 2. Let's face it, even if Eriksen played deeper, with Bentaleb sitting, Eriksen is still essentially playing just behind the forwards!

Right now, I think it's pretty clear that Eriksen is our most natural conductor/string-puller/#10, but it's from where that becomes the question. For me, against Chelski he started to work really well once Chadli started moving more (after the first 20 mins) as it allows Eriksen the latitude and freedom to drift a bit/create/bring people with him. My argument for Eriksen starting deeper sometimes comes in games where we are facing 'the bus'. In such situations if we played him alongside Bentaleb, we could
a) get an extra striker out there and
b) he would either have more space to create OR draw markers into deeper positions to try and snuff him. Given that this will also happen with Kane, providing the likes of Chadli and Soldado are ready to make the moves, we end up with space to do damage.

We both watched Hoddle. He played alongside Ardiles (his 'Bentaleb') and behind Archie and Crooks with Galvin and Villa or Hazard playing 'wider'. IF we were to deconstruct that into today's formation, it would likely look like this

Archie
Galvin Crooks Villa

Hoddle Ardiles

Hughton Maxi Robbo Stevie p

Clem

There is surely no debate that even in this shape, Glenn is the playmaker/conductor/string-puller and thus 'no 10'...I personally think that if he continues to show the appetite and growth he has the last few months Eriksen could well be our most effective of this type since Glenn. This is something he has always had the potential for but which I doubted he had the mental fortitude to take on. He has deliciously proven me wrong on that count and I am delighted. As a footnote, the other intriguing thing about this comparison is whether Ardiles and Modric are the natural comparison. They always were for me, indeed, it was why I felt Luka would be fine in British football despite his size. Yet I find myself thinking of Eriksen as potentially Modric-esque too. And I think of Luka as our heartbeat/playmaker for Harry's entire tenure. What it tells me is that Eriksen is on the cusp of being a very very special player in the next two years.

As for our no 10 definitions, I'm not sure where this leaves us hahahaha, but I feel robustly clear in how I personally view it. ;-)

I think that using terms that fit with the consensus can be useful. A lot of the confusion and disagreements on here and other sites comes from people talking at cross purposes.

If the title of the thread had been "What is a playmaker to you" I would have agreed with everything that you have said.

 

[milo]

yeah i agree... definition of no.10 depends on the formation and the player assigned to those roles.... creativity can come from any source, even the wings.

too simplistic to pigeonhole the role of the no.10, except for its position viz a viz striker and midfielders

I don't think that anyone is saying that the number ten is always the playmaker, just that it is within a certain formation and tactics.

The best two players in the world right now are playmakers who start from wide positions and many top teams play with wide creative players, rather than a number 10, because this is where they could find space. Similarly, many teams adopted a deep playmaker rather than a number 10 as their main creator because teams were getting more accustomed to closing a number 10 out.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think that using terms that fit with the consensus can be useful. A lot of the confusion and disagreements on here and other sites comes from people talking at cross purposes.

If the title of the thread had been "What is a playmaker to you" I would have agreed with everything that you have said.

But that is precisely why I started the topic, because I think the whole idea of a 'no 10' is somewhat redundant. Old school no 10s just don't really exist, yet we still use the term. Hence my personal interpretation within the modern game context. Frankly, I'd as soon see the term go the way of the Dodo. I have to say, I am still enjoying the discussion ;-)

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think that anyone is saying that the number ten is always the playmaker, just that it is within a certain formation and tactics.

The best two players in the world right now are playmakers who start from wide positions and many top teams play with wide creative players, rather than a number 10, because this is where they could find space. Similarly, many teams adopted a deep playmaker rather than a number 10 as their main creator because teams were getting more accustomed to closing a number 10 out.

I would vehemently argue that Real Madrid's success last season was launched off Ancelotti integrating, and using, Modric properly. Without Luka, the likes of Ronaldo couldn't do what they were doing. Thus it adds credence to the theory (edged at in your post actually) that the whole idea of a 'no 10' is Dodo!