• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

What is 'the no 10' to YOU?

thfcsteff

thfcsteff

Garth Crooks
After the recent discussion in the Burnley match thread, I felt it was time to open this up as a topic because there are some very different opinions. To me, the no 10 is your creative dictator, the man through whom all the play flows in order to pull the strings.
Glenn Hoddle. The GREATEST 10 I have ever seen. Could dictate from deeper positions, could get into the box and score, could do basically whatever he wanted.
Platini. Another great no.10.
Zidane. A legendary no.10.
Maradona. A scary no 10 as he could do everything Hoddle could except with bursts of electric energy.
Gazza. A no 10 in the mould of Maradona.
Modric. A wonderful no 10 who pulled our strings for three seasons and allowed players like Bale the luxury of development into the exciting talent he has become.

Our greatest problem in AVB's first season and beyond was that we had no no 10.

And I would argue that Poch eventually sees Eriksen as being a no 10 in the Hoddle mould with a dash of Luka (not comparing, just differentiating).

Thoughts?
 
thfcsteff said:
After the recent discussion in the Burnley match thread, I felt it was time to open this up as a topic because there are some very different opinions. To me, the no 10 is your creative dictator, the man through whom all the play flows in order to pull the strings.
Glenn Hoddle. The GREATEST 10 I have ever seen. Could dictate from deeper positions, could get into the box and score, could do basically whatever he wanted.
Platini. Another great no.10.
Zidane. A legendary no.10.
Maradona. A scary no 10 as he could do everything Hoddle could except with bursts of electric energy.
Gazza. A no 10 in the mould of Maradona.
Modric. A wonderful no 10 who pulled our strings for three seasons and allowed players like Bale the luxury of development into the exciting talent he has become.

Our greatest problem in AVB's first season and beyond was that we had no no 10.

And I would argue that Poch eventually sees Eriksen as being a no 10 in the Hoddle mould with a dash of Luka (not comparing, just differentiating).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would have described Modric as a deep lying playmaker for us rather than a #10.

Put simply, I would describe a #10 in a 4-2-3-1 as a playmaker who sits between the opposition defence and midfield.
 
Yeah Van der Vaart was the 'no 10' in that team, not Modric. To be honest, Modric was a bit unique in terms of style and I don't think he could be classified as a 'traditional' number in that sense. He didn't sit deep and tackle like a traditional number 4, neither did he get forward and score regularly like a traditional number 8.

I actually think we have three potential number 10's in the current squad, in Eriksen, Kane & Lamela. They can all play that role.
 
NWND said:
Yeah Van der Vaart was the 'no 10' in that team, not Modric. To be honest, Modric was a bit unique in terms of style and I don't think he could be classified as a 'traditional' number in that sense. He didn't sit deep and tackle like a traditional number 4, neither did he get forward and score regularly like a traditional number 8.

I actually think we have three potential number 10's in the current squad, in Eriksen, Kane & Lamela. They can all play that role.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think that this is where this conversation gets a bit hampered in this country because we are almost preconditioned to think that central midfield should contain one playmaker and one destroyer and that you play with two forwards. Neither of which fits with playing a #10 as it would be understood in the rest of the world.
 
Every system has a number 10. Even the 4-3-3, the Destroyer, the QB are not but the box to box player in that 3 is like a 10, making runs in to the box. Like Lampard in earlier years. In a 4-4-2 the second striker who plays off the traditional 9. And in the 4-2-3-1 - the central player of the 3 behind the 9.
 
Modric was never a no 10 - he was a deeplaying playmaker. Very different roles and as someone said above, VdV was our no 10

One thing people overlook when thinking about shunting a midfielder into a no 10 role is that a no 10 needs to be able to get 10-15 goal per year otherwise the team generally is short of goal threat. And a midfielder will always htink as a MF so will be more inclined to drop deeper - its wy I dont see any of Mason, Demebele, Bentaleb etc as a no 10, and probably Eriksen as well. Our most natural no 10 currently is Lamela or Chadli
 
milo said:
I agree. I think that this is where this conversation gets a bit hampered in this country because we are almost preconditioned to think that central midfield should contain one playmaker and one destroyer and that you play with two forwards. Neither of which fits with playing a #10 as it would be understood in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

In the English context a second forward in the Sherringham mould could be considered the #10.

I think Steff is taking the international idea of the #10 to a logical extreme. If the #10 is the key playmaker, then it could be applied to a deep playmaker.

Historically, the #10 is the more creative or attacking of the two inside forwards dropping into midfield, so both - the creative playmaker or second forward - seem reasonable positions to take. Personally I would take a middle position and say the #10 is a creative player in a forward midfield position, and use deep playmaker and second/supporting forward for the others.

P.S. Where are we with the player sitting in the hole? Is this an attacking midfield playmaking #10 exclusively or does the second forward, especially one like Rooney, also play in the hole? I think a lot of tactle discussions are hampered as we all define such role differently and on the internet that tends to get emotive.
 
jts1882 said:
In the English context a second forward in the Sherringham mould could be considered the #10.

I think Steff is taking the international idea of the #10 to a logical extreme. If the #10 is the key playmaker, then it could be applied to a deep playmaker.

Historically, the #10 is the more creative or attacking of the two inside forwards dropping into midfield, so both - the creative playmaker or second forward - seem reasonable positions to take. Personally I would take a middle position and say the #10 is a creative player in a forward midfield position, and use deep playmaker and second/supporting forward for the others.

P.S. Where are we with the player sitting in the hole? Is this an attacking midfield playmaking #10 exclusively or does the second forward, especially one like Rooney, also play in the hole? I think a lot of tactle discussions are hampered as we all define such role differently and on the internet that tends to get emotive.
Click to expand...
I think that the deep lying play maker is a different position entirely, as is the wide creative players like Ronaldo who we have seen emerge and dominate over the last decade.

Obviously a midfielder will have slightly different instincts when playing as a #10 than a forward but I think that it is still noticeably the same position. Again, I think that we are bound a bit by British preconceptions about players roles in the team.
 
milo said:
I think that the deep lying play maker is a different position entirely, as is the wide creative players like Ronaldo who we have seen emerge and dominate over the last decade.

Obviously a midfielder will have slightly different instincts when playing as a #10 than a forward but I think that it is still noticeably the same position. Again, I think that we are bound a bit by British preconceptions about players roles in the team.
Click to expand...

On reflection, I would use playing in the hole and playmaker to refer to the position on the field and the creative focus of the team, respectively. The hole is the physical position behind one or two strikers (fairly uncontroversial) and the playmaker is the creative player regardless of where they play (again fairly uncontroversial). Then the "'#10" becomes a playmaker who plays in the hole. Other playmakers, playing deep or wide, would not get the #10 designation, players in the hole would not always be designated #10s, and not all teams would have a #10.

I think in this way there is less scope for confusion between British and international interpretations. I wouldn't use it for the tradition British second forward. Of course, you could achieve a similar goal by using #10 in a broader sense and using terms like trequartista.
 
jts1882 said:
On reflection, I would use playing in the hole and playmaker to refer to the position on the field and the creative focus of the team, respectively. The hole is the physical position behind one or two strikers (fairly uncontroversial) and the playmaker is the creative player regardless of where they play (again fairly uncontroversial). Then the "'#10" becomes a playmaker who plays in the hole. Other playmakers, playing deep or wide, would not get the #10 designation, players in the hole would not always be designated #10s, and not all teams would have a #10.

I think in this way there is less scope for confusion between British and international interpretations. I wouldn't use it for the tradition British second forward. Of course, you could achieve a similar goal by using #10 in a broader sense and using terms like trequartista.
Click to expand...
I agree. The difference in a traditional British 4-4-2 is that the attacking midfielder is most likely to be the playmaker but typically they sat deeper than a modern #10.
 
Your description and the players you list don't match up for me, apart from Modric, who I don't consider a #10. The description you give describes a deep lying playmaker, so the likes of Modric, Xavi, Pirlo, Scholes etc. #10s are players who aren't good enough finishers(or big enough depending how you view what a striker should be) and don't have the defensive ability or physicality/engine to play as a central midfielder. They're very good however at picking up pockets of space and working balls through to other players, they're little wizards and the most gifted players on the pitch in terms of ingenuity and vision. That doesn't mean they have to be confined to the #10 position though, teams are using them wide more and more whilst favouring quicker/direct players centrally.
 
In terms of my own personal favourite no 10's from watching football over the years, a few of my favourite players to watch in terms of this role/position growing up and more recently (in no particular order):

Teddy Sheringham
Francesco Totti
Matt Le Tissier
Roberto Mancini
Alessandro Del Piero
Enrico Chiesa
Juan Riquelme
Manuel Rui Costa
Jay-Jay Okocha
Ronaldinho
Roberto Baggio
Raphael Van der Vaart
Henrik Larsson
Nico Kranjcar
Robbie Keane

There's probably loads i've missed off
 
Rossi22 said:
Your description and the players you list don't match up for me, apart from Modric, who I don't consider a #10. The description you give describes a deep lying playmaker, so the likes of Modric, Xavi, Pirlo, Scholes etc. #10s are players who aren't good enough finishers(or big enough depending how you view what a striker should be) and don't have the defensive ability or physicality/engine to play as a central midfielder. They're very good however at picking up pockets of space and working balls through to other players, they're little wizards and the most gifted players on the pitch in terms of ingenuity and vision. That doesn't mean they have to be confined to the #10 position though, teams are using them wide more and more whilst favouring quicker/direct players centrally.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless it boils down to being the best player in the team as jurgen says, just give the #10 jersey to the most technically gifted attacking player I don't really see a solid rationale behind describing Modric and Zidane as playing the same role or in the same position. With exceptions, Modric has generally played deeper and been at his best playing the deeper role.
 
I remember reading a Madrid forum when they signed Modric, they pretty much all thought he was a #10(purely because of his build imo) and they'd all line him up there in their hypothetical teams. The narrative is that Modric took a year to settle in Madrid but I think that's false, the reason he didn't "settle" was Jose kept using him as a #10 because he wouldn't trust him as a CM, he's never been particularly good there, he controls games like very few others can but he can't win games, he just doesn't have that particular skill set.
 
Rossi22 said:
I remember reading a Madrid forum when they signed Modric, they pretty much all thought he was a #10(purely because of his build imo) and they'd all line him up there in their hypothetical teams. The narrative is that Modric took a year to settle in Madrid but I think that's false, the reason he didn't "settle" was Jose kept using him as a #10 because he wouldn't trust him as a CM, he's never been particularly good there, he controls games like very few others can but he can't win games, he just doesn't have that particular skill set.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Same story for us.

Where he has done well as a #10 is occasionally for Croatia when they played superior teams and used him there partly for his workrate and partly to just get him further forward when involved in their counter attacks in games where they wouldn't be able to keep much possession anyway and a defensive midfielder type could do his job defensively.
 
Diego, I seem to remember about 10 years ago, me and you arguing with somebody else, maybe algernon(?) and a few others, about what a playmaker is. We were saying that in our team Carrick was the playmaker, because, by definition, all the play went thru him. But the other side to the argument was that he was too deep to be a playmaker and that player had to be the attacking player who provides the creativity, of which we didn't really have at the time.

Anyway, I agree with Rossi and JTS' interpretation of a no.10 in this thread. I also completely agree that Modric was played out of position by Jose, he should have been alongside Alonso or alongside khedeira, either or, but modric should have been the first choice centre midfielder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back