Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 18, 2018 23:37:22 GMT
I had heard that National League South did not have squad numbers, but that teams turned out 1-11.
We certainly seem to have squad numbers pre-season and I would have thought the club would like to keep them if allowed - so as not to appear to have dropped in status.
Can anyone confirm whether squad numbers are banned, optional or compulsory in National League South?
If allowed to use them, this is how they seem to be. Bawling's number is just a guess as not seen in action yet. Surprising if Koszela gets the 11 shirt though - maybe he won't and it will go to Bawling or a new signing.
Or maybe we will just go back to 1-11.
1. Bass
2. Wynter
3. Davis
4. Essuman
5. Sokolik
6. Gowling
7. Keating
8. Hall
9. Williams
10.Banton
11.Koszela
12.Bawling
13.MacDonald
14.Nabi
15.Niate
16.Dickson
17.Cameron
18.Pittman
19.Reid
|
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Jul 19, 2018 1:01:04 GMT
I don't see how Gowling and Koszela would get numbers in the first eleven. And as for Reid, is that just the petty negativity he has to constantly suffer from so called fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Jul 19, 2018 1:25:20 GMT
I had heard that National League South did not have squad numbers, but that teams turned out 1-11. We certainly seem to have squad numbers pre-season and I would have thought the club would like to keep them if allowed - so as not to appear to have dropped in status. Can anyone confirm whether squad numbers are banned, optional or compulsory in National League South? If allowed to use them, this is how they seem to be. Bawling's number is just a guess as not seen in action yet. Surprising if Koszela gets the 11 shirt though - maybe he won't and it will go to Bawling or a new signing. Or maybe we will just go back to 1-11. 1. Bass 2. Wynter 3. Davis 4. Essuman 5. Sokolik 6. Gowling 7. Keating 8. Hall 9. Williams 10.Banton 11.Koszela 12.Bawling 13.MacDonald 14.Nabi 15.Niate 16.Dickson 17.Cameron 18.Pittman 19.Reid Well, Jon, I see that you are just as keen to know about formations in the current era as you were when I explained to you, many years ago, how teams lined up in the 1950s and 1960s. If the tradition in the NLS is to have shirts numbered 1 to 11, without names, then I would imagine that we will have to follow suit. The numbers of the substitutes will have to be stated in the match programme, that is if we will continue to have one, although during the time when only one substitute was allowed, his name was always announced over the tannoy. Wouldn't it be so refreshing if the teams in the programme were laid out as they were many years ago, in the anticipated formation and showing the expected team, before the boring lists came into being circa 1966. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 19, 2018 22:40:09 GMT
I don't see how Gowling and Koszela would get numbers in the first eleven. And as for Reid, is that just the petty negativity he has to constantly suffer from so called fans. Not sure how to read that, but are you accusing me of handing Reid the no. 19 shirt? I have just listed the shirt numbers that players have worn so far in pre-season - or not worn in Bawling's case. If it weren't for that, I would still be assuming we would just run out numbered 1-11 every week. If I were to come up with squad numbers myself, I would think it sensible to have Cameron at 6 rather than Gowling, Reid at 7 rather than Keating and Dickson at 11 rather than Koszela. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 19, 2018 22:49:33 GMT
Well, Jon, I see that you are just as keen to know about formations in the current era as you were when I explained to you, many years ago, how teams lined up in the 1950s and 1960s. If the tradition in the NLS is to have shirts numbered 1 to 11, without names, then I would imagine that we will have to follow suit. Always interested in tactics and formations. Your memories of the 50s and 60s were fantastic for giving me an idea of how TUFC lined up in the Webber era. I wasn't too keen on squad numbers when they first came out, not least because they complicate those Rothmans-style appearance grids that are used in the Centenary History. I think the best way is to list players as 1-11 even if those were not the shirts actually worn. After all, we list pre-war line-ups 1-11 even though no numbers were worn at all, but that is easier as positions were more fixed - even allowing for slight variations in duties of wing halves and inside forwards! Funnily enough, that book finishes just as squad numbers came in. After 19 years, I have got used to them. If we are back to 1-11, I will have to put up a statistical analyis of who has worn what numbers in the 19 seasons that we used them. |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Jul 20, 2018 1:10:20 GMT
Well, Jon, I see that you are just as keen to know about formations in the current era as you were when I explained to you, many years ago, how teams lined up in the 1950s and 1960s. If the tradition in the NLS is to have shirts numbered 1 to 11, without names, then I would imagine that we will have to follow suit. Always interested in tactics and formations. Your memories of the 50s and 60s were fantastic for giving me an idea of how TUFC lined up in the Webber era. I wasn't too keen on squad numbers when they first came out, not least because they complicate those Rothmans-style appearance grids that are used in the Centenary History. I think the best way is to list players as 1-11 even if those were not the shirts actually worn. After all, we list pre-war line-ups 1-11 even though no numbers were worn at all, but that is easier as positions were more fixed - even allowing for slight variations in duties of wing halves and inside forwards! Funnily enough, that book finishes just as squad numbers came in. After 19 years, I have got used to them. If we are back to 1-11, I will have to put up a statistical analyis of who has worn what numbers in the 19 seasons that we used them. I have every copy of the Rothmans Football Yearbook since it was first published in 1970 and was taken over by Sky Sports in 2003. Sadly I recently read that this invaluable source of information will not be continued for reasons of cost-cutting. As if Sky don't make enough ill-gotten gains already! For many years the numbers allocated to each player fell in line with the old 2-3-5 formation, i.e. left back 3 and centre forward 9, however during the last 3 or 4 years this was modified to 4-4-2, so that the left back was now 5 and the two strikers 10 and 11. I have also read somewhere recently that the production of programmes will now be left to the discretion of every club in the pyramid. I have no idea how clubs in the National League South have previously displayed the team line-ups in their programmes, because obviously the players wearing shirts 1 to 11 will change frequently. I can remember, back in the 1960s, that our teams were announced in time for them to appear in Friday's Herald & Express, and I always really looked forward to buying a copy at lunchtime to find out who would be playing. There was one occasion, in March 1962, when Denis Penford, the reserve left back, was selected to play at centre forward in a match against Notts County because Tom Northcott and Reg Jenkins were both injured. He didn't score but certainly played his part in a 3-3 draw. Times have changed, and teams are not now announced until an hour before kick-off, seemingly because managers are worried that their counterparts will be aware of their tactical plans and will adjust theirs accordingly. Eric Webber never worried about that and simply picked his best team and left it to his players to work out the best way to play to beat the opposition. Managers are now more like dictators, play as I say or don't play at all. I am left wondering how the teams will appear in programmes next season, if squad numbers are irrelevant in NLS. Perhaps the players will be listed without numbers and the team is then announced over a tannoy system? I await with great curiosity to see how our club will manage to deal with this bizarre problem. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Jul 20, 2018 1:40:20 GMT
Am all for a 1 to 11. As long as it’s accompanied by an alphabet board with half time NLS scores put up on it. Quite liked it when FCUM played at ours with a traditional kit and numbers. Stewart - Surely 5 is not now regarded as a left back, is it? That can only ever be a 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Jul 20, 2018 1:50:24 GMT
Am all for a 1 to 11. As long as it’s accompanied by an alphabet board with half time NLS scores put up on it. Quite liked it when FCUM played at ours with a traditional kit and numbers. Stewart - Surely 5 is not now regarded as a left back, is it? That can only ever be a 3. What I was saying was that the Rothmans/Sky Sports Yearbook decided a few years ago to change the numbers from a 2-3-5 line-up to 4-4-2, so the birds eye view of the team would be: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 You may have noticed that many European countries and clubs have their left backs wearing number 5. As a traditionalist, I don't like it either. |
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Jul 20, 2018 5:57:06 GMT
Even with nos 1-11, there could be quirks. Phil Lloyd always played at centre-half, under Cyril, wearing no.8, whilst I remember young forward, David Butler wearing no.3 under Frank O’Farrell.
Growing up, I always used to think of numbers 7 and 9 as forwards based on Liverpool, with 10 as a midfielder, yet at Manchester United Steve Coppell sported number 7 as a winger, and Liam Brady wore it as a central midfielder. Number 7 was normally someone creative and mercurial. Perhaps the old-fashioned version of white boots.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Jul 21, 2018 0:21:50 GMT
Always interested in tactics and formations. Your memories of the 50s and 60s were fantastic for giving me an idea of how TUFC lined up in the Webber era. I wasn't too keen on squad numbers when they first came out, not least because they complicate those Rothmans-style appearance grids that are used in the Centenary History. I think the best way is to list players as 1-11 even if those were not the shirts actually worn. After all, we list pre-war line-ups 1-11 even though no numbers were worn at all, but that is easier as positions were more fixed - even allowing for slight variations in duties of wing halves and inside forwards! Funnily enough, that book finishes just as squad numbers came in. After 19 years, I have got used to them. If we are back to 1-11, I will have to put up a statistical analyis of who has worn what numbers in the 19 seasons that we used them. I have every copy of the Rothmans Football Yearbook since it was first published in 1970 and was taken over by Sky Sports in 2003. Sadly I recently read that this invaluable source of information will not be continued for reasons of cost-cutting. As if Sky don't make enough ill-gotten gains already! For many years the numbers allocated to each player fell in line with the old 2-3-5 formation, i.e. left back 3 and centre forward 9, however during the last 3 or 4 years this was modified to 4-4-2, so that the left back was now 5 and the two strikers 10 and 11. I have also read somewhere recently that the production of programmes will now be left to the discretion of every club in the pyramid. I have no idea how clubs in the National League South have previously displayed the team line-ups in their programmes, because obviously the players wearing shirts 1 to 11 will change frequently. I can remember, back in the 1960s, that our teams were announced in time for them to appear in Friday's Herald & Express, and I always really looked forward to buying a copy at lunchtime to find out who would be playing. There was one occasion, in March 1962, when Denis Penford, the reserve left back, was selected to play at centre forward in a match against Notts County because Tom Northcott and Reg Jenkins were both injured. He didn't score but certainly played his part in a 3-3 draw. Times have changed, and teams are not now announced until an hour before kick-off, seemingly because managers are worried that their counterparts will be aware of their tactical plans and will adjust theirs accordingly. Eric Webber never worried about that and simply picked his best team and left it to his players to work out the best way to play to beat the opposition. Managers are now more like dictators, play as I say or don't play at all. I am left wondering how the teams will appear in programmes next season, if squad numbers are irrelevant in NLS. Perhaps the players will be listed without numbers and the team is then announced over a tannoy system? I await with great curiosity to see how our club will manage to deal with this bizarre problem. OK Jon, I now have a question for you prompted by Hector's reference to Phil Lloyd, who mostly wore the number 8 shirt but actually played as a centre back. Unfortunately I was unable to attend any matches during the late 1980s, and I cannot work out what the formation could have been, given that he played with the following defenders: Jim McNichol, Dave Cole, John Impey, Tom Kelly, Derek Dawkins, Daryl Pugh, Paul Holmes, Matthew Elliott, John Uzzell and John Matthews. I know that Cole, Impey, Elliott and Matthews were centre backs, so how did Lloyd fit in? Perhaps this was the beginning of the back 3 formation, carried on by Kevin Hodges ten years later, or perhaps one of them played in the John Benson role, as a sweeper in tandem with Reg Wyatt and Alan Smith? More likely, I have misinterpreted the numbers worn and there is a simple solution. Look forward to your analysis. |
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Jul 21, 2018 11:49:03 GMT
I have every copy of the Rothmans Football Yearbook since it was first published in 1970 and was taken over by Sky Sports in 2003. Sadly I recently read that this invaluable source of information will not be continued for reasons of cost-cutting. As if Sky don't make enough ill-gotten gains already! For many years the numbers allocated to each player fell in line with the old 2-3-5 formation, i.e. left back 3 and centre forward 9, however during the last 3 or 4 years this was modified to 4-4-2, so that the left back was now 5 and the two strikers 10 and 11. I have also read somewhere recently that the production of programmes will now be left to the discretion of every club in the pyramid. I have no idea how clubs in the National League South have previously displayed the team line-ups in their programmes, because obviously the players wearing shirts 1 to 11 will change frequently. I can remember, back in the 1960s, that our teams were announced in time for them to appear in Friday's Herald & Express, and I always really looked forward to buying a copy at lunchtime to find out who would be playing. There was one occasion, in March 1962, when Denis Penford, the reserve left back, was selected to play at centre forward in a match against Notts County because Tom Northcott and Reg Jenkins were both injured. He didn't score but certainly played his part in a 3-3 draw. Times have changed, and teams are not now announced until an hour before kick-off, seemingly because managers are worried that their counterparts will be aware of their tactical plans and will adjust theirs accordingly. Eric Webber never worried about that and simply picked his best team and left it to his players to work out the best way to play to beat the opposition. Managers are now more like dictators, play as I say or don't play at all. I am left wondering how the teams will appear in programmes next season, if squad numbers are irrelevant in NLS. Perhaps the players will be listed without numbers and the team is then announced over a tannoy system? I await with great curiosity to see how our club will manage to deal with this bizarre problem. OK Jon, I now have a question for you prompted by Hector's reference to Phil Lloyd, who mostly wore the number 8 shirt but actually played as a centre back. Unfortunately I was unable to attend any matches during the late 1980s, and I cannot work out what the formation could have been, given that he played with the following defenders: Jim McNichol, Dave Cole, John Impey, Tom Kelly, Derek Dawkins, Daryl Pugh, Paul Holmes, Matthew Elliott, John Uzzell and John Matthews. I know that Cole, Impey, Elliott and Matthews were centre backs, so how did Lloyd fit in? Perhaps this was the beginning of the back 3 formation, carried on by Kevin Hodges ten years later, or perhaps one of them played in the John Benson role, as a sweeper in tandem with Reg Wyatt and Alan Smith? More likely, I have misinterpreted the numbers worn and there is a simple solution. Look forward to your analysis. During the 87/88 season, Cyril played a 5-3-2 formation. McNichol(2), Cole(5), Impey(6), Lloyd(8), Kelly(3); was generally how our defence lined up. The midfield rotated a fair bit. Mark Gardiner tended to wear 7 when he played, I think, Loram 11; Dawkins/Haslegrave possibly wore 4. That would leave 9 and 10 for Caldwell and Dobson. Of the defenders you list, not all were there at the same time and John Matthews played - just about - in midfield. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 12:32:34 GMT
OK Jon, I now have a question for you prompted by Hector's reference to Phil Lloyd, who mostly wore the number 8 shirt but actually played as a centre back. Unfortunately I was unable to attend any matches during the late 1980s, and I cannot work out what the formation could have been, given that he played with the following defenders: Jim McNichol, Dave Cole, John Impey, Tom Kelly, Derek Dawkins, Daryl Pugh, Paul Holmes, Matthew Elliott, John Uzzell and John Matthews. I know that Cole, Impey, Elliott and Matthews were centre backs, so how did Lloyd fit in? Perhaps this was the beginning of the back 3 formation, carried on by Kevin Hodges ten years later, or perhaps one of them played in the John Benson role, as a sweeper in tandem with Reg Wyatt and Alan Smith? More likely, I have misinterpreted the numbers worn and there is a simple solution. Look forward to your analysis. During the 87/88 season, Cyril played a 5-3-2 formation. McNichol(2), Cole(5), Impey(6), Lloyd(8), Kelly(3); was generally how our defence lined up. The midfield rotated a fair bit. Mark Gardiner tended to wear 7 when he played, I think, Loram 11; Dawkins/Haslegrave possibly wore 4. That would leave 9 and 10 for Caldwell and Dobson. Of the defenders you list, not all were there at the same time and John Matthews played - just about - in midfield. How can you remember all these bloody people? I started going to Plainmoor in the late sixties, and Mr Blobby could have been playing for us and I wouldn't have remembered!  |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 21, 2018 12:34:58 GMT
Unfortunately I was unable to attend any matches during the late 1980s, and I cannot work out what the formation could have been, given that he played with the following defenders: Jim McNichol, Dave Cole, John Impey, Tom Kelly, Derek Dawkins, Daryl Pugh, Paul Holmes, Matthew Elliott, John Uzzell and John Matthews. I know that Cole, Impey, Elliott and Matthews were centre backs, so how did Lloyd fit in? Perhaps this was the beginning of the back 3 formation, carried on by Kevin Hodges ten years later, or perhaps one of them played in the John Benson role, as a sweeper in tandem with Reg Wyatt and Alan Smith? More likely, I have misinterpreted the numbers worn and there is a simple solution. Look forward to your analysis. Cyril Knowles based his teams on a solid back five throughout his time at Plainmoor. His first season (the promotion near miss 1987/88) saw a central defensive three of Cole, Impey and Lloyd with McNichol and Kelly as full backs/wing backs. Dawkins played central midfield. Impey left at the end of that season and McNichol moved over into the centre of defence with new signing Paul Holmes taking over at right wing back. Pugh signed at the start of the season but was originally used as an attacking midfielder - although he later played quite a lot at wing back in place of Holmes. Elliott arrived towards the end of that second season (the Wembley season) and was a straight replacement for Cole. Uzzell and Matthews both arrived at the start of the 1989-90 season. Matthews had been a centre-back as a youngster at Arsenal, but was a central midfielder throughout his time at Argyle and Torquay. Uzzell came in as a replacement for Jim McNichol who fell out with Cyril and returned to Exeter. Tom Kelly had also left and he was supposed to be replaced by Alan Hay - but he turned out to be somewhat injury prone! When Cyril left, Dave Smith reverted to 4-4-2, so John Uzzell slotted over to left back in a flat back four. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 21, 2018 12:38:54 GMT
During the 87/88 season, Cyril played a 5-3-2 formation. McNichol(2), Cole(5), Impey(6), Lloyd(8), Kelly(3); was generally how our defence lined up. The midfield rotated a fair bit. Mark Gardiner tended to wear 7 when he played, I think, Loram 11; Dawkins/Haslegrave possibly wore 4. That would leave 9 and 10 for Caldwell and Dobson. Of the defenders you list, not all were there at the same time and John Matthews played - just about - in midfield. Hadn't seen this when I posted, but yes - spot on. I know what you mean about Matthews just about playing. A classic case of a retirement home for Argyle players who had given up playing. Shame, because he had been a great player for Argyle. John Uzzell on the other hand came to us with a brilliant attitude and gave his all - sadly finished off by that thug Gary Blissett. |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Jul 21, 2018 13:18:52 GMT
During the 87/88 season, Cyril played a 5-3-2 formation. McNichol(2), Cole(5), Impey(6), Lloyd(8), Kelly(3); was generally how our defence lined up. The midfield rotated a fair bit. Mark Gardiner tended to wear 7 when he played, I think, Loram 11; Dawkins/Haslegrave possibly wore 4. That would leave 9 and 10 for Caldwell and Dobson. Of the defenders you list, not all were there at the same time and John Matthews played - just about - in midfield. Hadn't seen this when I posted, but yes - spot on. I know what you mean about Matthews just about playing. A classic case of a retirement home for Argyle players who had given up playing. Shame, because he had been a great player for Argyle. John Uzzell on the other hand came to us with a brilliant attitude and gave his all - sadly finished off by that thug Gary Blissett. Thanks a lot to both of you for explaining that. I know that the defenders I mentioned were not all there at the same time, I simply picked out those who appeared during the three seasons when Lloyd missed only one match. Having seen McNichol and Kelly in other seasons, I can't imagine that either of them would have played in the manner of a modern day wing back, so it must have been quite congested at the back at times, which probably accounts for the fewest goals conceded in one season in the club's League history. |
|
