Talk:Association football positions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Association football positions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

CF?

I've always seen CFs positioned BEHIND the striker, almost synonymous with a SS. Shouldn't the front-most position just be called striker (ST)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockslideproductions (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you finally someone who agrees Bubbless009 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids

Does anyone, who is an expert, want to discuss hybrids in terms of football positions? By this I mean that there can be players in football that do not entirely fit the role of a winger, but does play on the sides. For example, Messi is not a person who really sticks to the touchline; he fits the role of a right-attacking-midfielder who plays on the side and dribbles towards the center when approaching his team's attack third, and he definitely does not really fit the role of central player or a playermaker. Messi seems to be in a classification of a player who is a mix between a attacking-midfielder and a winger; it would be acceptable for this to be considered. (talk)(Lord Shivan (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Libero and Sweeper

Seeing that centre forward and striker are (rightly) separated into two positions, these two should be also. Sweepers are defensive players who "sweep up" behind the defence, where liberos are attacking players who attack from the defensive line - Der Kaiser was often shown on lineups as being between defence and midfield for this purpose. I would do this separation myself, but I wasn't sure which players to put into each section.198.49.174.82 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Detail

I think the attack section of this page is particularly good. With the centre forward/striker/support striker breakdown, it provides an in depth analysis of the roles of forwards. There are quite a lot of examples of players, this in general on the article, should be kept at a limit.Bobbyfletch85 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old status

The article has been listed at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles#L for a while, and it had an inconsistent name for a long time and no links... --Joy [shallot] 12:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"goal keeper of renown"

If you ask me "goal keepers of renown" does not sound too english to me. --Differentgravy 14:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to you, however it is perfectly good English. I will admit though, that "World-renowned goalkeepers" would be a more accessible title, and might stop people just adding their club's favourite player to the list. --Lancevortex 15:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

style

A much-needed article, with good information. However, if you ask me, the style is a bit on the long-winded side. I expect something more pithy for an encyclopedia. It also isn't exactly accurate. Example: "In addition, they should be strong in the tackle" - I've never seen Zidane do a tackle, is he a good midfielder? Franz Beckenbauer, the chief exemplar of a libero, becomes a midfielder, Nedved becomes a side midfielder, Puskas plays in the Hole. Someone is also very entrenched with the idea that the modern fullback should be short, with no good reason (does Maldini, Cafu, Liliam Thuram look anything but short? Or maybe they are not very good fullbacks?) "Stereotypical centre back is slow and lumbering" is not very accurate either. "Occasionally, a goalkeeper will temporarily become an extra striker if his team is a goal behind in a game they must win" can be criticized, obviously this only becomes of use in a game towards the end or in injury time, reasons apparent to anyone with brains.

Lots of controversial info. This article should properly be more descriptive than prescriptive. Seemed to work of one enthusiastic writer. I expect the person to come back and make changes or discuss them out here. Football articles need not be long, but they must be accurate. Mandel 13:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandel, I am the "one enthusiastic writer" of which you speak. I'm afraid I don't agree with the bulk of your comments above. I agree with your comments on players being put in the wrong position -- unfortunately if you stick any kind of list on Wikipedia, people will add to it inappropriately. "Midfielders should be strong in the tackle": fair enough, there are many examples of world-class midfielders who can't tackle, so that should be expunged. But stereotypically, centre backs are slow and lumbering. Full backs are, on average, shorter than central defenders, and anyway, I don't know where you get the idea that "someone is very entrenched" with the idea: it's mentioned once. Goalkeepers sometimes do become temporary strikers: in what way is that not fact?

I'm not saying this is a poor article - far from it, it contains some quite good information. I'm merely saying that if something is not proven or is a subjective opinion, it shouldn't be here, it can mislead. These are my main gripes with the article. I think it basic courtesy to refer to the talk page if there are just too much of the article that I disagree about.

Goalkeepers do sometimes try to score, but only as a last resort (usually in injury time) and only if they are down by only one goal - the perils of having a goalkeeperless goal is more than apparent, and it's pointless if you are down by 3 or 4 goals with say, 5 minutes to play. If you read the article carefully, it appears to suggest that with 45 minutes to play and a goal down, the goalie will ditch his post and encamped himself in the opposition's penalty area, just to score a goal. Furthermore, more misleadingly, it then gives examples of goalies that supposedly take this kamikaze approach. Not helpful to a football novice.

I've removed parts about fullbacks being short elsewhere in Wikipedia, twice, so I don't know whether if you were the one adding them in, but saying fullbacks are short would give someone who knows nothing about football (the very people this encyclopedia is to benefit) the wrong idea. Height is of no consequence for a fullback. You can be 1.5 m or 2 m and still make a good fullback. The reason that full backs are on average shorter than central defenders is simple: central defenders need to be tall to defend crosses. So it's the central defenders who are tall, not fullbacks who are (or need to be) short. There is also no decent statistics to prove that fullbacks are on the whole shorter than most footballers. Maldini is a tall fullback, Lilian Thuram another one so, Michel Salgado isn't short at all...the list goes on. So if height is of no consequence at all, then why is it mentioned at all?

As for "stereotypically centre backs being slow and lumbering", it only applies regionally. On the English Isles, yes, where the aerial game dominates, but not elsewhere. Even in Britain defenders now have to adapt. Most defenders elsewhere in Europe need always to have pace to keep up with pacy defenders. So even this is not stereotypically correct. Mandel 17:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, I disagree that there is "lots of controversial info", or that the article is "prescriptive". I don't deny that there will be some inaccuracies in the bits I and others wrote, but as this is Wikipedia, why not edit the article yourself rather than demanding that the original writer do so? After all, the original writer is likely to be happy with the article as it stands. --Lancevortex 12:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I think it basic courtesy to talk it out rather than be entrenched in an edit war. Mandel 17:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I found the article is a quite good one. Though, more nuances should be given: e.g. to me, fullbacks actually don't need to be tall, even if they are. For the fact that central defenders are slow and lumbering: they used to be it but in modern football, a good central defender should be fast and have technique. For the goalkeepers, even if it may appear obvious for people who know the game, i think it should be kept. Moreover, some goalkeepers even score before injury time (the Chilean keeper who shot the free kicks, Michel Preud'homme and Bertrand Laquait also scored on a goal kick, and some score on penalty). So, let's moderate the article, Julien Tuerlinckx 12:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't agree excising with details but rewriting. However, the author writes in a style which is different from mine so I hesitate to adjust them. Might seem rude to some people to change somebody's writing style. Mandel 17:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original comments made. The article just needs to be made clearer. Often full backs are short but it it doesn't matter if they're short or tall. This kind of oberservation need not be in the article. Most of the ammendments have already been made. Bobbyfletch85 13:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender specific language

I think the language in this article is often too gender specific, i.e. masculine. Given the fact that Women's football is a major sport, the article should reflect this by staying as gender neutral as possible. For example, the 'Goalkeeper' section repeatedly refers to the goalie as 'he', 'him' etc.

Bowerski

There's also the fact that there aren't any female players listed under the renown sections? For Example: Mia Hamm as renown forward? She certainly was considered an excellent player. Selfexiled 09:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the author is not English, it´s not just gender specific - the problem is wider...maybe? Petr Náhlý

About Campos

I returned the reference on Jorge Campos as a striker. It is a well documented fact and in several occasions a sub was made chaging a foward for the second goalkeeper so Campos could take the position at the front. --Threner 02:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest what does Campos do? Was he fielded as a striker in some matches and a goalkeeper in others? The Campos article called him a "particular good attacker"; in what ways was he "especially good"? Mandel 09:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right now he is the auxiliar coach at the Mexican National Soccer team. In some complete seasons he was fielded as a striker. In some others he was sometimes fielded as a striker and some other times as a keeper. In some matches, he would play the first half as a keeper and the second time as a striker. He was a good striker in a fashion, one season he was I think second or third place on the scoring ranking, but of course he was not a first rank striker. He had a solid finish and he was quite quick and agile. Being a keeper his shot wasn't bad, but nothing like Chilavert or the Santos Goalkeeper --Threner 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Of renown'?

As it is right now, it seems to me that people are just adding in whatever players they happen to like right now. While I don't disagree that most of the players listed are good, I think that this article should ony list the very cream of the crop. Now, in order to keep this as objective as possible, some criteria are needed. I suggest that a mimimum of 15 national team caps, and, for strikers/attacking midfielders only, at least 500 career goals for retired players, or 5 national caps and 300 goals. Anyone got other measures of a player's talent? Or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely with this? --Sam Pointon 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "of renown" is too ambiguous. Renown to whom? It seems like a good opportunity for people to add their own favourites, who just happen to play for their favourite side. And does Ledley King really qualify as one of the 11 defenders listed as being "of renown". SteveO 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the listings are being abused right now. I think a good strategy would be to have only retired players listed as the emotional attachment is a little less immediate than with the person an author has just seen score the winning goal in a six-point derby!

Beyond that, it might be nice to have a quota system. Since the English Wikipedia is likely to have a higher concentration of editors from English speaking countries, that can lead to a heavy bias towards players competing in England, since the EPL is far and away the most influential English speaking league. If each list has, say, one and only one player from each confederation then that would help with diversity and provide little opportunity for advertising one's favourite player. Veila 10:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that we need more draconian rules than that: this isn't meant to be a list of the best players in each position in each league, it should be something like 2-4 examples of the very best. For example, for the Deep-Lying Forward section, I would prune it down to Pele & Maradona (coincidentally, the two players, alongside George Best, who most often come up on Favourite Player Or All Time questions). Ideally, they should be well-known footballers, who people will think of and, knowing the players' style, also know what kind of position is is. (did that make any sense?). --Sam Pointon 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

195.137.115.206 I see that you removed Antonios Nikopolidis but you kept Christian Abbiati Sebastian Frey and Shay Given who are no-ones. For crying out loud, Nikopolidis took the Euro 2004 for Greece almost by himself, what any of these guys have done? He has more caps than the three of them combined.--83.146.62.97 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Given is one of the best goalkeepers in the Premiership; Sebastian Frey, I admit, probably does not deserve to be on the list. I acknowledge the inconsistency of my edit but I was a tad frustrated with the apparently low standard for determining 'renown'. I am sure you can appreciate my point.--195.137.115.206

I'm not English and I don't know him. And what has Shay Given won exactly? I don't think he should be on the list. Speaking of Premiership players, where is Jerzy Dudek? If it weren't for him, Liverpool wouldn't win the CL last year. Now he would be a worthy addition. --83.146.62.97 11:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given has failed to win anything thus far but I'm not altogether sure team success is the overriding factor for determining 'renown'. As many people continue to add examples of varying quality there is no real standard. I would say 'renown' should consider player ability coupled with fame. Dudek certainly wouldn't be included in a list of the greatest goalkeepers (even currently) and so I would say should not be on the list (but then neither would many of the others presently on the list). --195.137.115.206

Suggested criteria for inclusion

Retired

1 Regularly appears on best player of all time list(or similar) by reputable publications, voted or otherwise.

2 Multiple international football award(World footballer/European footballer of the Year/World Cup best player etc)

3 Decent article on the player, with explanation/description his playing style.

Current

1. A least one international football award, or multiple important national awards.

2. Decent article on the player, with explanation/description his playing style.

Reduce the list to 3 for goalkeepers and 5 for outfield positions since many players can meet the above criteria. The list currently takes up about half of the article's vertical space, and adds almost nothing to the article, which is Football (soccer) positions rather than List of renowned football players. Better yet, scrape the list and work the players into the prose as example of specific playing styles. --Dodo bird 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and split(ted?) the list after seeing that >90% of edits are to the name list. --Dodo bird 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell is Peter Crouch on the centre-forwards list, while other players such as Fernando Morientes aren't? And when I add Morientes, why does someone delete him? He's won much more than Crouch, while at Madrid he was way better than Crouch, and he's much better than Crouch at using his head, which is one of the criteria listed.

Diagrams/Pictures

For being such a long article, this article really needs some type of images, football diagrams, etc.?
unsigned comment by User:Cardshark04

Good idea. Someone needs to create a football pitch diagram, like the one at FC Barcelona#Squad and release the copyright so it can be edited by other users for different purposes. This pic can be edited freely. I wouldn't mind doing it, but it's not gonna happen today.
Slumgum 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean, but there's a few football pitch diagrams at Formation (football) that might be useful? Poulsen 23:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the diagram on the upper-right corner of the article is unquestionably clear to those familiar with such diagrams, but to me, who knows nearly nothing about this topic and thus is probably a great example of your target audience, the diagram makes almost no sense. The article tells me there are 11 positions in this game, however, there are 18 positions shown on the diagram. This is too many to comprise one team's positions, and too few to be showing both teams. I guess, being a novice on the subject, I would expect to see either 11 or 22 dots (players) on the image. I'm sure this is probably some standardized diagram, but, at least to me having only played this sport at a very young age, showing the starting positions of the players might be a little easier to understand. Then I could see exactly where the 11 players are on the field at the onset of the game. Barring this option, an explanation of the seemingly confusing diagram, as shown with 18 players, would be greatly helpful in explaining this topic to a general, unfamiliar audience. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.154.122 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't just 11 positions in the game, it's just that only 11 players can be on the field at any one time, and they can play anywhere on the field. The image merely shows the typical areas of the field that players of each of the positions detailed in this article tend to occupy. – Pee Jay 13:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) positions

There are quite a few articles in the Category:Football (soccer) positions[1], some specific to football(soccer), some non-specific but with a section on the usage in football(soccer). Is it a good idea to redirect the football specific articles here(since all apart from Midfielder are very short articles not much more detailed than what is found here and don't really warrant their own article) and merge the content and add a disambiguity link here for the non-football specific articles(eg. for goalkeepers in football(soccer), see football(soccer) positions).

Another possibility is to merge some positions into their main ones. Eg. wingbacks and fullbacks go into defenders. and/or split non-football specific articles like Goalkeeper into Goalkeeper (football). --[[User:Dodo bird|Dodo bird]

I'm confused. I always thought that full-back and defender were one and the same. Could someone sort me out, please?

Bloated

A check back to this article after half a year. It is now very bloated. If you have info but they pertain not to footballing positions, put them in their respective pages, not here. Reserve this for football positions.

Definitely too bloated. Some copyedit is necessary. Mandel 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and am giving the article a nice, thorough copyedit. If I let any American English spellings through, feel free to change them back. Recury 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Moved from Talk:Football (soccer)positions

There's no reason for this to be dublicated Travelbird 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-lying second playmaker

Recently I've heard about the term "deep-lying second playmaker". Can anyone tell me what it is? I suspected that it is like a creative midfielder playing in the defensive midfield position. KnucklesEchidna 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a Centre Midfielder who doesn't try and get forward, but instead lies back and plays balls from a central position. Technically not a Defensive Midfielder, but the line is somewhat blurred. Hope it helps--Tiresais 20:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Positions

What about explanations of old positions ie. Inside-right, Outside-right etc.? Ben davison 10:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, but I believe inside-right is just a centre midfielder who plays slightly to the right (when you have two central midfielders) and outside-right is just a right midfielder/winger. Maybe note at the end of each respective position could sort that out--Tiresais 12:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's basically the definition of the old positions, but notable players could be mentioned, as well as maybe the reasons for the lack of these terms nowadays. Ben davison 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know why they're not used anymore? Old players could be given as examples I suppose...--Tiresais 11:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably old positions are not mentioned because they tend to be redundant. For example, someone mentioned above as "inside-right is a central midfielder playing slightly to the right" etc, and it's no use to talk about it since "inside-right" is no different to central midfield in terms of playing styles. So there. KnucklesEchidna 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea we know they're redundant... That wasn't the point. The point was whether to mention them since they were how they used to be referenced, for people who see the terms and on't understand what they mean.--Tiresais 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there not completley redundunt, its not uncommon when listening to radio commentry for a player to be described as being in the inside left/right position. Its just in general terms its easier to generalise IR/IL as CM

No it's not. Inside left and right were in the forward line of a 2-3-5 originally. Either side of the centre forward, but not as wide as the wingers. Messi, for example, cuts in from the right and makes good use of what might be called the "inside right" channel. Someone deeper lying is not an inside right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.102.252 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Players mentioned twice

If I was a complete newbie to football and read this article as an introduction to it, I'd be very confused. Regarding players mentioned twice as examples for different positions. So Pele is a great example of a centre forward but also a great example of a deep-lying forward? (notice in the article these are two distinct categories) And Maradona is both an attacking midfielder and a deep-lying forward? I know these are arguably the two finest players in history, but if their position in the field is somewhat hard to distinguish, then in my opinion they shouldn't be used as examples of stereotypes. --Noikeee 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a small detail but it should be changed. Frank Lampard or Michael Ballack could be replacements as attacking midfielders with Maradonna represented only in the 'deep lying forward' field. We all know Maradonna was a good player but not worth mentioning twice.--Bobbyfletch85 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were too many references to Roberto Carlos so I chose different examples. It seemed odd to have him mentioned three times in the article. Bobbyfletch85 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Forward/Striker

It should be noted that there is a difference between a centre forward and a striker and these two roles should not be confused, although they do share similarities. A centre forward is a player who leads the front line, typically they are strong, good in the air and are sometimes known to defend from the front. Examples of these are Alan Shearer, Gabriel Batistuta and Didier Drogba. A striker is better known for making runs to beat defenders, trying to beat the offside trap and play close to the goal area. They are typically recognised as quick, with good reaction speed and given few defensive responsibilites. Examples of these are Michael Owen, Obafemi Martins and Samuel Etoo. --Bobbyfletch85 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffons picture

Why exactly does it matter if it is 'heavy' on the credit request? --Tiresais 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, not a lot, I'd rather have the image. The matter has been raised at Wikiproject football. Slumgum T. C. 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is fundamental they stay away. Having a link to a website wherever we put an image is too much credit. See the same talkheader as above.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, they own the rights to the picture, so why shouldn't they be credited? I'm putting the picture back up because there's no good reason for keeping it away.--Tiresais 08:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat:

This matter is under discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#soccer-europe.com_images
The image is a possible copyviolation. Can't you find any other picture of a goalkeeper on Wikipedia?
The copyright holder (and many doubt the uploader has the copyright for those images) must be credited, but not on every single article that uses that image; this is a vessatory request, and since the image is not fundamental to the article, we can remove it (i.e., I am going to remove it).

--Kwame Nkrumah 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section names

As an editor of a multitude of player biographies I often link to this page when describing a players' position. There is one huge issue I have with this article. People keep on changing the section titles, and thus break huge amounts of links, for example Football (soccer) positions#Winger worked the other week, now it doesn't. This is a big problem.

Section names need to be sorted out once and for all. I do not think that abbreviations belong in section titles, It looks messy. Also most articles use the older style. However I'm happy to go with concensus if people really believe it should be this way. aLii 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a group of redirect pages could be used to link to the sections. That way, if the section header is changed, a change to the redirect page can be made to avoid editing every player article.

e.g. the Winger article could contain:

Redirect [[Football (soccer) positions#Winger]]

Not sure if it is 100% practicable, but it's an idea. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's be me changing the headers to have the abbreviations. They were put there to make the diagram in the introduction clearer, but I'm sure just a list of abbreviations would do the trick, to prevent the problem with linking. --Tiresais 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this page

I've just read through the entire article for the first time in a long time and to me there are some indefensibly poor parts. I'll highlight some of the worst

Both photographs on this page are copyright violations. Seeing as there are actually various free photographs around Wikipedia, there is no excuse.
The abbreviations in the section titles are in my opinion ugly. However the over-riding problem is that they are hardly universal. The hugely popular Football Manager game uses DC, ML, SC, FR, etc.. Should we ignore other variants? Should we list them all? They should definitely be explained better.
POV. There are HUGE POV problems with this article. See WP:POV. Examples on this page include:
1. Some of best centre-backs in the modern game include John Terry, Alessandro Nesta, Fabio Cannavaro, Paolo Maldini, Lilian Thuram, Rio Ferdinand, William Gallas, Carlos Gamarra, Lucio, Carles Puyol, and Roberto Ayala.
2. include football legends Franz Beckenbauer, Daniel Passarella and Gaetano Scirea. I see one legend, one guy I've heard of, and one I haven't
3. An example would be Ashley Cole - who is regarded as an excellent attacking full-back, but only an average defender. Always seemed a pretty good defender to me
4. Also, recent trends show that due to the increased pace of modern football, the full-backs usually have to be one of quickest players in a team (as they are required to cover the whole flank). Subsequently, short players are often elected into this position (as they usually have the most explosive acceleration). Strikers are usually the quickest
5. Midfielders typically exhaust the most energy during a match. says who?
6. They must be equally skilled at tackling, passing and keeping possession. equally?
7. Other notable defensive midfielders include Claude Makelele and Patrick Vieira. In my opinion Viera wasn't a defensive midfielder
8. Traditionally wingers are not expected to track back and defend all that much. if it were my team i'd certainly expect them to tackle back
9. Other good examples are Luis Figo, Joaquin, Vicente, Cristiano Ronaldo and Arjen Robben. I say Robben is an attacking midfielder
10. Some notable attacking midfielders include Ronaldinho, I say he's a left winger - perhaps not, but the real point is that Robben and Ronaldinho actually play in exactly the same way and position in my opinion.
Why is there no section for wide midfielders?

Finally, does anyone else see the problem with this sentence:

One good example is David Beckham, who played in the position of right wing during his days at Manchester United, but is not commonly regarded as a winger since he functions primarily as a right midfielder and does not use either speed or dribbling ability to support play by floating in diagonal balls into the box with the pinpoint accuracy that has made him such a valuable player.

er... lol. anyway there's some suggestions on what needs to be changed. aLii 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your points apart from mentioning examples of players. I think it's helpful to point out the best players in each position to better explain what each role is. The only problem here is that people keep updating it with their favourite players which is a pain in the arse. I think the sentences you pointed out need to be re-written better, It all seems rather vague and generalised. A better football critique should be applied. The Beckham bit should just go - it's a contradiction, how can he be a good example of a winger yet... not. Also though, I wouldn't say that strikers are normally the quickest, I think it's more often wingers. If anyone has some time to spare, it'd be good if they could sit down and go through the article and fix the problems. Bobbyfletch85 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is the mention of players, but rather saying "legends in this position include" or "some of best centre-backs in the modern game include". It doesn't need to be phrased like that, and it can only cause arguement. "Well known players" or simply "examples of players that usually play this position include", etc.. Also about whoever the quickest is, I don't actually care, the point was that you can't simply say "fullbacks are generally the quickest" or "strikers are generally the quickest" without some kind of good source backing the statement up. All of my above points in bold are simply to show why those POV points shouldn't be used. aLii 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the legends point, how is Passarella not a legendary defender? Same with Scirea? Just because youlack knowledge of historical defenders doesn't mean they're not legends in their own right. For people who know football, they're legends. Unlike Beckenbauer they didn't stay in the spot light, how many games have you seen Beckenbauer play in?

And yea as I said above I put the abbreviations in the titles to make the diagram clearer. anyone can remove them if they want, but they'll have to put a list of the abbreviations somewhere.--Tiresais 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think references should be made impartially. Rather than saying "the best" just say "well-known" or "good examples are..". With regards to naming legendary player, perhaps phrase instead as "former well-known players". This page is full of bias and needs a lot of cleaning up. Bobbyfletch85 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thierry Henry picture could be better. If anyone can find a picture of a well-known striker in action, rather than posing, then that would be better. Bobbyfletch85 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

before letting this article rot and die...

Yes, midfielders exhaust the most energy (together with fullbacks). You'll know that if you play the game and not stay at home as a couch potato pressing remotes on your EPL matches. :) (which is why lothar mattheus can play libero at 40 & sheringham still striking. grrr)

Yes beckham is not a winger. Read pre-1950s articles and uefa techical report.

As for the rest, i'm not responsible. :] 165.21.83.230 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change name

It says in the beginning that "A team is made up of one goalkeeper and ten outfield players who fill various defensive, midfield and attacking positions depending on the formation deployed. These positions describe both the player's main role and their area of operation on the pitch."

I would add that one could divide "area of operation on the pitch" into two parts: area of operation when defending and area of operation when attacking. For example, in the Portuguese national team, Maniche defends quite far back on the midfield, but when attacking, he is the one of the central midfielders that most often runs into the box, and he scores quite a few goals from inside the penalty area. Now is he to be called an offensive or defensive midfielder? There is no obvious way to go here.

Moreover, "area of operation on the pitch" is more or less synonymous with "position". Thus "these positions describe both the player's main role and their area of operation on the pitch" becomes "these positions describe both the player's main role and his position" which doesn't make sense to me.

I would instead say that each player has a "role" which consists of three elements: playing style - where such things as skill with the ball, ability to steal the ball, etc. are included -, position when attacking and position when defending. For example, Andrea Pirlo is a creative player who works from a deep position. He isn't accurately described as either an offensive or a defensive midfielder. Likewise, as I said, it is not easy to know whether Maniche is to be described as an offensive or a defensive midfielder.

Thus, I'd suggest that one creates a new page: "Football player roles" (or something similar) where these considerations are described and players are given a more fine-tuned classification. Settembrini 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Arsenal names

Someone sure wasn't exactly objective in the choice of representative players for each position, Arsenal tend to have ALOT of players, some of which not exactly very representative (Senderos, Clichy, Hleb, WALCOTT!?!)

Arsenal names in the article:
Jens Lehmann
Kolo Toure, Philippe Senderos
Gael Clichy, Emmanuel Eboue
Francesc Fabregas
Tomas Rosicky, Freddie Ljungberg, Robert Pires, Alexander Hleb, Theo Walcott [i know, Pires isn't at Arsenal anymore, but he got famous as an Arsenal star]
Thierry Henry
Dennis Bergkamp [also, former Arsenal star]

The fact is even more obvious as usually the Arsenal players are first in their lists...

Also: "Good examples of centre-backs in the modern game include Kolo Toure, Philippe Senderos, Alessandro Nesta, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Fabio Cannavaro, Lilian Thuram, William Gallas, Lúcio, Carles Puyol, Kolo Toure and Roberto Ayala."
Toure is there twice, which makes me think someone just decided to add the names from Arsenal in the beginning...

The choices for players should have a better ballance...

(...and the sad part is that the whole thing is so obvious it offended me, an Arsenal fan...)

Oh, and btw, a great player like Ronaldinho isn't listed anywhere...

Exeprime 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-lying forwards x second forwards

A "continental term"? From which continent? It's a wrong term, a wrong definition. These are different positions. The abbreviation "SS" is wrong as well. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in continental Europe, specifically in Germany, Spain and Italy. The second striker is a forward who plays in a withdrawn role behind the main striker (the first striker). - PeeJay 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And deep-lying forwards play in the space between their midfielders and forwards, occasionally becoming forwards as well. See the difference? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a difference, it is superficial at best. To all intents and purposes, the deep-lying forward and the second striker perform the same role and play in the same position. If you look at the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final, you will notice Kaka's position just off the main striker. Some would call him a deep-lying forward, and others would call him a second striker. Either way, it's the same position. - PeeJay 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. And Kaka is a midfielder. Playing in the 4-5-1 (or 4-4-1-1) is not the same as the 4-4-2. Despite calling "deep-lying forwards", the position is much more alike an attacking midfielder than a forward. They are not "second forwards". —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Kaka is a midfielder by trade, but in the Champions League Final, he was deployed as a Second Striker/Deep-lying Forward. Perhaps if we used the term "support striker" rather than "second striker", that would make more sense. I really don't see how you can be missing the point here. - PeeJay 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not missing a thing. The simple point is: "second strikers" are one thing; "deep-lying forwards" are quite another. This is the point, they're not the same. And saying they are means to use the wrong term. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 13:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then you haven't explained the difference very well. - PeeJay 13:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my failure. Second strikers play in a withdrawn role behind the main striker. Deep-lying forwards play in the space between midfield and attack - behind striker and second striker. Sometimes a deep-lying forward may play as a second striker as well. So what? Sometimes a fullback may also play as a winger. What deep-lying forwards may occasionally do is not the point here. The point is how they usually play. "Occasionally" is a side note. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And is this a formally-defined definition or just your interpretation? Give me an example of a deep-lying forward and an example of a second striker and we'll see. - PeeJay 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as "formally-defined" as this definition you insist on defending. Since when Cruijff, Maradona, Zico or Platini were "(second) strikers"? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You think it's right, don't you? Fine, keep it like that. If not me, someday someone else is going to correct it. Regards. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on tactical evolution

A glaring omission from the early tactical evolution is the Scottish short passing game and the pioneering 2-2-6 formation. Queen's Park FC pioneered this intricate passing system and Scotland played 2-2-6 against England in the first official international match of 1872. The Scottish short passing game revolutionised football and many great international sides including Austria and Uruguay (1930s), Hungary and Brazil (1950s) developed their short passing style from the "Scottish System". In England the pioneering Scottish players were referred to as "Scotch Professors" and many of them were signed by leading English teams during the 19th and early 20th centuries (the Preston Invincibles team is a particularly good example). The passing game did not significantly develop amongst London's elitist amateur clubs through any influence from the Royal Engineers and the rudimentary 1-2-7 system but rather through the Corinthians team - set up in 1882 in order to practise and master the short passing game because of the dominance of Scotland over England at international level during the period.

could this section be a separate article? 13thfloor (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. – Pee Jay 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winger

There is a contradiction in this article, RW and LW are shown as forwards in the graphic but are explained in the midfield section. I think RW and LW are forwards and not midfielder. So, I'd like to move the explanation to the forward section.--ClaudioMB 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also some people are using the code WI for some players because they play as RW and LW, like Cristiano Ronaldo. So, I'll add that code in the article.--ClaudioMB 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WG is a more common code for Winger. - PeeJay 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot discuss that because I've used neither. I've seen people using WI (Manchester_United_F.C._season_2007-08#Squad_information, Chelsea_F.C._2007-2008#Squad_Information and 2007-08_Season_for_Sunderland_A.F.C.#Squad_information) but never WG.--ClaudioMB 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't see abbreviations for "winger" used very often, but when I do, WG is the one I see most. - PeeJay 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realise that the article currently states "what a winger is/isn't". However, I believe that the article, in its current state, is wrong, and I have therefore been trying to fix it. The fact of the matter is that a winger/wing forward is just that, a forward, and should therefore be listed with the other forward positions. Case in point, in the 1999 Champions League Final, Bayern Munich played with two wing forwards in a three-man forward line. Jancker took up the centre forward position, while Basler and Zickler supported him from either flank. Similarly, in last season's Premier League, Wayne Rooney often played as a lone striker, with Ronaldo and Giggs up front with him, but in wide positions. As you can see, there is a clear difference between a winger and a wide midfielder, so please, don't block progress. – Pee Jay 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a wing forward is different to a winger, thats the issue. wingers have for the last 40+ years been considered midfielders. a wing forward was until v.v.recently very rare. re 1999 cl final - ryan giggs, midfielder or forward? he most certainly IS a winger, and in no way a striker. the winger section should remain as part of the midfield, an extra wing forward addition should be added i think. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing a winger with a wide midfielder. In the 1999 CL final, Giggs certainly played as a wide midfielder, as did Blomqvist on the other side. However, I have often seen Giggs and Cristiano Ronaldo listed as forwards in UEFA team lists, which would suggest to me that their regular position (winger) is a FORWARD position. – Pee Jay 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you also seem to be making the assumption that a forward must always be a striker/centre forward, when in fact a forward can be positioned either on the left or right wing also. Finally, your comment about wingers being considered as midfielders "for the last 40+ years" is not quite true. While it is true that the original outside forwards migrated backwards from an advanced position, they then became wide midfielders. The modern winger is simply a continuation of the old outside forward position. – Pee Jay 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am making no such assumption at all, which is why i said that a new section for wing forward should be written. giggs has always been classed as a winger, the fact of the matter is that for the last 40 odd years wingers have played far too deep to be classed as forwards. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they play far too forward to be classed as midfielders. The same distinction can be made between full-backs and wing-backs or attacking midfielders and supporting strikers. – Pee Jay 09:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are attacking midfielders midfielders or strikers? the only difference between an attacking midfielder and a winger is that one plays in the centre, the other on the wing. Dead-or-Red (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously attacking midfielders are midfielders. However, a supporting striker, who plays in a position only slightly more advanced than an attacking midfielder, is considered a forward because he has a different role. Same goes for full-backs and wing-backs. A wing-back plays further forward than a full-back, and has less defensive duties to perform. Their position is ambiguous, however, with regard to whether they are defenders or midfielders. A winger, however, plays extremely far forward, like Cristiano Ronaldo, Salomon Kalou or Lionel Messi would, and they have very few defensive duties to perform. This is what sets them apart from wide midfielders, and why they should be considered forwards. Am I still not being clear enough for you, or can I finally revert the article to the way it's supposed to be? – Pee Jay 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about wingers who dont play as far forward as messi or kalou? both would be classed more as wing forwards than wingers. a winger is an attacking midfielder who plays on the wing, they have as many defensive duties as attacking midfielders, and all conventional thinking have them as midfielders. as ive said more than once now, if you want to write a new section for wing forwards, do so. Dead-or-Red (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But a winger is the same as a wing forward. It's just a shorter way of saying it. In the same way that "wing back" is short for "wing full back", "winger" is short for "wing forward". – Pee Jay 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Barcelona are playing a 4-3-3 formation and Messi and Henry are on the flanks playing as wingers, how can you possibly consider them Midfielders??? Wingers such as Christiano Ronaldo should only be recognized as forwards, while someone who just plays on the wing, such as Franck Ribery is a midfielder. I think the main article should be under Striker, with a brief explanation in Midfielder. Maybe the Striker article should be re-named to Forward...Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 - a winger is not a wing forward, a wing forward plays in a much more advanced position and has no defensive duties. 2 - the article should reflect the majority. re-writting the article because players like messi play so far forward is gash. even c.ronaldo tracks back and defends, there is no way you could consider him an out and out forward in 90% of the games he plays. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical evolution

Surely Garrincha was not a midfielder! Should reference be to Didi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.235.218 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of positions

The picture showing all the positions does not show all the positions. the striker is missing. they have the SS and the CF, but no S. Underneath it says that the centre forward can interchange with the striker, yet in the actual article in the section on strikers and centre forwards it clearly states that the roles are not the same Can someone fix this?

Sources for midfield anchor position

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] for more [16] --neon white talk 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I use your google news hits reference, there are only 28 articles with the term "midfield anchor". If I search "defensive midfielder", I get 404 hits. If I search "holding midfielder", I get 273 hits. As I said, an uncommon term for that position. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=midfield+anchor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a google has 131,000 hits.

it isnt an uncommon term, i remember hearing it back in the early 90s regarding bryan robson as he was nearing the end of his playing career Dead-or-Red (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources above are pretty major sources, fox, the daily record (by Jim McLean), orange, the independent, sky sports, the BBC, the telegraph (by Henry Winter), the mirror, the sun (by Billy McNeill), the guardian (by David Pleat), belfast telegraph, they aren't exactly niche publications. We pretty much have it's use in every major newspaper and news provider in the UK. --neon white talk 19:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like more of a nickname to me than an official-sounding description of the position. Beve (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Neon said, opinion can't be used to justify an edit. Its your opinion those are major sources. Agree with Beve, more of a nickname then anything. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fact that they are major sources, they are all, bar a few, national newspapers and news stations. All positional names are nicknames. There is no official names for positions. The article should reflect the most commonly used names and this one has been conclusively proven to be in common use. --neon white talk 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it is a common term when: If I use your google news hits reference, there are only 28 articles with the term "midfield anchor". If I search "defensive midfielder", I get 404 hits. If I search "holding midfielder", I get 273 hits. Like you say, "The article should reflect the most commonly used names". Based on that sentence alone, midfield anchor should not be on the page. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common term, whether you have heard of it or not. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Holding midfielder returns twenty times more results than midfield anchor whilst Defensive midfielder brings sixty times the amount. Even from a rudimentary technique of google searches, it's clear that this is minor term. In fact, I'd challenge you to find a name of a football position that returns less than midfield anchor does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that no new tactics have been developed in the last 20 years is laughable

The article currently claims that the last major tactical development was in the early 90's. This is pretty absurd. It also claims that "These days, the 4-4-2 formation is very much the predominant tactic in world football" which is nonsense. 4-4-2 is not even the predominant tactic in English football any more let alone the rest of the world. At the highest level the most popular tactic is probably 4-2-3-1 with 4-3-3 running in second place.

The article then contradicts itself by saying that "new tactics are being pioneered all the time" and cites the 4-3-3 formation that Barcelona have used since the early 1990's and which was inspired by the Dutch 4-3-3 of the 60's as an example of a recent tactical innovation. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the article needs to be changed, please do so, but kindly provide your sources. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)^[1][reply]

References

^ Insert footnote text here

Article Title

Assocation football is american term - Wikipedia is international, not american. The articel title should be changed to Football! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raelpl (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, association football is a British term. – Pee Jay 09:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Apolzan

To whoever added the stuff about him being the inventor of the sweeper: Sorry, but this site doesn't seem very trustworthy. That being said, I have no idea if Apolzan invented it or not, but there definately needs to be a better source for advocating such a claim Teh hackz0r (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SS?

Is that a real position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Koopa (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

needs more cites^{[citation needed]} Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very late reply, but yes it is, as it stands for "support striker", or "second striker". Diego Maradona is perhaps the most notable player to have taken up this role. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing position diagram

Association football positions.

The current positional diagram – while pretty good – is too regular (with positions in a neat rows and columns) and doesn't really reflect the content of the article. I've mocked up a possible replacement which reflects the positions named in the article's TOC. Any thoughts, criticisms or suggestions? If there's no objections, I suggest replacing the current diagram with this. Cheers! Charlie A. (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Go ahead. – Pee Jay 10:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, done (with a few final tweaks) Charlie A. (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting changes

First of all, there's a 3rd type of goalkeepers - safe goalkeeper. These are rather the opposite of the sweeper-keeper type, tend to stand on the goal line more and have perfect positioning and handling. They also would prefer to catch the ball.

Second, I suggest you in the player types section to add an example for each type, if possible - an active player. For example:

Safe Goalkeeper - Buffon; Shot Stopper - De Gea; Sweeper-Keeper - Neuer; Attacking Fullback - Dani Alves; Libero (sweeper) - they're rare nowadays but maybe Vermaelen will do; Stopper - Kompany is the best example; Ball Winner - Khedira; Defensive Midfielder - Nigel De Jong; Creative Midfielder - Diego; Box-To-Box Midfielder - Vidal; Pulls Wide - Oscar; Playmaker - Fabregas; Midfield General - Yaya Toure; Dribbler - Christiano Ronaldo; Counter Attacker - Bale; Clinical Finisher - Rooney; Target Man - Giroud; Poacher - Berbatov, Diego Costa; False 9 - Messi.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.183.69 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source for this information? We can't add it to the article without one, as this appears to be the very definition of original research. – Pee Jay 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I know about that type from a reliable source but not from the Internet. I'll try hard to do it but may take a lot of time. Anyway, I'd still like you to add those players as examples. Again, thank you.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Association football positions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indications for positions

In German spoken countries (Germany, Austria, German part of Switzerland) there are, since a few years, position of outfield players are given with numbers (in many cases, maybe in all cases ?, with those, like the numbers on the back of the shirts were before the 1970ies). Wings are indicated as "the right seven" or "the left seven", centre forward as "the nine", midfielders as "the six" (a system with two defensive midfielders as "double sixs") a.s.o.. Indeed, there are indication like "false seven“ if the player changes his position meanwhile with other players. 213.225.38.186 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Association football positions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/premiership/article3679970.ece
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604152313/http://www.eatsport.net/2012/roberto-baggio-il-nove-e-mezzo/ to http://www.eatsport.net/2012/roberto-baggio-il-nove-e-mezzo/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206074856/http://footballsgreatest.weebly.com/second-strikers.html to http://footballsgreatest.weebly.com/second-strikers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ST/CF/SS

Can someone please explain to me the differences between a Striker (ST), a Center Front (CF), and Second Striker(SS)? I've always seen the ST in front of the CF - and looking from the diagram at the front page, the SS is behind the CF? Or are is the ST and CF the same thing?

Azko777 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said ST and CF are the same thing and that a second striker should play behind them. Not sure where the idea of a centre-forward being a less-advanced striker has come from. – Pee Jay 12:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the association of the term "centre forward" with deeper positions comes mainly from the FIFA video games, where the second striker role is designated "CF". In the traditional 2-3-5, the front five consisted of two outside forwards, two inside forwards, and one centre forward. The word "striker" was used interchangeably with "centre forward". Later on, some teams began to field two centre forwards in tandem, creating what was known as a "twin-striker system". It's clear, then, that the claimed distinction between a striker and a centre forward is a dubious one.

Furthermore, treating "second striker" as a position in its own right does more to confuse readers than educate them. In common usage, the term "second striker", like "target man" or "poacher", describes a role that some centre forwards play, not a position. If we need a way of describing these players, it may be better to merge "second striker" and "attacking midfielder" into a more generic positional term like "number 10". While there are stylistic differences between deep-lying strikers and attacking midfielders, the positions they take up are more-or-less identical.

Foxmilder (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, second strikers and attacking midfielders aren't the same. Paul Scholes is an example I can think of who has played both roles in his career, but otherwise I would generally describe him as an attacking midfielder and Wayne Rooney as a second striker (at least early in his career, when he played in a withdrawn role behind Ruud van Nistelrooy, Louis Saha and Dimitar Berbatov for Man Utd). – Pee Jay 11:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Insert footnote text here

[1]