D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
... wing half ? Or half back?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Why do we still say centre half but not inside right or ....
We?
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,952
We don't.
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
What do you say then ? About Dunk for instance.
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
Probably because times have changed into a new century and a modern way of thinking.
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
Because we're not 85
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,952
Centre Back.
BensGrandad
New member
They are called Centre Backs as opposed to centre half.
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
Oh yeah
The Tactician
Well-known member
- Feb 18, 2013
- 1,060
Yeah you're right, whatever could that mean?? For too long these random words have kept popping up, what on EARTH is a centre-half? How am I supposed to know what Rodgers is confident of signing?
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I wish I had the power to delete useless threads ...having said that I wish I had the power to deport someone
Nixonator
Well-known member
What is the definition of a 'useless thread'?
One that has a topic you're not interested in?
Because its no longer 1968?
And ps can I be the 1000th NSC reader to annoint you with the title of NSC's most gold plated of . . . I'm sorry, I just lost my will to live
pottert
New member
I normally defend posters on here who have honest thoughts but this one is just plain stupid.
It's Wednesday night & its f. King hot.
They are centre backs or centre halfs.
That's just the way it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
studio150
Well-known member
Probably because teams no longer line up in a 2-3-5 formation.
Also language has evolved to reflect modern formations.
Is this a thread record for ordure poured over head of OP??
it would be fitting.
it would be fitting.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 12,110
So they use the term in Scotland which is about 50 years behind, kind of answers your question.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
One started by HB&B
Mo Gosfield
Well-known member
- Aug 11, 2010
- 6,364
Thank goodness.
I was reared on an unappetising diet of attacking football and plenty of goals. Of heavy boots, heavy pitches, fag-smoking, beer drinking, steak eating, centre-parted thugs. No pace, no skill, no strategy. Just hoof ball. Set formations and numbers, so everyone knew where they were. Inside forwards and outside halves. No forward thinking, just plain old hurry scurry stuff.
I warm to the modern way of thinking. Lightweight kit, sports science, fantastic athletes, great pitches, superb, forward thinking coaches and multi talented players, all pushing the game ahead.
Those dark days were depressing. Gustav Sebes and his interchanging Hungarians. Brazil, who bored the pants off people with their incessant dribbling. Don Revie, who insisted on playing as a deep-lying centre-forward. Arthur Rowe having the temerity to experiment with push and run and win the league title. Ron Greenwood, who thought he could travel all round Europe to learn new ideas. Jimmy Hill, who was too clever for his own good and thought he could change football ( abolishing the minimum wage!!...players keeping fit in the close season!!...all seater stadiums!!...ludicrous ideas ) Rinus Michels and his absurd concept of total football with the Dutch. Flexible positions and flexible numbers, no rigidity. As if that was going to work.
Thank goodness for the modern way of thinking.
VAL1850
Well-known member
Yep at school in the late sixties the only formation known was
GOAL KEEPER
RIGHT BACK-- LEFT BACK
RIGHT HALF-- CENTRE HALF-- LEFT HALF
RIGHT WIN-- INSIDE RIGHT-- CENTRE FORWARD-- INSIDE LEFT-- LEFT WING
1SUB
GOAL KEEPER
RIGHT BACK-- LEFT BACK
RIGHT HALF-- CENTRE HALF-- LEFT HALF
RIGHT WIN-- INSIDE RIGHT-- CENTRE FORWARD-- INSIDE LEFT-- LEFT WING
1SUB