Squad numbers

[Darren]

No number for Florent Cuvelier seems to be the forgotten man at United, I know it says at the bottom "It is expected that numbers will be allocated to further players in due course" but I thought he was a first team squad member.

Players still with us who have made first team appearances but don't have numbers thus far:

Cuvelier
Ironside
Long (on loan obviously)
Khan
Kennedy
Dimaio
Reed

I see Ironside has been on trial at Grimbsy, but is still under contract I think.

 

[Balham]

http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20140801-squad-numbers-1798205.aspx

Well that's an unholy mess, particularly 6-11.

1 - GK - Howard - fine
2 - RB - Alcock - fine
3 - LB - Harris - fine
4 - DM - Wallace - fine
5 - CB - Butler - fine (would have preferred him at 6)
6 - CB - Basham - wrong
7 - RM - Flynn - fine
8 - AM - Doyle - wrong
9 - CF - Murphy - wrong
10 - FW - Scougall - wrong
11 - LM - Baxter - wrong

I'd have given Murphy 11, Baxter 10 and kept 9 free as a statement of intent to the fans.

I also subscribe to Bergen Blade 's theory that 12-22 should mirror 1-11 positionally with the exception of 12/13 so:
12 - RB - McNulty - wrong
13 - GK - Willis - fine
14 - LB - McGinn - wrong
15 - CB - Collins - fine
16 - CB - Davies - wrong
17 - RM - McGahey - wrong
18 - CM - Porter - wrong
19 - CM - free
20 - AM/FW - Campbell-Ryce - fine
21 - CF - free
22 - LM - free

Before anyone says something along the lines of "what does it matter?" (looking at you, Darren !): I'm one of those people who likes things in order.

 

[Lowen]

Murphy being number 9 is a weird one.

 

[Punk Blade]

I like the fact we've handed out 1-11 without holding any back for future signings. I remember one season we never had a number 8!

Just be grateful we haven't got a 77 or 88 like Fener, eh?

 

[Darren]

Well that's an unholy mess, particularly 6-11.

1 - GK - Howard - fine
2 - RB - Alcock - fine
3 - LB - Harris - fine
4 - DM - Wallace - fine
5 - CB - Butler - fine (would have preferred him at 6)
6 - CB - Basham - wrong
7 - RM - Flynn - fine
8 - AM - Doyle - wrong
9 - CF - Murphy - wrong
10 - FW - Scougall - wrong
11 - LM - Baxter - wrong

I'd have given Murphy 11, Baxter 10 and kept 9 free as a statement of intent to the fans.

I also subscribe to Bergen Blade 's theory that 12-22 should mirror 1-11 positionally with the exception of 12/13 so:
12 - RB - McNulty - wrong
13 - GK - Willis - fine
14 - LB - McGinn - wrong
15 - CB - Collins - fine
16 - CB - Davies - wrong
17 - RM - McGahey - wrong
18 - CM - Porter - wrong
19 - CM - free
20 - AM/FW - Campbell-Ryce - fine
21 - CF - free
22 - LM - free

Before anyone says something along the lines of "what does it matter?" (looking at you, Darren !): I'm one of those people who likes things in order.

Ah, one of those anal people....

I am pissed off we have only gone to n0. 20. We have never had such a low high number at the start of a season. Previous seasons' lowest numbers at the start were:

93/94: 25 John Reed
99/00: 32 Leigh Walker
00/01: 43 Kinsley Mbomwe
01/02: 32 Robert Page
02/03: 39 Iffy Onuora
03/04: 34 Ben Purkiss
04/05: 30 Paul Shaw
05/06: 38 Stephen Quinn
06/07: 34 James Ashmore
07/08: 36 Ian Ross
08/09: 33 Ugo Eghiogu
09/10: 34 Kyle Walker
01/11: 34 Matt Lowton
11/12: 28 Stephen Quinn
12/13: 33 Aaron Barry
13/14: 36 Diego De Girolamo (who I forgot on my list of current players without a number)

 

[oaklandrdblade]

Personally think that players should just stick with a number throughout their time, that seemed to be the rationale when squad numbers were introduced, wish we just had 1-11 and 12 - 18 on the bench.

 

[Punk Blade]

05/06: 38 Stephen Quinn
11/12: 28 Stephen Quinn

Squinny didn't make much progress towards breaking the first 11 did he?

 

[Darren]

I'm an a roll...

In 2009-10, we didn't have a 1 or 8 at the start of the season. That's the only occasion any time the numbers 1-11 have not been filled.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

I'd rather Porter have kept 9 than giving it to Murphy, but I'm also surprised that Davies is 16, he kept 18 in his Twitter name when he was on loan to us last season, so I'd have thought he'd have wanted that. Maybe Porter is the new Zamorano with a 1+8 shirt

Most of the 20s from last season would be empty anyway, so I guess it makes sense to allocate them as they're needed or leave space for new signings there, although most of those without numbers will need a number allocating in the next couple of weeks anyway as they're likely to make the bench for the League Cup.

 

[shorehamview]

What does it matter these days? How many players who are first choice for their teams have numbers higher than 11? I must admit to being a bit of a nerd in that whenever I'm watching a match on the telly I pause it when the team sheet is on the screen just to count how may players are numbered 1-11, but that's about as much as it bothers me. How many players when arriving at a new team ask for a number higher than 11?

I'd quite like us to have players with higher numbers. Why couldn't Porter have been given 99? We'd look properly continental then.