Much was made of Cristiano Ronaldo being instantly handed the number 7 jersey, still warm from Beckham's back. And when Wayne Rooney "inherited" the number 10 shirt in the summer, it was deemed newsworthy, an iconic event.
In this day and age of squad numbering from numbers 1-99, does what shirt a player wears still have any effect of their mentality, and is it reasonable to suggest that it can even affect their confidence and performance?
Ultimately, and fundamentally, this is an issue of tradition. It is a big deal to wear the number 10 shirt in South America for example, and it is a big deal when a player relinquishes the shirt - Ronaldinho, for example, recently lost the Brazilian 10 jersey to Kaká despite still being at the top of his game.
Concentrating on Manchester United, and Edwards in 6, Law in 10, Charlton in 9, and of course the number 7 shirt that has been illuminating Old Trafford on the shoulders of Best, Robson, Cantona, Beckham and now Ronaldo, the number 11 jersey of Best (again) and Giggs, have all seen their names go down in history as synonymous with the number they wore. Even in these days of 1-11 being a thing of the past, the number 16 wore by Keane created a burden of expectation for Michael Carrick, likewise in the future as Scholes' 18 shirt and Solskjaer's number 20.
Numbers are not simply allocated on a matter of availability, they are allocated by assessing the suitability of a player to continue a legacy.
This is why many a United fan gave a knowing nod to one another in the summer when seeing images of the Lawman "passing the torch" to Rooney. Not just because we believe Rooney fits the bill as a blockbuster number 10 (see Hughes, too), but the fact of the matter is Rooney asked for the shirt as soon as it became available, because, as he told Inside United magazine, he loved the tradition of the shirt, both for United and in the respect that his hero, Maradona, wore it. This is a player that despite his apparent lack of discipline on the pitch, is a pretty affable chap off it, and just wants to play football. He wants the ball all the time. He plays with the desire to feel the exhiliration a 30 yard volley or a defence splitting pass can bring him in equal measure.
But this article is not just an excuse to kiss the feet of some of our current heroes. It is a geniune attempt to investigate the contrast of importance and tradition of squad numbers.
Interestingly, Cristiano asked for the number 28 shirt when he arrived. This was the number he wore at Sporting, and the most likely explanation for his request is because he felt comfortable in the number. But to what extent does that effect the mentality of a player? Why should it even matter?
One possible explanation is that a manager can assess the mentality or ability to cope with this kind of pressure by giving them a certain squad number. It is often mentioned among United fans - you know the saying - "He's a United player" - a term that, though apparently arrogant in pure isolation, has many fair connections with the "legend" of the squad number. When it was first mentioned when in reference to van Nistelrooy, it was clear he was a number 10, a surefire heir to Law's shirt. Nothing but.
But players are not always ready made. Sometimes a manager has to make a big decision, such as Ferguson did with Ronaldo. It was undoubtedly a gamble - entrusting a shirt that was traditionally worn by the teams "maverick", if you will, was immediately loading the youngster with a massive reputation to fulfill. The fact he did, and does, is a testament in equal measures to his ability and Ferguson's judgement.
Personally, when playing for any team at any level, when I was younger, I always wanted to wear the number 11. I wanted to emulate Giggs, and would feel like I was the "dribbler" of the side. More recently, as I've got older, I wear 10 or 4 sometimes, feeling like I can be somewhat of a creative lynchpin. Where I get that feeling I don't know, aside from Bergkamp or Veron, but I have never based any style of how I play football on emulating them. The point is that I can certainly state that wearing a different number can give you a different mindset. Whether that feeling is more or less intense the higher the level you're playing at, I don't know.
Further afield, just 16 months ago, I was baffled to see Khalid Boularouz paraded around Stamford Bridge in the number 9 shirt. Traditionalists must have likened it to the proverbial dancing on the then-recently departed Peter Osgood's grave. Certainly a big fat, creamy spit in the direction of his legacy. Further strange goings on in West London when the next wearer was not their talisman striker, Drogba, or even a new striker funded with lashings of roubles, but low key free transfer, reserve and central midfielder to boot, Steve Sidwell. Across London, Dennis Bergkamp's legendary number 10 shirt was not handed to Robin van Persie, or even their expensive signing, Theo Walcott, but centre half William Gallas. Why? Does it matter? Does it bother fans of those sides? I am not personally able to make such a statement. However I can only shake my head in disbelief as those two clubs, pioneers of the all foreign team, strip away another slice of tradition from their once proud heritage. The only two plausible explanations is that the heritage of the shirts and the legacy of the club mean less to those managers, or that they are attempting to create less pressure on those wearing it. But neither of those explanations are, to me at least, justifiable when you consider the sacrifice you're making - blighting the legacy of past legends.
Where I am perfectly placed to cast what I consider to be an educated opinion is on the handling of such matters at the club I support, and I can wholeheartedly say that the issue of "inheriting" of numbers is an important part of the overall feel of Manchester United. Now, I'm not saying I or United are right and that people who believe otherwise are wrong. It is entirely possible that my way of thinking is part of a "traditionalist culture" that is possibly holding England back - an inability to understand change can be a bad thing, though I would challenge that theory by saying change does not neccessarily have to be at the expense of tradition.
It's not the be all or end all. It's just, in my humble opinion, another cog in the wheel of what makes Manchester United more than just a football club.
What do others think?
http://mpejal.myminicity.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment