|
Post by jdl on Jul 28, 2014 21:13:38 GMT
Didn't like these at first, much preferred the traditional numbers related (mostly!) to position, but after two seasons back watching the Stones I have now changed my mind.
It's probably because I'm an old git, but - even with buying a programme and checking the names - I often still can't name all the players on the pitch.
Plus it adds a bit of creative weirdness to a game - at UP once I saw a 54 being subbed by a 97!
Feel free to abuse me for not being a Real Fan, etc, etc
|
|
|
Post by stainese on Jul 29, 2014 4:58:24 GMT
The traditionalist in me hates them . But i still remember many of the name & number from our first ever use of them . I think it's just the idea of 54 being subbed by a 97 that i really object to Where we the first English club side to use squad numbers back then in the early 70's ?
|
|
|
Post by tim on Jul 29, 2014 8:19:46 GMT
Not practical at our level, how many shirts would we have needed during Andy Ford's season?
|
|
|
Post by captainmosh on Jul 29, 2014 11:29:04 GMT
I'm a big fan of numbers for position, which obviously winds me up a bit when JP wears #8 no matter where he plays.
|
|