Injured Players

[Sun Tzu]

You're in a pretty small minority on your interpretation.

We'll just have to wait and see over the next month or two.

You thinking one thing, me thinking another and the rest of the world not really caring doesn't put me in a small minority !!

[Hoop Blah]

It's not just you two though is it Sun Tzu? Or are you just ignoring the others on the thread that didn't agree with your view?

I reckon it's about 75/25 in favour of it being bad news according to the feeling on here, but then if numbers are such an irrelevance and nobody ever changes them then I guess you'd be right.

[Sun Tzu]

It's not just you two though is it Sun Tzu? Or are you just ignoring the others on the thread that didn't agree with your view?

I reckon it's about 75/25 in favour of it being bad news according to the feeling on here, but then if numbers are such an irrelevance and nobody ever changes them then I guess you'd be right.[/quote]

Having run back throught he thread it looks to me like there are 3 people who think Armstrong's number change means he's retiring and 2 who don't. I bow to your superior maths in working out that means a 75:25 majority against me.

Not sure what your second comment means, I certainly don't think shirt numbers mean as much as they did 20 years ago. If you think they do then that's fine.

[Wycombe Royal]

I certainly don't think shirt numbers mean as much as they did 20 years ago. If you think they do then that's fine.

Squad numbers weren't used 20 years ago.........

[Sun Tzu]

I certainly don't think shirt numbers mean as much as they did 20 years ago. If you think they do then that's fine.

Squad numbers weren't used 20 years ago.........

I know.....

[Royal Lady]

[Ian Royal]

Sun Tzu really is in a league of his own when it comes to petty arguing over trivial details and refusing to accept he's wrong or talking about totally irrelevant stuff.

And that's coming from me!

[Hoop Blah]

It's not just you two though is it Sun Tzu? Or are you just ignoring the others on the thread that didn't agree with your view?

I reckon it's about 75/25 in favour of it being bad news according to the feeling on here, but then if numbers are such an irrelevance and nobody ever changes them then I guess you'd be right.

Having run back throught he thread it looks to me like there are 3 people who think Armstrong's number change means he's retiring and 2 who don't. I bow to your superior maths in working out that means a 75:25 majority against me.

Not sure what your second comment means, I certainly don't think shirt numbers mean as much as they did 20 years ago. If you think they do then that's fine.[/quote]

I hadn't actually bothered counting the numbers, it was purely an intuiative stab in the dark based on my recall of the thread....but hey ho, at least we agree it's not just you and Ian with an opinion.

As for the numbers, you keep saying you don't think they're as relevant as they used to be (which is fine, I'm just debating why I think that's not the case) when if anything I'd say they probably seem to be more relevant because a player has to stick with that number for the season. It becomes part of their image almost. If it wasn't really of interest to them they wouldn't ever bother changing and wouldn't want specific numbers. It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of player want specific numbers because they're now semi-permanent.

As I said previously, it could well be that Armstrong doesn't really care about his number but it would seem more likely to me that he's been demoted off his previous number because they see that his time is almost up.

Why would Williams have been given the number 3 if numbers aren't relevant any more?

[Wycombe Royal]

I hadn't actually bothered counting the numbers, it was purely an intuiative stab in the dark based on my recall of the thread....but hey ho, at least we agree it's not just you and Ian with an opinion.

As for the numbers, you keep saying you don't think they're as relevant as they used to be (which is fine, I'm just debating why I think that's not the case) when if anything I'd say they probably seem to be more relevant because a player has to stick with that number for the season. It becomes part of their image almost. If it wasn't really of interest to them they wouldn't ever bother changing and wouldn't want specific numbers. It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of player want specific numbers because they're now semi-permanent.

As I said previously, it could well be that Armstrong doesn't really care about his number but it would seem more likely to me that he's been demoted off his previous number because they see that his time is almost up.

Why would Williams have been given the number 3 if numbers aren't relevant any more?

Wasn't it Little when he came back on loan that had an issue with the number he got? He couldn't have seven so he wanted something else but the FA wouldn't allow that number so he settled for a different one instead (I can't remember the exact details).

Basically it would matter to some players but not others and I guess that has always been the case.......

[Hoop Blah]

That rings a bell WR, and there are plenty of similar examples (players having something like 36 because 3+6=9).

[andrew1957]

Obviously with Armstrong not fit it is intended that Williams should be first choice left back at the start of the season, so he has been correctly been given the number 3 shirt. I don't see how this means a thing as to whether or not Armstrong eventually recovers or retires.

Having said that the signs are not good as he has been out effectively 18 months now but I am sure we all hope that he does eventually recover and offers us cover for Williams later in the season.

[jgriowa]

Wasn't it Little when he came back on loan that had an issue with the number he got? He couldn't have seven so he wanted something else but the FA wouldn't allow that number so he settled for a different one instead (I can't remember the exact details).

IIRC, Little wanted to have 77 as 7 was unavailable... Didn't he end up with 34?

[Isaac Hunt]

Wasn't it Little when he came back on loan that had an issue with the number he got? He couldn't have seven so he wanted something else but the FA wouldn't allow that number so he settled for a different one instead (I can't remember the exact details).

IIRC, Little wanted to have 77 as 7 was unavailable... Didn't he end up with 34?

52 IIRC. (5+2 = 7)

[Hoop Blah]

I don't see how this means a thing as to whether or not Armstrong eventually recovers or retires.

Because it's very rare for a player to give up his shirt number for an incoming player, espcially when the player losing their number is a senior pro and the lad coming in isn't a 'big name' and didn't even have the 3 shirt at his previous club.

Reading between the lines (perhaps incorrectly of course) it's the club/player giving the new guy the number because they know they're not really going to be using it.

[Sun Tzu]

Hoops

1. You are arguing a different point ! Some players may like certain numbers for whatever reason. That is different to whether the numbers 1-11 (ie traditional starting line up) are of any particular significance.

2. I originally asked a question, as to whether anyone had actually looked at how often squad numbers changed from season to season, because I just felt people were assuming that a single digit shirt number was somehow 'better' than any other

3. Williams got number 3 because, perhaps. it IS seen as a 'more important' shirt than say 33. But Armstrong not having 3 doesn;t tell us he's about to retire. he's slipped down the pecking order and therefore why would he NOT get a different shirt ?

[Royalwaster]

Hoops

1. You are arguing a different point ! Some players may like certain numbers for whatever reason. That is different to whether the numbers 1-11 (ie traditional starting line up) are of any particular significance.

2. I originally asked a question, as to whether anyone had actually looked at how often squad numbers changed from season to season, because I just felt people were assuming that a single digit shirt number was somehow 'better' than any other

3. Williams got number 3 because, perhaps. it IS seen as a 'more important' shirt than say 33. But Armstrong not having 3 doesn;t tell us he's about to retire. he's slipped down the pecking order and therefore why would he NOT get a different shirt ?

Armstrong is down the pecking order just by not having played for so long .... surely even he'd admit that himself.

[Hoop Blah]

Hoops

1. You are arguing a different point ! Some players may like certain numbers for whatever reason. That is different to whether the numbers 1-11 (ie traditional starting line up) are of any particular significance.

That's only part of the point I'm making though. How often do you see players move from a 1-11 number up to any other number? I can't think of any at Reading (apart from this one), and none spring to mind at any other club. Perhaps there might be someone out there go to 14 or 23 or something like that (those sought after numbers).

That's kind of the point, that numbers do seem to matter, and 1-11 plus a few notable numbers seem to he the sought after ones that don't just get given up.

2. I originally asked a question, as to whether anyone had actually looked at how often squad numbers changed from season to season, because I just felt people were assuming that a single digit shirt number was somehow 'better' than any other

As above, I can't think of any examples of 1-11 being given up. There are some numbers that are desirable outside of them but they're rare. Changes are minimal unless it's a downwards to more attractive numbers.

3. Williams got number 3 because, perhaps. it IS seen as a 'more important' shirt than say 33. But Armstrong not having 3 doesn;t tell us he's about to retire. he's slipped down the pecking order and therefore why would he NOT get a different shirt ?

It's the fact that he's lost the shirt which is so rare though that raises the doubt and the questions over his future. As I've said, I can't recall any other senior player losing their squad number to a new signing. Williams didn't wear 3 at Scunthorpe so you'd guess he's not that precious over it and so it seems quite odd for Armstrong to give it up under normal circumstances.

I'm not saying it definately means he's played his last game, I just don't think it's a good sign and that the writing is on the wall (when you add it to his recent history etc).

[Sun Tzu]

I'm not saying it definately means he's played his last game, I just don't think it's a good sign and that the writing is on the wall (when you add it to his recent history etc).

We'll file this under 'different opinions' then !!

It definitely doesn't give any idea whether he has played his last game though - not having a squad number would do that !

[JC]

I expect he won't official retire until they see how he gets on with some light training and fitness tests in preseason. I wouldn't expect an announcement he's retiring before a couple more weeks have gone by at least. Possibly might have to wait until after the season starts.

It would be awesome news to have Armstrong back fully fit for the season though. With him and Griffin at full back that would give us a lot of quality at the back. Quality that allows us to more easily get away with two quite lightweight wingers playing ahead of them in Kebe & McAnuff IMO.

Maybe everybody was wrong about Armstrong.

The OS now says as follows

He has been working very hard in his recuperation from injury and we will continue to step up his workload and training schedule

Doesn't sound like he is finished.

[Hoop Blah]

Doesn't sound like he's making that much progress either considering the injury was so long ago!

It's the same old names in the injury list though isn't it? Ingimarsson, Amrstrong, Hunt and Kelly. They may as well make that page their own personal website.