Talk:Forward (association football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Forward vs. striker[edit]

The term "striker" is not synonomous with "forward" in football. A striker is a type of forward that plays as far up the field as he can, and waits on the shoulder of the last defender, waiting for a ball over the top, or a through this a ball of ball along the floor. Michael Owen is a striker, Wayne Rooney isn't. Ronaldo is, Ronaldinho isn't.

Wrong. A striker is the same as a forward and attacker. They are synonymous. The type of player you describe is called a centre forward. Where'd you got that description from? Mandel June 28, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. Since when does anyone call a foward winger a striker... Udonknome 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Right Team sheets often include players listed as strikers (or centre foward) and other players listed as Forwards. It could also be argued that a striker is an even more attacking version of a centre forward. A striker waits for oppotunities to score goals. A forward sets up other players, usually his partner (the striker). A centre forward is not the same as a forward, it is a type of forward. A more accurate version of this article would be called Forward with various types listed. e.g. inside foward, outside forward, striker or forward. josh 23:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Wanna bet? Give me a dictionary that defines them differently. "Ronaldinho" and "striker" throws up 107,000 results. Even BBC calls Dennis Bergkamp a striker [1]Mandel 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If Eto'o and Messi are the strikers, this Leaves Giuly and Ronaldinho as... non-strikers. The 107K results tell me nothing... 95% of fans would agree Ronaldinho is not a striker. He is the best footballer in the world as of October 2005, and this is an Argentine saying this... 192.115.248.2 09:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
An Argentinian whose English is not up to par maybe...there could be a word distinguishing the two in Spanish, unfortunately, this is the English encyclopedia; in English, the two are one and the same. UEFA calls Ronadinho a striker. Mandel 14:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I actually half disagree with you, in a way. These days strikers fall under two categories, number nines and number tens. Your #9 is definitely a striker, but you can't class your typical #10 as an out and out striker, because they're just as comfortable in midfield. Luis Garcia is probably the best example of a "forward" I can think of right now. It would probably be a good idea to make this distinction on the page? --Scarfo 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The guy at the top is right, forward is not synonymous with striker. Even the article goes on to list under the headings of "Centre forward" and "Deep-lying forwards". I propose this article should be renamed to Forward (football). The infoboxes also use the two-letter abbr. FW, and the Football Manager series of games distinguishes between SC (out and out striker), FC (centre forward), FR (right forward) and FL (left forward). The latter two are not wingers by the way. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I would concur that 'Striker' and 'Forward' are one and the same.--Mike Infinitum 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A forward does not have to be a striker. They are not one and the same thing. A forward plays in a forward role whereas the strikers main aim is to strike the ball! Cls14 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In recent years with the popularity of Zinedine Zidane and Ronaldinho, the No.10 has been more associated with playmakers/attacking midfielders. - unsigned

I was surprised to see that forward redirected to striker, because the players whose positions I have listed as the former in the past definitely aren't strikers. I'll put this to a wider community for discussion. - Dudesleeper · Talk 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Forward" and "Striker" are most assurdely not synonymous. The term "forward" incorporates wingers and all manner of hyphenated-forwards. Glance at any squad list in any pre-tournament publication you care to mention and you will see players such as Cristiano Ronaldo listed as "FW." Forward is synonymous with attacker; attacker is not synonmous with striker. DublinDilettante 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "Striker" is NOT accurate: it includes Center Forwards and Second Strikers, but it doesn't include Wing Forwards like Cristiano Ronaldo or Robben... and ALL of these players are listed as "Forward" in TV transmissions and console games. This should be fixed or voted ASAP, since it's a HUGE mistake.Santiago Roza (Kq) 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

HUGE confusion between "Playmaker" and "Second Striker"[edit]

The article mixes two completely different concepts, under the inaccurate umbrella of "Deep-lying Forwards": the Playmaker ("Enganche" in Spanish) with the Second Striker ("Mediapunta"). The first role is about creativity, ball control and killer passing; while the second one is about speed, dribbling, and some goal scoring.

They should NOT be mixed in this article; which should only have the Second Striker role, not the Playmaker one (BTW, it should also have the Wing Forward role, but that would mean changing its title to the more correct "Forward").Santiago Roza (Kq) 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Certain players[edit]

Zinedine Zidane, Juan Roman Riquelme and Lionel Messi are not Deep lying Forwards. Messi is a different breed of player, a player in a position between a Deep lying forward and an attacking midfielder and he is also a Playmaker. That's what makes Barcelona's formation unique along with Ronaldinho. Zinedine Zidane and Juan Roman Riquelme are Playmakers. Just because they wear the Number 10 doesn't mean they are deep lying forwards. In recent years the number 10 has been more the number of a playmaker and the number 11 is used for a Deep lying forward.

I agree[edit]

Yeah this article needs a lot of editing, the positions are not described for what they really are. They are mixing a lot of functions of different positions. Zidane and Riquelme are real PLAYMAKERS, Messi is not but he has the ability to be one. In argentina they gave him the position as a second striker or even a number 9 but due to not receving the ball he dropped back to midfield making it seem he was a attacking midfielder. In Barcelona Messi is not a playmaker, we know who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsunoyuutsu (talkcontribs) 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well-known strikers[edit]

The list of well-known strikers is ridiculous. It should have a more strict policy on who should be on and who shouldn't. There is no excuse to have players from women's football on there too, because it's not a popular sport in comparison to men's football.--Utotri 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In the USA they love their womens football. If that example means something to them, and the rest don't, leave it in.


In the US they dont even love their mens football — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaxus (talkcontribs) 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that but Fernando Torres if you go to his wikipedia page you can see it says he is a striker. But in this page its says he is a center foward. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.108.219 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More players added[edit]

I have just added several examples of what I believe to be well known players (regardless of stirker, forward, centre forward, etc); in doing so it makes this list somewhat British. I believe it needs expanding on a global scale to include others. The criteria I used to consider players was

1. They were well known for the type of role they played
2. They had competed at the highest level (e.g. World Cups, Champions League/UEFA cup, etc.)
3. They had been top scorers or held scoring records for their respective clubs.

If this same criteria is used the list could be more comprehensive and developed in to a category, e.g. Well known strikers.
Ianguy 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already such a list at List of renowned football players. It is linked under See Also as List of renowned strikers. The names were split from Football (soccer) positions. I think naming one or two very, very popular players as an example of a certain playing style is fine, but anything more than that would encourage fans to add their own favourite players. And eventually you would have something like this[2] where the list takes up more space than the main content.(Which was the main reason for the split)--Dodo bird 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of listing prime examples, there seems to be an attempt to list every player you can think of in that role! I've edited the list down to a handfull for each role - although if anyone can think of better players to use as examples then please do so.--Mike Infinitum 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Sheringham" role[edit]

I personally haven't heard it being called that in quite a while. Seeing how the name the sheringham role probably isn't relevant anymore I think it should be removed. Yonatanh 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still occasionally used by the dinosaurs on 'Match of the Day' Nicander 08:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is still used.

I don't think it is often called the 'Sheringham role' in the uk. Maybe on MOTD or in specific conversations about the England side but I don't think anyone would have the audacity to suggest that Maradona, Totti or Bergkamp played in the 'Sheringham role'. I think 'in the hole' should be the term used most in the uk maybe with a reference to the 'Sherringham role' being used occasionally. Lets face it he was only really any good in Euro 96 for England. I haven't made any changes just leaving my opinion Robbiati11 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've never heard anybody calling it the "Sheringham role" in my entire life - I'm sure there were plenty of good players in the same role before his time. It's always known as second striker round here or as said before "in the hole" Andy86 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Drogba[edit]

Under centre-forwards Drogba is listed twice, under poachers, and target men. I noticed after questioning whether Drogba was a target man. He does certainly not fall under the category of players that attempt to shield the ball, turn and score, at least not in the premiership, although his use of strength cannot be questioned. I just do not believe he falls under the category of target man. I shall remove Drogba fromt the list of target men, as it allows the article to contradict itself to an extent, when it states "Other centre-forwards are known as "target men" and goes to to list Drogba when he was listed under the previous type of Centre-Forward. --84.71.199.210 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Drogba does a good bit of both. To avoid confusion, perhaps players whose style is not clearly/predominantly one of the roles listed should not be used as examples. The examples are there to do just that - provide examples for the audience to watch and see the role being carried out. They shouldn't be there out of an attempt to classify every famous forward in football. Thoughts? - Slow Graffiti 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Andry Shevchenko in the list. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.196.163 (talkcontribs).

As I said, this page does not and should not seek to classify every famous forward. - Slow Graffiti 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of strikers- why not just list several from different countries rather than revert constantly?[edit]

There is plenty of room in the article to include a section of famous strikers from different countries. Why not just have an area when the country is listed, and the names of notable strikers listed. It would avoid a lot of the edit changes and removals back and forth, and give everyone credit. Seems a better solution than constant reverts. The article is barely 20k big, there is plenty of room to accommodate everyone here.Enriquecardova (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Examples?[edit]

Why were the examples of the different styles of strikers eliminated, the inclusion of a few notable examples is no more subjective than the very acknowledgment of these unofficial roles. What is the purpose of this page? If it is to help people understand the position, the examples are a massive help by letting them associate the description with a real life example, likewise it greatly helps people who would like to compare one player to somebody that is similar who they might not have know, if there is no response I will undo the changes. I know the examples were a great help to me, and I will gladly put them back up as a great help to others.

Jbshoup Sep 2, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbshoup (talkcontribs) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
StrikerForward (association football) — The current title of this article is not appropriate. The term "striker" may encompass centre-forwards and second strikers, but it is not commonly used to refer to wing forwards such as Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi. I certainly would never refer to either of those two as a striker. The term "forward", however, refers to any player who plays in an advanced role, whether they be a striker, a second striker or a winger. The disambiguator "association football" is only necessary to disambiguate from other articles about forwards. — – PeeJay 09:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support- This would remove the ambiguity over which positions were covered and would encompass a broader and more comprehensive range of players.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per below Knepflerle (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support- Per comments. I don't know what I was thinking. A striker is a type of forward and the article is about forwards in general. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if you specified which comments you agree with. It could be assumed that you agree with Lucy-marie's opinion... – PeeJay 10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. It's a good article on a good, well-defined and notable topic, on which there's plenty of material for an article. Suggest that, if there's plenty of material available to cover this broader and more comprehensive range of players, then a new article should be created, under the more generic title. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • But the content for the new article is here, under this title. Hence the move. Why can't you people see that? – PeeJay 12:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If content gets added to an article that isn't directly in its remit, we find the extra information a new, better home. We don't keep renaming the article to fit. Whether you view the current problem as a naming problem or a content problem is a matter of scale and opinion, but we fix content problems by fixing articles, not titles. Knepflerle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, so we should remove the information from this article that does not relate to its title? That would mean removing both the "Second striker" and "Winger" sections. Assuming that new articles do not get created in the near future, the removed information would not have a home for quite a while. The most appropriate thing to do, in-keeping with the fact that we already have articles about the umbrella positions Goalkeeper, Defender and Midfielder, it stands to reason that the one remaining position article should be titled Forward, does it not? – PeeJay 17:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
          • No, it doesn't. The article is about the role very commonly known as striker. Of course we shouldn't just remove material, any useful content that doesn't belong under this topic should be moved to a more appropriate article. To just remove it is to do half the job. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Who's disrupting Wikipedia? I'm using logic to disprove Knepflerle's point. Anyway, this article is about the role of a Forward, of which the role of Striker is a variant. See this UEFA squad list for evidence. The squad list is divided into "Goalkeepers", "Defenders", "Midfielders" and "Forwards", not "Goalkeepers", "Defenders", "Midfielders" and "Strikers". There have been plenty of other arguments further up the page about why this page is inappropriately titled. This is not a content dispute so please can everyone stop treating it as such. – PeeJay 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Nobody is disrupting Wikipedia, and nobody is suggesting they were. But removing useful content without finding it a new home would be unhelpful. And that's what you seem to be proposing above, perhaps rhetorically. Did I misunderstand you? Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
                • It was rhetorical. – PeeJay 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - In my opinion, Forward is the generic name and Striker is one specific type of Forward. There's plenty of crossover and grey areas in the terminology, and different pundits/analysts/commentators use them in different ways, but I think Forward is a more appropriate name for the article than Striker. Beve (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I was tempted originally to oppose this, as I've always categorised people such as Cristiano Ronaldo as wingers (and therefore midfielders), and used 'strikers' as just the ones whose job it is to score goals. Having said that, I'm quite keen that the various WP articles on football are consistent, so in keeping with Association football positions, I think it should be 'forward'. If there is "official" backing for it to be 'forward' rather than 'striker' then so much the better. It's a funny old thing, as I'd never really wondered before which of the terms was the generic one for the position. I would probably have typically used 'striker' in the past, but I think that 'forward' sounds better for an encyclopedia. Pure unscientific gut-feeling, but that's the way I'm headed. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Beve's comments. -- Alexf(talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. GiantSnowman 19:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per discussion above and below. Strikers are just one kind of forward. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Striker is a modern term, and the article needs to cover all forward players from all periods. Many years ago teams played with five forward players - Outside Right/Left (also known as wingers), Inside Right/Left (inside forwards) and a centre forward (now known as striker). Having the article at Striker means the other types of forward player are excluded when they should be included. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Strikers are usually found on a picket line, not on a football field. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What you need is a new, second article to explain the overlap and differences, not a title-change. Knepflerle (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do that when we can simply rename this article and explain the differences between a striker, a centre forward, a second striker and a wing forward here? We don't have special articles explaining the differences between an attacking midfielder and a plain, simple midfielder, so why have one explaining the difference between a striker and a forward? – PeeJay 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There's probably enough encyclopaedic to say about each of those positions, with forward as an umbrella article explaining the differences. They're commonly-enough used terms with specific meanings and history. American football has articles for a panoply of positions - see {{American football positions}} - and there's no reason something similar wouldn't be useful for the range of football positions. My editing time will be sharply limited for a short while, but afterwards I would happily help in furnishing some of these articles with text. Knepflerle (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that an article for each position on the football pitch would not be a bad idea. However, the content of this article is more suited to the title "Forward" than "Striker", hence the move request. The move request has nothing to do with the content, only that the current title is not quite correct. – PeeJay 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • There just doesn't seem much point moving the page then moving some content back here as opposed to separating out the stuff that doesn't belong here and using it to create a useful article. Knepflerle (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
            • And what if the proposed articles never get created? We'll still have this article in the wrong place. – PeeJay 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • A second article would create a disparity of information and be a prime candidate for merging with this article title, so the creation a second artilce smacks of lunacy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"A second article would create a disparity of information": I don't understand what you mean by this. "a prime candidate for merging with this article title": not necessarily - the positions are noteworthy with obviously distinct definition, usage and history. ""smacks of lunacy": pure hyperbole. Knepflerle (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't ever remember hearing a commentary on a soccer match in which there wasn't someone described as striker from each team. It's a very well accepted term. To put the topic into an article on forwards generally, however it is managed, is a bit like merging Tutankhamun into Pharaoh. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because there's always a striker on a team. However, there are usually other players playing in forward positions, who, despite their forward position, are not referred to as strikers. That is why this article should be renamed to "Forward (association football)". – PeeJay 10:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it's because the striker is a particularly important role, and one that many who know little else about football would know exists, and even be able to name particular people who played in this role. There's always a goalkeeper, too, and the role is at least as important, but less newsworthy somehow. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the striker is an important role. Hence why there's almost always at least one striker on the field for each team at any one time. As for goalkeepers, the goalkeeper is a specialist role, even more specialist than any other on the field. It also already has its own article, so why we're discussing it is beyond me. – PeeJay 08:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The relevance is that goallie is the other position or role that many of the public would easily recognise as being part of a soccer team. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Really, that's not a good analogy. Merging Tutankhamun into Pharaoh would be more akin to merging Pelé into Striker. Having Striker as a subsection of Forward would be more like having Winger as a subset of Midfielder - which is exactly what we do have. Beve (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No analogy is perfect. The problem with merging Pelé into Striker is that both topics are in the public awareness, while I'd contend that many would know that Pelé was a striker without necessarily knowing he was a forward.
Agree that the current article is not about striker, it's about forwards in general. But we need an article on striker as well IMO. Many would for example be surprised to find no mention of midfielder David Beckham, who is often described as a striker http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_David_Beckham_play_Striker http://www.hi5celebrity.com/david-beckham/beckham-the-star-striker/ , presumably because of his ability to score. This may be a confusion, but it's a common enough one that we should deal with it. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deep-Lying??[edit]

This article needs to get rid of the misnomer "deep-lying centre-forward." If you are central and forward then how on earth can you be deep-lying? The position is known as being "in-the-hole" in English. The term "d-l-c-forward" dates from the 1950s when Hungary came to Wembley and battered England 6-3 with a revolutionary new style of game, using players in positions that the English had never seen used before. Faced with these new positions the confused English press invented lots of new-fangled names, most of which were clearly inadequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

First of all, I admit my knowledge of this sport is basically nil.

Since I think this encyclopedia is supposed to be for a "general reader", it seems to me there is too much specialized terminology used in this article.

I recognize that editors have gone to a lot of effort to explain the terminology that is used. And with some success. The first point where I found it unclear was here:

"to win long balls or receive passes and "hold up" the ball as team-mates advance, to help team-mates score by providing a pass ('through ball' into the box), or to score himself".

Whether it is possible, or worthwhile, to make the article clear to someone with my limited knowledge of the subject is another matter. I arrived at the article by clicking "random article". CBHA (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Strickers are the most fame collectors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.36.106 (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what the first guy said, more or less. Except that I came here deliberately have encountered football terms in BBC news quite a few times without knowing what they mean. I can imagine what it's like being so familiar with the game that you would think twice about the meaning of "have the ability to slot the ball" but some of us can only guess what that might mean. Thanks in any case for giving me some idea of what a striker is. SewerCat (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Striker vs Centre Forward (yet again)[edit]

Can i please draw peoples attention to this page: [[3]]. It gives a clear and understandable distinction between strikers and centre forwards, why cant what is on that page be copied and pasted onto this page? It appears to be accepted on that page, so why not on here? Brock 009 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because UEFA and FIFA do not make that distinction. If an international footballing organization does not recognize that, this article will conform to that. The Wikipedia link has no reference at all, making it dubious. 116.14.17.153 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is why Wiki conforms to the fact 1)Henry did not use his hand, 2)using your hand is no longer a foul in football and all the rest of the nonsense FIFA do not acknowledge /sweep under the carpet. Striker and Centre Forward are two different roles, but hey if the geniuses at FIFA don't recognise it, despite the fact that teams do, then it can't be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.204.219 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Number 10 and Poor Terminology[edit]

Why the obsession with number 10? The number that most players wear nowadays are completely irrelevant to their position oj the field or their role within the team. Why do people keep insisting on referring to players as a 'number 10'? Even when the shirt numbers MEANT something the number 10 could be a midfielder or a forward.

Also, can we stop using the nonsense phrase 'Deep-Lying Centre-Forward' please? Think about the words. How can you be forward if you are deep-lying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.139.180 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

Should Outside forward be merged into this article? I reckon that it isn't unique or significant enough to have an article of its own and it is just a type of forward Alza08 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree.—indopug (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, provided that the any redirect points to the newly created section. —WFC— 18:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree.- PL (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - ive listed some basic attributes Of such position could somebody correct my english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsunoyuutsu (talkcontribs) 04:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The false 9(New Page Request)[edit]

In addition to the pages of all possible positions in football, a new page should be dedicated to the false nine position. The false 9 or nine and a half is generally an attacking midfielder employed as a striker who eventually goes deep to support midfield. Swapnil2309 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Name of the page[edit]

The topic should be edited as "Forward (football)". Because that is how the game is called by 7 billion people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.217.233 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) - We know that NFL pays big money to Wikipedia for the name, but this should be stated, so that there can be hope for the world in fight against corrupted lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.217.233 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Me about introduction[edit]

"Forwards, also known as strikers"

But wingers, second strikers, inside-forwards and centre-forwards are also forwards. For example, CR7 is winger, which is also forward --82.139.5.13 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Highest fee[edit]

What happened with Ronaldo in this ranking? He is the most expensive transfer in the history and I don't see him there. If Luis Figo or Hulk appears in the list, Ronaldo too. I hope an answer or I will edit it. Sorry for my bad English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.92.184 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ghrth ntm[edit]

mmnm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.16.10 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)