Here's a good debate about 2-3-5 https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/did-scotland-play-with-a-species-of-wm-in-the-20.2113620/ Basically, the system provided a zonal-type of marking based in two lines facing 5 forwards. Each Halfback and Fullback had his zone and depending which rival entered his zone, they marked an outside or inside forward.
I've been wondering what tactical system Manchester United used to deploy in the mid-1960s? Normally withouth thinking much I would have thought 4-3-3 or 4-2-4. But United's regular lineup in the mid-1960s featured only one outright centre back (Foulkes #5). #4 (Crerand) and #6 (Stiles) were both midfielders. Thus it looks Manchester United still played with an (outdated?) three-man defense in the mid-1960s? And that quite successfully! Could that be? This is a typical lineup: 1 Gregg 2 Brennan 3 Dunne 4 Crerand 5 Foulkes 6 Stiles 7 Connelly 8 Law 9 Charlton 10 Herd 11 Best I envision that lineup something like this (3-3-4): --------------Best----------------------Herd--------------------Connelly ---------------------------Law ---------------------------------------Charlton -------------------Crerand ---------------------------------------------------------Stiles -------Dunne-----------------------Foulkes-------------------Brennan -----------------------------------------Gregg Somehow a blend between WM and 4-3-3. Are there other clubs in the mid-1960s that stuck to a WM-type defense successfully over the course of the 1960s?
I think it may have been that Bobby Moore played as wing half for a while for West Ham still for example (the way he played for England in 1966 had elements of that still I'd say, but he was more a supplementary centre back with playmaking qualities than a midfielder for sure). I think your formations for Manchester United seem correct (4-2-4 and 4-3-3), taking on board some things RoyoftheRovers used to say, but Stiles often played as a deep-lying wing-half (so in contrast to Moore, deeper than he played in the 1966 World Cup, where he had 4 players behind him), or in other words the 4th defender. This post by Puck (you and him provided quite a few of these things from English football in the 60s, 70s between you actually I remember) helps show it maybe, as Stiles (as well as Moore) is in the 'defensive wing halves' section for the 60s (which became supporting central defenders for the 70s selections, when the 4 player defence was absolutely the norm) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...-year-1950-2009.1389516/page-53#post-33690031
So I was wondering about Nobby Stiles anyway - always had him down as a defensive midfielder so I thought how is this supposed to work when there's only Bill Foulkes around as a genuine centre back. Stiles' role is the decisive part of the puzzle for that Manchester United lineup. Same with Bobby Moore for West Ham and England only with a reverse sign (centre back that actually was more of a defensive midfielder in parts). The interesting term in use during those days being "wing half" which I remember well being Roy's preferred term of choice for these players that weren't really 100 % classifiable. Funny term I think because neither Stiles nor Moore had anything of a "wing" player about them....
And Nobby Stiles while being a tenacious player to me just looks too small for being a really efficient centre back, especially in the English game which stressed aerial qualities in strikers and centre backs.
I think Tottenham Hotspur could be a prominent example (consistent with that excerpt above, as Mackay out of those in the wing halves section was seen more as a midfielder than most of them, and had a famed partnership with Blanchflower I think didn't he?). 1960/61 is right at the start of the decade of course (in 1958/59 Nottingham Forest absolutely played a 3-2-2-3 WM I know still and it's only a couple of years earlier), but Mackay in midfield in essence continued beyond that I think (numbers 4, 5 and 6 in the players used table on this page are right half, centre half/back, and left half anyway): 1960–61 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season - Wikipedia Obviously Tottenham followed the tradition of 'push and run' from their earlier team of 1950/51 still, but apparently Nicholson was influenced by the Hungary team of the 50s too, which had a deep-lying left half (not quite a centre back though, still more a midfielder) and playmaking centre half, which is I suppose how he had it with Mackay and Blanchflower (rather than Zakarias and Bozsik), albeit Mackay could be quite dynamic going forwards at times himself I think couldn't he.... Match of the Century (1953 England v Hungary football match) - Wikipedia
Yeah, the terms were carried over from pre-WM days (when the 2-3-5 formation was prevalent and the side DMs if we call them that did play predominantly wider - wing halves made sense in that time, but the term was still used after WM was introduced - like centre half was still used even though 'half' originally refers to playing in midfield, like a 'centre' in netball I guess, and centre halves became central defenders; also full backs became side defenders which doesn't really fit with the tag either; further forward the labels still made more sense in general with inside forwards, centre forwards and wing forwards (or outside left and outside right), especially when sometimes prefixed with explanatory words resulting in 'withdrawn inside forward', 'deep-lying centre forward' and suchlike).
Yeah, I wouldn't be sure he wasn't more equivalent to Mackay than Moore in role (I didn't see enough prolonged footage) but I think it's right that sometimes he did play in midfield with both Charlton and Crerand too (well sometimes he did but I'm not sure how much without checking), with 4 players behind him. I remember he's quite advanced up the pitch at the point he is involved in a famous goal by Best in this game (playing the pass to him), and only 3 defenders are listed (Transfermarkt wouldn't be expected to be correct about formations necessarily but perhaps if we could watch the full game we would see still 3 players in defence as late as 68/69?) Manchester United - Rapid Vienna, Feb 26, 1969 - European Champion Clubs' Cup - Match sheet | Transfermarkt For the Final of 1967/68 though, he's in midfield with 4 behind indeed: Manchester United - SL Benfica, May 29, 1968 - European Champion Clubs' Cup - Match sheet | Transfermarkt (the line-up looks correct aside from perhaps the predominant sides of Crerand and Stiles, although the diagram for Benfica in contrast doesn't in terms of positions) I think in the 1966 World Cup game vs Portugal he did play still a role in helping track Eusebio didn't he, so he was in midfield for defensive qualities more than attacking ones (equivalent to a DM of today, but even dropping deeper to help?).
Tottenham in the mid-1960s is a similar case actually. There's the lone centre back Laurie Brown (#5) and #4 is Mullery with Mackay #6 - both more or less clear-cut midfielders. Interestingly by 1968 United seems to have switched to a bonafide flat back four with the addition of Sadler, but looking closely I see Foulkes only played 24 games in the league and in those games were Foulkes was missing, United again played with a three-man defense it seems. By 1968, Spurs had converted Phil Beal from full back to centre back and he was paired there with Mike England.
This could be worth a watch (suddenly it seems the captions have changed to 4 player defences, but whether it's really accurate we'd have to decide - previously including only a year before it seemed like they often showed a 2-3-5 by default even still IIRC - I've seen relatively long highlights of the more famous 1965/66 game but not this long I think but I just include the short clip I see available today - it's evident from that that Mackay was getting forwards though, not to say centre backs never can but he seems like he's playing basically as midfielder): (10th September 1966) Match of the Day - Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester United - YouTube Tottenham 5 Man United 1 - 1965-66 Season - YouTube I see what you mean with the idea of a hybrid between a WM and a 4-3-3 or 4-2-4 anyway for United, and it does depend exactly how and where Stiles tend would play, I agree. Out of the names I mentioned it might actually be Zakarias who most closely matches Stiles at United actually (albeit a left half, while Stiles might be deemed right half and Crerand left half I think...and there isn't really much of a parallel between Crerand and Bozsik anyway in terms of playing style and attributes I think - Blanchflower/Bozsik does seem a more apt comparison and they were both right halves too).
Regarding the 2-3-5 lineups still in use by media outlets, be it TV or print media, I found an interesting tidbit about that (see below). It seems by 1966 the TV had changed their tactical presentation to actual lineups. In February 1965 it was still 2-3-5 (as can be seen here: ) http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas1960-70/1964-65/M0390WGr1965.html A bit of old Fleet Street comment here in a way of explanation. There was a small group of football writers on the national newspapers (Brian Glanville, Geoffrey Green, David Miller, Clive Toye, Ken Jones and Brian James chief among them) who battled with their sports editors to get teams laid out in the newspapers in the new style of play. For instance, this team should read: Banks; Cohen Charlton, Moore, Wilson; Ball, Eastham Flowers; Paine, Jones, Temple. But the old school sports editors would not stand for it. 'Our readers will not accept the player in the number three jersey coming fifth in the line-up,' they would argue. So right up until recent times the player in the number three jersey would appear third in the line-up, even though there would be a back four of a right back, two central defenders and a left-back; and the number four or six player would invariably play in midfield. So most newspapers and their readers were stuck in the sand of the old days of 2-3-5, and it was a very slow process before fans were educated in the understanding of the new systems. Not Fleet Street's finest hour.
Here is Forest vs West Ham from 1965/66, which I did see before on DVD but I'd need to watch again to make many comments about this, though Forest are using a WM style defence still I guess (but in 66/67 Hennessey acted more like a second centre back indeed I believe for example alongside/supporting McKinlay, and in this game I think Barnwell is more a deep lying inside forward or midfielder, and Addison and Wignall might be an attacking partnership but I'd need to check again and Wignall was CF anyway I think - in 58/59 Burkitt and Whitefoot were wing halves and Quigley and Gray inside forwards though there may have been a difference in roles a bit with Burkitt more defensive than Whitefoot and Gray more a midfield schemer from generally deeper than Quigley in general perhaps even back then too), and West Ham may be also using a WM like defensive setup, depending how Moore is used indeed: (9th October 1965) Match Of The Day - Nottingham Forest v West Ham United - YouTube
I don't know whether for 1966/67 Tottenham vs United I posted, Mullary's position is wrong even in terms of comparisons to team-mates - I only watched a few minutes but maybe someone shown further ahead of him is actually playing deeper (even if not a second centre back as such necessaily). You'd mentioned Beal as a defender yourself hadn't you? I did hear that Stiles was marking Greaves, while United's main centre back was marking Gilzean. Stiles might have been playing deeper, or more as outright defender, I suppose, than he sometimes would, because it's mentioned there is talk of United playing a more defensive game after they lost 5-1 the season before (albeit won by a similar score at home).
Thanks for the reps on this, but probably I should expand and clarify a bit since I remembered when Kenneth Wolstenholme said "centre half back" in the commentary for one of those games we posted earlier, that the players were known as 'half backs' rather than just halves (I think anyway - I don't think he was making up the term to describe these new centre halves which played basically as centre backs although I did think that when I first heard him say it!). That reflects I suppose that in 2-3-5 those half backs were all seen as semi-defensive players, not absolutely midfielders (I think!). In a way it makes sense because the opposition had 5 'forwards' of course, assuming playing the same formation. A centre in netball (from what I remember, from rare PE lessons when we played mixed netball lol, at school) is more absolutely in between the defenders and attackers.
Yeah, from comme's first post of the thread (concerning half backs, and I think it's right to equate them to midfielders probably indeed, although yeah as the term implies it would seem they have more responsibility defensively than in attack of course which makes sense even more going back to the days of 2-2-6...except the offside rules were harder to breach and so having too many players deep wasn't advisable)
Systems summary made by Manchete Esportiva from Rio Janeiro (Brazil, 1955) The 2-3-5 (Pyramid) is showed in the "One-Back tactic", usually played by Uruguay and Italy in the prewar era.
Stiles was a man-marker whose job was to track the opponents' most dangerous player (such as Eusebio in the WC semi-final). His position on the field depended on where his opponent was. He was never a centre-back. Emlyn Hughes was an energetic midfielder, converted into a ball-playing central defender. Liverpool's defeat at the hands of Red Star Belgrade in the European Cup in 1973 prompted a major re-think at Anfield. It was decided that to succeed in Europe's top competition, both central defenders needed to be able to play out patiently from the back. Hence Hughes's conversion (he also played left-back for England). Phil Thompson, another with ball-playing qualities, became Hughes' central defensive partner at Liverpool.
Great finding!! This article confirms my theory of Bauer as a centralized "Right Half" that would fall back as a CB in the 50'WC. And the tactical variation that some brazilian teams had with a 3-2-5 in the defensive phase to as 2-3-5 in the offensive phase.
Hi. I would like to ask about Wing-Halves In 1958, it is still common for a team to use 5 striker formation, which means they have wing halves in either side of 3 midfielders but in the 1960s and 1970s, that formation become obsolete What happened to those players that play as wing halves? What position did they play at later career? Fullbacks? Center midfielders? Or other positions?
Basically either this Or this Although for example some South Americans who played as old wing halves did become full-backs (side backs) in a not completely dissimilar role to which they used to play (but more defensive). In English football the old full-backs mainly became the new (permanently wide) full-backs though anyway. I think there'll be something on this earlier in the thread, but yeah these examples of Moore as second centre-back (albeit still a playmaking one) and Masoupst as central midfield 'left half' are approprate I think.
Hi mate, A 5 forward formation was used with both: 2-3-5 (Pyramid) and 3-2-5 (WM) If you're asking for wing halves in a 3 "midfielder formation", I understand, you're talking about the old 2-3-5 or Pyramid formation. This system after WWII (late 40s) become obsolete, only a couple of top countries still used until mid 50s. Transition in Europe: Pyramid ---------- 1 ------ 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 -- 5 -- 6 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 WM (#5 --> defender / #4,6 still named wing halves, even they played centrally) ---------- 1 ---- 2 -- 5 -- 3 ------ 4 ---- 6 ----- 8 ---- 10 7 ------ 9 ----- 11 Back-4 (#4 or 6 --> 4th defender) ------- 1 2 -- 4-- 5 -- 3 ------- 6 --- 8 ---- 10 7 ----- 9 ---- 11 Transition in South America: Pyramid ---------- 1 ------ 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 -- 5 -- 6 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 WM (#4 --> defender, one wing half, in contrast to Europe --> the centre half) ---------- 1 ---- 4 -- 2 -- 3 ------ 5 ---- 6 ----- 8 ---- 10 7 ------ 9 ----- 11 Back-4 (#6 --> 4th defender) ------- 1 4 -- 2-- 6 -- 3 ------- 5 --- 8 ---- 10 7 ----- 9 ---- 11 Note: In Brazil, the transition ocurred by left (#6 --> LB, then #4 --> CB). In Uruguay, the transition ocurred from Pyramid to Back 4, directly, with both Wing Halves turned into side defenders.
thank you , howewer, my question were about the player, not about the squad number something like Bill Foulkes (Full Back) become Center Back later on when Team start to abandon 5 striker formation, I wonder about Wing Halves
thanks. just for some context, do you mean that Bobby More and Josef Masopust were used to be wing halves in the past? So I won't be confused mate
Yes, I believe so, although already before WM was replaced there were teams playing WM-variant formations that had one wing-half staying deep near the defence mainly, and one playing as as an attacking wing-half I believe (and similarly one inside forward might play as a 'goalscoring inside forward' and one as a 'withdrawn inside forward') so in those cases it was probably almost like having a 4th defender or a two-striker system. Already in 1958 some teams (including famously the Brazil 1958 World Cup team) were playing 4-2-4 too. You knew more than me about Bill Foulkes though anyway, so yeah that's an example where a full-back became a central defender in England too then (which seems natural in some cases surely, and probably happened quite a bit when the transition from the pyramid system occured because the old centre halves might be more accustomed to a midfield role...although some of them did become the new centre halves i/e centre backs too I think I'm right in saying). Perhaps Czechoslovakia in the early 1960s are even still playing a WM-variant type system, rather than a 4-2-4, because Pluskal might have been the defensive wing-half I'm thinking (Popluhar the centre back, and Masopust the creative wing half but nominally 'left half'). Masopust did play sometimes as 'inside forward' later in his career (or we might say attacking midfielder or number 10) I believe, so it's possible he played inside forward in true WM formations too maybe (but yeah I think he'd been a wing half mainly in the 1950s too unless I'm mistaken).