Can someone please explain this old formation to me?

[Kalamunda]

According to Martin Tyler, the last club to succeed with this formation was the 1924-26 Huddersfield 3xchampionship winning side, this involved the centre half helping in defence and initiating attacks. Their manager moved to Arsenal and changed the formation to 3-3-4. They went on to win the league three times 1933-35. Hungary beat England in 1953 by using a withdrawn centre forward and luring the English centre half and then letting the inside forwards get into the hole left by the CH. Brazil countered Hungary with a 4-2-4 system which England adopted in 1962. By 1966 England were playing 4-3-3. 

I played a couple of school games in a 2-3-5 formation in the 1970s. At home we won 13-4 away we

lost 15-nil... and went back to 4-3-3. 

[pride_of_the_road]

11 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

This formation is before my time

Is it basically just displayed all skewed in the programme?

was it like wingers?

 

Championship manager 93 formation

[Ever the pessimist]

6 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

Yep. It was Alf Ramsey's "wingerless wonders" who changed the "rules" of how football teams lined up in England after the '66 World Cup. However, I seem to recall that the Hungarians, with Puskas and his mates, changed the formation a few years before then when they tore England a new one scoring loads of goals st Wembley.

 

Yeah, the Hungarians dropped a forward deeper and the England defence didn’t know what to do about it.

 

Damningly we took no measures to address it prior to the rematch in Budapest a few months later.

We lost 7-1.

[pj owl]

13 minutes ago, Ever the pessimist said:

 

Yeah, the Hungarians dropped a forward deeper and the England defence didn’t know what to do about it.

 

Damningly we took no measures to address it prior to the rematch in Budapest a few months later.

We lost 7-1.

Everyone knows and quotes this and of course the results and formations are true.

 

However one of the pioneers of changing this traditional British formation was a Yorkshireman - George Raynor. Read the book - The Greatest Manager England Never Had - he was the Brian Clough of his day but was shunned by England because he ‘coached’ players in a day where the Committee was the Manager.

 

Forgive the fact that he lived in Doncaster - he was a ‘traditional’ Yorkshireman of the time and had no significant affinity to any one club.

 

He ended up in Sweden after the war and took their ‘amateurs’ (they wouldn’t pick anyone who moved abroad and got paid - so he had to build 3 separate sides) to Olympic Gold in 1948 , bronze in 1952 and then his defining glory was he took them (as hosts) to the World Cup final in 1958.

 

He left a legacy of English managers in Sweden before he passed away with many upcoming coaches heading over there in the 70s - most famously Roy Hodgson.

 

My Uncle was another who made the move to Sweden and I was lucky enough to meet George Raynor before he died a few times after he’d moved back to Doncaster with his wife.

 

Amazing and really interesting story and could be argued that this was the time that England started to fall behind.

 

Raynor met with the England manager Walter Winterbottom prior to those Hungarian games and explained to him how Sweden had only narrowly lost to them by using certain tactics - but Winterbottom refused to listen!!

[adelphi1867]

12 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

This formation is before my time

Is it basically just displayed all skewed in the programme?

was it like wingers?

That must have confused Villa, Ron Springett at centre forward.

[N0rtherner]

12 hours ago, Ian said:

As well as Alan Quinn

 

And Howard Wilkinson.

[drings]

Arrr....but we were appy in them days.... poor aye... but appy.

[Musn't Grumble]

1 hour ago, pj owl said:

Everyone knows and quotes this and of course the results and formations are true.

 

However one of the pioneers of changing this traditional British formation was a Yorkshireman - George Raynor. Read the book - The Greatest Manager England Never Had - he was the Brian Clough of his day but was shunned by England because he ‘coached’ players in a day where the Committee was the Manager.

 

Forgive the fact that he lived in Doncaster - he was a ‘traditional’ Yorkshireman of the time and had no significant affinity to any one club.

 

He ended up in Sweden after the war and took their ‘amateurs’ (they wouldn’t pick anyone who moved abroad and got paid - so he had to build 3 separate sides) to Olympic Gold in 1948 , bronze in 1952 and then his defining glory was he took them (as hosts) to the World Cup final in 1958.

 

He left a legacy of English managers in Sweden before he passed away with many upcoming coaches heading over there in the 70s - most famously Roy Hodgson.

 

My Uncle was another who made the move to Sweden and I was lucky enough to meet George Raynor before he died a few times after he’d moved back to Doncaster with his wife.

 

Amazing and really interesting story and could be argued that this was the time that England started to fall behind.

 

Raynor met with the England manager Walter Winterbottom prior to those Hungarian games and explained to him how Sweden had only narrowly lost to them by using certain tactics - but Winterbottom refused to listen!!

 

Great story, PJ

[Buxtongent]

Shows how short people's memories are. Of the published team, Megson was NOT Gary Megson, but his father Don, the first Captain to lead a losing Cp Final side on a lap of honour, and an excellent full back, far better than his son Gary. The 'Quinn' was npt Alan, but the much admired, by Wednesdayites, Johnnny Quinn, another excellent player.

The formation was the almost regulation set up in FL, with the GK. then in front the two full backs who's job was to curb the wingers, the half back line consisted of 2 half-backs alongside the Centre half (the spine of the defence, 2 wingers with a centre forward, along with 2 Inside Forwards who were the link between the defence and attack.. This was how all teams lined up, but the inside forwards and the wing halves would often interchange whilst in play. It may have seemed a rigid system but was far from it.

Incidentally, Gerry Young played in almost every forward position, but often CF, for us, up to the 'Bribery scandal' which lead to the transfer of Tony Kay to Everton. At this point, Young was used in a further position, that of half back or wing half as they were often called. It was in this position that he made a name for himself, gaining an England Cap. Young was from a place called Primrose Hill , just outside Jarrow on Tyneside. Apart from being a gentleman, he was a true footballer, playing in numerous positions for Wednesday, whom he adored. 

[Treborowl]

15 hours ago, WOLS said:

Yes all football teams lined up with this exact formation.  And if you were playing in a match you would know which one of these eleven positions you would be playing....and therefore you would know which number shirt you would be wearing because the numbers were fixed to a position (i.e.  11 was left wing, 7 was right wing, 9 Centre forward, 8 and 10 the inside forwards, 2 was right back, 3 was left back.  5 centre half, 4 and 6 were right and left half.  It all seemed to make sense at the time - but I was only a kid, and I can't remember if they actualy played in this formation.  Certainly when I played in a School match, we lined up like this at the start and had these positions in mind when we played - only two at the back.  Anyone else remember that or am I making it up?

They were pretty much fixed positions too. I think it was Don Revie who was instrumental in changing things a bit with his deep lying centre forward and early version of total football. Witness L**ds mauling Southampton about 6-0 or something and passing between themselves about 700 times before scoring one of the goals. Apologies if my facts are a bit fogged over now. Someone will correct me. Oh and didn't the Hungarians in the fifties play something revolutionary? I'm too young to remember.

[Triple O]

Around the time of that match the Blunts had Len Badger playing at right back. They mused about him being the best and nobody could get past him.

Then the Wednesday went to the Lane and Colin Dobson absolutely destroyed him. His face said it all, priceless.

[Sgt Wednesday]

Love this topic.

 

We still coach in reference to numbers, a number is a position, it doesn't matter what number you have on your back.

 

Many years ago everyone went with a 4-4-2.

 

2  - RB

3  - LB

4  - DM

5  - CB

6  - CB

7  - RM

8  - CM

9  - CF

10 - 2nd ST

11  - LM

 

It was much more simple then.

 

Playing 4-2-3-1 with 3 number 10s get interesting.

 

 

[Whatahoot]

This old formation was based on the ebb and flow of a game.  Some of the positions were static throughout the game specialist defenders in both full backs and the centre half ( he would go up for corners and some free kicks) but rarely in open play, apart from Peter Swan on the odd occasion . Other static positions were the two wingers and the centre forward. They were specialist goal scorers and crossers of the ball, with the ability,strength and speed to go past defenders to do so. A centre forward nor wingers would help out at corners or free kicks, but they would be ready to receive the ball to start the next attack. Occasionally , wingers would swap wings during a game.

The players who provided the "engine" to the ebb and flow were the two half backs and the two inside forwards, with the half backs having an eye to help defend, break up attacks and provide the stimulus to turn defence into attack, getting up to support the attack whenever possible too. The inside forward did the chasing back when an attack broke down and even some defending deeper when his team was under pressure, trying to break up their opponents attack before it got going so to speak. All four of these players, provided the ability to shoot accurately and pass well for their attackers, they were the main providers, along with the wingers. Within the half backs and inside positions, you would find players with an "edge" or doggedness to their tackling ( Hunter, Harris ,Bremner, Stiles, Tony Kay ,Gerry Young etc etc) and others who silky skills, fast feet, quick footballing brains ( Tom McAnnearrny, John Quinn, John Fantham, Bobby Charlton, BobbyTambling, John White, George Eastham,Jimmy Greaves, Denis Law etc etc.)

It was uncomplicated football, with a blood and guts, ebb and flow style to it, with many more individual contests going on around the pitch. It provided many more open and exiting games on a regular basis. Everybody knew their exact jobs and in the main, were specialists at it, with a few adapting between positions. There were some who could play a few positions really well however (Madeley of Leeds)

[GMOwl72]

17 hours ago, theowlsman said:

Gary Megson and John Pearson had long careers didn’t they?

 

You never know Gary could have been swimming about in his old mans onion bag couldn’t he? 

[trevdi9]

16 hours ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

This^^^^^^^^^

 

We used to call the right half and left half, half backs

 

And the inside right and inside left were the inside forwards

 

@trevdi9 will be able to explain it more because he's a lot older than me

cheeky git you could have said Nev he is even older and used to drink at the old wooden  Cross wi mosus   

[trevdi9]

loved tghat set up you knewwhat was required of you and knew what you had to do , lot better than this pass across the back for half the game which bores the arse off youy ,

 

[trevdi9]

6 minutes ago, trevdi9 said:

loved tghat set up you knewwhat was required of you and knew what you had to do , lot better than this pass across the back for half the game which bores the arse off youy ,

 

sorry about the s--t above wouldn't let me edit , so here we go . I loved that set up you knew exactly what you were doing feed the wingers  and get the ball across was the priority , you tended to get decent crosses in also , Rhodes et all would thrive in that situation  ,nowadays there is too much emphasis on keeping the ball and passing around at the back then unleashing the big boot up to whoever ,who then has the cb's all over them and is put under pressure straight away  , boring football tbh

[OWLERTON GHOST]

1 minute ago, trevdi9 said:

sorry about the s--t above wouldn't let me edit , so here we go . I loved that set up you knew exactly what you were doing feed the wingers  and get the ball across was the priority , you tended to get decent crosses in also , Rhodes et all would thrive in that situation  ,nowadays there is too much emphasis on keeping the ball and passing around at the back then unleashing the big boot up to whoever ,who then has the cb's all over them and is put under pressure straight away  , boring football tbh

Trouble starting the old Cortina (keyboard)up Trev?

[dlink]

Check on youtube  on tactics. 

[doubleo]

15 hours ago, torryowl said:

brown never quite settled on how to play ...he went out and got the best header of a football ive ever seen in Ritchie but then took him a while to realise we had  no fecker on the wing to  put the crosses in .he'd sold Dobson by then so kept bringing usher back but he was borderline useless.when brown left we  then got archie Irvine who  was even worse and we never did get the best out of Ritchie .  

What a silly thing to do -fancy spending a load on the best CF in the division and then not have anyone to cross the ball to him - what goes around comes around.