It seems that also at some teams in Spain the same transformation happened. Maybe not very strange given the close cultural links. I remember reading something about it in a old Real Madrid book (of the Puskas, Di Stefano era). Do you know more about it? Will look if I can find it again.
It was in the Real Madrid book of football (a British book). The 'bolt' is there called 'cerrejo'. The part in bold also confirms that the 'bolt' relates to the wing-halves and not to the (sometimes present) 'sweeper' (which is sometimes thought, that the bolt - the extra security - refers to the sweeper; hence a sweeper was indeed not an ingrained part of the system). " Should Real have their opponents back-pedalling, the advanced attack is suddenly augmented to five or six players. Or to less than four should the opponents be playing the "Cerrejo" - or "Bolt" - system of defence, which requires a more open method of attack. Because of its supreme and proved attacking potential, Real Madrid often meets the "Bolt" system. Before the Second World War, the "Bolt" system - introduced by the famous Swiss national team manager Karl Rappan - became, along Herbert Chapman's "WM", the best known system in the football world. Pulling the "Bolt" means that a team's wing-halves are used to cover the opposing wing-forwards. A full-back marks the centre-forward. The other full-back plays slightly behind his colleague, in case he should be passed. One of the wing-halves has to be mobile enough to get back even behind the second full-back, as a last reserve, should he be required. Meanwhile, the centre-half is busy in midfield coping with both inside-forwards, and naturally expects help when possible from his own inside men. Following this method, Switzerland had an excellent national team before and after the war, and proved that it is not just a defensive method; it all depends on the attitude of those who make use of it. Naturally enough, the "Bolt" can confuse any attack, even that of Real Madrid. The crowding of players in the goal area is in itself a nuisance. A forward's work is complicated if he cannot find room for manoeuvre, and his companions may be marked by even two defenders apiece! "
If this is intended as a question; Yes, I think the idea and intention was the same although "the Bolt" was not entirely seen as defensive and had room for more offensive variations. "Parking the bus" is ofc seen as an entirely defensive strategy. Mostly 'parking the bus' is associated with two banks of four and although some versions of the Bolt made it look like that (with only the wingers staying advanced), often it wasn't the case I think. How the defence operated looks very familiar though; with two CBs in the middle and two 'conservative' wing-halves (in modern day terms: full-backs) staying behind to such an extent that the wing-halves form a third hurdle to take (in case the second hurdle, the covering/sweeping CB, fails). That is not very dissimilar to a modern day 'parking the bus' strategy. I think this line-up of the defence and the 'attacking' centre-halve was the defining characteristic of the Bolt; apparently there was some freedom in how the other lines were arranged, leeway to such an extent that it was still recognized as 'the Bolt' by observers. Though many of those other lines had regardless of the options a 'rigid' job, obviously 'total football' with many position-swaps wasn't really the intention and option with such a defensive arrangement.
Thanks, yeah it wasn't necessarily a question sorry but just a thought/comparison of tactics from different eras. It's hard to know without watching the teams play and as you say the tactics could vary with the same basic formation but compared to some modern 'defensive' set-ups or even a 'solid' 4-4-2 it was probably not particularly defensive in terms of number of attacking players but in that era I suppose it was a defensive option moreso than an attacking one. The description of players being seemingly a bit suffocated by the number of defenders in and around the penalty area made me think of 'parking the bus' strategies to put it in (very) modern terms.
At the same time few players will know how to write a book and capture historical developments in a accurate yet fluid way, without distorting nuances. And with applying too much nuances, it seems as if there is no development. It is no easy job. Although there are invariably some things which I find too simplistic, overall I appreciate his writing and I never had anywhere the idea that he does a revisionist job; he doesn't fall in those ever present traps and PR-tactics. Of course, some chapters are 'better' as others.
Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes. Brian [Clough] Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/briancloug181410.html#FZzvLKUJas8GmpCh.99 !!
[My POINT was that Fritz Walter would' ve almost certainly made a better football/sporting writer than Wilson's would've been as a football coach/team manager...]
An update: The 1965 updated book made the following categorization: 1. The 'stopper-spine' system (WM system). With as major derivatives: - The four men attack - most notably Hungary, which is dealt in length. - The double stopper variant 2. The bolt system 3. The swinging-back system 4. The 4-2-4 system 5. "The cattenaccio (Italian bolt)" See here for 1948: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/a-brief-history-of-tactics.1269077/page-7#post-28070428 Regarded as obsolete were: - The orthodox system, although it is still mentioned in the historical overview of systems - The WM with defensive wing-halves, this is rarely used any more by 1965 - The old-fashioned Middle-European game, which had evolved in various directions although it isn't denied that WM executed by Austrians is different as WM executed by English. Elements and traces of it became incorporated in a few of the systems listed above. I also saw that Geoffrey Green in his "soccer in the fifties" book put the Hungarians down as a 3-3-4 as well (and interpretation that has already been mentioned in this thread). The picture of the line-up on page 22 is a 3-3-4, with Bozsik, Hidegkuti and Zakarias as the middle three.
[This sheds some further light on Sir Alf Ramsey possible thinking of the "penguin" formation as a latter day "W-M" variant IMO...]
This looks very fascinating, how contemporary observers saw the 2-3-5 system (Pyramid). If i understand well the two books you quoted, when defending, one of the wing-halves drop back to defense to form a de-facto back-three (for example, the right half-back whether the opposite attack comes for that side). In this scheme, the two pyramid full-back moved to his left to make space for the RWH which drop back to defense. The opposing movement, would played when the comes from the other side. I also remember read somewhere that the Pyramid Centrehalf could drop back to fill the gaps in defense (playing as a stopper in front of the two Pyramid FBs?) In any of those situations, in the defensive task, the Pyramid seems like a "light M formation". You also mentioned the offensive Pyamid line, playing in a "light W formation" (i supposed specially after the change of the offside rule) The interesting thing i found, is that the transition between Pyramid and WM, it seems not to "traumatic", in terms in how the players formed in defensive and ofensive under pyramid formation.
I think the nuance is the position of the centre-halve. In a post-offside change Pyramid the centre-halve has still attacking and creative duties. And like you say, the pyramid CH tended to mark/track the inside-forward when the opposition had possession (instead of tracking the center-forward). See also the scheme you quoted where the stopper takes on the inside-forward. Also: in this scheme the LM (left midfielder/wing-half) marks the winger whereas in WM a designated and schooled defender does this job. This in turn makes it also more likely that one (or both) inside-forwards still play as real forwards, which makes a 'light W formation'. After all, Chapman decided to pull back his IFs as a response to the gap that the centre-halve left in midfield as a result of his more defensive job. Accordingly, we also saw the surfacing of the first flanking&attacking full-backs like Eddie Hapgood who sought the attack through the side-lines (a defensive centre-halve provides some cover for doing so and 'pushes' the full-backs to the sides).
It would be interesting to know whether those defensive arrangements were worldwide applied or only for some nations.
The picture you see is the defensive arrangement of a 'pyramid' versus a classic WM opponent. Pozzo his Metodo did the same when they faced an WM-inspired opponent IMO (I think). The Metodo centre-halve (Luis Monti) tended to mark the center-forward when this CF had the tendency to play deep. See Danubian inspired Sindelar or Pyramid type center-forwards. Those opponents liked to work outside of the penalty area. But if the CF is a "battering ram" (as in a really orthodox and stereotypical WM-side) then the centre-halve cannot do this job. He doesn't feel comfortable. He would cancel his own offensive qualities as well. You cancel out one of the central players of the team, which the centre-halve was in a pyramid formation. So, to let him defend against an WM inside-forward still correspondents a bit with the area where he would battle with a Pyramid CF (avoiding the penalty area as battleground). Of course, this means that the battering ram should be defended by one of the full-backs, and one of the wing-halves will defend against a winger. Something which wing-halves often did in pyramid formations. Either way, I think a old-fashioned centre-halve (the Pyramid one) didn't face a stereotypical WM-type center-forward. Which makes such a defensive arrangement logical (depending on qualities of the wing-halve and where he feels comfortable). I also agree with you that changes from one formation to another weren't always very sudden ones. I can imagine that a "winger marking" Pyramid wing-halve wasn't too different from an overlapping WM-fullback like the above mentioned Eddie Hapgood. And I can also imagine that a 'constructive' center-halve with a good pass isn't too different from a WM wing-half.
Thanks for your thoughts, Puck I also supposed that Pyramid CH played in front of the two Pyramid Fullbacks (in the defensive phase). I was thinking when the opposing team attack at the center, moving near the box area, like you well said, and dependent of the rival's system they had a man to mark. btw, what do you read about "constructive" type of Pyramid Wing Halves or about the balanced ones (good in the defensive and ofensive task)?
Sorry, I don't know what you mean with constructive wing-halves. Maybe if you explain I recognize the term I grew up with, or I read.
I mean with constructive type of wing halves, with the ones which strengths were in the ofensive phase of the game, involved in the build up of attacks, more and less like the attacking CH, but in the sides. I guess weren't so much of them, and very few the balanced ones who excel at both (defending and attacking, for example Leandro Andrade). I was refereing to the Pyramid Wing Halves, btw.
[This is Alfred Gibson talking a bit about "pyramid"-mould W-Hs and the fact that Ernest Needham could function and thrive in both roles:] "4) Alfred Gibson, commenting on Ernest Needham in 1906. There is one thing which has made Earnest Needham stand out of the common run of halves; he is neither a constructive nor a destructive half-back alone; he is both at once. One moment you will see him falling back to the defence of his own goal, or checking the speedy rush of his wing; the next, he is up with his forwards, feeding them to a nicety, and always making the best of every opening. Where he gets his pace from is a mystery. He never seems to be racing, yet he must be moving at racing pace; he never seems to be exhausted, yet in a big game he is practically doing three men's work... This is one of the secrets of his greatness for very seldom when he has the ball is he deprived of it, whilst the accuracy of his wing passes, and the telling force of his punches straight across the field to an unprotected wing, spell danger to any kind of defence." [It's from this profile of Needham: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SHEFFUneedham.htm I really like the excerpt from "Association Football" where Needham (IIRC) talks about penalty-kicks being a new feature in the game...]
Where you can purchase "Needham's" excellent book that's quoted in the Spartacus profile: http://www.amazon.com/Association-Football-Needham-England-Sheffield/dp/1862230838 A must-have for almost any fan that has an interest in the history of the game...
Nice links Roy, Since there isn't much visual material about that era, is interesting to know how different (reliable) sources describe the Pyramid formation.
I now understand what you mean. What do you want to know exactly? Here they saw three types of pyramid WH, I think. The 'marking' type, you can say. The 'passing' type (indeed like a CH), and a 'runner' type (playing next or ahead of CH, joining attack; some attacking CHs also played like a 'runner' of course). Don't know what you want to have input about but in general terms I think that teams only played with one 'adventurous' type, if they did. Also, it had to be compensated elsewhere in the defensive scheme (the winger was otherwise left unmarked so they had to shift the scheme a bit). And both a 'passing' wing-halve and a 'passing' center-halve (like 50s Cor van der Hart over here) didn't work, I read.
I find interesting the term you used (i guess took from the books you quoted) and hardly disagree with the observations you made about balance in those old teams. For example, in Uruguay of the 20s, the "runner" type (and the adventurous one) must be Andrade, due to being a natural athlete (speed, stamina) also great skillset. Meanwhile the other two halfbacks were warriors, i think the CH with decent/good passing ability. In the Boca of 40s (still playing Pyramid formation), Lucho Sosa was another "runner" type of WH, great skillset too. Meanwhile Lazzati was great as a "passing" type at CH and Pescia great as the "marking" type. That should be the unbalanced -on paper- halfback's line i can remember from South America, but in fact, it was a strong and legendary trio.
The idea of a "runner" also existed about other positions like CF and IF positions. Also a CH could be a runner. It was also called a "wanderer" ('hiker', 'roamer'), something like that. But a "runner" is more associated with vertical movements I think as when it is said that a player (a CF) is a "wanderer". I think you already knew it but a running type of Pyramid WH doesn't mean that he (always) ran with the ball at his feet... It was also running forward without the ball ofc and then being ready to receive the ball and do something good. This terminology stuck and was also used after it became obsolete. When diving into the archives for the Cruijff thread I saw that some articles also called him a "runner" at his first few games (playing with #8 at IF position). A little bit later he took over the CF position (and same role at #9) when the 'better' choices were injured... and although he liked it to move to the wings, it took a while before he became (recognized as) a "runner" (again). I also think that a "wanderer" (roving type?) is more associated with playmaking duties, the ones who make the show, often with ball at their feet (which looks spectacular for the spectator). Though the distinction is not always clear, it are nuances of connotation. Yes, that 1948 book that is online says that too. A 'passing' type is in that book also called a 'pivot' (the center-halve is called a 'stopper-pivot' or 'attacking pivot' in case of more creative types). And it says that also IFs can become the 'pivot' when the CH acts as a (exclusive) stopper. Bottomline, I read that those 'constructive types' existed but it was compensated in the scheme AND you never had two of these constructive wing-halves in a side... Logically thinking, it is also hard to compensate for two wing-halves who aren't primarily busy with defending any more.