This is an article written by Brian Glanville where he talks about David Jack and why the "orthodox"-type of inside-forward was termed as such. Glanville also mentions that in his "W-M" variant playing days that Jimmy Greaves played off of a No.9 C-F as the "opportunist" inside-forward: http://www.tssonnet.com/tss2432/24320600.htm BTW, if anyone has trouble understanding how Glanville is using the term "striker", he explains it a bit in the article & just LMK if you need my help there...
This is a good article about "striker" term in the early days of new century (2000's). Now aday, people are adopted to that without questioning like Glanville did>
The terms Roy introduced are new to me so will describe them in my own words: Wilkes, Lenstra and Rijvers were all inside-forwards. It meant that one of them played as centre-forward, to accommodate all talents. Lenstra also played as left-winger for some exhibition matches but he, rightly so, didn't accept that. Rijvers is often described as the hard working, continuously running and also intercepting player, with a fierce shot (had arguably a better shot than Wilkes). Defensively, he did the most of the three. Beyond doubt. Wilkes was the dribbler and creator. He had some dynamism but hadn't the stamina of Rijvers. As the only of the three, he was fully ambidextrous. Wilkes is often compared with Johan Cruijff whereas Lenstra is often equated with Piet Keizer. This brings me to Lenstra: Lenstra was, unlike Keizer, the fastest of the three in a straight line sprint. At the same time, he was the most static player. He remained the most 'fixed' on his place. Lenstra was the intuitive player with an goal-scoring instinct. His technique has mythical status in Holland but that is also aggravated by that he is described as the most mysterious of the three and seen as the smartest, most cunning, also outside the pitch (just as Keizer who had also his philosophical moments). This is a good link to put into the translation machine: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2698...9029/2006/08/16/Peiling-Wilkes-fenomeen.dhtml
[This almost sound like the set-up of the three central forwards in a thrown-together side utilising the "classic" formation...]
Well, Holland explicitly used the WM-formation. They saw England as the foremost example at that time, that had to be copied. I forgot to say though that not all three were always available. It was quite amateurish at that time, therefore they could win from World Champions Germany but also loose against Saarland and Luxembourg. Rijvers has 33 caps (10 goals) between 1946 and 1960 (because Dutch FA banned professional footballers from the NT until 1954). He played 18 times together with Wilkes, 15 times with Lenstra. Wilkes has 38 caps (35 goals) between 1946 and 1961. He played 19 times together with Lenstra. Lenstra has 47 caps (33 goals) between 1940 and 1959. So therefore they did often play at their preferred position... But if all three were available, one of them had to perform as centre-forward, most of the times Lenstra.
Btw, the Belgian NT did use for a long time the 'classic' flat front line-up, with the prolific Jef Mermans as central striker. Their wingers though did a bit more defensive work than usual.
Mr Roy, I don't know how you or the English call it but I meant this formation: Although with a modified interpretation: wingers who helped defensively, and a half-back who had to drop deep as well. So, you get almost a 3-4-3! Don't know what you meant, sorry.
[This is an illustration of the "classic" formation: this and the so-called "pyramid" were essentially the same animal.]
Thank you for clarification mr. Roy. Question for you: how would you describe Jimmy Greaves. Glanville describes him as 'opportunistic' but did he not too much link-up play in order to describe him that way?
Yeah you mean like this I think (I'll just re-iterate you're referring to Greaves dropping to link-up play not Best - I think it's clear in your post but just so that nobody misunderstands) - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jYTLfukNUg&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?[/ame]v=5jYTLfukNUg&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s Here's the full video of the highlights: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jYTLfukNUg"]Spurs v Man Utd (1965) - YouTube[/ame] My impression is that Greaves would be as we've been discussing elswhere with other examples such as Eusebio or van Basten a prolific scorer but with very good footballing ability and that he'd not always be waiting as the last man to finish off the moves but sometimes get involved himself. The goal on that video where he dribbles from near half-way and scores is another example of this in itself. I think Roy would confirm that Gilzean would be the typical centre-forward in the team more responsible for holding the ball up and flicking it on etc (though Tottenham were a team that mostly kept the ball on the floor) as well as goals and Greaves was the goal-scoring inside-forward (the formation on the video is wrong I assume though as he and Gilzean at that time would be almost like twin-strikers; maybe Roy, comme or others can tell us more about how Clayton played but I'm assuming he was a midfielder in effect). Greaves probably did more in terms of playing through balls etc than Gilzean I assume though.
watch?v=5jYTLfukNUg&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s Sorry still having trouble with pasting a link to a particular point in video, but it's a short video anyway (34 seconds is the point I wanted! The above is the end of the correct address anyway)
Were english teams at that time gradually developing towards a two striker system you think? Where one of the inside-forwards had mainly a defensive job? ("deep lying" in the terms of Roy)
Yes I think so, though more creative than defensive probably. Roy has suggested that it in effect happened like that in earlier era's too though if a centre-forward was partnered by a goalscoring inside-forward such as Mortensen. And of course teams like Hungary with Hidegkuti operating as deep-lying centre-forward (whether or not you classify him still nominally as a forward or as an AM) had two central attackers too (Kocsis and Puskas in this case) although not a traditional centre-forward even if one of them such as Kocsis was a very good header and played something like a W-M centre-forward in some instances.
[These aren't simply my terms; this is what these positions/tactical roles were actually called in then-contemporary football lingo: that's why I've posted several links to quotes to that effect both here and elsewhere.]
[Something to remember about "Morty" when he lined-up as the "scoring"-type of I-F for England is that he almost always wore the No.9 shirt for Blackpool week-in and week-out: "Morty" wasn't a specialist as a "G-S I-F" for his club like a Johnny Nicholls or Jackie Sewell, for instance. I was lucky to see "Morty" play quite a few times for Blackpool, England and various "rep" sides of the day (Football Lge. XI, etc.); so if you have any questions about what he was actually like on a pitch just LMK...]
[That was due to the out-dated and unfortunate tradition of listing both sides' line-ups in the "pyramid" formation that was still the order of the day back then...]