Great explanations mate, For the last part, just saying that the Pyramid fullback played mostly dividing the last third of the pitch 50% for each other, the Right Fullback from center to the right side, and the LFB from center to the left side. So, when reading the contemporary reports or watching the few short highlights available, it can be see them making interceptions at the center of the area or by the sides (after the opposing FWs beat the halfbacks line) For the One Back System, i think it could be seen as a "kind of" sweeper+stopper combo, taking into consideration the context was totally different by then. I guess the team that adopted that system, lined-up more often "defensive-minded" wing-halves, unless they have a naturally gifted athlete as Jose Leandro Andrade or Ernie Needham having the stamina and technique enough to support the offensive phase too.
thanks a lot. thats a great tought. I didnt notice that. then,when they changed to 325, whats happen to full backs?become overlapping full backs like modern game?
The Pyramid Fullbacks when WM appears where placed wider (than their original position) as pure side defenders. The modern overlapping fullbacks, it could be said that appears with the upcoming of the back-4 (Brazil 58 -->), simply because there is an extra defender who cover him.
got it. so there always 2 man at the back right? so at 325 formation, the 3 back is different with modern 3 center back system? And what the center back do?he is alone,is he a sweeper?he cant be stopper right? Did 5 forward always contain 2 attacking midfield?
what made coach at that time didnt implent new formation, like 442 or 424/244? I mean dropping one of the strikers to become additional center half for 235 formation.
rule of thumb Football is a games of scoring the winner goal! 1- So in older days formation is heavily based on FW: 2 3 5 (5 FW) to 3 2 5 (still 5FW but a bit more in defense) 2- by 60's Thanks to Brazil team 4 2 4 , most teams started playing with 4 DF and 4 FWs and 4 3 3 gave birth 3- by 80's 4 4 2 came out (like you said: 2 FW dropped back to be 2 MF) 4- mid 80- early 90: 4 3 2 1 and 5 3 2 are domianant (5 DF and only 2 FW) 5- early 2000's -2010 : 4 2 3 1 more MF (5) to posession and 4 DF = more balance 6- 2010 to now: 4 3 3 is back to be dominant with some 5 3 2 (seen at WC14)
Try and put yourself in the defender's position (the 1-4-5 formation). You see the opponent with the ball in midfield, he gets lucky. Your team mates miss tackles and he's dribbling with the ball. There are no teammates. It's 1 v 1. He's a lot faster than you and he has the ball. Very bad situation.
I'm speculating but as Msioux75 previously said, you have to think about the game in the context of the attitude/situation at the time. Forget about what you see in modern football. This was probably an era of kick and rush football. Imagine you're a player in the early 1900s. You have to take into account things like the type of ball they were using. Balls weren't soft and light like they use today. They were difficult to kick/cross/and head. The fitness level of the players. The quality of the pitch. The type of clothes they use to wear as well as the boots. The speed of the players. As well as things like how referees called fouls. I'm just rambling here 4-4-2 put emphasis on possession. But would you want to put an emphasis on possession when the opponents adopt an attacking philosophy? They'll give you opportunities to score goals against them. So should you exploit that? The game was a lot more physical back then. Was it easy to retain possession without being clobbered by one of the players? I do know that they didn't call fouls like they do today.
What was the reason for pushing the Left FB instead of the right FB. Is it to "press against" the mostly right-footed/right side attacks (mainly from dribbling)?
I think Misioux just meant by the fact that N. Santos of Brazil in mid 50's was worldwidely regarded as the very first LB who made the "pushing forward" - following with Fachetti in 60's and Krol of 70s = all leftback by coincidence?
Sorry for the late reply. It's a difficult question to answer, but i'll try some possible explanations. I read that in some circunstances, the two Pyramid fullbacks swap their positions, the right FB making a covering to the left and viceversa. How often? I don't know. Another explanation, could be that in the case of the tactic of the called "One Back System" the displaying was the Right FB playing behind the Left FB, that's mean more a vertical display at defense than a side to side display. So, I don't think they give more importance to the right side of opposing attack than the left, by default. Unless the winger and inside forward partnership from one of the sides would be more dangerous than the other.
I'm an inconsistent poster as well. Think this tactic maybe a slight modification during half-time or tournament. It seems like a "going for broke" tactic or used during games where you really know the tendencies of your opposition. It maybe a misconception, but LB seems more attacking than RB throughout world football history.
Wondering how many of these guys started their youth career as strikers. Seems like facchetti was one during his youth days.
hello. I recently seeing 2 old matches. 1957 fa cup final, and 1968 champion league final. both are man utd playing in. I seeing big differences between them. 1957 sides seems somewhat disorganized. passing intercepted easly,or worse,pass directly to opponent. player often dribble ball,but then lost control of the ball. it does seems they play in amateur way, despite they got so many good player. almost got no shot,moreover on goal. while 1968 side seems closer to modern football. passing each other,good accuracy,reasonable dribble, and set pieces are far better do all team before 1960's play like that?and why?
No crossbar. Goals could be scored at any height. The rules did change fairly quickly, but these were the only laws concerning goalscoring and handling in the original laws of the game. 4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height), not being thrown, knocked on, or carried. 8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such a kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked. 9· No player shall run with the ball. 11. A player shall not be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another with his hands. 12. No player shall be allowed to take the ball from the ground with his hands under any pretext whatever while it is in play.
When watching games from the 1950s, one should always keep in mind that they most likely played with a ball that looked like this: That is an original ball from 1956. Also, the equipment they used, most of all the shoes, was equally low-fi. If you give that ball to the 1968 players, their passing might have looked less fluid.
I was going to say aside from the point about the ball (I think as they became more and more modern they could more easily be manipulated, especially in wet weather, and more shots and long range passes could be hit with only finesse as opposed to power indeed) but looking at the ball by used Hungary and England here it seems more modern to me rather than a white version of that..... Anyway, I was going to say aside from the point about the ball, if you want to consider the level of play shown by some teams in the 1950's perhaps these are good examples: England vs Hungary 1953 (some good English skills and play but as a cohesive team with individual skill Hungary were perhaps proving here they were the benchmark of that time): Brazil vs France 1958 (World Cup Semi - some very good and skilful French players too but Brazil the team to look at on the whole - equally you could watch the Final vs Sweden I'd say which is available too): So those games might help you decide whether it's as much a case of 1950's teams vs 1960's teams, or purely Manchester United of the 50's (Busby Babes) not being as good in possession as the eventual European Cup winners of the 60's. Maybe you will feel it's a bit of both even and that teams like Hungary and Brazil were outliers in the 50's more than they'd have been in the 60's. But in case you didn't know they were viewable I thought I'd post those games.
Not a surprise you might think that. In the 'Puskas on Puskas' book there are a few things about the balls (as I previously noted I think, Puskas preferred many of the older balls rather than the newer versions). Buzansky said: "The English balls were very different. When we first kicked them, it felt as if you were kicking something made of wood. Our balls were softer, more sensitive. So we tried to get used to the English ones."
Interesting, thanks. So whether the (older I assume) brown balls differed a lot from the white ones or not, it's interesting to know that the Hungarians were used to playing with a lighter ball (perhaps why they had more lightweight footwear too, as remarked on by some English players). Anyway, they adapted pretty well that day!