Page 2 Helmut Rahn (outside right): Crnkovic! Bozsik! I faced my hardest opponents during the World Cup in Switzerland. Especially the Yugoslavian Crnkovic in our 2-0 win in Geneva and Bozsik in the two games against Hungary gave me a hard time. Berni Klodt (outside right): Among my greatest opponents counts the French skipper Roger Marche, who marked me so systematically in our 1-3 loss in Hanover that I never got a chance. Since almost no passes into free space were adressed towards me I constantly had to face Marche in duels in which his experience was extremely useful to him. Max Morlock (inside right): Bobrow! Cajkovski! During the World Cup the two Yugoslavian half backs Bobrow and Cajkovski gave me the hardest time. Both of them are of absolute world class! Ottmar Walter (center forward): My hardest task was facing the gangly Yugoslavian center half Horvath. This technically outstanding player with his great reach of action and his smart tactical mindset gave me my hardest time. Fritz Walter (inside left): This is hard to answer. The Austrian Ocwirk, the Hungarian Bozsik and the Yugoslavian Cajkovski appeared to be the most fully developed players within their teams. Each one impeded their opponents due to their tactical shrewdness and elaborate finesse. But none of them was a downright defensive player hence they left me with enough space in build-up, which at first may look like an advantage but which soon became the opposite when they quickly joined the attack which forced me to rush back to defense. I must put all three of them on the same level by declaring them my hardest opponents in 1954. Hans Schäfer (outside left): Dogged Stankovic Without doubt the Yugoslavian full back Stankovic was my hardest opponent. He gave me a really hard time in the World Cup game in Geneva. He was fast, with first-rate positioning, was constantly breathing down my neck and I could only get rid of him by breaking out to the center or even to the right wing.
I think it is very possible that "they" had chosen putting these 2 players like this for : - Varela : was getting old + symbol of Garra Charrua. -Happel as an half : to underline his technical abilities with the ball/ vision, above everything else. That said maybe a line of halves consisting of Bozsik + Varela would look like a more complementary one, as a duo. But as a trio with the CB, I agree with the choice that has been made for that XI. Varela is the only one who brings a bit of "defensive agressivity" in this ideal XI and enhanced even by the symbol he was. So yes, I think it was well done like that. On the '50 team, maybe it should be a 2-3-2-3 (what would not be far of a modern 4-3-3, considering the chosen players, and even very offensive with two AMs. But they sticked to the W.M, probably considering that the readers would be able to understand it (with the help of reports) as at team with a right full back who covers all the right flank (Bauer, with Varela remaining very central, even if Bauer can block the centre/ centre-right as well) + a left-half who was able to defend and (moreover given that Nilsson should not be attacking much) who could also take an advanced position on the field (so like Bauer but even more near the sideline, so as the wing-half of of the precedent systems in history (who were not obligatory offensive that said, but here it is Andrade). Probably they didn't choose the 2-3-2-3 due to, first it was not used, second thing because it was connote too much defensive. So we can also see at the same time how the W.M eventually became a very flexible system at one point.