https://www.kicker.de/weltmeisterschaft/spieltag But you have to translate the website with your browser from German language.
I would just urge caution for this. It seems to fit historical teams into a default formation regardless of how they played. For instance it has Brazil 1958 in a 2-3-5 when they clearly played 4 in defence.
It's quite remarkable how this unfolds. You're left in the dark about the actual dynamics of the matches because they employed a 2-3-5 formation, a system that had fallen out of favor for over two decades. To me, this presents a significant hurdle into tactical analyses: the newspapers weren't trustworthy, so even the recollections (and consequently some databases) preserved from that era are distorted when they reach us.
Hi everyone, I was reading an old newspaper (Jornal dos Sports, from Brazil) and saw that the 2-3-5 system functioned almost like a 4-3-3 -- the picture is attached. The half-backs played very wide, the full-backs acted as "centre-backs" — one covering and the other pushing forward — and the inside forwards were almost like today's midfielders. The exception is that, in some situations, the attacking line formed a wedge shape, with the centre forward becoming a sort of playmaker and the inside forwards forming a 'strike partnership.' Extrapolating from this, is it too far-fetched to say that tactical systems are more about terminology than a drastic change in movements on the pitch? For example, why do we call the 4-4-2 a 4-4-2 when we could call it a "4-2-4 with withdrawn wingers"? Similarly, the 4-2-3-1 sometimes functions as a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-1-1, depending on the players available. I wanted to understand from you, who seem to know more about the topic, if this deduction makes sense. Cheers!
At club level already in the 1950ies 4-3-3 resembling systems were used in central Europe, especially Austria and Hungary, but also in South America. Happel was the one (obviously from his Austrian knowledge) who developed it in the Netherlands into what we nowadays know as the Dutch 4-3-3 Total Football system. The football world only started noticing it in the WC1974 Orange Squad campaign, ignoring the fact Dutch football since 1969 dominated club football worldwide with it winning club European and world cups. Yes it is, as 4-3-3 is basically a completely different approach from systems like 4-2-4 before it. What you nowadays see, like 4-2-3-1 etc. arenot new systems. They are 4-3-3 systems. In Total Football, as the Orange Squad'74 and'78 demonstrated, the shape shifts depending on the situation on the pitch and players swapping spots. Formations like 4-2-3-1 etc. basically are ridgifications of 4-3-3 formations based on specific player capabilities, or answering specific opponents qualities.
In here you find some insights on your question: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson I however disagree with the writer's perception that 4-2-3-1 is derived from 4-4-2.
Which year is that "old newspaper"? Because, when each system it started is well known, but the newspapers/magazines continues writing lineups in a 2-3-5 formation (in text not diagram) up into the 1960s. Answer is, because shirt ordering or understanding for readers, i don't know.
I forgot to attach it. It's actually a Brazilian sports newspaper, Manchete Esportiva, from 1955. Looking at the pyramid tactic diagram, you can see that the last defensive line wasn't just two players, but almost four. The half-backs were slightly more advanced full-backs. So it's strange to see how people call it 2-3-5: it is not exactly a full offensive formation.
When it comes to formations with five defenders, like the 3-5-2 and 3-4-3, are they direct descendants of the WM? How do you see this 'evolution'? [I’m not really a fan of this idea of the ‘tactical evolution of football’; it feels a bit too teleological to me]. To me, the modern 3-4-3 with two inside forwards behind a central striker resembles a modified 4-2-3-1, as one of the wingers typically acts more like a traditional winger rather than a full-back. The 3-5-2 seems like a more defensive variant of the 4-3-1-2, where one of the midfielders is replaced by an additional defender.
I've no clue if that's the case. However in my opinion all three you mention are nothing but adaptations of the 4-3-3 formation, which happen on the pitch during a match, or as a rigidfication from the start as an adaptation/reaction to players or opponents capabilities. So basically it depends from one's starting pov. I don't see any tactical evolution, because all three mentioned are present on the pitch in a 4-3-3 formation, depending on the situation unfolding in the game. The Dutch clubs and the Orange Squad since 1969 tended to put in the defense a player who was capable of performing midfield tasks at a high level. So when an opponent went into defensive mode, we reacted by pushing an extra player into the midfield zone, thus eliminating the opponent's defensive advantage.
The text and diagram explains how (brazilian?) teams before 1925 (offside rule change) got opposing team in off-side, moving a full-back (#3) close to halfbacks line. A tactic, played by Walters bros, Bill McCracken, etc.
This is fair. A lot of the time the changes are more to do with terminology than being radical changes. As you say, the role of wing halves in a 2-3-5 is not all that different to the role of full-backs/wing-backs in a 4-4-2. One person’s 4-3-3 might be very similar to another person’s 4-4-2. Some changes really matter and others don’t. Nor are lots of tactical elements actually due to formation but instead are based on style of play.
Yes, but the point is: the 'evolution' from 2-3-5 to 4-3-3, for example, can be seen as a natural progression, rather than simply the 'eureka' moments of coaches or players. Each tactical system contains elements that hint at future developments, such as the 2-3-5 and WM anticipating certain aspects of the 4-3-3: the attacking wing-halves, the 'creative' inside forwards (which in Brazil became the ponta-de-lança [attacking midfielder]), the offside trap. Instead of focusing on key moments that transform one system into another, it might be more insightful sometimes to consider a universal platform that has always been present in football. This perspective highlights how our understanding of the game evolves, yet consistently draws from previous concepts, much like a dialectical process. In this sense, I believe that much of the discussion (and somewhat the amazement of critics) in modern football about the stratification of tactical systems (4-2-3-1, 3-1-4-2, 3-4-1-2, and so forth) can be somewhat limiting when it comes to understanding these historical movements in the game. It often seems as though these developments appeared suddenly and independently.
Largely supporting your point, in "Escola Brasileira de Futebol" PVC (Paulo Vinicius Coelho, one of Brazil's foremost soccer journalists) does a sort of Brazilian version of "Inverting the Pyramid" but the threads that connect his chapters and thoughts aren't formation changes in chronological order. Instead, the chapters jump from one era to another for him to talk about role changes and sometimes a role that he talks about in the 70s, connects back to something earlier or leaps forward to something in the future. He does talk about formations and points out that newspapers still lined teams up in the 2-3-5 long after it was out of use. But what defines the Brazilian changes and the Brazilian system he writes about are the roles and how teams evolved by moving players around either to accommodate their talent or handle opponents. The formations don't tell you the key points like what a "quarto-zagueiro", "volante" or "ponta-de-lança" are and how they evolved in Brazil. But knowing those things explains why some Brazilian central defenders play like David Luiz, why our midfields eventually got split entirely into offensive and defensive (despite a lot of versatility throughout history) and how many different types of wingers you can have and so on... (so a 4-3-3 doesn't tell you much on its own about those wide players).
I do think Guardiola has veered remarkably closely to going back to a WM system at times of late; similar in set-up and playing style to the way the Rest of the World played it vs England in 1953 arguably (but arguably Kubala and Vukas were more part of the 'attack' than the 'midfield' and that's a subtle difference in tactic? - in essence still playing as two more advanced players of a box ahead of Cajkowski and Ocwirk though, and even with Nordahl opertating on that day in a slightly Kane-esque false 9 way in some respects) England vs. Rest of the World 1953 | Footballia How Guardiola Revived a Century Old Tactic - YouTube (Not to say there are no new aspects or innovations in his version, albeit of course a player such as Beckenbauer has acted in a similar kind of fashion to Stones in terms of altering position from a nominal centre-back placement) It was already being discussed in 2016 (moreso in terms of using wing-backs pushing up and Fernandinho dropping back though, and for sure it seems likely Guardiola was influenced by Cruyff using 3 defenders at times in a 3-4-3 diamond, or a 3-3-2-2 such as how Barcelona lined up in the 1992 European Cup Final) How Pep Guardiola is putting a modern twist on a British classic at Manchester City - TNT Sports FC Barcelona vs. UC Sampdoria 1991-1992 | Footballia From the Vault: Barcelona win the last European Cup final at Wembley | Champions League | The Guardian Barcelonas historic 1992 European Cup opened door for dominant era - ESPN
I get the impression that, regarding City's use of a WM formation, it’s more of a Cruyffian legacy than a revival of the old WM movements. Remember, the midfielders in the WM were more link players than actual playmakers — the WM was, in essence, a formation better suited to counter-attacking than the 2-3-5. So looking at Guardiola's use of this formation, it reminds me more of how Ajax played in the 1970s. In the video below, Cruyff explains, for instance, how he always played with a 4-3-3 (with a 4-3-1-2 as a variation) during his playing days and, in some situations, Ruud Krol (the left-back) would drop into midfield to create more passing options — a move that’s more reminiscent of Barcelona's 3-4-3 in 1992. Finally, Krol's dual role is somewhat similar to Stones' at Manchester City these days, which is why I believe Guardiola's WM has more in common with Ajax's style than the old 3-2-2-3 formation.