Let me guess - you got the part that Germany used the WM-System at the 1934 World Cup from that article? That is something that usually escapes the British soccer writers you listed above. I was very pleased to see that mentioned in your article on the WM-system!
Yes that's right I did get that (and a few other bits) from there. Another book I used which I forgot was The Complete Book of Football by Chris Hunt. Quite a lightweight tome, but has the formations for every WC and Euros final in it, which is helpful. Hardy Grune's EM Encyclopedia is also useful for formation of the Euros. Just to respond to Cirdan's point about marking. This was primarily a history of formations, because it was intended to help explain the positions to go along with my list. So I didn't go into a great deal of detail about marking or tactics within the game. That was one of the reasons that I left out some of the innovations some of the Soviet coaches (Maslov, Arkadiev, Lobanovsky) made, because they were primarily about style of play rather than formation.
[Just FYI, comme: England's first home loss (outside of the Home Internationals) to foreign opponents was actually a 2-0 defeat @ Goodison Pk. in Sept. of '49 against the Rep. of Ire. The Hungary '53 defeat was England's first loss to foreign opponents @ WEMBLEY, not the first defeat against foreign opposition @ home. Just thought I'd drop that in, VERY well thought out & written series of posts/article, however.]
At the present, this is - by far - my favorite point in the history of football tactics. I'm enamored with both Matthias Sindelaar's style as well as his place within the history of the game. I love the idea of a Danubian school. I'm also a huge fan of the stories surrounding Jimmy Hogan. The folk tale of how he convinced a German audience of the importance of technique in soccer is a personal favorite. Apparently, a German-speaking audience scoffed as Hogan clumsily tried to explain his system to them in German. At last frustrated, Hogan rips a shot into a wooden board with his laces. When the ball returns on the rebound, Hogan smashes the ball with his other foot - first time - and breaks the wooden board to bits with his second strike. Only then did the audience understand what Hogan meant by "superior technique" in playing the ball. True or not, I always chuckle at remembering that.
First of all, thanks for this great thread. There were things I knew about, but I've still find out so much from it (especially about pre WWII formations). I have one question (for now). I would like to know is this correct formation for Lisbon Lions (small, thin white arrows shows movement of players while attacking; blue, chunky arrows show level of defending, light blue arrow mean medium defending, dark blue arrow mean hard defending): http://i35.tinypic.com/30clwd3.jpg 1. GK - Ronnie Simpson, 2. SB (R) - Jim Craig, 3. SB (L) - Tommy Gemmell, 5. CB (R) - Billy McNeill, 6. CB (L) - John Clark, 4. CMF (R) - Bobby Murdoch, 10. CMF (L) - Berti Auld, 7. WF (R) - Jimmy Johnstone, 11. WF (L) - Bobby Lennox, 8. CF (R) - Willie Wallace, 9. CF (L) - Steve Chalmers. Bare in mind it's pretty roughly done, because something similar shows before the game with Inter begins. *** Thanks in advance for the answer. P.S. I hope this is the right place to ask this question.
Great thread, great post, great knowledge comme ... Can I post your article in another webboard (not in English)?
Great reading! It seems like "the Pyramid" system has flat lines. But with a more diligent reading, it wasn't flat. In the classic 2-3-5, before offside rule, fullbacks would watch out for the central trio of forwards. In some cases, one FB alongside the other. In other countries prefered line-up, one FB behind the other (i.e Nasazzi as sweeper) The Side Halves (Right & Left) were mainly a mix between Lateral Defenders & Wing Backs (with the ball possesion). And the CentreHalf was a mix between DM & Withdrawn Playmaker (if we draw it, it would with a arrow go forward), he was know as Attacking C-H. The 5-line forwards were supposed to play in the same line, but Centre Forward used to lead the forward line. So, C-F played deeper than the other 4 forwards. But, also played as a striker. He has another mix role. After outside rule changed, the main variation on Pyramid system, was the deeper role of I-F, as a link men (closer to Italian Mettodo or WM, offensively). Uruguayan team at 20s was the better example. Some nations assumed this variationof Pyramid formation. This is another great reading by Gregoriak https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=908356
That's supposed to be a "dream team" : "the best defense system is to attack opponent first" ! Football is all about scoring possesion and then ... scoring goals And 2nd team:
The most offensive system was the Pyramid Formation: 2-3-5 In this old system, 4 & a half men, were supposed to did deffensive work. Since WM, were 5 men in deffensive work. And in modern times, at least 6 men. How many deffensive men had you pick up?
First, the pyramid was dead LONGTIME ago for it's premature structure LIMITS coaching tactics as football game evolution toward: more speed, everyone running to close down the space. The Pyramid cover the LENGTH but so EXPOSED in the WIDTH (of the pitch) especially riht behind the midfielder! So in TODAY games (starting mid 70 onward) only the formations that could cover the whole ground would survive namely 4 4 2, 4 3 3 and 4 2 3 1 - Note that the last formation was nearly used in 70% from club to country. Secondly: Not sure if you know the difference between formation and tactic/strategy? Formation is just a structure related to the team/squad available under your coaching. Strategy/tactic shall be varied regardless the formation to cope with different opponents. For example, 4 3 3: while Brazil 4 3 3 and Barca 4 3 3 were fulforce in attack. Chelsea played also 4 3 3 formation but with a total negative football = defensive and counter. 4 4 2: In 90's: While ManU and Milan 4 4 2 were attacking oriented, INter 4 4 2 was prety much catencacio 4 2 3 1 : while Real galacticos, or Bayern (present) were so attacking, France98-2000 were very defensive oriented.
In all cases you mentioned 1 or 2 DM help the 4 men on deffense (in some cases: 3 + 2wing backs). So, in worst case is "5 deffensive men", like i said before.
Yes something like that In theory, 4 2 4 was the perfect formation with 6 attack and 6 defense. However, the old style 4 2 4 lack of WIDTH COVER (with only 2 midfielders in between) so the 4 2 3 1 (a modified one) was born and became most popular with 6,7 in defense (1 winger needs to trak back) and 4,5 in attack either fullback will go up to attack (2 midfielder stay put)
I agree, in modern football all players must help at defensive work, also in offensive movements. But still are necessary especialist, players which MAIN WORK would be deffensive work or offensive. In most history of the game it has been: - 5 especialists on deffensive work & - 5 especialists on offensive work. That's what i'm refering for.
I said agree on "most" but not all especially the games became so "negative" along the years and of course the formation would have changed to cope with it! 1- Formation (from GK to ST): from 2 3 5 --> 4 2 4 --> 4 3 3 --> 4 4 2 --> 4 2 3 1 (or 4 5 1) If you look at the last digit, it becomes smaller and smaller (from 5 to ... 1) Secondly, take WC as a good example of football trend: if you look back in recent times (last 20years) since WC90, you would see more WC winners were defensive teams: Germany90, France98, Italy06 and Spain02, 4 Defensive vs 2 attacking teams in (both) Brazil94 and 2002.
In 2-3-5 formation: The 2 FB were deffensive From the 3 mids: C-H was 1/2 deffensive (DM) & 1/2 offensive (deep lying playmaker) The 2 S-H, played as wingbacks but also as Side Backs when defending. They were in charge for opposite outside forwards. So i'd say it was 4.5 men deffending. In 4-2-4 formation: One mid was deffensive (Zito in brazilian teams) The other was offensive or playmaker (Didi) In this case were 5 men deffending. In 4-3-3 formation: One mid was deffensive The other 2 were offensive (in euro teams one of these played box-to-box) In worst case were 5 men deffending. In recent years also increased to 6 men deffending.
Nice discussion about formation, James. I agree with you in 2 particular points: 1. Formation is not the same as tactics/strategy, and your examples are good. 2. When talking about "dream teams", forget about the "balance" thing. Of course it is important when you want to win at any cost, but who cares about conceeding 5 when you can score 6 or 7? An "attacing-minded" team, at least in fantasy, could do that. But I didn't understand when you say: Do you really mean these brazilian sides were attacking (especially 94)???
I agree that formations can show different football, due to strategy (offensive/deffensive minded) depending which players fill in each position. Personally i liked offensive football, but the thing is, real game has their balance through the history (at least on paper), like i quoted before. The closer on pitch to a "dream team" were the FIFA-XIs, and all those line-ups, had 5 men deffending & 5 men attacking. http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-xi.html The best for deffensive work & the best for offensive work. Each player did their job their know better.