Brazil94 team was not an "all attacking" team to Brazilian standard - it's true However relatively to European style and their good performance (a bit surprising) at WC94, I think they can be considered as an attacking team. Regarding my "dream team" , do not forget that Cruijff, Didi and Di Stefano could defend very well if neccessary. I can assure, Cruijff and Didi could do better defense in midfield than Xavi and Essein. Plus, Pele and Maradona were also good (enough) in tacking back and do defensive work if required. lastly, Beckenbauer + Scirea + D.Santos could cover any hole and stop any attackers in the world ... (as they already got the best attackers on their side) With Maradona + Cruijff + Pele + Garricha in midfield, I am sure that the opponents won;t have any chance to disposess their ball, and they shall be kept so busy to defend their own half - no time to attack such a team, so why worry of the defend quality or how many to ddo defend work!
James, I think even this 90's All-Europe team of mine could give your side a run for their money - ----------------------Schmeichel---------------------- ---------------Desailly----------Baresi----------------- --Thuram-------------------------------------Maldini-- ---------------Matthaus--------Rijkaard---------------- -------------------------Zidane----------------------- ----Figo--------------------------------------Giggs---- -----------------------Van Basten--------------------- Thats cause your team's too unbalanced
you think the likes Figo, Giggs and Basten will have a chance to touch the ball in order to give any danger (at all)? I don;t think so. Basten will be so isolated in front (may be touch the ball 3,4 times/90mins) while Giggs and Figo will have to go back and help Thuram/Maldini on the flank! Rijkaard ,Mathaus. Thuram and Maldini with run out of juice in second half to keep marking/chasing Maradona/Pele/Cruijff/Di stefano and Garrincha The level is so different - with my team! Sorry My team will beat at least 5-0 easily. WHy? ======================================= The problem of your team: 1- Giggs/Figo were no contest with Cruijff and Garincha on the flank so their present were just a waste - as they were better in attack and just so average in defense. SO they got NO BALLS to play. 2- NO one in your team can score from outside the box 3- If you see the only player who can score good is Van basten (as the otehrs have a bad record in scoring) and he was kept isolated. (that is why I said your team will lose 0-5 or more as they will be so busy defending and not able to score from any angle) In the other hand, any one from my team can score at any angle, any minutes, in or outside the box! Plus, my team quality in ball possesion/control is just another level from yours!
An old argentinian legend said something like this, when he retired and became manager: I believe during all my player career, that the thruth in football was did driblings, driblings and driblings, and gets OLE from fans. How wrong i was, and i realized very late, because you can dribble 1, 2 but the 3rd defender came and blows you (te hace volar) Tim (a famous player & Jogo Bonito's fan), after the 1st match managing "Los matadores" - San Lorenzo 68, and seeing their players doing dribbles, rabonas, backwheels, etc, meeting to all and said: So, you liked the circus, eh!. Well, first we get 2 goals advantadge, and then you came with the circus, OK And San Lorenzo, became National champion that year
Pele, Maradona, Cruijff, Ronaldo and Di Stefano were NO circus player surely. Garrinha could over-dribbling a few times but damn he was good at it, so what? Please these palyers all palyed for best teams/club at their time, and they are NO San Lorenzo!
Extract from page 14 "Inverting the Pyramid" by Jonathan Wilson. Extract from page 32 "Inverting the Pyramid" by Jonathan Wilson. So, this info in Wiki, explaining the Pyramid system, took wrongly the 1st extract, in which the autor explained an curious match playing a 4-1-5 system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football) The right explanation about Pyramid it's the 2nd extract: * Right & Left FULL Back marked Inside Forwards * Right & Left Halves sat on Wingers
[Technically it was the right and left FULL-back ("pyramid" form. positional terminology), but you are 100% correct, mate; and kudos to you for posting this information.]
Thanks mate, It seems, some people are weakness. Like the autor said in the prologue, some terminology of the Pyramid generated confusing on non-british fans. Right (Left) Full backs are different to Right (Left) Back. Most people, supressed the word FULL before Back. Who means a different position, since WM to modern system. Also Attacking Center Half related to Pyramid System, was a mid. And Center Half, since WM to modern system, refering to a Centerback. This is a link for the original source. http://es.scribd.com/doc/44237500/Inverting-the-Pyramid-Formated-for-Screen .
Football started out that way , only last 2 decades footbal became so negative as many teams defensive teams winning like France 98-00 Greece04, Italy06 plus ACmilan UCL03 Porto UCL04, InterUCL10 to have changed the game ..
WC 1934 Final match This link is for a report by Il Litorale, for the final match in WC'34: Italia vs Czechoslovakia. http://dlib.coninet.it/bookreader.php?&f=2032&p=1&c=1#page/2/mode/2up Note the comments for duels: Ferraris IV vs Puc Kostalek vs Orsi
I want to strongly mention the 3-5-2 tactics, I hope I don´t destroy this wonderful thread with this . In Germany of the 1980´s and 1990´s nearly all teams have played this tactic. The most crucial position was the sweeper (libero). Sometimes mature defensive midfielders have applied for this position, for they had the experience and vision needed. You could play attacking players on the outside positions, then you would have at least two defensive players in the central midfield. If the outside players were more defensive ones, you could play two attacking players in central midfield. The biggest advantage of this tactic was, that you did not necessarily need specialized players. Sometimes, the lineups only would show strikers and defenders, with some of the defenders playing in defensive midfield and some of the strikers playing in attacking midfield positions. 3-5-2 was so broadly accepted, the coaches would even play it with all players available for other systems. 1990: ---------------Illgner--------------- ------------------------------------- -------------Augenthaler------------- ------------------------------------- ---------Buchwald-----Kohler--------- ------------------------------------- Berthold-------Matthaus--------Brehme ------------------------------------- ---------Littbarski---Hassler-------- ------------------------------------- ---------Voller-----Klinsmann-------- By the end of the 1990´s, all teams were then proud of leaving this tactic behind as if they stopped smoking, and it has been out of favor ever since.
The following are excerpts from "Kicker" magazine's reports on some German games during the 1934 World Cup. The special attention is on the newly applied WM-system. FROM THE REPORT GERMANY VS. BELGIUM 5-2 By H.J. Müllenbach A victory for tactic Among the many systems available to the Federal sports teacher Otto Nerz, he selected one and established it: the center half has to play defensively, to act as third back, primarily to block the route to the German goal and basically not to act offensively at all. The half backs have to do that. Their task is to support the attackers as much as is needed. Not more, because the attackers must be good enough to develop the offensive play themselves. This, in short, is the system of the German team, the way it proved itself in the game against Derby County and the way it now has stood a severe test in the battle against the Belgians. One may be apt to examine this system in view of its chances of success but we’d consider such examination as wrong. Every tactic is good… … when it is played to perfection. The federal sports teacher is of course right when he states that in the long run no system can prevail which is pitted against eleven technically first-class players and that in the end the men have to prove their worth in the fight against men. But it is something completely different to assess a system according to it laying the foundation of a beautiful game or only the foundation of a successful game or even if it lays the foundation for perfection: beautiful and successful. I think no one will deny that the German system is not beautiful, because it does not allow the game to blossom, because primarily it is set up to destroy. Additionally, the idea is not “how to create goals” but “how to avoid goals”. In Florence the team strictly stuck to that presetting: Szepan was the third back From beginning to end the system was applied with doggedness and consequence and Szepan did not allow himself to be lured out of his position. He stood grimly at the back between the two full backs, which were position far out wide and whenever a dangerous attack was coming, this trio tightened, blocking the way, their mind only on destroying. They complemented one another very well, the three at the back in the German penalty box, they didn’t cross each others paths, well tuned to one another, in this regard the system worked excellently. Would we have played better against the Belgians if we had applied a different system? Today this is a question which cannot be answered and which shall not be answered. The wit of a system is – among other things – that it must be able to adapt to the ways of the opponent. Defense alone does not suffice Let us enunciate this right here. The cause and the blame however is not the system’s, but the odd attitude of three backs: None dared a hearty long and liberating pass. Occasionally it was appalling, the short passes in the box, the headers from man to man oftentimes over marginal distance from the German goal. In this playing style the nucleus of a not even impossible German defeat was looming. This defense made us all feel desperate and – much worse – it was responsible that the necessary calmness would not take hold of the team. Everytime the Belgians moved up front, danger was coming. And if the Belgian forwards had been better in the first half (except for the terrible fast Voorhoof), then this German defense and its style of play defeat would have been unavoidable. FROM THE REPORT GERMANY VS. SWEDEN 2-1 System and tactic The system it seems has already become second nature of our team. Already at kick-off one sees the full backs and the center half position in one straight line, the two half backs position themselves such that one could think there were two center halves. And this is how it goes the whole game through. Did it prove of value? Again, it did. We won. The Swedes, who had scored four goals against Poland a fortnight ago and three against Argentina on Sunday only managed to score once against us. And our forwards once again staged attack after attack. No one would have been astounded if this attack in the second half had scored as many goals as against Belgium. The chances were there. Partly they were wasted, partly they were parried masterfully by the Swedish goalkeeper Rydberg. Fabulous how this man saved his team, how he grabbed the balls from the most distant corners. He already played twice against German, in the 0-0 and the 0-2 defeat. Thus for the first time our forwards were able to score against him. The Schalke center half, Fritz Szepan, was very excellent. He was the best man in our team and together with Rydberg, the best man on the pitch. We were also surprised, how well Szepan played. The Swedish center half did not emerge. Szepan was too safe, he gave him no chance to become dangerous, he was fast enough always to close in on him. One time, before the break, it urged him to support the attack, there he left his cage. It was a sensation to see Szepan play center half: he unfreezed in midfield, went over the midline into the opposing half. But the direct passing of the Swedes, their long passes always drove him back. For the rest of the game, he heeded his instruction of defensive play, of which he is convinced. FROM THE REPORT GERMANY VS. AUSTRIA 3-2 A different system – a different line-up During a conversation in Rome, the Federal sports teacher Otto Nerz announced that the German team would be up to a surprise in the last game. “We want to”, he said, “show here in Italy that we can play a different system than the W-system". The Federal sports teacher did not tell us more about this in Rome, one could only learn that this different system was about to be applied due to the arrival of Münzenberg, and it was regretted - even by the German FA - that this system had not been applied already in the game versus the Czechoslovakians. When the German FA informed us about the lineup, one had to be taken aback: now Münzenberg made sense, as Szepan had worked enormously in the last three games. Also against Janes as full back no one protested, as he could easily perform on Haringer’s level versus the Swedes and Czechoslovakia. But what was Szepan to do in the forward line? Our system in Naples Hitherto our team played with three backs, two half backs and five forwards. In Naples the formation was different: three backs, three half backs, four forwards. Szepan was the second center half, or to put it better, an advanced center half. The “withdrawn” center half, Münzenberg, had the task to cover the opposite center forward, to not let him get the ball. Szepan was tasked to hinder the opposite center half at building up and to devote himself to the built-up of the German offensive play. With each minute passing, Szepan grew into his task, and the Schalke player proved via this play to be the currently most valuable German player. Szepan in Naples was the best man on the pitch, the soul of the German team and also its spirit. In the first half he was the undisputed leader and conductor of the attack. His spraying of the ball put into play our two fast and dangerous outside forwards. From the back he built-up, conducted, from the back the ideas came into the German attack, and these four upfront were willing and full of enthusiasm to follow these ideas and to disburden the backline with clever play. After the break Szepan was the undisputed leader and conductor of the whole team. Then, when the order was to withstand the hustle and pressure of the professional players, when the order was to rob each Austrian the possibility for a dangerous built-up by means of cautious and canny positioning and marking. Here, too, Szepan grew into his task. Here his teammates were looking out for him, looking for his overview, his restless sacrifice. We have to thank Szepan that these hot ten minutes after the equalizer passed without success for the Austrians.
Nice post Gregoriak! Is very interesting to read how Germany change to WM in mid 30s. I didn't know about the system for the 3rd place match against Wunderteam, looks like a mix. - Like a WM on defensive roles. - Like a "Danubian School" on offensive roles, with Szepan playing the Sindelar role of a withdrawn forward, a bit deeper.
Yes, very good post-- It's always interesting to read sports analysis from way back when. The terms and the positions and the names change, but the sport essentially remains static. The description of the playing style and formations actually reminded me of watching my university women's soccer team play last fall with a similar formation. It all relied on the third defender (she was very good) always covering the other two. Most of the games were 1-0 wins or losses, but it was still pretty fascinating to watch in light of the modern game. It also makes me think of a piece our blog wrote recently, taking old formations and breaking down what would happen if they were implemented in a squad today. We took the catenaccio of La Grande Inter and debated why such and such player should be the sweeper, such and such player the inside forward, etc. Feel free to check it out if you want: http://theother87.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/formation-renovation-inter-1964-1967/
Interesting Blog there. I like concept and also the Cruyff quote which gave your Blog its name. You're talking of the slow pace of the Inter side in '65, but Italian teams always had a slower pace than e.g. Northern European teams plus the pitch - as you pointed out - was soaked which always slows down pace.
Do you have a source that says that Sindelar was a withdrawn centre-forward? I haven't seen any that state that he was one.
I've seen it more than a few times in Jonathan Wilson's work for the Guardian. I can't link to it, but I think I have the file... ...here: From what I can tell, he an Bican used to interchange for Austria. Sindelar starting high and dropping deep. Bican starting deep and making runs high and through.
Wilson's blog entry from the Guardian's site: [This is the article/blog entry written by Wilson in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/27/the-question-false-nines-jonathan-wilson I hope that you find this information helpful...]
Re: Interesting links Thank you and Tpmazembe for the translation. From what I understood Ponta-de-lance are withdrawn forwards who are good-to-phenomenal in playmaking but cant be away from the final 3rd because they are prolific goalscorers the best example today is Messi. Whereas Offensive-linking-midfielder todays example is Iniesta. Correct?
Re: Interesting links Broadly speaking yes. If you carry on in that thread for a bit tp explains it a bit more with other reference points. I just moved it here to keep that links thread free from too much discussion.
The 3-5-2 is a tactic I also always found really interesting, mainly because it seems so perfect for playing against itself. The 3 man line was a great way to handle a striking duo cause it left you with a spare man in the back to ensure you were solid in the back, but against a lone striker, or even no true striker your wasting your resources by conceding numbers in a more contested part of the pitch. So as long as teams stuck to two up front, 3 at the back was the way to go, leaving all your diversification and innovation to occur in that central 5 and so tactical changes were more subtle and nuanced. I guess the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 of today, are similarly set up for stopping themselves, but the diversity is greater as not only are attacking fullbacks a big deal, but there's more players with changing roles than the 5.5 players that get tweaked in the 3-5-2, the middle 5 and the supporting striker, so the changes from team to team seem more drastic and a little more straight forward because of it. I mainly just wanted to post in this thread, so as to compliment the OP on a great thread that ultimately got me to not just creep this board. But I also was wondering what it was that the OP meant by the Dutch version of Total Football being more free-flowing than that practiced by the West Germans of that same era? Is this primarily based off the different roles of Cruyff and Gerd, or are there more team wide differences that differentiate the Dutch Total Football that is so often heralded and the West German iteration that doesn't seem to get nearly as much press, despite the 72 West German team out styling and performing their Eastern Neighbors. The 74 team was less spectacular in Gunter Netzer's absence as Overath was a far more functional and hard working playmaker, and after that Gerd had retired from the international side as well, but that 72 squad is one I think doesn't get the attention it deserves. Especially from a tactical perspective as all players truly had the freedom to switch, they just had players like Beckenbauer, Netzer and Mueller, who were a cut above and so where more often involved in the play, leaving the other players movements to react to this, but a similar effect was visible with the Dutch side, as very often Cruyff's movements were the start of the chain of dutch switching. Gerd Mueller is known for his unbelievable scoring prowess, but he was so much more than a mere penalty box poacher, the diminutive goal machine often showed up out wide while a team mate filled his place in the middle, he was very strong on the ball and delivered many quality crosses, crossfield-balls and incisive passes, but because he was so deathly proficient when his chances came people forget about everything else he did. He was not the team's driving creative force the way Cruyff was for the Dutch, but that didn't make him a specialist. Similarly Vogts, Schwarzenbeck and Hottges, etc., are often cast as the defenders who covered for Breitner and Beckenbauer's forays, but they to were by no means defensive specialists, simply players that ended up defending more in reaction to Beckenbauer's motions and where the opposition's strengths opened oppurtunities for the side. This wasn't the case of specialists and all-rounders but simply an example of the adaptive potential of Total Football reflecting the influence of a couple all time greats. Sorry if I seem to be splitting hairs or arguing over minutiae, but often the History of football skips over the innovation in West Germany that paralleled and outproduced that of Cruyff's Netherlands back in the 70's.