thanks a lot.I have looking to know about football evolution.not found anyone until now. but I still confused. according to wikipedia, in 2-3-5 formation, the 2 back would mark 2 opposite winger while the 3 midfield cover the rest forward. you say that 2 would cover all defensife position, while the 2 winger marked by 2 wing halves. so I assumed that since 2 winger already marked with 2 wing halves, then the 2 back would mark the center forward which one is right? and, do anybody have old football footage ,that we could see how to tactic works? It would be good if the video quality as good or even better as this video and how about 4-4-2 diamond which is popular at 1990 era?
About the 2-3-5 or Pyramid formation, should be said, first that in that system the usual defensive tactic was a sort of "zonal marking", btw, some duels could happened. But, this last one tactic, wasn't a common tactic until WM comes to scene, in which each player in FW position has his defensive counterpart. Having said that, the Wiki entries explained the 2-3-5 is wrong, like i said in the #56 post in this very thread (Wiki quoted wrongly a J.Wilson's paragraph). btw, the common sense, tell us that the last defensive-line (2 Pyramid Full Backs) should be placed most of the time, near the box area. And the reading of old match reports, confirms that.
[The defence in the "classic" formation also quite frequently looked like a more modern back-four w/two wing-backs because teams often lined-up and played w/two "destructive"-type ("pyramid") W-Hs...]
[You are quite welcome, mate... Have you ever gotten your hands on the football book The Simplest Game by Paul Gardner?]
J Wilson has just come up with a new thought: The Question: Has 4-2-3-1 lost its gloss? Intelligent wide players can hurt teams that use the system and having seemed so advantageous for so long, now it is just one formation among many. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/the-question-4231-football-tactics What you think?
[IK that Amazon.com usually carries it in stock: the best part for you would be where Gardner explains quite a bit about positional duties in the "pyramid" formation. The other advantage is that Gardner (like myself) both played in teams that utilised the "pyramid" and saw it being employed by various sides on an actual pitch...]
My thoughts about classic Pyramid system (late 1890s to 1930s) Forwards: The main player was CF, who used to be the leading man of the forward line. So the Pyramid #9 played the Striker role but also used to drop back to linking forwards (maybe, like a "false 9"). Some excelled in the striker part, others in leading the line. The Inside Forwards were support both #9 and Wingers, is well known some notable attacking duos, Winger + IF. (close role was played by younger Pele and Puskas). When the attacks it started I-F used to be the most advanced players. They need to be skilled and had good shot. The Outside Forwards, play wide in their own channel, with main job to beating defenses and did crosses. Halfbacks: The key player was the Attacking Center Half, He was a mix between a DM and a Deep-Lying Playmaker. (Gattuso + Pirlo into one). Some excelled as creative C-H and others in the destroying role. But actually did both roles. The Wing Halfbacks, used to played between two men, the opposing ala (WG+IF). They covered their own channel, defensively facing Outside Forwards and covering I-F. In the ofensive move they also link with forwards. Could be seen as "slower Wing Backs". Fullbacks: They covered mainly the opposing central trio of FWs, but when Winghalf was beaten, they used to go tackling the winger. It could be said that Pyramid Fullbacks divided the box area into two, 50-50%. When one FB faced the attack the other stayed expectative. It's clear why they were called FULL back. Very diferent to nowadays Side Backs.
thanks.anyway where is multi quote button? so at that era,the zonal marking system already common? the 2 back is just like center back that work at the box? what would happen at counter attack? usually at modern 3 back formation, one would come chase the winger, and 2 work at box. do at 2-3-5 scheme 1 chase winger 1 work at boxx?
[At least in the British/W. European version of the "pyramid": it was a combination between a man-for-man and a zonal marking scheme (as we would think of it in a more modern context). The "pyramid"-type C-H was usually responsible for plugging the gaps in his de facto back-line; but he "set up shop" in front of his own defence rather than behind it (in the manner of a "sweeper"). But, most C-Hs would "tuck back in" behind their own defence if the situation demanded it...]
[Have you gone over the difference(s) between the "constructive"- and the "destructive"-type of W-Hs ("classic") yet, mate?]
Thanks Roy for clarifying the defensive role of the Pyramid Centre-Half (playing mostly in front of his backline). It would be nice, to know more insights, like the constructive/destructive type of W-H in 2-3-5 formation
Could we really say that is looked like a 4-1-2-3 with very advanced wingbacks and very wide wingers? That's how I've always figured it played out.
I think that Il Mettodo, italian version of 2-3-5, is the closest variant who could look like you said. Since their Inside Forwards played deeper than in classic Pyramid formation (which let the #9 performing a more aggresive play).
["Plugging the gaps" (in this case) means dealing w/the weaknesses of a given defensive scheme and at least attempting to snuff out trouble when it rears its head: a "stay-at-home"-type of sweeper is supposed to plug the gaps in his own side's defence. The sweeper usually operates behind his own main back-line rather than in front of it...]
then what the Central Half doing? they are at middle, and drop deep as deep as sweeper? so in defensive scheme it be 3-2-5?
[Yes, if it was required for them to do so: I need to post some links to where I've already broken down and explained the "pyramid" to save myself some work...]
[On paper in the British/W. European version of the "pyramid" the three central forwards were lined-up fairly straight across. But, on the pitch the C-F frequently dropped back a bit deeper, took the ball at and past opposition defenders & the like because they were supposed to be the top all-'round attacking threat in the side. England amateur and full side LEGEND Vivian Woodward was a sterling example of this type of ("classic") centre-forward IMHO...]
[Wingers that also often dropped back quite deep and covered quite a bit of the pitch out-wide: it's one of the reasons that wingers w/the work rate of an Eric Brook or the younger "Sir Stan" were highly prized in this formation/system...]
I understand that C-H in 2-3-5 played mostly like a sweeper upfront their backline. Is different that common sweepers who operates behind CBs. So, i think it would be reasonable that in the course of play the Pyramid C-H could met the opposing Pyramid CF (who used to dropped back a bit to linkup w/FWs), but they also did the striker part.
[Most assuredly, mate: again, this was an area(s) that Vivian Woodward excelled in when lining-up as a centre-forward: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPURSwoodward.htm This is a very good, apparently amateur-made "doc" on Woodward fr. YouTube: http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/wo/vivian-woodward-1.html http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/news/newsid=1604977/index.html Once again, I hope that you will find this information helpful...]