now I am confused the central halfback would be sweeper for the 2 other halfbacks.but also be attacking central halfbacks?? then the winghalfback, cover the IF .what does this means? when at attacking scheme,would both 3 midfield moved onto the opposite box? do the wing halfbacks is help attack like modern full backs?
Taking a shot at making the British version of the "pyramid" look like a more modern formation on paper: R F-B (No.2) L F-B (No.3) R W-H (No.4) L W-H(No.6) C-H (No.5) R-W (No.7) L-W (No.11) C-F (No.9) I-R (No.8) I-L (No.10) "sioux" and I have already tried to explain the C-H and the W-Hs: the wingers usually stayed out wide but they covered quite a bit of distance up and down the pitch and would often drop back fairly deep to get the ball from their own C-H, W-Hs and the like. The C-F would also often take the ball past opposition defenders and get forward to act like an "out-&-out" front-player (as "sioux kindly pointed out before). Please forgive any possible crudeness of an "illustration" on my part: I don't know how to utilise those pre-made formational things like some of you already do...
My previous post had a more formational shape to it originally; but when it posted it got all fecked up for some reason...
at 2-3-5 scheme,what do the 3 central halves do?at attack, would both 3 move to the opposite box, or the 2 offer more width,just like the modern full backs, and 1 move to the box like modern attacking midfield? at set pieces,would the 2 back help the attack? and who stay in defence?
This is a thread over @ XT.org where "sioux" and I go over the same issue: http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showthread.php?t=258706
That's a good thread. I'm a fan of your "memiors" also. I'm starting to get a much more clear picture of lineage between... * 2-3-5 (British original) ...which probably looked a 4-1-3-2, 2-3-3-2, 2-3-1-4 transitioning from end to end. * 2-3-3-2 (Danubian school of Meisl/Hogan) * 2-3-2-3 (Pozzo's Metodo) or 3-2-2-3 (Chapman's Arsenal) * 3-3-4 (Bill Nicholson's Spurs) * 4-2-4 (Bela Gutmann and Flavio Costa) Where it starts to get sketchy for me (oddly enough) is now the English adapted from 3-2-2-3 to 4-diamond-2 or how the Germans/Dutch got to playing the 1-3-3-3. I suppose the Northern Europeans were responding to the 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-1-3 adaptations of the 4-2-4 and added a Stopper/Sweeper to handle the playmaker between the lines while also adding a playmaker of their own. Thus, we get 1-3-2-1-3 or 3-1-2-1-3. I guess the English just dropped a halfback and a forward from the 3-2-2-3 to make a 4-1-2-1-2?
If the image shows above, it is 3223 vs. 2332 on the left and 424 vs. 1333 on the right. (top to bottom)
That;s good. Leyt me help with a picture (that can paint 1000 words ) Football shirt number and associate position started out with the classic 2 3 5 formation, so refer to the position name (of Roy) to the number on field 11 ------ 10 ----- 9 ------8 ----- 7 -----6 ---------5----------4 ------ ----------3------------2 ---------- ----------------1 ---------------- On real pitch 2 3 5 would look more like: OutL(11) ----- CF(9)---------OutR(7) ---------IL(10)--------IR(8)---------- ---------------- CH(5)--------------- LWH(3)-----------------------RWH(2) ---------LCB(6)--------RCB(4)------- -----------------GK(1)------------------
[Change where the C-F is lined-up w/that of the I-Fs, drop your wingers back deeper and swap your No. 2 & No.3 w/your No.6 and No.4 and you're fairly solid, mate...]
lol, i love this. back when we were kids, we'd play this football. There'd be like 200 people on the field with maybe three or four balls...and the game was basically get the ball and start running with it towards the goal. Mob football....whatever happened to that?
Very nice draws In the top-left side (in red) the 3-2-2-3 clearly shows the WM with the "magic square" on midfield and the CF performing as a target-striker for the very first time. In the bottom-left side (in blue) your 2-3-3-2 shows the classic Pyramid system (until 30s). The fullbacks, not so close between them. The halfbacks line (aka midfield) is ok. Note that forward's line was almost a flat line (WGs and CF were playing a bit deeper but still they were forwards). Also the IFs being the most advanced weren't exactly a target men striker, since they were involved in the attacking play (making combinations w/CF or wingers) In the top-right side (in red) is showing the 4-2-4 ala Brazil '58, with Cuarto Zagueiro (Orlando/Zozimo) a little bit upfront in the back-four. A duo in midfield, one defensive-minded (Zito), the other ofensive-minded (Didi). And in the forward's line, one a little bit deeper (Pele) as a Ponta de lança. In the bottom-right side (in blue) would be the 4-3-3 performing with a sweeper. I'll correct the side backs playing wider, and in midfield one of them a bit deeper, as a DM.
I don't think the 3 HBs support the attack at the same time. Maybe when defending, the 3 support the defensive line. But, i think Roy is the man here
[Thank you once again for the kind words, mate: I just realised that it probably looks self-serving that I "repped" this post... On topic: Does anyone not understand what the main jobs of the "pyramid" C-H & W-H were yet? When their side was on the attack the "destructive"-type of W-H (which could play on either side of the defence/pitch and some teams lined-up w/ two "D"-mould wing-halves) would generally sit back a bit deeper and try to stay goal-side of the opposition's winger that was their defensive responsibility. In an ideal situation the "D"-mould W-H was marking the other side's "lead winger"; which was the one out of the opposition's two wide-men that was the more dangerous/effective crosser of the ball, better and trickier w/the ball at their feet, etc. This wasn't always the case because one team's "lead" winger and the other's "destructive" W-H didn't always line-up on the same side of the pitch...]
[This is excellent contemporary commentary on the LEGENDARY "Nudger" Needham by Alfred Gibson where he also offers up some explanation about Needham as a forward-&-back "two-way" (classic) W-H: "(4) Alfred Gibson, commenting on Earnest Needham in 1906. There is one thing which has made Earnest Needham stand out of the common run of halves; he is neither a constructive nor a destructive half-back alone; he is both at once. One moment you will see him falling back to the defence of his own goal, or checking the speedy rush of his wing; the next, he is up with his forwards, feeding them to a nicety, and always making the best of every opening. Where he gets his pace from is a mystery. He never seems to be racing, yet he must be moving at racing pace; he never seems to be exhausted, yet in a big game he is practically doing three men's work... This is one of the secrets of his greatness for very seldom when he has the ball is he deprived of it, whilst the accuracy of his wing passes, and the telling force of his punches straight across the field to an unprotected wing, spell danger to any kind of defence." [Gibson also talks about the "constructive" and the "destructive"-types of (classic) W-Hs... It's quoted in this Spartacus Educational profile of Needham: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SHEFFUneedham.htm It's post/quote No.4 further down the profile page...]
[Any question about what the three "classic" HALF-backs did on the pitch when the other side had the ball/were on a fairly prolonged attack?]
yes and no yes I am asking about the pyramid but no, I didnt ask about the fullbacks. I ask about the 3 central halves
well thanks but I cannot understand your answer. do you have some illustration friend? What is the D-mould ? so you mean that the wing halves would stay back to mark the opposition winger,while the central halves move to the opposite box? but they also support the attack wide I am so confused
In the link provide by Roy, tells about how Pyramid Wing-Halves were labeled: the Destructive minded and the Constructive minded. for example, uruguayan W-H from 50s (they were the last using 2-3-5) Rodriguez Andrade was a "D" type of W-H with great defensive skillset but few ofensive ones. So, when Uruguay attack, he sat back close the opp. winger. His uncle, Leandro Andrade was able to did both, defends (he had great duels vs Orsi at 20s) and also support Uruguay attacks (passing, running past players, etc.).
[What are you terming "central halves"? There was only one centre-half in the "classic" formation...]
[The "WM" was known most commonly as the "Arsenal Plan" in Britain & Ireland before Dr. Becker coined the "W-M" term and it became more widespread. The role of that "W-M"-mould C-F was heavily based on that of "Charlie" Buchan as a ("pyramid") I-R during his playing prime. It was also based on the then-contemporary play of Everton's Bill "Dixie" Dean and George Camsell of 'Boro. For years my assigned office was three doors down from arguably the most important on-the-pitch architect of the original "W-M" formation...]
A great bloke to have as a nominal "employer" on Fleet St.: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARSENALbuchan.htm http://www.charlesbuchansfootballmonthly.com/acatalog/History_the_Man.html http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=751933 http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/charlie-buchan-the-sunderland-legend-lives-on-1-2775352 http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamPlyrsBios/PlayersB/BioBuchanCM.html http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2945/stories/20061111006403100.htm