[An excellent passage on how marking assignments worked in the "classic" formation:] 'In his autobiography, A Lifetime in Football, Buchan recalls how defenders tried to intimidate him in those early Football League games. In his third game for the club, against Notts County, Buchan faced Jack Montgomery, a burly left-back. In the first few minutes of the game, Buchan raced past him before passing to a teammate. Montgomery, warned him in a low voice: "Don't do that again, son." When Buchan tried the same trick later, Montgomery hit him with a shoulder charge of such force that he finished up flat on his back only a yard from the fencing surrounding the pitch. As he crept back on to the field, Montgomery went over to Buchan and said: "I told you not to do it again."' [Montgomery was responsible for Buchan as an I-R because he was Notts County's classic-mould "left-back"; which a left FULL-back in the positional parlance of the day. The quote is from the Spartacus profile of Buchan that I already posted a link to...]
[Are you asking about the "penguin" formation (the one that England utilised at the '66 WC and later at Euro '68) here, mate?]
I mean that wing half.. at 2-3-5 scheme,what do the 3 central half 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 fullback help the attack? and who stay in defence?
The second question is also interesting. In a back-two defense, it was possible one of the fullbacks support the attack or could score? For example, italian legend Renzo de Vecchi, who played as Left Fullback in 2-3-5 system, was known by defensive skills like great reading of the game, anticipation, perfect timing, leadership. He's cited by some as precursor of wing-back (hard to believe, imo). Whether he was an Pyramid Fullback, is possible he can support his attack? He also scores some goals per season, they were penalties? or Free-Kicks?
Full credit to what "PDG" & "sioux" posted in a different thread; a true "classic" centre-forward, G.O. Smith: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ENGsmith.htm http://www.yatedo.com/p/G.O. Smith/famous/401d8ea2476350160537faa4091302cf http://pcsd.forumfree.it/?t=59191308 The Spartacus profile has a handful of quotes and passages where Smith's ball-playing and passing are highly praised. There's also a mention of Smith's excellence in feeding the ball back out to team-mates in wider areas of the pitch (especially when facing the opposition's goal): this has become a nearly forgotten duty of the "classic" C-F IMO...
What do you think about this drawing - Brazil 1950 Looks like showing the Diagonal system, but Zizinho playing a deeper role than Jair.
This is an interesting link, showing how "Diagonal by right" or "Diagonal by left" works. Note that one of the half remained back and the other used to push forward. Similarly, one of the I-F dropped back into midfield zone, and the other played a bit upfront, like a sort of SS. https://s3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws...nverting_the_Pyramid_The_Histo_split_014.html Here, tell how Flavio Costa after first two matches, left his Diagonal system to play a more orthodox WM, with a magical square: Bauer - Danilo - Zizinho - Jair. http://www.copasdomundo.net/o-brasil-na-copa-de-1950.html
[Taking this in a somewhat different direction; you can also see the influence of the later "W-M" variant formations on this "diagonal" (or whatever): That No.4 could easily be an "orthodox" W-H patrolling in front a de facto back-three... The No.5 (which would be the No.6 in British shirt numbering in that era) is lined-up like an "attacking" or "constructive" W-H... The No.8 could be the "roving"-type of I-F... The No.10 is either the "orthodox" I-F or a "scoring" I-F that drops back a bit in order to find space (like Ferenc Puskas or Dennis Wilshaw)...]
anybody would reply this please? I am very curious about 2-3-5 and 3-2-5 formation in attack and defence set pieces
Great posts by Kubala64 on XT.org (see #114 & 117). Also Roy #122. Talking about Pyramid formation (2-3-5) http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showthread.php?t=272154&page=6
[Who does that "RoyoftheRovers" blowhard think he is anyway? Thanks again for your kind words, mate. ]
He describes Meazza as the modern day number 10 or AM. But wasn't he primarily a goals-scoring IF? Did not think he was like Alex James or a Didi (e.g. a deeper kind of IF).
I think his career crossed over with the implementation of the Metodo (I think I got that right - the sort of 2-3-2-3 system used by Italy). I'm not sure if like with the Brazilian diagonal, players played to different degrees in attack/midfield and if Meazza was still more of a forward than Ferrari (I should probably read the link in detail!) but it tends to be described as having two inside forwards coming from the midfield I think. Meazza was definately a forward player for much of his career though.
Just to add to my last post - surely Didi (once he was playing in a 4-2-4 anyway) and probably James in a withdrawn inside forward role too did still play deeper roles than Meazza in Metodo. And Meazza had more of the qualities of a front-running player of course anyway.
Yeah, Roy's posts and Kubala64's are very good and informative. Kubala64 does say that Meazza was never the out and out striker in effect I think because the centre-forward was not a target striker in his opening years (I knew that to an extent). When he played inside forward in a normal 2-3-5 type formation or centre-forward in a Metodo which I think I read he did on occasions (also vs England once Roy?) then he would have been more part of the attack than in Metodo (and available footage does seem to back up that he was in the attack). I suppose as Kubala64 lables him as a number 10 AM/SS then that does suggest a role more in the attack than Didi or James too, even in Metodo probably.
PDG gives a very good answer in previous posts To complement, i think that in Meazza's days, the italians had: - The orthodox IF in classical Pyramid formation (Meazza used to play CF in his younger years) - Something between Orthodox and Roving I-F in the Mettodo formation (Meazza's role in NT). Talking about 30s, I guess the goalscoring type of I-F was seen more in the countries that played Danubian School in which the CF (like Sindelar) used to drop back, more than other contemporary systems, as a consequence the remained I-F could played a bit forward than orthodox ones.
Sorry, I don't understand what you try to say with this part? I'm surprised that Metodo is labelled as the more negative style as WM. Metodo played with a more advanced centre-halve, who also had a role in the build up. And their inside-forwards were not as 'defensive' as a Alex James for example. Those played still quite advanced in Metodo.
Ok, sorry - to try and put it in a more understandable way: If he played inside forward in an old-fashoned 2-3-5 he'd be basically a goal scoring inside forward. If he played centre-forward in a Metodo system he'd be the furthest forward player. So either of those roles would be more of an outright forward role than playing inside forward in Metodo I think. And yeah it does seem strange that a 2-3-2-3 is more negative than 3-2-2-3 but I suppose the WM half-backs might be more midfielders and less defenders covering the wingers in effect. He seemed to say that the playing style was more back-to-front (direct) in Metodo than WM too. I know that 'Grande' Torino in the 40's were seen as a very positive side playing a Systema (system/WM) formation although I think I saw some reference to Valentino Mazzola the number 10 often playing in the attack as a 4th player and also that the team rotated positions a lot (there is some info on that on Xtratime too IIRC) - so maybe I could/should have kept Mazzola as a forward not as AM in my categories today (but he was nominally one of two AM's I think and was known for running the game and bringing the ball forwards from deep too).
Well, WM was originally designed for counter attacking play too, I think... In general they did not hold possession very long.