English Football Revolution of the 1960s?

I believe Bobby Moore stated his career as a wing-half (even that term might be misleading as it would be a central role but a bit more advanced than the centre-half who was basically a solo centre-back in such a WM system as you know). Basically I think teams were still playing variations of WM and didn't have a back four early in the 60's (maybe they used a deep-lying centre-forward in certain cases or an attacking wing-half etc).

By the late 60's I think 4-4-2/4-2-4 was the most commonly used formation with 2 centre-halves (centre-backs).

Maybe there were tactical reasons too but this would be the biggest difference in terms of formation I think.

Bobby Moore, even as a centre-back did play a part in the attacking game though as can be seen in the '66 World Cup Final (but clearly he is basically a defender in a back 4, and the other 'wing-half' Stiles is in midfield though as the most defensive player who I believe tracked Eusebio in the semi-final).

 

What about the balanced between class defenders (& GK) vs forward playing in English league, in early 60s comparing to ten years after.

 

England played more like a 4 3 3 in WC66, rather than 4 4 2 according to my view

 

I think in effect, though I'm sure nobody said the word diamond, it was similar to a 4-4-2 diamond or 4-1-2-1-2 like this (in the earlier games maybe wingers were used in more of a flat 4-4-2 with Charlton still more of an AM?):
--------------------Banks---------------------

Cohen-----J.Charlton------Moore--------Wilson

--------------------Stiles--------------------
-------Ball------------------------Peters------
-------------------B.Charlton-----------------

--------------Hurst-------Hunt----------------
I can see why you'd see it as a 4-3-3 though with I guess Bobby Charlton as part of the attack? In some commentary I heard, maybe from the France game but not sure, it was said something like "Bobby Charlton is playing further forward this game" if I remember correctly but I think overall he would be classed as a midfielder and was normally operating from behind the strikers (including when Greaves played).

 

Agree ... with the starting formation. However in that WC event, Boby played more advance role - half false 9 and half AM

 

[In the football lingo of the day "Sir Bobby" was lining-up and playing as the "deep-lying"- or "roving"-type of inside-forward w/the No.9 on the back of his shirt. The other thing to remember is that the advent of the "attacking"-type of wing-half seemed to have moved the "roving I-F" further up the pitch than it had in the days when Charlie Buchan & Alex James occupied the position IMO.]

 

Mr. Roy,

You've indicated that the difference between both types of wing-halves was that the deep-lying type dropped back to form an extra centre-back. Wasn't Nobby Stiles (of the 'orthodox' mould) such type of player?

 

[Even though some players such as Ron Flowers, Bobby Moore, "Nobby" Stiles, etc., could at least adequately perform in both roles, the "deep-lying"- and the "orthodox"-types of wing-halves were two distinct positions. Did you need me go over this or post links to where I've already explained this, mate?]

 

That would be fine if you post it.

 

@ "Puck": All right, my own short versions of the two positions/playing roles then:

The "deep-lying"-type of a W-H could be seen as a purer "4th defender" or as a combo between that 2nd C-B and a VERY deep-sitting "DM"; depending on the player, formation, coach/manager, etc. The idea behind a "D-L W-H"-type was that they worked in conjunction w/the bloke who wore the No.5 on the back of his shirt: the "W-M-type" centre-half looked after the aerial defence while the "deep-lyer" marked pacey central attackers, the No.5 was a real "stay-@-home" back-liner while the "deep-lyer" would try to assist w/starting attacks from deep positions, etc.

The "orthodox"-type of wing-half was just that: one of the "holding" half-backs straight out of Buchan & Champman's "Arsenal Plan" formation: what we would tend to think of as a holding/screening "DM" in more modern terminology. Do you see what I'm trying to get across now, mate?]

 

Mr. Roy,

If you already had explained it elsewhere, it is perfectly fine to give a link and save energy.

 

But what made those roles distinct? Was it the positioning or also the opposing player he had to mark and the creative abilities someone had to possess for the deep lying role (in contrast to the orthodox form)?

 

[The "orthodox-type of wing-half was much more attack-/creatively-oriented than the "deep-lyer": the "D-L W-H" essentially had his "needle" parked somewhere between that of the "4th defender" role and that of a quite deeply-parked "DM", depending on the individual player. Just LMK if I haven't adequately explained the on-the-pitch duties of the "orthodox"-type of wing-half to you, mate.]

 

Good information again Roy, to help us understand the different roles during the 50's and early 60's.

Am I right to think Duncan Edwards would've been classed as an orthodox wing-half (albeit able to act as a supplementary defender and also effective paying more like an attacking wing-half)?

I know you are understandably more knowledgable about the English players but it's also interesting to apply the roles to foreign International sides. For example, I wonder whether Zakarias was effectively a deep-lying wing-half in the Hungary teams of the early 50's with Bozsik as the orthodox or attacking wing-half; obviously Hidegkuti is well-known as the deep-lying centre-forward but Zakarias is less discussed and to be fair less obviously evident when viewing footage. Nils Liedholm's roles for Sweden and Milan would be interesting to look into too, including whether he played as I suspect but haven't got definitive information about in a withdrawn inside-forward role as per Alex James before he moved deeper to play as a wing-half (and I think type of sweeper late in his career too unless mistaken). I've seen that in the '58 World Cup he was playing as we would now term a midfielder and I guess that equates to a withdrawn inside-forward (I'd have to check again to understand the full team line-up and the video of the final has been taken down now, but Gren was in a similar role wheras earlier in the 50's or in the 40's he may have been more of a roaming inside-forward?).

Back to England and I guess the national team must've played slightly different then when Stan Mortensen lined-up as goal-scoring inside-forward compared to if they had both Carter and Mannion in the side (although maybe Carter could also be a G-S I-F?).

 

Thanks again Roy - that might explain the much better GPG ratio for England (although it's over many less games so could be to some extent an anomoly). So he didn't normally play with a deep-lying wing-half (I assume they were more popular later although I guess Billy Wright had played such a role earlier for England too). I think it's normally said that Edwards would've played in the midfield role that Stiles played in for the '66 World Cup had he been alive isn't it, but I think some speculate he could've played as a centre-back too.

As for the other questions I'm sure the Mortensen one would be easy for you to answer, but don't worry too much about looking into the Hungary/Sweden/AC Milan formations if you don't have first-hand knowledge on them - those were more general observations/queries not directed at you specifically. Likewise, and depending on whether all nations did use the same terms anyway, Faas Wilkes would be a player I'd be interested to know more about in terms of his role (could be G-S I-F but maybe roaming inside-forward and later in the 50's maybe even withdrawn although I felt for the Dutch national team Kees Rijvers would be the more withdrawn of the two inside forwards when I saw highlights of a late 50's game with Belgium - actually Puck has knowledge of this era of Dutch football too course without being familiar with the terms for all inside-forwards before discussion with you Roy).

 

Well as you saw the game live it'd be good to get your recollection of his two goals. Also, in terms of how he played as an inside-forward, was he making many runs off the ball ahead of the centre-forward or was he generally wanting to receive the ball and then drive or dribble forwards with it as he would be used to doing from a deeper position? I've seen clips of a couple of England goals by Edwards but not from that game I don't think - the goal away in Germany is one of the ones I've seen which was obviously both a quality goal and quite famous.

Interesting that you say he was tried in more defensive positions too but without as much success - of course Bobby Moore also got involved in the build-up to great effect including in the opposition half but I would say he wasn't really 'wandering off' so probably Edwards would've had more dynamic instincts to run off the ball and leave his defensive position. There were some times when Moore was upfield and Jack Charlton was the sole centre-back as the opposition broke I think but it seemed to work that way. I suppose that suggests that unless Edwards changed his style of play he wouldn't have been the ideal partner for Moore in '66, and I suppose also that restricting Edwards to a mainly defensive role might be a waste anyway.

 

[Before we go forward on this subject and then Mannion, "Morty", etc., I feel that I should ask you something: DYK much about the different types of inside-forwards in the "W-M" formation and its variants, mate?]

 

I've followed what you've written so far Roy I think so I understand the different types to be goal-scoring inside forward eg Mortensen (recent equivalent Michael Owen?), roaming inside forward eg Mannion? (loosely recent equivalent might be Bergkamp or perhaps Kaka??) and withdrawn inside forward eg Johnny Haynes? (similar to Ozil or maybe Iniesta nowadays?). Apologies if I've misunderstood anything.