Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer History' started by Gregoriak, Jan 12, 2012.
Thank you for your answer, yes, that is what I thought.
[You are quite welcome and did you see what I meant by saying that most sides used to "mix & match" their two inside-forward spots back in the "W-M" era?]
About what happened in Italy in the 1960s (as mentioned in the starting post):
Has anyone an idea why this transition to cattenaccio-inspirated systems happened in the 1960s and not in the 1950s, 1940s or earlier? Why in that decade? The idea to build some security at the back was of course not new (see the Swiss football culture).
[From what I understand the system was largely popularised by Helenio Herrara working @ Inter Milan in the '60s. I could post some links to info regarding this if you like, "Puck"...]
He popularised it around the world but I've read that lower table teams already utilized it. That is not strange because the ideas already existed in another form at that time...
[I appreciate the information, but IK that already: you were asking about why cattenaccio-based systems started spreading throughout Italian football culture in the '60s...]
Wasn't he too much involved in build-up play for that? Thanks to PDG I saw a highlight of a game against Man United (where Best is a inside-forward) and you see him dropping to midfield and seeking combinations, not unlike Messi nowadays does imo.
[Were you asking about Best or Greaves here, mate? ]
[You must be asking about Eddie Clayton here, mate (since the links aren't fixed yet)?]
Yes, I honestly don't know much about him but I assumed from the line-up he'd be playing as a midfielder in effect with Greaves and Gilzean as the strike-partnership.
I was also thinking you could confirm that Greaves, playing as the goal-scoring inside-forward, dropped deeper than Gilzean at times wheras Gilzean did more of the hold-up work.
[I think that this might be the source of our problem via Greaves here: when Glanville termed Greaves as an "opportunist inside-forward" in that article; he was utilising an actual positional LABEL of that era. As in a "stopper"-type wing-half or a "goal-grabbing" left-winger, etc.: an "opportunist" I-F = a "G-S I-F" = the "upfield"-type of inside-forward. Glanville wasn't utilising the term "opportunist" as an attacking/goal-scoring style: as in a "battering ram", a "marksman", a "goal-poacher", etc.]
My last post was supposed to quote "Puck" from post No.41 of this thread...
[Correct, and a quick point here it to remember that the No.9 (of this era) was almost always the furthest forward positioned attacker in nearly any given side: that's why they were commonly termed as a "spearhead" centre-forward...]
Thanks. Yeah it seems to be the case that in those days the numbers 9 and 10 did define the type of role the striker would play more than in later years in English football (although it was still the case in 77/78 when Forest won the league with 9) Withe and 10) Woodcock). Like you said the link isn't active now, but I had a feeling Greaves might have been wearing 8 rather than 10 (pity that the video isn't still available as it was a good clip).
Actually it is still available:
Here's a compilation that has been added for Greaves fairly recently:
He might be wearing 8 at times in the compilation (as a default inside right if so) but in the Man Utd game he was wearing number 10.
Gilzean was getting involved in midfield too, but still he was the number 9 by number and role, and as mentioned before Tottenham with their push-and-run style would have been less direct than a lot of sides at the time.
[I might have gone over this before & it shows that Spurs still thought of themselves as utilising a "W-M" variant IMO: Greaves either wore the No.8 or the No.10 because the "G-S I-F" was thought of as occupying one of the two inside-forward positions. The term "inside-right" was a holdover from the days of the "pyramid" and the "Arsenal Plan" formations (if YDK what the "Arsenal Plan" used to signify jys LMK).]
It's ok Roy I understand. The Pyramid formation would have an inside right and an inside left operating in similar roles. I should have said Greaves was wearing the "inside right" shirt number as I realise it wouldn't make a lot of difference to his role or which side of the pitch he occupied more (unless in his very early years teams did still play two advanced inside-forwards perhaps). I vaguely know about the Arsenal Plan I think - Alex James withdrawn into a deep inside forward role, and the wingers like Bastin operating as I think you've mentioned as goal-scoring "flying column wingers"?
[You are quite welcome and also correct: the "Arsenal Plan" was the original designation for the "3-2-2-3" Buchan & Chapman formation. It wouldn't be called the "orthodox W-M" until Dr. Becker would later coin the term...]
[Kocsis (like many Hungarian front-runners of his era) did not seem to excel in the traditional areas required of the "W-M"-type No.9: playing with his back to the opposition's goal, functioning as an aerial "target" in the centre of his team's attack, etc. Kocsis rather reminded me a bit of John Charles when Charles was lined-up as a centre-forward/No.9 for either club or country...]
This is an excellent profile on Clayton fr. a Margate FC fan site:
Once again, I hope that you will find this information helpful...
Thanks - good find.
Another player called Clayton you might remember would be Blackburn Rovers' Ronnie Clayton, who isn't one of the most celebrated English players overall but I've heard several times that Blackburn fans (collectively and/or individually) see him as a real legend and/or personal favourite. Did you get to see him play much at all?