Was this The Game of the Twentieth Century?

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by P. J. Szule, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. P. J. Szule

    P. J. Szule New Member

    Jul 22, 2001
    New York
    England-Hungary, November 25, 1953 - 50th Anniversary

    Hungarians, along with a multitude of soccer followers around the world, undoubtedly the older generations, certainly think so. Fifty years ago next week, Hungary emphatically and scintillatingly defeated England at London’s Empire Stadium at Wembley ending England’s conceit and historic home record of never having been beaten by a continental side on English soil. The record stood more than eight decades since the first international soccer game that was played between Scotland and England in 1872.

    Some English football observers mark October-November of 1953 as when the loss of confidence and certainty in English soccer occurred. At the same time, the Golden Team or Magical Magyars of the 1950’s was already playing the game with both a superior level of technical deportment and the bold tactical innovations that foreshadowed the sweeping utilization of the 4-2-4 formation, total football, the modern and the beautiful game of the latter decades of the last century. The final score was 6:3.

    Superb players such as Bozsik, Kocsis and Czibor affected the quick flowing and witty attack that took apart a rigid English defense as center-forward Hidegkuti scored a hat trick. What is more, with Ferenc Puskas’ legendary leadership, left-footed shooting, ball control and passing prowess, Hungary simultaneously made the case for itself as the greatest national team of all time and for the Galloping Major, No.10 Puskas, as one of the greatest players ever to have played the game. The English public and football press, sportingly and a little love-struck, conceded that if the record had to be broken, at least the deed was done by a team of mastery and artistry.

    By 1953, Western Europe was emerging from the devastation of World War II. Hungary, along with the other Central and Eastern European countries were under Soviet domination and firmly locked behind the Iron Curtain. After the end of the war, there had been cautious gestures of friendship between former allies, such as the tour of Moscow Dynamo to Britain in 1945. This sentiment gave way to competition, political and military as well as cultural and sporting. The Cold War was on. While the England-Hungary friendly could be narrowly viewed as an “east-west battle”, the hard left of the Labour Party was pulling for Hungary, for the average Hungarian soccer fan any crack to be heard through that wretched curtain was simply an occasion for interaction with their European cousins.

    The Golden Team (this is the Hungarian reference, Magic or Magical Magyars was the British press accolade) was unquestionably aided by the authoritarian ways of the communist party controlled Hungarian FA. Key player transfers to the Honved (Army) club, that was to become the backbone of the national team, were swiftly made. Ample funding was available for professional level training and retreats, as well as for incentive bonuses. They were undefeated in ’50 and ’51 scoring fifty times in nine matches. The following year Hungary won Olympic Gold at Helsinki although against countries without their truly professional players.

    For Hungary, 1953 started with a tie against Austria at Budapest. Then it faced a real challenge and a big occasion in May, in Rome, against Italy. They decisively defeated the azzurri at the Stadio Olimpico’s inaugural match, 3:0. This was Hungary’s first victory over Italy in twenty-eight years. In October they beat a competent Austria at Prater Stadion, Vienna, 3:2. England’s courageous invitation for the “friendly” in November set the stage for the Magyar’s “Home Record test match” at Wembley.

    Post war England was a more than capable team. Merrick was in goal, Alf Ramsey and Billy Wright anchored the defense, Matthews and Mortensen lead the attack. As an historic aside, Ramsey was also on the field for England on another dark day of English soccer when they lost to the US at Belo Horizonte in the 1950 World Cup. Alf Ramsey’s honor was restored after he managed England to Jules Rimet Cup glory in the ’66 World Championship and was knighted by the Queen for the accomplishment.

    The spring of ’53 saw England tour South America. They had an abandoned match against Argentina due to torrential rain, a loss to Uruguay and a win over Chile. As a casual homeward stopover, they played and beat the USA (6:3) at Yankee Stadium in June.

    On the 21st of October the FA celebrated its 90th birthday with an exhibition match, England versus the Rest of Europe select team that ended, with a last minute Ramsey penalty conversion, 4:4. Although the select team was without Hungarian players (save for the great Kubala who by then played for Barcelona and Spain), the narrow escape foretold the challenges to come for England on the 25th of November.

    England manager Walter Winterbottom was in Budapest for first hand observation of the Hungary-Sweden friendly on the 15th of November. Against a flat and not well prepared Hungary, Sweden managed a 2:2 draw and Winterbottom, seconded by Sweden’s English coach (how times change) declared to the press that England should not have problems with Hungary in ten days time.

    Hungary stepped up its preparations under the guidance of manager Gusztav Sebes, an innovator and tactician less known and celebrated than the stars of the Golden Team. As Hidegkuti remembered in his autobiography, the preparations included a number of scrimmages played against lower division Hungarian clubs. Sebes asked the amateurs to impersonate the style and habits of the English players to assess details of his game plan.

    The Magyars decided to travel to England by train. They arrived in London relaxed and rested as the journey was a leisurely one that allowed for sightseeing in Vienna and Paris. The delegation and the players stressed, rather shrewdly, as the pressure and expectations of their twenty-nine game unbeaten streak was mounting, the honor and privilege of playing the inventors and teachers of the game in its birthplace.

    Betting in Britain was heavily in favor of England. Wembley was sold out for weeks. Hidegkuti also recalled that at their hotel he was inundated with advice and instructions, not only by Sebes and his staff, but by the elevator boys, waiters and barbers. Hidegkuti indeed was key in the flexible plan that asked him to forgo his familiar withdrawn center-forward position and press the attack up front, as he saw fit. By operating at midfield, he would coax Billy Wright out of defense and allow Puskas to go at the other defenders, or, as Hungarian attacks advance on either flank, he would await service in the penalty area as a contemporary striker would.

    With unprecedented international press, newsreel, early television and BBC and Hungarian live radio coverage (oh the thrill of hearing Wembley’s roar live throughout Hungary in 1953) the two teams emerged for what was to become the Game of the Century, as follows: Hungary: Grosics, Buzanszky, Lorant, Lantos, Bozsik, Zakarias, Budai, Kocsis, Hidegkuti, Puskas and Czibor; England: Merrick, Ramsey, Eckersley, Wright, Johnston, Dickinson, Matthews, Taylor, Mortensen, Sewell and Robb. Leo Horn of Holland was the referee.

    Despite Hidekuti’s reputation as a deep-lying center-forward, in the first minute, awaiting the ball as a forward striker, he scored. England and Wright, having prepared for his midfield positioning, was slow to adjust. For the first twenty minutes Hungary was running through the English defense nearly at will. Although Sewell equalized in the fifteenth minute, Hungary then produced a burst of magic. Thirteen minutes of pure attacking football produced two goals from Puskas, one when he virtually moved Billy Wright out of the way as if he were a puppet on a string and another one, from the elusive Hidekuti, made it 4:1, Hungary. Then England scored for a hopeful 4:2 before the half, but early in the second Bozsik scored from a long drive and Hidegkuti completed his hat-trick from close range with a goal that capped a string of dazzling passes and it was now 6:2, Hungary. Ramsey rendered the final score from the penalty spot.

    England’s defense never had a chance. Hungary was consistently dangerous from the wings and moments of individual magic, feints, dummies, devastating through-balls and long range shots could have made for another half-a-dozen goals.

    The English press went overboard in damning England and praising the Puskas-led Magyars. Headlines such as “We Must be Humble” and “Thrashed!” and then, “New Football Masters”, “Magical Magyars” and “Artists” dominated. In Italy, La Gazzetta dello Sport summarized: “how is it possible to play against a team that is lining up with seven fuoriclasse (players beyond classification)”? Hungarian reactions seemed almost apologetic. They noted England’s past accomplishments, long football-hegemony over Europe and their admiration for the original soccer masters. In fact, they dedicated their victory to Jimmy Hogan, an English coach who had rewardingly taught and coached soccer in Hungary earlier in the century.

    Sadly, several of the Hungarian team members have passed away before reaching old age and Ferenc Puskas is now in ill health. He is cheered up on occasional visits to Budapest by Alfredo di Stefano, Franz Beckenbauer or Sepp Blatter.

    This week, the Hungarian FA will hold an anniversary dinner in Budapest for the remaining members of both teams. In Budapest three commemorative books are being published, including an illustrated album, Angol-Magyar 3:6. The black and white film of the game, on video transfer, is available at Amazon.co.uk. This makes it possible for younger fans to see firsthand and concur with the older generations that indeed, this was The Game of the Century.

    Reference sources:

    The Guardian Unlimited / October 24, 2003 / Frank Keating column

    The Simplest Game, Paul Gardner, Little Brown and Company-Boston-Toronto 1976

    sportmuzeum.hu / hall of fame / puskas

    englandfootballonline.com / Norman Giller’s “England Lineups and Match Highlights – seasons 1946-47 to 1958-59”

    NB1.hu / national team archives / 1950-55

    Football, edited by Nick Yapp, published by Konemann 2000 – The Hutton Getty Picture Collection

    Obudatol Firenzeig (From Obuda to Florence), Nandor Hidegkuti, Sport Publishing House Budapest 1965

    The Budapest Sun Online / October 16, 2003 / Unheralded Hungarian History, T. Kiss and R. Marshall
     
  2. hemariva

    hemariva New Member

    Feb 22, 2003
    Missouri
  3. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    A friendly?

    Sorry, I don't think any friendly can be reasonably called the best game ever. There's just not enough at stake.

    I'd take the 7-3 Madrid dismantling of Entrach Frankfurt (I believe that was the German team - someone please correct me if I'm wrong) over that, easily. Or the England 66 final, which had drama, controversy, etc. Or many other games.
     
  4. Aguilas Del America

    Oct 28, 2002
    Nido de Coapa
    Club:
    Club América
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
     
  5. soccerfreak #1

    soccerfreak #1 New Member

    Oct 6, 2003
    Cologne
    Re: A friendly?

    Yes it was the german team and you have to give them big credit for this game, cause they played a very vital part by playing offensive oriented football like just like Real. They also took the 1:0 lead, but winning against this Real Madrid side?
    IMPOSSIBLE!!!

    The best game ever was the 1982 semi-final of Germany against France. Pure dramatic, controversial decisions, first pk-shootout ever....
     
  6. billyireland

    billyireland Member+

    May 4, 2003
    Sydney, Australia
    The 1999 Champions League Final deserves a mention... coming from 1-0 down to 2-1 up, with both goals in injury time, Manchester United beat one of their European arch rivals. Magic that only ManU could pull off.
     
  7. NASL Fan

    NASL Fan Member

    Nov 23, 1999
    Los Angeles, USA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Defining game of the century: Brazil defeating Italy at the 1970 World Cup Final. Not a dramatic game, but the pinnacle of futebol achievement (and Brazil was without a doubt the team of the century).

    Defining game of the century runner-up: Hungary demolishes England at Wembly. Put the nail in the coffin of the idea that the British would always be dominant at soccer because they invented the sport.

    Best played game of the century: Brazil vs. Italy, 1982 World Cup.

    Most dramatic game of the century: Germany defeats France at the 1982 World Cup.

    Defining club game of the century: Real Madrid defeats Eintract Frankfurt

    Most dramatic club game of the century: Manchester Utd pulls back 2 goals in two minutes to beat Bayern Munich (against one of the great keepers of the century, mind you!)

    Goal of the century: Maradona dribbles through the English defense at the 1986 World Cup.

    Most notorious goal of the century: Maradona's hand of God goal in the same game.

    Biggest upset of the century: North Korea over Italy at the 1966 World Cup.

    Runner up upset of the century: United States 1, England 0, 1950 World Cup.
     
  8. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    The point is not whether it was the best game of all time, it was the most significant.

    England were undefeated on home turf against foreign opposition since 1066 and even though we had been dissapointing in 1950, still considered ourseves a match for the best in the world. This game changed all perceptions of continental football in Britain.
     
  9. DamonEsquire

    DamonEsquire BigSoccer Supporter

    Sep 16, 2002
    Kentucky
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree. That is significant.

    I also think Cameroon versus Argentina in 1990 World Cup. Game opened way for Africa and progression is not quite there. However stagnation is enough.
     
  10. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Not sure what your point is. The fact that it changed British perceptions isn't important at all.

    Did it change perceptions anywhere outside Britain? Or did the Brits just finally find out what the rest of the world already knew- that the Game was being played on a higher level elsewhere? I think the latter.

    Most significant match- Uruguay d. Brasil 2-1, 1950 World Cup final. Not for what it meant then, but for what it means now- that the most successful team in the Game's history, a five-time champion, is now the only one of the Five (Argentina, Brasil, Germany, Italy, and Uruguay- the nations who have managed to win a World Cup without the benefit of home field advantage) who has not won at home.
     
  11. Mobile

    Mobile New Member

    Jul 29, 2002
    Melbourne
    Well since England had never been beaten at Wembley, how did 'the rest of the world' know that they were so much better?

    I think it's fairly safe to say that it was regarded as a pretty momentous result around the globe.
     
  12. Michael K.

    Michael K. Member

    Mar 3, 1999
    There or Thereabouts
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interestingly, there's a great little discussion of the Hungary-England game (and its aftereffects) in Ken Dryden's book "The Game" - which is not only a great hockey book, but one of the best and most intelligent sports books I've ever read.

    The Hungary-England game and its fallout is highly analogical to the realization of Canadians that the Soviet Union had become just as good, if not better, than them at their national sport by playing a vastly different, more sophisticated style. The difference being that hockey's "Hungary-England moment" - Canada Cup '72 - ended not in victory for one side or the other, but an overall tie. But Dryden (as I recall) makes specific comparisons between Hungary in soccer and the Soviet Union in hockey, and emphasizes the importance of their style coming into conflict (and superseding, to some extent) that of the nation considering itself the 'home of the game.'
     
  13. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    That game means very little. What is the significance in the fact that Brazil didn't win at home?

    The Hungary-England game showed that there had been a shift in the world order. It showed to the rest of the world that the mighty England, the game's inventors were not invincible and it demonstrated the awesome ability of the Magical Magyars.
     
  14. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    No.
    The Hungary-England game showed England that there had been a shift in the world order. This England national team, which would fail in the next three World Cups and require host-nation status to finally win one before dropping off the radar for another four decades, actually needed an assrape from Hungary to see that they weren't the pinnacle of the game anymore, if in fact they ever were?

    LOL, the rest of the world (aside from some of my fellow Americans, who seem to enjoy kissing English ass) doesn't care who invented the Game- they're too busy improving on it. And most of us never thought England was mighty or invincible, if we thought of them at all.
     
  15. lond2345

    lond2345 Member

    Aug 19, 2002
    USA
    I heard the game of the century was real madrid vs frankfurt in glasgow for the euro final (score was 7-3) and the crowd of over 100k clapped for 20 minutes after the game ended I read.
     
  16. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    You post as if you were there and that you disregarded England in the 50s.

    Anyone who says that England were not at the pinnacle of the game (or suggests they never had been) is living in a dream world. It was not until 1929 that England lost a single game to a foreign team. Up until then I'd say they were pretty invincible. England still have as rich a history as any nation, it's just a pity that they didn't grace the WC with their company or we might well be talking about numerous WCs.
     
  17. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Actually, I'm glad not to be that old. :)

    Perhaps so, prior to the World Cup, but this game took place in 1953. Surely England must have known after failing in Brasil 1950 that football was a global game, dominated by no single nation or continent. They could have learned this lesson in Uruguay 1930, but they chose not to attend.

    Yes, they do.

    Grace...with? Here we go again. Look...it's one thing for you to say how unfortunate it is that they didn't give themselves the opportunity to compete for more Cups than they have, quite another to suggest that the Cup itself was somehow lacking because England or any other European nation stayed home.

    They were not missed.

    There's always a chance.
     
  18. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Well England were still as good as any team in the pre-war era, if the best team in the world didn't attend the WC it does detract from the tournament's significance.

    In 1950 England under-performed and while their can be no excuses (so I will give one anyway), playing in Brazil is very different from playing in europe, especially in those days when the players were less acclimatised.

    England were still a widely feared team in 1953 and the hungarian achievement should never be underestimated.
     
  19. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I think you have to appreciate the international scene was very different back then, as was its media coverage. England's mythical status wasn't limited to England, mainly because (apart from never having lost at home to non-British opposition) hardly anybody outside of Britain had ever seen England play and virtually nobody in Britain had ever seen non British teams play. It's not as if the previous world cups had ever been shown live on TV, and you certainly couldn't watch football from around the world on your TV either (if you had one, which you probably didn't).
    Also, apart from world cups, of which there'd only been one in the previous 15 years, there was no competitive international football at all. The chance to see a foreign team was a big event. It may have only been a friendly, but it would have been a world away from the friendlies of today, where managers field experimental sides and make multiple substitutions, and say the performance is the most important thing - back then, in lieu of any other competitive football, a friendly was often a very important match.

    Saying that, I wouldn't say it was the most important match, but it was a defining moment.



    following on from what I said above, the rest of the world didn't know with any accuracy how good (or otherwise) the England team was back them. They would have known there were now other teams capable of playing some great football, but there was no way of seeing with their own eyes how wide the gap between those teams and England was. All they could go on were the results, and England didn't lose many, and never at home.

    there's nothing particularly significant about that. Brazil were still an emerging nation and it's only now, with people perhaps not realising that Uruguay had an excellent side back then, that it's viewed as a shock.
     
  20. bigtw64

    bigtw64 Member+

    Aug 16, 2003
    florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I doubt if many Brazilians were playing football in Europe in 1958, and they did quite nicely in Sweden that year If I recall.............
     
  21. Bauser

    Bauser Member+

    Dec 23, 2000
    Norway
    Club:
    Fredrikstad FK
    I'm trying to find reasons NOT to pick Brazil v Italy 1982. Only obvious drawback: It wasn't the Final itself.

    It had almost everything else. The clash of playing styles. Lots of legendary players on the same field. A clear underdog against a big favourite. Enzo Bearzot's well-drilled Juventus dominated defence with super efficient counter-attack football and a deadly Paolo Rossi up front. This up against arguably the best and most creative midfield the world has ever seen. Chances at both ends virtually without dead periods.

    The all-time rollercoaster battle. Ticket to the next round changed owner five times during the game which must be close to unique in any major international competition.

    0-0 (BRA in semi)
    1-0 (Rossi - ITA in semi)
    1-1 (Socrates - BRA in semi)
    2-1 (Rossi - ITA in semi)
    2-2 (Falcao - BRA in semi)
    3-2 (Rossi - ITA in semi!)
    Brazil close to 3-3 several times in the closing minutes.
     
  22. P. J. Szule

    P. J. Szule New Member

    Jul 22, 2001
    New York
  23. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Firstly there were plenty of South Americans playing in Europe, they just weren't also playing for their country.
    Secondly, it is slightly easier for South Americans to adapt to European conditions than the other way round.
     
  24. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--

    Unless you're saying that the South American players possess the intestinal fortitude to ignore the weather and get on with the business of winning matches (and I don't think you are), you're gonna have to explain this one. What, exactly, do you mean? Please provide links to support your point- your word alone simply will not suffice for a claim as wild as this one.

    You know... I never hear the Germans complain about heat, cold, wind, rain or otherwise adverse conditions. Perhaps that's why they're the most successful team in Europe, and one of the most successful in the world
     
  25. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    They aren't immune to the weather, but Sweden in June is a much more temperate climate and thus more easily adaptable than Brazil in June.

    I realise that as Brazil is in the Southern Hemisphere June is actually in their winter, but if you consider that the average temperature in Rio in June is 21.1 C compared to 14.6 C in Stockholm. It is still much closer to their year round average of 23.3 Cthan their June is to London's average of 5.8 C.

    all stats from www.worldclimate.com

    Also don't bring up the Germans.
     

Share This Page