Jimmy Greaves In Hospital

[Gribz 743]

Scott - Ive noticed some of your teams have a formation like 2-3-5 etc. Was that the norm back then?

 

Wonder what it would do to the game now if teams approached it like that. Man City practically do it anyway with the amount of attackers but with losing Kompany it has shown them they still need a rock at the back in any formation.

[MacK1950 2,226]

18 minutes ago, Gribz said:

Scott - Ive noticed some of your teams have a formation like 2-3-5 etc. Was that the norm back then?

We had goalkeeper, 2 FULL-BACKS(who sometimes overlapped),  2 centre half's(who would come up for corners at times),2  half-backs/inside forwards, 2 wingers and 2 forwards.

Then as European games came to the fore modern day tactics/line-ups started to evolve.

[compo 6,075]

1 hour ago, Scott7 said:

The All England XI, footer togs at the ready.

 

Gordon Banks (Leicester)    (My big brother says Frank Swift, City)

 

Jimmy Armfield (Blackpool)

Terry Cooper (Leeds)

 

Duncan Edwards (United)

Billy Wright (Wolves)

Bobby Moore (West Ham)

 

Stanley Matthews (Blackpool)

Jimmy Greaves (‘Spurs)

Bobby Charlton (United)

Colin Bell (City)

Tom Finney (Preston North End)

 

I didn’t see Edwards or Wright except in very old film but their reputations demand inclusion. I should have had Lofthouse for Charlton but sentiment ruled.

 

Again, Wayne Biggins just misses out.

 

 

Colin Bell could run forever 

[Scott7 5,107]

2 hours ago, Gribz said:

Scott - Ive noticed some of your teams have a formation like 2-3-5 etc. Was that the norm back then?

From my master class for weans about a year ago.

 

 

The old ritual lineup at the kickoff was GK 1, RB 2, LB 3, RH 4, CH 5, LH 6, OR 7, IR 8, CF 9, IL 10, OL 11. No names or numbers on the jerseys in early times.

 

The formation was more fluid than that during the game. The centre half in the three was really a centre fullback so the backline was RB, CH, LB.  As play developed with a team attacking on the right, the RB advanced but rarely beyond the half line. The CH also came forward but not as far as the RB and the LB dropped back so there was a diagonal across the pitch. If the attack was on the left the diagonal swung the other way, pivoting on the CH, hence the description of the CH as the pivot, usually in journalese “the big pivot”.

 

The weakness of the system is obvious. A clearance out of defence into the space behind a RB in an advanced position for a pacy winger to run onto caused problems unless Eric Caldow was there with his speed of thought and foot to come across to the rescue. 

 

Willie Telfer was the last of the old pivots. Bill Patterson was the nominal CH in a four man defence of RB, Shearer, RH, Davis, CH Patterson, LB Caldow.  Davis played between RB and CH and slightly forward of the line.

 

The half backs were theoretically defenders but one usually was more forward going and the other defensive eg Davis and Billy Stevenson.

 

The inside forwards were attackers but one was often a fetcher and carrier - Sammy Baird, perhaps - and the other a craftsman to unlock the defence and unleash the wingers - McMillan the prime example.

 

Rangers in the last of the fifties and the sixties played 4-2-4 before it was invented. Hearts were the first team to officially play that system with Danny Ferguson wearing 7 on his jersey playing RB. (“Gerrup yer wing, Fergyssunn”, cried the Gorgie afficionados.)

 

If a team was very lucky and had John Greig,  the defensive/forward distinction for the half back didn’t matter because he could play both in the same game.

 

Is the spectacle better now? Yes if you’re watching City or Barcelona but for the most part, because of its flaws, the nominal 2-3-5 was more exciting  and less predictable 

[ChelseaBoy 2,227]

Gordon Banks  

Jimmy Armfield  

Terry Cooper  

Billy Wright

John Terry  

Bobby Moore  

Johnny Haynes  

Jimmy Greaves  

Bobby Charlton 

Paul Gascoigne  

Tom Finney  

 

Subs

Alan Shearer

Stanley Matthews

Alan Ball

Duncan Edwards

Martin Peters

David Seaman 

Roger Hunt

 

[alexscottislegend 2,043]

On 11/04/2020 at 10:25, Gribz said:

Scott - Ive noticed some of your teams have a formation like 2-3-5 etc. Was that the norm back then?

 

Wonder what it would do to the game now if teams approached it like that. Man City practically do it anyway with the amount of attackers but with losing Kompany it has shown them they still need a rock at the back in any formation.

They used to call it the WM formation. Don't see why they couldn't bring it back. You only need one centre half nowadays.

[Rousseau 9,306]

Teams still play that way, but it's not the starting formation, it's the formation they transition into when they are attacking. 

 

Guardiola has his teams playing that way, in essence. 

[Scott7 5,107]

14 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Teams still play that way, but it's not the starting formation, it's the formation they transition into when they are attacking. 

 

Guardiola has his teams playing that way, in essence. 

Interesting. I haven’t seen it that way. I’ll look more carefully next time whenever that will be. Hard to judge from the telly because you don’t see the whole field.

[compo 6,075]

I see Jimmy Greaves is home from hospital a wee light of good news in these horrid times