|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 21 Sep 12:30
Most men over 60 today learned to play the game within the confines of the old 2-3-5 pyramid system. This system featured a goalkeeper, two defenders (right back and left back), three midfielders (right half, centre half and left half), and five forwards (outside right, inside right, centre forward, inside left, outside left).
While it was straightforward to understand, it was also relatively rigid and left teams vulnerable to counterattacks. Player numbers from 1 to 11 corresponded precisely to the positions described, with each player primarily confined to a set sector of the pitch.
This system remained essentially unchanged from the inception of the football leagues in the late 1800s to the 1950s and 1960s, when there were efforts to inject more fluidity and unpredictability into the game.
Hungary led the way by emphasising ball control, quick passing, and interchanging positions. Real Madrid employed an adaptable formation that shifted between offence and defence, with the great Ferenc Puskas at the centre of both teams.
The Brazilian World Cup team of 1958 didn`t wholly abandon 2-3-5 but emphasised creativity, individual flair and attacking football. Soon after, the Italians devised their own adaptations.
AC Milan and Inter Milan developed opposing systems. Under Nereo Rocco, AC Milan adopted an expansive attacking style, focussing on combinations, quick ball movement, and creative play in the final third, using a formation resembling 1-3-2-4. In contrast, Helenio Herrera employed the now famous "Catenaccio" system, prioritising defensive organisation and counterattacking football, typically in a 1-3-3-3 formation.
These tactics bewildered nearly everyone until Jock Stein took Celtic to Lisbon and unveiled an effective solution. Ironically, when Stein was at Dunfermline, he went to Italy to study the tactics in Milan. When he returned, he installed Willie Cunningham as arguably the British game`s first sweeper ("libero").
Alf Ramsay played a significant role in the decline of the old 2-3-5 system. His England team of 1966 adopted a 4-4-2 formation, considered revolutionary at the time, emphasising strong defensive organisation and teamwork, which was difficult to counter. The 4-4-2 subsequently became a standard formation for many teams worldwide, enduring for several decades.
On Saturday afternoons at 2 p.m., we eagerly await the Pars team sheet, pondering James McPake`s chosen formation, be it 4-3-3, 4-1-3-2, 4-3-2-1 or 3-5-2. Football tactics are infinitely fluid and unpredictable, making things seem overly complex.
Then along comes Ange Postecoglou, and suddenly, all those formations are thrown into the bin in favour of a return to 2-3-5, and everyone revels in it! Spurs are playing the kind of football reminiscent of my primary school days. They set up in a 4-3-3, but during possession, both fullbacks move into central midfield and both "number 10s" advance, joining the three forwards to create a 2-3-5 formation.
Effectively, Ange is channelling his version of Hungary and Real Madrid in the 1950s, teams led by Ferenc Puskas. This connection is no coincidence; Puskas was Postecoglou`s first professional coach when he was a young fullback at South Melbourne. He exerted a profound influence on him.
I am convinced that Postecoglou will elevate Spurs to a level they haven`t been since the days of Bill Nicholson, Danny Blanchflower and Dave Mackay. In fact, I am confident that in due course, Ange Postecoglou will conclude his managerial career at none other than Real Madrid.
Post Edited (Thu 21 Sep 12:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 21 Sep 17:31
Postecoglou has certainly made a big impression since taking over at Spurs. But the 2-3-5 system did not survive the change in the offside rule back in the 1920s; after that the ‘stopper’ centre half between the two full backs became standard. The 4-2-4 system as adopted by Brazil in the mid 1950s was a radical change since it not only provided extra cover in defence but allowed the opportunity to build play from the back, something now considered essential. Up till then a defender was principally required to ‘clear his lines’ which was still the norm when I first watched the Pars under Jock Stein.
I wasn’t aware of the Puskas link with Postecoglou. Here’s grainy footage of Puskas belting in a hat trick against Rangers in 1963. The power of his second goal, at around 1.20, is quite frightening.
https://youtu.be/KjaWStWfLXA
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 21 Sep 17:47
Yes, it is true, sammer, that the centre half as the stopper was the recognised role for number 5. If you think back to how they lined up in the 60s, the centre half tended to sit in an area in the middle, slightly behind 4 and 6 and slightly ahead of 2 and 3. It was not a flat back three.
At least, that`s the way I remember it anyway. Maybe Roy Barry can offer his opinion?
Post Edited (Thu 21 Sep 17:50)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 21 Sep 19:41
I remember it the other way round. The introduction of the `back four` meant that the full back was no longer required to provide cover behind the centre half. This meant the full backs could push up tight on the wingers and tackle them as they were receiving the ball which John Lunn did to great effect. Roy Barry would push up tight on the central striker as well, safe in the knowledge that Jim Fraser was covering any space behind him.
When Brazil won the WC in 1958 they were very concerned about the Swedish wingers- Hamrin and Skoglund- who were outstanding players in Serie A. Hamrin was as good a winger as George Best and Skoglund played in the style of Eddie Gray. Brazil brought in Djalma Santos to play full back in the final, his only game in the tournament, specifically to neutralise the threat to their right flank and he bullied Skoglund out of the game. Nilton Santos sat tight on Hamrin and between them the Santoses neutralised Sweden`s greatest attacking threat. It was a classic example of how a back four can squeeze space on the flanks and through time it led to the demise of the attacking winger.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 21 Sep 19:51
As I remember our teams in the 1960s, I think they always appeared in the programme numbered 1 to 11, and at the kick off they stood in 2-3-5 formation.
So it puzzles me when folk say 2-3-5 was out by then. Seems to me the England world cup winners at kick off stood in 2-3-5 positions, as did Pars Cup winners in `68, and the Scotland team that beat England in 1967, and as far as I recall, those teams were numbered 1 to 11.
Nevertheless I do remember the term `overlapping full backs` and I recall particularly John Lunn flying up and doon the entire length of the left wing like his pants were on fire!
I was watching a match the other night and one of the players was number 80!
I`m not sure it really matters if the spectators know where each player is supposed to be playing or not, but I liked the old ways. Goalie, full backs, half backs, (including centre half,) forwards, (including wingers, inside forwards and centre forward.) Ah the good old days: things just made more sense, at least to me as someone pre-, and just into my, teens.
I agree with Ozpar pretty much as to how the centre half lined up, (don`t know where Sammer got the bizarre idea that the centre half lined up between the full backs, not in Scotland they didn`t. Ref: sammer (Thu 21 Sep 17:31),"the 2-3-5 system did not survive the change in the offside rule back in the 1920s; after that the ‘stopper’ centre half between the two full backs became standard." Nope, I don`t believe that`s true at all.
Post Edited (Thu 21 Sep 19:58)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Sep 20:20
By the time England played in the 1966 World Cup had Alf Ramsey not adopted a 4-3-3 formation and his team called `wingless wonders`? The only natural winger in the team that played in the Final was Bobby Charlton but he played a central role supporting the strikers, Hunt and Hurst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 21 Sep 20:26
I got the bizarre idea by watching the Pars regularly from around 1964. Jim McLean was our `pivot` centre half back then, backed up by Jim Thomson. When Callaghan or Lunn attacked, the other full back stayed back and a wing half like George Miller or Tommy Callaghan stayed put. It worked very well.
The visual evidence for `back four` defences is available from the 1950s with the Brazil v Sweden WC final an excellent example, the full 90 minutes of which I have watched a few times. For England the stopper centre half in 1966 was Jack Charlton and he was covered by Bobby Moore playing as a sweeper.
By the mid 1960s pretty much all Scottish teams played with a back four but the Pars had an advantage in that we had two very good attacking full backs to push up when we had good possession. Celtic did too, but others relied on Bobby Shearer, Chris Shevlane or Davie Provan who were really older fashioned type full backs.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 21 Sep 20:28
I haven`t been able to find the teams line-up for any of the three matches I mentioned, but this is an England v Scotland 1965 programme, showing 2-3-5:
Post Edited (Thu 21 Sep 20:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 21 Sep 21:26
Apologies for a slight boob in regard to England 1966 WCF. I`ve been looking at youtube and they weren`t numbered 1 to 11.
At the start of the first and second half, they lined up with five forwards along the half way line, including two in wingers positions, number 7 (Ball) and number 16 (Peters).
Well, formations were always as clear as mud to me, I`ll stick with my fond memories of this lovely line-up:
Bent Martin (1)
Willie Callaghan (2), John Lunn (3)
John McGarty (4), Roy Barry (5), Tommy Callaghan (6)
Ian Lister (7?), Bert Paton (8), Paddy Gardner (9), "Shugs" Robertson (10?), Alex "Mickey"Edwards (11?)
Post Edited (Thu 21 Sep 21:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 22 Sep 08:51
I think Ozpar’s original post was on the mark in that the 2-3-5 set up has been rediscovered, albeit in a modern form. The traditional half back line of wing halves and a centre half was, so far as we can tell, detailed to mark the wingers and the centre forward with two out -and -out defenders covering behind them. So five defensive players when the opposition had the ball, but the half back line pushed up to support attacks leaving two at the back - which is along the lines of what Postecoglou encourages at Spurs.
Formations come and go but the basics of the game remain much the same: cover is required in defence; passing options are required when attacking; and pace down the flanks allows a team to turn the opposing defence.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parathletic
Date: Fri 22 Sep 09:50
Spurs play Arsenal and Liverpool next in Ange`s first big test.Lets see what formation he goes with.If he leaves 2 at the back at any time they will get picked off at ease with the pace those teams have on the counter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 22 Sep 09:59
There`s a great interview on the BBC Sport website where Gary Lineker asks Ange Postecoglu about his career and his footballing philosophy. Ferenc Puskas gets a mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 22 Sep 12:02
Great OP Ozpar, I`ve read it several times.
I hope "Tottingham" can keep it going. Yes, even the great Ossie Ardiles might be intrigued.
Arsenal v Spurs on Sunday. COYS !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: bigdonnie
Date: Fri 22 Sep 12:24
brazil 1970 were best ive seen if you scored against them they just scored more
donald mcneil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Super Johnnie
Date: Fri 22 Sep 13:22
Jonathan Wilson, the Guardian`s `football brain in a jar`, has written an interesting book on this subject called: Inverting the Pyramid: A history of football tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
