Jump to content
IGNORED

Ye Olde Formations


Davefevs

Recommended Posts

Just seen this.

26D0AD06-A98F-4A74-A67E-0EB251367132.thumb.jpeg.b81c1216ce2f79dcfa4fd3982feaec9b.jpeg

Did teams genuinely line up in a 235 formation, or was it just a way of writing the teams down?  If it was really a 235 there must have been overloads aplenty!

Second question.  If that team had to set up in say a 442 or 433 who would play in what position?

Ta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you not read Inverting the Pyramid? I'd have thought you'd have had that in prime position on the bookshelf?

Yeh teams did line up like that, but iirc it was a 19th century thing had largely faded in favour of variations on WM long before the time that newspapers would print lineups like that (which I assume is 60s/70s). So a true 235 probably wasn't happening at the time of those teams? What date is this match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have you not read Inverting the Pyramid? I'd have thought you'd have had that in prime position on the bookshelf?

Yeh teams did line up like that, but iirc it had largely faded in favour of variations on WM by the time that newspapers would print lineups like that (which I assume is 60s/70s). So a true 235 probably wasn't happening at the time of those teams? What date is this match?

Absolutely right. As a junior at school in the 60s we all played the inverted Xmas tree. I used to play left half despite being right footed............:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have you not read Inverting the Pyramid? I'd have thought you'd have had that in prime position on the bookshelf?

Yeh teams did line up like that, but iirc it was a 19th century thing had largely faded in favour of variations on WM long before the time that newspapers would print lineups like that (which I assume is 60s/70s). So a true 235 probably wasn't happening at the time of those teams? What date is this match?

I haven’t actually, read the likes of Soccernomics but never got that.

I’m guessing from the names, mid-60s?

39 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Absolutely right. As a junior at school in the 60s we all played the inverted Xmas tree. I used to play left half despite being right footed............:dunno:

We played a 334 at Junior school (late 70s), but then again footie teacher was a Rugby bloke. In fact he used to call the middle of the midfield 3, centre half, which was me.

Senior school was 442, and wingless.  I played left of the two in CM, or LM.  I was a short-arse / late developer so was about 18 before I really started playing centre-half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just seen this.

26D0AD06-A98F-4A74-A67E-0EB251367132.thumb.jpeg.b81c1216ce2f79dcfa4fd3982feaec9b.jpeg

Did teams genuinely line up in a 235 formation, or was it just a way of writing the teams down?  If it was really a 235 there must have been overloads aplenty!

Second question.  If that team had to set up in say a 442 or 433 who would play in what position?

Ta

I can just about remember watching that line up as a youngster. Connor (and Stuart Taylor) were big centre half’s as I recall. So pretty sure he’d have played between the two full backs, Parr and Briggs. A bit like the England World Cup winning side of about the same era, with Jack Charlton in the middle between Wilson and Cohen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a strange looking lineup and I’m sure it’s just a convenient way of writing it down. Parr and Wimshurst were both “right halves” though I’m sure Wimshurst also played right back.  From, not too reliable, memory I’d say the formation was:

                      Gibson

Wimshurst  Connor  Bush  Briggs 

               Parr  Quigley

Derrick  Crowe  Galley  Peters

That seems to be very attacking and weak in midfield but in reality it was more flexible with Derrick and Peters dropping back a bit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just seen this.

26D0AD06-A98F-4A74-A67E-0EB251367132.thumb.jpeg.b81c1216ce2f79dcfa4fd3982feaec9b.jpeg

Did teams genuinely line up in a 235 formation, or was it just a way of writing the teams down?  If it was really a 235 there must have been overloads aplenty!

Second question.  If that team had to set up in say a 442 or 433 who would play in what position?

Ta

I would say that was around 1968.

And no, it wasn't 2-3-5 at that time, it would probably be;

Gibson

Parr Wimshurst Connor Briggs

Derrick Quigley Bush Peters

Crowe Galley

Parr was normally a centre back, Derrick was a wide forward, Quigley a Tommy Doc type, Peters an out and out winger, and I'm not sure where Noddy Bush fitted in there, he was more of a forward player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from the Wiki page on Football Formations:

The first long-term successful formation was first recorded in 1880.[1] In Association Football, however, published by Caxton in 1960, the following appears in Vol II, page 432: "Wrexham ... the first winner of the Welsh Cup in 1877 ... for the first time certainly in Wales and probably in Britain, a team played three half-backs and five forwards ..."

The 2–3–5 was originally known as the "Pyramid", with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. By the 1890s, it was the standard formation in England and had spread all over the world. With some variations, it was used by most top-level teams up to the 1930s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

That’s a strange looking lineup and I’m sure it’s just a convenient way of writing it down. Parr and Wimshurst were both “right halves” though I’m sure Wimshurst also played right back.  From, not too reliable, memory I’d say the formation was:

                      Gibson

Wimshurst  Connor  Bush  Briggs 

               Parr  Quigley

Derrick  Crowe  Galley  Peters

That seems to be very attacking and weak in midfield but in reality it was more flexible with Derrick and Peters dropping back a bit 

It’s a long time…….but I remember Parr as the defender and Wimshurst in midfield - albeit deep, a Nobby Stiles role. And I don’t remember Bush as a defender, I thought he was a forward? Other than that, looks about right to me….but I may be imagining it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The match was a Third round FA Cup tie on Jan 27 1968. Ended 0-0. 37,237 there.

Replay was won 2-1 with goals from Crowe and Galley. 30,157

Parr was a defensive midfielder or centre half, playing at right back, a defensive position. So a back three of Parr, Connor and Briggs with Wimshurst, Bush and Quigley as a midfield three.

Derrick and Lou Peters as two wingers who stuck to the touch line, leaving Crowe and Galley as the main attack.

Bush was a originally a big centre forward converted to midfield. One of four six footers in the defensive part.

Quigley a real tasty tackler, ball winner and a very creative source for the strikers.

As it was a year or two after England's World Cup win with 4-4-2, that is probably how it was set up.

I saw both games.

PS. I took a friends eight year old son to the replay. Six months later he drowned in the Avon near Keynsham. So sad to remember this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, italian dave said:

It’s a long time…….but I remember Parr as the defender and Wimshurst in midfield - albeit deep, a Nobby Stiles role. And I don’t remember Bush as a defender, I thought he was a forward? Other than that, looks about right to me….but I may be imagining it!

You’re right about Bush. For some strange reason I thought he played in defence as well as centre forward. I now think the formation as posted by @bcfc01 is probably correct;
 

Gibson

Parr Wimshurst Connor Briggs

Derrick Quigley Bush Peters

Crowe Galley

or possibly:

Gibson

Parr Wimshurst Connor Briggs

Derrick Quigley Peters

             Crowe

        Galley. Bush 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I haven’t actually, read the likes of Soccernomics but never got that.

You'd probably like it. I wouldn't unequivocally recommend it as it can be pretty dry in places and is really as much a history book as it is a football book. For some that is enough to turn them off, and honestly I'd not blame them. However, for a solid walkthrough of the history of football formations it's golden.

The chapter on 1958 Brazil's 4-2-4 with Garrincha, Pele et al is brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

The match was a Third round FA Cup tie on Jan 27 1968. Ended 0-0. 37,237 there.

Replay was won 2-1 with goals from Crowe and Galley. 30,157

Parr was a defensive midfielder or centre half, playing at right back, a defensive position. So a back three of Parr, Connor and Briggs with Wimshurst, Bush and Quigley as a midfield three.

Derrick and Lou Peters as two wingers who stuck to the touch line, leaving Crowe and Galley as the main attack.

Bush was a originally a big centre forward converted to midfield. One of four six footers in the defensive part.

Quigley a real tasty tackler, ball winner and a very creative source fir the strikers.

As it was a year or two after England's World Cup win with 4-4-2, that is probably how it was set up.

I saw both games.

I bow to your knowledge - and memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

235 was a distant memory by the 1960s (I was born in 1956) but the traditional positional names were still used even though sometimes misleading. And the shirt numbers reflected that - a number 9 was a centre forward etc.

Pretty much this - 

1 - Goalkeeper

2  - Right Back - in a back four

3 - Left back - in a back four

4 - Right half (normally in fact a midfielder in a 442 or 433)

5 - Centre half (actually the main ball winning central defender)

6 - Left half (normally the other central defender)

7 - Right wing (as now, either a wide forward or wide midfielder)

8 - Inside Right (either a midfielder or second striker)

9 - Centre forward (target man/striker)

10  - Inside left (either a midfielder or second striker)

11 - Left wing (as right wing)

So, for a long time the names and numbers reflected a 235 setup that no loner existed on the pitch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

I can just about remember watching that line up as a youngster. Connor (and Stuart Taylor) were big centre half’s as I recall. So pretty sure he’d have played between the two full backs, Parr and Briggs. A bit like the England World Cup winning side of about the same era, with Jack Charlton in the middle between Wilson and Cohen.

England played with a back 4, in a 433, overlapping full backs Wilson and Cohen, big Jack and I can't remember who at CH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t remember the game, but am surprised to see Gordon Parr at right back - he was always right half for me; No. 4 alongside Jack Connor at 5 with Gordon Low at 6.

I wonder whether Tony Ford, the usual right back, was injured, although I doubt it as players didn’t tend to get injured back then ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

                         Bentley

                   Vyner.      Kalas

            Nagy.  Williams.  Massengo 

Owura. Weimann. Martin. Wells. Semenyo 

Go for it Nige

Don’t think we would actually manage a shot on target though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I don’t remember the game, but am surprised to see Gordon Parr at right back - he was always right half for me; No. 4 alongside Jack Connor at 5 with Gordon Low at 6.

I wonder whether Tony Ford, the usual right back, was injured, although I doubt it as players didn’t tend to get injured back then ?.

I suspect “stylish” Ken Wimshurst was RB for that game. He was often tagged as such with Terry Bush “bustling”. Tony Ford probably injured. Must have been pretty serious. Hamstring? Run it off! With Ken there it would have been ParrConnorLow across the middle. Somehow still recall that as one word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I haven’t actually, read the likes of Soccernomics but never got that.

I’m guessing from the names, mid-60s?

We played a 334 at Junior school (late 70s), but then again footie teacher was a Rugby bloke. In fact he used to call the middle of the midfield 3, centre half, which was me.

Senior school was 442, and wingless.  I played left of the two in CM, or LM.  I was a short-arse / late developer so was about 18 before I really started playing centre-half.

Inverting the Pyramid is, in my view, a way more interesting and in depth read than soccernomics and is my favourite book on football. From your posts, I reckon you’d really enjoy it.

Jonathan Wilson has a second book on the history of goalkeeping too. Not quite as good as inverting the pyramid but still a great read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pongo88 said:

You’re right about Bush. For some strange reason I thought he played in defence as well as centre forward. I now think the formation as posted by @bcfc01 is probably correct;
 

Gibson

Parr Wimshurst Connor Briggs

Derrick Quigley Bush Peters

Crowe Galley

or possibly:

Gibson

Parr Wimshurst Connor Briggs

Derrick Quigley Peters

             Crowe

        Galley. Bush 

@Pongo I think your first side is spot on except Wimshurst at right back and Gordon Parr alongsideJack Connor.

Gibbo once said publically with a big smile on his face, that Jack Connor was the most dangerous attacker he had ever played against. A sardonic remark because Jack scored some classic own goals without giving Gibbo any chance of saving them.

The first time I saw Jack Connor play, he was centre forward for Huddersfield at City on Easter Saturday 1960. City fighting against relegation had beaten Ipswich away on Good Friday. In the 89th minute of the Saturday home game at 1-1, Atyeo scored a header at the Covered End. One minute later we had lost 2-3 with Connor scoring twice in a minute. We won again on Easter Monday at home to Ipswich but still went down.

Hence my lifelong realisation that City are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It's not something that Lee Johnson invented!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Leveller said:

235 was a distant memory by the 1960s (I was born in 1956) but the traditional positional names were still used even though sometimes misleading. And the shirt numbers reflected that - a number 9 was a centre forward etc.

Pretty much this - 

1 - Goalkeeper

2  - Right Back - in a back four

3 - Left back - in a back four

4 - Right half (normally in fact a midfielder in a 442 or 433)

5 - Centre half (actually the main ball winning central defender)

6 - Left half (normally the other central defender)

7 - Right wing (as now, either a wide forward or wide midfielder)

8 - Inside Right (either a midfielder or second striker)

9 - Centre forward (target man/striker)

10  - Inside left (either a midfielder or second striker)

11 - Left wing (as right wing)

So, for a long time the names and numbers reflected a 235 setup that no loner existed on the pitch.

 

That's exactly how I remember it.

I remember my teacher chalking it up on the blackboard like it was yesterday. I was like a sponge :laugh:.

I played Inside Right initially. School kit was Green shirts, orange shorts and socks.

Oh the nipple rub and chaffing....nylon... And shorts tighter than a nats arse ??

School practice was often like that well known scene from KES.

Remember practicing Cruyff turns in the playground and trying to dribble like Alan Devonshire :laugh: ?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

That's exactly how I remember it.

I remember my teacher chalking it up on the blackboard like it was yesterday. I was like a sponge :laugh:.

I played Inside Right initially. School kit was Green shirts, orange shorts and socks.

Oh the nipple rub and chaffing....nylon... And shorts tighter than a nats arse ??

School practice was often like that well known scene from KES.

Remember practicing Cruyff turns in the playground and trying to dribble like Alan Devonshire :laugh: ?

 

 

 

 

What you do in your spare time is nobody else’s business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...