Two, Three, Five.

[ExiledAjax]

A fun question was asked in the 1920 FA Cup thread. @P'head Red asked who I might use in a 235 formation. I've had a go.

So my caveat is that I am far too young to have ever seen a team play a 235. I guess that's actually true for almost everyone on this forum. I'm therefore not totally sure exactly how the front five truly lined up (I can dig out my copy of Inverting the Pyramid later to check). It's shown in the 1920 Semi-Final programme as a flat front 5, but surely in real matches it wasn't like that. I've had a dig around and the wikipedia entry on the traditional English 235 says:

For the first time, a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (full-backs) would zonally mark the opponent forwards (mainly the central trio), while the midfielders (halfbacks) would fill the gaps (usually marking the opposing wingers or inside forwards).

The centre halfback had a key role in both helping to organise the team's attack and marking the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

I've made a selection with the above in mind and in addition I have assumed that the two inside forwards would normally drop a little deeper than shown in the 1920 document. I'm also assuming that we are lining up against another 235 rather than a modern formation.

As the back 2 are zonally marking 3 players I've gone for mobility and athleticism over raw stopping power and defensive ability. On that basis Baker is dropped, although in a modern formation I'd have him over Kalas this season.

James is Centre-Half in favour of Massengo and King. Massengo might be the obvious high energy player to screen, but I want James in there for his passing range, and his experience should help him to mark the centre forward. Instead I've put Massengo higher up the pitch, and he and Weimann are there to provide runners for the lynch-pin of Martin. King is unlucky to miss out.

We need players at right and left half-back who can run all day and also provide some physical presence, so that's why I have gone Pring and Vyner over Dasilva and Simpson. 

Wide left is a weird one and in past seasons I think we've seen that it's not Wells' best position. However, COD is currently injured and I want Weimann closer to Martin so I'm not sure who else to put there. Maybe Semenyo would be the guy to go there instead? Regardless, wide left is definitely a position we'd be looking to sort out in the next window. Scott gets wide right because he's just brought me so much joy so far this season and I want him playing for City for the next 15 years, so I couldn't leave him out of this hypothetical madness.

I'm sure others could argue the case for King, Kalas, Dasilva, COD etc.

Obviously, if there is anyone who has personally witnessed a team play in a 235 then please, do supply some input!

PS. This is based on current form, and who's been playing recently.

PPS. Obviously there's no subs bench. We're playing proper football here.

[Southport Red]

You’ve got Nakhichevan out on the left wing again. Are you Dean Holden?

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

I'll give this a go, when I have time it looks like a fun game. 

[Leveller]

Well you’ve got the numbering all wrong!

 

[Calculus]

I started watching football in the early 60s and although formations appeared in programmes as 2-3-5 as you have shown they didn't actually play like that then.

My recollection is that in reality it was something like this:

                              1

       2            5              6             3

                 4                      10

       7            8               9             11

No 2 was always the right back, 3 the left back. Basically wide defenders but expected to get forward.

Nos 5 and 6 were the central defenders - eg Jack Charlton and Bobby Moore (or Norman Hunter). No 6 was also the left sided centrall defender.

7 and 11 were wingers, right and left (until Alf Ramsey disinvented them in 1966).

9 the centre forward, 8 his strike partner.

4 and 10 were midfield schemer types, although one would like a little deeper.

I believe thay much earlier (pre the Hungarian thrashing of England at Wembley in the 50s) that teams actually played mainly to attack, so have no idea whether 2-3-5 was used.

Back towards the beginning of the game I believe that teams used mass around the ball, often attacking in groups, a bit like like watching young kids play now.

Interesting the way the game has developed over the years - you wonder what the next tactical revolution will be.

 

 

         

[cidered abroad]

4 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

A fun question was asked in the 1920 FA Cup thread. @P'head Red asked who I might use in a 235 formation. I've had a go.

So my caveat is that I am far too young to have ever seen a team play a 235. I guess that's actually true for almost everyone on this forum. I'm therefore not totally sure exactly how the front five truly lined up (I can dig out my copy of Inverting the Pyramid later to check). It's shown in the 1920 Semi-Final programme as a flat front 5, but surely in real matches it wasn't like that. I've had a dig around and the wikipedia entry on the traditional English 235 says:

For the first time, a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (full-backs) would zonally mark the opponent forwards (mainly the central trio), while the midfielders (halfbacks) would fill the gaps (usually marking the opposing wingers or inside forwards).

The centre halfback had a key role in both helping to organise the team's attack and marking the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

I've made a selection with the above in mind and in addition I have assumed that the two inside forwards would normally drop a little deeper than shown in the 1920 document. I'm also assuming that we are lining up against another 235 rather than a modern formation.

As the back 2 are zonally marking 3 players I've gone for mobility and athleticism over raw stopping power and defensive ability. On that basis Baker is dropped, although in a modern formation I'd have him over Kalas this season.

James is Centre-Half in favour of Massengo and King. Massengo might be the obvious high energy player to screen, but I want James in there for his passing range, and his experience should help him to mark the centre forward. Instead I've put Massengo higher up the pitch, and he and Weimann are there to provide runners for the lynch-pin of Martin. King is unlucky to miss out.

We need players at right and left half-back who can run all day and also provide some physical presence, so that's why I have gone Pring and Vyner over Dasilva and Simpson. 

Wide left is a weird one and in past seasons I think we've seen that it's not Wells' best position. However, COD is currently injured and I want Weimann closer to Martin so I'm not sure who else to put there. Maybe Semenyo would be the guy to go there instead? Regardless, wide left is definitely a position we'd be looking to sort out in the next window. Scott gets wide right because he's just brought me so much joy so far this season and I want him playing for City for the next 15 years, so I couldn't leave him out of this hypothetical madness.

I'm sure others could argue the case for King, Kalas, Dasilva, COD etc.

Obviously, if there is anyone who has personally witnessed a team play in a 235 then please, do supply some input!

PS. This is based on current form, and who's been playing recently.

PPS. Obviously there's no subs bench. We're playing proper football here.

I grew up with 2-3-5. But that is not how most teams set up.

A back three with two full backs and a centre half.

Right half and left half (wing halves). One was usually a defensive player and the other was one who went forward more.

Right and Left wing. They mainly hugged their respective touchline with a primary objective of getting past to full back to get crosses into the opposition penalty area. 

Inside right and Inside left. One would often be an out and out attacker with the other more inclined to be a creator and playing closer to the more forward wing half.

Centre forward, a target man and usually the main goalscorer.

Best example I can give you all is the Spurs team that in 1961, won First Division and FA Cup, the first team to achieve that in the 20the century.

Full backs. Baker & Henry with centre and left half, Norman & Mackay in between them.

Right half Blanchflower and inside right White the creative midfield.

Two wingers, Dyson and Jones playing wide. 

Centre forward Smith and Inside left Allen as attackers.

More like 4-2-2-2 than 2-3-5.

The rigidity of the positions at full back who hardly crossed the halfway line, the wingers who hardly defended and centre forward.

But mobility at wing half and inside forward who defended and attacked.

IMO the biggest change made by Ramsey for the 1966 World Cup was to use wide midfielders released from touch line hugging to become more mobile.

City's 1955 promotion team would line up. (The side that finished the season)

Guy, White, Peacock, Thresher

Eisentrager or Milton, Williams, Burden, Boxley

Atyeo, Rogers.

4-4-2? Looks like it!

Hope this helps all youngsters on here.

PS we did use a goalkeeper. Cook or Anderson.

 

[City oz]

10 minutes ago, Calculus said:

I started watching football in the early 60s and although formations appeared in programmes as 2-3-5 as you have shown they didn't actually play like that then.

My recollection is that in reality it was something like this:

                              1

       2            5              6             3

                 4                      10

       7            8               9             11

No 2 was always the right back, 3 the left back. Basically wide defenders but expected to get forward.

Nos 5 and 6 were the central defenders - eg Jack Charlton and Bobby Moore (or Norman Hunter). No 6 was also the left sided centrall defender.

7 and 11 were wingers, right and left (until Alf Ramsey disinvented them in 1966).

9 the centre forward, 8 his strike partner.

4 and 10 were midfield schemer types, although one would like a little deeper.

I believe thay much earlier (pre the Hungarian thrashing of England at Wembley in the 50s) that teams actually played mainly to attack, so have no idea whether 2-3-5 was used.

Back towards the beginning of the game I believe that teams used mass around the ball, often attacking in groups, a bit like like watching young kids play now.

Interesting the way the game has developed over the years - you wonder what the next tactical revolution will be.

 

 

         

City played this formation well in the 70s. Then later 70s similar but with Shaw in goal, Mabbut, Cormack, Cooper and Hunter and the list goes on and n 

 

                            1 - Cashley.

       2 - Sweeney            5- Collier              6 - Merrick.          3- Drysdale

                 4 Sir Gerry G.                   10- Garland 

       7- Tainton            8 - Ritchie.            9  - Cheesley.          11 - Whitehead

[ExiledAjax]

@Calculus, @cidered abroad thank you for your great contributions, and it's really interesting to hear from people who have witnessed the evolution of football over the years. However, I think the formation I was looking at was the one from 1920, which was really the back end of the era of the true 235. I've dug out my copy of Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid, ("ITP") where he discusses this 235 early on. I can't copy and paste but essentially he describes the formation as evolving in the 1870s out of the original 226 formation. One of the front 6 dropped back to become the central half back. 

Apparently the common consensus is that it was the Cambridge university side in 1883 that popularised this 235, although Wilson suggests that Nottingham Forest were already using it in the late 1870s and used it alongside something else they invented at that time - the shinpad. Wilson also claims that the 1878 Welsh Cup Final between Wrexham and Welsh Druids saw both teams use the classic 235 "pyramid" formation.

In this formation the centre-half is the fulcrum of the team, and the role is described as requiring a player who can be "...a multi-skilled all-rounder, defender and attacker, leader and instigator, goal-scorer and destroyer." I suppose it is the ancient pre-cursor of many midfield archetypes, and is in essence the common ancestor of the box-to-box midfielder, the classic no.10 of the 90s, and even the 'Makélélé' role we saw become popular in the 00s. I thought that James was the most apt for this role out of our current crop, although I'd say most players today are far more specialised.

@Calculus, as you say, these very early teams were all out attack. Again in ITP Wilson quotes a Scottish article from 1882 in which the very notion of having two defenders is disparaged as being a ruse to keep the goalkeeper entertained.  

This 235 pyramid persisted until WW1, and was then put to bed in the inter-war years by Herbert Chapman, the notion of passing the ball, and the WM.

It was this early, pre-war form of 235 that I had in mind when putting together my suggested XI.

On another note I'm not too shocked to hear that the City sides of the 50's and 60's might have been listed in a 235 formation, but when they lined up on the field they were far from it. @Calculus I'm also not surprised that you essentially describe a 424 being used in the 60s. It's not too dissimilar to modern formations being listed as 451, 352, 4411 etc but teams then playing in a far more fluid manner. Print and TV media, and the man in the street, find it useful to have fixed points of reference - defenders, midfielders, attackers, that at the top level of the game may be far more fluid. In the 50s, where your target audience was born under and grew up with 235, WM, and (if a cultured man) then 424, you might well list a team as 235 regardless of what was being played on the pitch.

I guess this is another example of why it is valuable to us younger folk to have our elder's experiences recounted to us!

2 hours ago, Southport Red said:

You’ve got Nakhichevan out on the left wing again. Are you Dean Holden?

In my defence, I mentioned my significant reticence to play Mr. Wells as the outside left. If fit, I'd probably put COD there.

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

Well you’ve got the numbering all wrong!

The fault of a free to use browser tool. I'd wasted enough time thinking about the formation to bother correct the numbering as well.

[cidered abroad]

10 hours ago, Calculus said:

I started watching football in the early 60s and although formations appeared in programmes as 2-3-5 as you have shown they didn't actually play like that then.

My recollection is that in reality it was something like this:

                              1

       2            5              6             3

                 4                      10

       7            8               9             11

No 2 was always the right back, 3 the left back. Basically wide defenders but expected to get forward.

Nos 5 and 6 were the central defenders - eg Jack Charlton and Bobby Moore (or Norman Hunter). No 6 was also the left sided centrall defender.

7 and 11 were wingers, right and left (until Alf Ramsey disinvented them in 1966).

9 the centre forward, 8 his strike partner.

4 and 10 were midfield schemer types, although one would like a little deeper.

I believe thay much earlier (pre the Hungarian thrashing of England at Wembley in the 50s) that teams actually played mainly to attack, so have no idea whether 2-3-5 was used.

Back towards the beginning of the game I believe that teams used mass around the ball, often attacking in groups, a bit like like watching young kids play now.

Interesting the way the game has developed over the years - you wonder what the next tactical revolution will be.

 

 

         

@Calculus

Very good post.

I consider that the formations have actually changed very little since the second War. There aren't too many ways of covering the size of a football pitch with ten outfield players.

What has significantly altered is the mindset of managers in that the objective now is primarily not to lose. Previously it was normal for the home team to batter the visitors for at least 15 minutes and often longer.

Now just keeping possession and not going anywhere has almost killed an attacking sport at the higher levels.

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

@Calculus

Very good post.

I consider that the formations have actually changed very little since the second War.

There aren't too many ways of covering the size of a football pitch with ten outfield players.

What has significantly altered is the mindset of managers in that the objective now is primarily not to lose.

I don’t necessarily agree with that, I think it depends on the team, Man City don’t go out to not lose for example.  I think there is a big difference between setting up defensively with men behind the ball and counter attacking AND not to lose.  You can still play defensively with the objective to win imho. But you don’t have to go gung ho from the first minute either.

Previously it was normal for the home team to batter the visitors for at least 15 minutes and often longer.

the game has become more tactical, it’s become quicker and players need to be fitter etc.  You could watch the 66 WCF and pick it to pieces from an analytical / tactical perspective.  I suspect in 20+ years time we will be saying the same about today’s styles.

Now just keeping possession and not going anywhere has almost killed an attacking sport at the higher levels.

Of course there are times in a game where it is passing for passing’s sake, but the good teams are doing it with purpose.  They are probing for opportunities to exploit, an opponent switching off, etc.  They are doing it to get in shape to execute a pattern of play.  It can therefore look very stilted.  When you watch Liverpool do it, for example, you can see them gradually pulling opponents out of position, creating 2v1s, etc.  They don’t always end up with a chance, but you can see what they are working away at.

Personally I don’t enjoy tiki-taka football that much, I quite often find it boring.  It seems to be that unless you try to play that way then people commenting on “the game” say you’re not playing in the right way.  I find that arrogant.  There are many ways to play / win a game.  There are many ways to entertain too.

 

[Abraham Romanovich]

11 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

 

Best example I can give you all is the Spurs team that in 1961, won First Division and FA Cup, the first team to achieve that in the 20the century.

Full backs. Baker & Henry with centre and left half, Norman & Mackay in between them.

Right half Blanchflower and inside right White the creative midfield.

Two wingers, Dyson and Jones playing wide. 

Centre forward Smith and Inside left Allen as attackers.

More like 4-2-2-2 than 2-3-5.

 

Just found this on the internet and thought you may find it interesting.

For those who aren't that bothered just scroll down to the Jimmy Greaves goal, a thing of beauty.

https://www.johnbarber.com/tottenham-hotspur-1960-1961-the-double-year/

[City oz]

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

@Calculus

Very good post.

I consider that the formations have actually changed very little since the second War. There aren't too many ways of covering the size of a football pitch with ten outfield players.

What has significantly altered is the mindset of managers in that the objective now is primarily not to lose. Previously it was normal for the home team to batter the visitors for at least 15 minutes and often longer.

Now just keeping possession and not going anywhere has almost killed an attacking sport at the higher levels.

Great post cider head. wow you must be older than me with your reference to the years of this era. They were great years and like you if some one said to me who played in what position in the 70s I would not have a problem in answering which players played in what positions in which seasons. 

I suppose a bit like Dave Fes now with his expert game analyisis and profilies. We are all City supporters and we always remember the times either good or bad.

From me it is always a big COYREDS from me which ever era we are talking about or in 

[chinapig]

Tiki taka is a term that originated from an opposition manager whose team had been beaten by Barca iirc. It was not a term Pep used. Indeed to quote:

Guardiola distanced himself and the club from the style: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it", stating, "Barça didn't do tiki-taka!", adding, "You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal". 

Barca were also pressing with intensity before German clubs made it fashionable, setting themselves an aim of winning the ball back within 5 seconds.

Like Man City they would have phases of keeping the ball to rest in possession so as to not run out of steam. But the myth of them passing sideways and backwards at walking pace for 90 minutes persists.

[cidered abroad]

2 hours ago, City oz said:

Great post cider head. wow you must be older than me with your reference to the years of this era. They were great years and like you if some one said to me who played in what position in the 70s I would not have a problem in answering which players played in what positions in which seasons. 

I suppose a bit like Dave Fes now with his expert game analyisis and profilies. We are all City supporters and we always remember the times either good or bad.

From me it is always a big COYREDS from me which ever era we are talking about or in 

Hi Oz. I started on Good Friday 1950 against Aldershot. A year before we saw John Atyeo. Dad took me and I can't remember the goals but do remember ref giving what we all thought was a penalty for Aldershot at Covered End. But as it was only obstruction, it was an indirect free kick inside the penalty area. The Aldershot centre half took it with a very heavy wallop straight into the net. Goal kick given!

In Smyth Park after, I ran around for ages kicking an imaginary ball. I already knew about football reading newspapers but from that day to this, I've been well and truly hooked.

A roller coaster ride since then with more stagnation than ups. All the best @City oz

[Garland-sweden]

As a kid played with 7 players and then when 13 years old 11 players. Im born 1957. We played 235, the attack was always a rightwinger, centerforward and leftwinger. Two players behind the forwards. Dont know What year, late sixties or early seventies some countries began to play 442 and then 433 If i remember correct.

[Garland-sweden]

See now that Spurs played 442 1962. He he, we in Sweden played 235 mutch longer. We are not a great football countrie but we are doing ok. 

[Calculus]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Tiki taka is a term that originated from an opposition manager whose team had been beaten by Barca iirc. It was not a term Pep used. Indeed to quote:

Guardiola distanced himself and the club from the style: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it", stating, "Barça didn't do tiki-taka!", adding, "You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition's goal". 

Barca were also pressing with intensity before German clubs made it fashionable, setting themselves an aim of winning the ball back within 5 seconds.

Like Man City they would have phases of keeping the ball to rest in possession so as to not run out of steam. But the myth of them passing sideways and backwards at walking pace for 90 minutes persists.

Yes, I never understood how the term ever applied to Barca.

One of the most striking things about them, IMO, was what they did when they'd lost the ball. As you say they'd try to get in back in under 5 seconds - the ball recipient would be attacked by a group with a plan before he could get the ball under control and look up. An amazing thing to see live.

Unfortunately, many managers bought into the tiki taki myth, encouraged pointless passing and bored most of us to death. LJ was a very good example of this trend - paralysis by analysis I think it's called.

[Davefevs]

Here’s a squad depth photo in 2-3-5 formation.