Transfer Rumours Summer '22 Transfer Thread

[Tigger]

Interesting, so what prevented the two defenders from being overwhelmed?

I played 235 for my primary school.

The three in the middle were called half backs. left half, right half and centre half. That's where the name centre back came from. They joined in the attacks and the defence. Alf Ramsey went 424 before going 433. He said that given equal players 433 would always beat 424, presumably because the threein midfield would over run the two on the other side.

Finally, on Waggy, he wore both the 8 and the10 shirts, just not at the same time.

 

[Steven Toast]

Football was traditionally played 2 3 5 but started evolving in the 1950s. Though Herbert Chapman started experimenting with what was referred to as a W M system in reference to the way it lined up in the 1930s. That became popular with Italians. Things changed again with Brazil playing a 4 2 4;formation when Pele arrived on the scene in 1958. Ramsey took Ipswich up and then won the First Division in their first ever season it (something which will probably never happen again) by putting a number 9 on a player, I think it was Ray Crawford, who then wandered all over leaving space for others because in those days it was assumed a number 9 was a centre forward and someone was designated to mark them. After that season they were rumbled and they were soon back in Division 2. Ramsey wingless wonders were a way of countering 4 2 4 . Ramsey didn’t pick the best club players, he came up with a system and picked the players he thought would fit that system best. Something too many England managers since have failed to do.
A team trying to play 2 3 5 would be battered now given the fitness and athleticism of the players on the manicured pitches we have now.

See that's great, there's a Bundesliga team that plays 4-2-4 at the moment and they seem to do alright.

What did England play when they won the World Cup, was that a 4-1-3-2?

 

[Steven Toast]

I played 235 for my primary school.

The three in the middle were called half backs. left half, right half and centre half. That's where the name centre back came from. They joined in the attacks and the defence. Alf Ramsey went 424 before going 433. He said that given equal players 433 would always beat 424, presumably because the threein midfield would over run the two on the other side.

Finally, on Waggy, he wore both the 8 and the10 shirts, just not at the same time.

So presumably what we would now call defensive midfielders? I guess roles in football have changed so much now, but tactically there doesn't seem to be much in the way of radical changes anymore. Us playing 3-5-2 under Bruce felt fresh at the time, I don't remember too many other teams trying it. Or maybe it was because City hadn't tried it in a long time.

 

[WSTiger]

Good shout and I remember it well. From memory Ken Houghton reverted to a midfield player under Terry Neill. We went from playing 235 in 1965/66 under Cliff Britton to 442 under Neill.

Surely you mean a 3 2 5. Two fullbacks and a center half. 2 half backs. And the right and left wingers, a center forward and the the two inside forwards. It was not 2 at the back. So. essentially a 3 4 3 in a defensive mode and 3 2 5 in the attacking mode. Wingers were really not anyway close to wing backs and did not track back a lot and tended to stay out on the wings.

 

[Cityzen]

See that's great, there's a Bundesliga team that plays 4-2-4 at the moment and they seem to do alright.

What did England play when they won the World Cup, was that a 4-1-3-2?

It was basically 4 4 2. Ramsey tweaked it after the injury to our greatest goal scorer Greaves and was brave enough to stick to it when it worked. Truth be told we didn’t play well at the start and Ramsey was getting criticised. You would be surprised at how low key everything was up to the final compared to the hysteria that surrounds every international game nowadays no matter how unimportant.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

So presumably what we would now call defensive midfielders? I guess roles in football have changed so much now, but tactically there doesn't seem to be much in the way of radical changes anymore. Us playing 3-5-2 under Bruce felt fresh at the time, I don't remember too many other teams trying it. Or maybe it was because City hadn't tried it in a long time.

Was definitely fresh when we did it, I remember at the time it was seen as quite unusual, and now everyone does it. Probably not all inspired by us but could well be.

 

[PLT]

Was definitely fresh when we did it, I remember at the time it was seen as quite unusual, and now everyone does it. Probably not all inspired by us but could well be.

I remember that season a few teams used to try and go 3 at the back when playing us, supposedly to try and match up against it and nullify us somehow. Specifically remember Millwall trying it and us being 4-0 up within half an hour.

 

[Erik]

I remember that season a few teams used to try and go 3 at the back when playing us, supposedly to try and match up against it and nullify us somehow. Specifically remember Millwall trying it and us being 4-0 up within half an hour.

And a goal that wasn't given even though it was a yard over the line

 

[Amin Arrears]

Was definitely fresh when we did it, I remember at the time it was seen as quite unusual, and now everyone does it. Probably not all inspired by us but could well be.

Louis Van Gaal got all the credit for that after the 2014 WC and then with Man U. It was one of Brucey’s brighter career moments when he came up with that and a real stroke of genius, particularly in the first season. It was our downfall in our relegation season for sure. Signed a load of wingers then played them up front to keep 5 at the back. Ridiculous.

 

[WestStandTiger]

Was definitely fresh when we did it, I remember at the time it was seen as quite unusual, and now everyone does it. Probably not all inspired by us but could well be.

Seem to remember it was Antonio Conte’s Chelsea the inspiration? Started the season off really badly, came to the KC and changed to his usual 3 at the back and stormed away with the title. Everyone tried copying after.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Seem to remember it was Antonio Conte’s Chelsea the inspiration? Started the season off really badly, came to the KC and changed to his usual 3 at the back and stormed away with the title. Everyone tried copying after.

So you're saying Conte copied us? I like it.

 

[Kalman]

Louis Van Gaal got all the credit for that after the 2014 WC and then with Man U. It was one of Brucey’s brighter career moments when he came up with that and a real stroke of genius, particularly in the first season. It was our downfall in our relegation season for sure. Signed a load of wingers then played them up front to keep 5 at the back. Ridiculous.

Yup. Signed Ince, Snodgrass and Ben Arfa and still went 5-3-2. Only ditched it the season after when we were in the Championship.

 

[Amin Arrears]

Yup. Signed Ince, Snodgrass and Ben Arfa and still went 5-3-2. Only ditched it the season after when we were in the Championship.

And Ramirez. Kept playing Aluko up front. I think even Robbie Brady played up front once ffs. Snodgers got crocked first game in all fairness didn’t he. We were ****ing dire that season with a right hodgepodge team of square pegs in round holes.

 

[askewshair]

I stand corrected, I didn’t start going until 1969, so maybe those numbers weren’t set in stone before that.

Yeah, I started going 1970 and assumed Waggy always had the number 10 shirt

 

[askewshair]

Good shout and I remember it well. From memory Ken Houghton reverted to a midfield player under Terry Neill. We went from playing 235 in 1965/66 under Cliff Britton to 442 under Neill.

I missed that pre 70’s era. Something I always wondered, was 235 genuinely 235? I look at footage from WC winning team and though it reads 235, they all seem to fit into a 442 role. Ie Charlton and Moore weren’t midfield, they were a back four. Same with City and Wilkinson, Davidson, Neill?

 

[Tigger]

Surely you mean a 3 2 5. Two fullbacks and a center half. 2 half backs. And the right and left wingers, a center forward and the the two inside forwards. It was not 2 at the back. So. essentially a 3 4 3 in a defensive mode and 3 2 5 in the attacking mode. Wingers were really not anyway close to wing backs and did not track back a lot and tended to stay out on the wings.

It was definitely 235. I played as a left winger in those days and rarely entered my own half.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)

 

[Trumpton Tiger.]

I missed that pre 70’s era. Something I always wondered, was 235 genuinely 235? I look at footage from WC winning team and though it reads 235, they all seem to fit into a 442 role. Ie Charlton and Moore weren’t midfield, they were a back four. Same with City and Wilkinson, Davidson, Neill?

It was in 1965/66, after that and Ramsey wining the World Cup for England it did change with the wingers playing mainly as attacking midfielders. So that was 442. Maybe some of the old un's on here might recall when we first played football at school, for me it was early 60's. It was always 235. Our limited coaching was simply to hoof the ball up field to the forwards. My school teacher was a part of the Hull City Boys set up too ! Tactics were for the Hungarians and Puskas etc, not us, we were told to get stuck in and hoof it as far as we could. Up to us winning the World Cup every team picked two wingers so in effect five forwards. It was a lot simpler game pre 1966.

 

[Tigger]

I missed that pre 70’s era. Something I always wondered, was 235 genuinely 235? I look at footage from WC winning team and though it reads 235, they all seem to fit into a 442 role. Ie Charlton and Moore weren’t midfield, they were a back four. Same with City and Wilkinson, Davidson, Neill?

What you say about Charlton and Moore is true but they were playing 424 or 433, not 235.

Anybody remember a football game called 424?

 

[Tigger]

It was in 1965/66, after that and Ramsey wining the World Cup for England it did change with the wingers playing mainly as attacking midfielders. So that was 442. Maybe some of the old un's on here might recall when we first played football at school, for me it was early 60's. It was always 235. Our limited coaching was simply to hoof the ball up field to the forwards. My school teacher was a part of the Hull City Boys set up too ! Tactics were for the Hungarians and Puskas etc, not us, we were told to get stuck in and hoof it as far as we could. Up to us winning the World Cup every team picked two wingers so in effect five forwards. It was a lot simpler game pre 1966.

My first boots, in 1964, had a solid toe cap.

 

[StubbDave]

It was in 1965/66, after that and Ramsey wining the World Cup for England it did change with the wingers playing mainly as attacking midfielders. So that was 442. Maybe some of the old un's on here might recall when we first played football at school, for me it was early 60's. It was always 235. Our limited coaching was simply to hoof the ball up field to the forwards. My school teacher was a part of the Hull City Boys set up to ! Tactics were for the Hungarians and Puskas etc, but up to us winning the World Cup every team picked two wingers so in effect five forwards. It was a lot simpler game pre 1966.

My recollection of the professional and international game is that 424 was introduced from mid 50s eg Brazil 1958 World Cup winners. It gradually changed to 442 as wingers began to adopt a slightly more withdrawn position when not in possession. Ramsey’s change was not to pick wingers at all. Throughout the 60s different teams used their own variations of this. For example City’s 66 team had Simpkin as a second centre back and while Butler was a full on left winger, Henderson or Wilkinson on the right had a more withdraw role. Schoolboy football stayed in the past for quite a while.