Tactical formations in programmes

Following all my reminiscences of 1950s and 60s in my earlier post, I also remembered what was an hilarious incident in a match against Southend United at Plainmoor in the early 60s, although it has more to do with programme changes than tactical formations.

The programme stated that the Southend No. 11 was due to be Billy Wall, their usual outside left. In fact he was replaced by Bud Houghton, a centre forward who, shall we say, knew how to put himself about.

After a series of very robust tackles and challenges by Houghton, one elderly individual on the popside began to berate him with such cries as "You dirty bastard, Wall!!" or "You're a f*****g disgrace, Wall!!"

Eventually Houghton got fed up with all of this, turned on the person concerned and roared at him "My name's not Wall, you f*****g stupid old git! I'll put you through that f*****g wall over there if you don't shut your mouth!"

Never have I seen a supporter shrink so quickly into a state of panic and embarrassment.

A group of us were at Griffin Park watching a youth game one evening where the number 7 was impressing us. There being no programmes we didn't know who he was until Romford Kev bawled out to him "Number 7 what's your name?"

The poor kid was so shocked he gave us his name, date of birth and agent's phone number!

great message jm gull relating to harry smith.
i played with him for 1 season for the old torbay gents team,along with your old man.
he would give you the most mercllious bollockings during a game.
he ws ok when you earned his respect and he realised you were not a complete dummy.

previously someone mentioned sammy collins and his penalties, well the first one saw him take was early in the 54-55 season against millwall at plainmoor.it was saved by malcom finlayson,later a wolves star.
i believe it was the only one not converted in collins carear.
i am a bit surprised that goalkeepers didn/t latch on the fact that he always put them to the keepers left.

Barton, I’m not sure if was just the case at my secondary modern school, but when we were taught football and played in games for the school, we were only taught one formation and that is how I thought the game was played by every team at any level back then.

We are talking about the years between 1965 and 1970

The number on your shirt would correspond with the position you were playing.

We always lined up 3- 4-3

Keeper, right back, centre half, left back, right midfield, left midfield , right wing, left wing, centre forward, inside left,
inside right

That sounds like an evolution of WM (which dates from the 1920s) rather than the ancient 2-3-5 (from the 1870s). Nonetheless - with the exception of midfielders as opposed to half-backs - all the traditional positions are mentioned in Dave's formation. I've lifted this representation of WM from Wiki:



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)

It's been initimated in this thread that we would now see this as 3-2-2-3 although, as the Wiki article suggests, it would also have been variously seen as 3-4-3 or 3-2-5. Provided I'm reading his post correctly, Dave's formation differs from classic WM in that the four midfielders are strung across the pitch - as opposed to attacking and defensive midfielders (inside-forwards and half-backs respectively in old terminology) - and that the wingers are amongst the midfield four rather than the front three.

But there's still no sign of a fourth defender and - as Stewart implies - there are examples dating from the 1950s of Torquay United playing with four defenders (see discussion of the Webber/Norman pairing). That, to use Merse's theory about football in schools, either suggests some teachers were still behind the times in Dave's 1965-1970 period (but maybe not quite as outmoded as we'd originally thought) or - with a more charitable outlook - well ahead of the game in playing a flexible 3-4-3 formation.

Yet it's the lack of a fourth defender that intrigues me. Looking at Jonathan Wilson's book the extra defender is absent from Spurs' double winning side of 1961 (Blanchflower and Mackay in front of Baker, Norman and Henry in 3-2-2-3) but he's there for England in 1966 and for Celtic in the European Cup final of 1967 (which Timbo remembers well). Are we to take it that, by 1965-1970, the fourth defender was virtually universal in professional football but still largely absent from schools football? And what of the Western League and the South Devon League in the 1950s and 1960s? How was the game being played at local semi-professional and amateur level? Was this different from other parts of the country? Indeed, it would be interesting to know how quickly tactical ideas spread in those largely pre-televised football days. By contrast I can still remember the outbreak of "sweepers" - at nearly every level of the game - at the start of the 1990/1991 season after the Italian World Cup....

This thread has certainly thrown up some intriguing questions, not least those posed by Barton in his last two posts.

He asks: "Were fans talking numbers back in the 1950s?"

I'm pretty certain that the answer is no, in fact I don't think that it even dawned on football fans to think in terms of numerically expressed formations.

The key to this is, I believe, the way teams were shown in programmes from the Second World War until the late 60s, i.e. in a virtual 2-3-5 formation. For supporters during that era, this was how their teams always lined up.

There were slight changes in that shape as time passed , namely the withdrawal of the centre-half and also of one inside-forward, but these were not sufficiently significant as to make readers feel that the programme was incorrect or out of date.

The fact that lists eventually replaced birds eye views in programmes could well be due, as Barton suggests, to the need to name the substitute, but it could also be that compilers of the programme were no longer sure how a team would line up, such were the changes in tactics taking root at the time.

I personally never heard anyone at a match, or elsewhere for that matter, mention WM, in fact I was always under the impression that this was a 'phrase' which was mostly employed by intellectual, blackboard-orientated 'coaches' of whom Walter Winterbottom was the most acclaimed.

Some of the descriptions of formations from the past, such as 2-3-5, 3-2-5 and WM were, I believe, not adopted and repeated by fans, in this country at least, until a definite change to 4-2-4 brought about the need for easily understood comparisons.

Much as I would wish to cast any doubt on the shape of Dave's team at school, I can't see that WM in its literal form (3-4-3) has ever been a recognised formation at Football League level, and my problem with this lies at the front of a team rather than at the back.

WM implies wingers flanking a single centre-forward which, while possibly being seen in the modern era (Carlisle-Sills-Stevens in some matches being a simple example), was certainly never employed while there were only three at the back. Generally, inside- or centre-forwards have played as pairs, even under Alf Ramsey when wingers were thought to be obsolete.

I believe that the permanent introduction of the fourth defender (as opposed to the temporary Webber/Norman pairing at Torquay), can also be traced back to the influence of Sir Alf. In the 1962 World Cup, Bobby Moore played as a conventional wing-half alongside Ron Flowers, yet by 1966 he had taken up a position next to Jack Charlton as a kind of safety net to his less talented partner.

One could say that a similar change took place at Torquay, where John Benson slotted in next to Colin Bettany and then Reg Wyatt. Interestingly, when Alan Smith was given another spell in central defence alongside Wyatt and then Ken Brown, Benson's role became that of a marauding sweeper in front of these two, sniffing out trouble and closing people down with great effect.

After 1966, most clubs began to adopt 4-3-3 as their preferred formation, although a few went with Ramsey and used a stopper with a skilful player like Moore, some simply went for two stoppers, while others (Tottenham, Dave Mackay and Manchester United, Nobby Stiles) had a hard-tackling minder as cover for Mike England and Bill Foulkes).

Barton also mentions the obsession with sweepers in later years, particularly after Italia 90. I myself played in that position in Hampshire League football throughout the 1970s, covering across the whole of the back line of three. When we played a strong side, I would only venture upfield for corners, but against weaker teams I would frequently run out to support the midfield. I loved every minute of it.

Some years ago, a friend of mine and I were having a discussion about the ideal game of football. I have always been a lover of end-to-end play and entertainment, and said that I would much rather a game ended 5-3 any day. My friend was adamant that a 1-0 scoreline was better as it would mean that fewer mistakes had been made. I could never understand that point of view.

I recently began to think about why the game is played as it is in modern times, with all the frantic running, tackling and tactical obsession. When I first started watching football, we had three defenders and four forwards. Now we often have five defenders and one forward and the whole encounter is submerged in a morass of 'workrate' and pre-arranged planning. Why?

I came to the conclusion, quite simple really, that it is because everyone has followed suit and now does it. At various stages in the past decades, the game has been influenced by cautious or over-dogmatic individuals to the detriment of the game as a spectacle and of players' techniques in shooting or heading at goal, among other things.

If only TV footage of games played in the 1950s or 60s were still available, people who disagree with that would at least have the opportunity to judge for themselves. It's all about personal opinion, after all.