Systems, systems and more systems.. the old way was the best (2 Viewers)

So you are saying we should play 5 in defence and 5 upfront, no midfield?

There called formations! Times change mate, welcome to the 21st century

I have no doubt that, at the time, such formations worked well.

Football though, like all sports, evolves. Whether for better or worse is a matter of personal opinion. If a manager thought such a formation would work in modern football, I'm sure they would use it....but nobody does.

I also think you could make an argument that the archetypal winger, that Rees/Humphries type, doesn't really exist in the game anymore. They are certainly not as widespread as they used to be; I can't think of much more than maybe half a dozen proper, old fashioned wingers that play at a decent level today. The norm now seems to be having players who are more likely to cut inside than stay wide, beat the full back and get the cross in.

So having a formation that uses wingers in such a prominent role is difficult to do nowadays because the cattle to fill the role just aren't there.

All just my opinion of course.

They call it progress(?).... sigh..

Voice_of_Reason said:

... and from Sky Blues aspect... UNSUCESSFUL 21st Century. Would you not agree that one of the main crticisms over the past season or two has been the lack of width down the wings ? Play with two wingers to stretch the opposing defence works.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. We're also a bit slow.

I'm all for players in wide positions, whether they be wingers or wingbacks.

Basically a 424 system

The games moved on, and todays players are totally different phyiscally to those in the past.

Two decent direct wingers in this division and a half decent centre forward and any club with that will seriously challenge at the top IMO. At City we haven't had serious pace or width in our attack since Mifsud who unfortuantely fell by the wayside, i think more due to him than ability.
In the old system described above one half back usually number 4 was an attacking wing half (midfield) and number 6 defensive forming the central defensive partnership with the centre-half, number 5. The attack the number 10 was normally the "schemer" ( Ian Gibson) and number 8 a striker. The great Jimmy Greaves always had number 8 as did Denis Law, Roger Hiunt, our own Ian Wallace and Ernie Hunt. The game has moved on is the common statement from fans, but has it ? The principles are the same nowadays as it was 50, 70 even a 100 years ago. Get the ball pass to a teammate, move get width, go past a defender cross the ball and when you can shoot or head at goal, nothing has changed.

Play 2 at the back and go for it might aswell have a bit of fun nothing else is working.COME ON THE OLD FIVE

Some managers still play with wingers. O'Neill does. Maybe not a front five, but still having players out wide.

There never really was a front five, this five forwards of the past is a bit of a myth, one of the forwards played in the middle of the park as did one of the half backs, there was never a row of defenders then a fow of forwards. I'll tell you this for certain, discover another Ronnie Rees and another Willy Humphries put them in this team now, play them wide and we would be well clear at the top by Christmas.
One thing that has changed though is wingers of those days were supported by tough uncompromising full backs so they had license to get forward, John Sillett was our right back behind Humphries and he was a tough cookie who would stop his man anyway he could.

theprince said:

There never really was a front five, this five forwards of the past is a bit of a myth

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but that's the way I remember seeing it printed in old programmes!

I recommend you read 'inverting the pyramid' by Jonathan Wilson.

theprince said:

There never really was a front five, this five forwards of the past is a bit of a myth, one of the forwards played in the middle of the park as did one of the half backs, there was never a row of defenders then a fow of forwards. I'll tell you this for certain, discover another Ronnie Rees and another Willy Humphries put them in this team now, play them wide and we would be well clear at the top by Christmas.
One thing that has changed though is wingers of those days were supported by tough uncompromising full backs so they had license to get forward, John Sillett was our right back behind Humphries and he was a tough cookie who would stop his man anyway he could.

Click to expand...

But unfortunately in today's game if Sillett was still playing, every tackle he made would be used by a player to try and get a fowl or a dive for a penalty. The comment about the players physicality being different is very true because I'd say back in the 60's players were a hell of a lot tougher in general and diving, while it probably existed, wasn't as wide spread as it is now.

And most players would just get up and continue playing after a hard tackle back then. Nowadays we have too much nambipambi play acting. I'd say thats a European influence brought in since the 90's but I'm not saying it didn't exist early in the 20th century.

And then we have the money itself. Not all Players play for the love of the game these days, the joy that comes from simply doing it. They play for the money, whether it's the main reason or a secondary concern, they do on some level do it for the money. Id say that the wage cap is one thing Jimmy Hill should never have stopped, but that's just my opinion.

We simply can't play the systems we did back in the 60's because the players just aren't built the same way anymore. But the multitude of systems that are now available are down to this change and it's just about finding the system that works, buying the players that can work that system and then putting it into practice.

That's why Thorn failed and why Shaw continues to fail. I'm not saying the diamond doesn't work. I'm just saying it doesn't work well at cov because the players need to make it work themselves and from what I've heard, this is one thing they don't do. I'm an advocate of the 4-3-3 and with the players we have I think It could work. With the new manager wanting to bring in some pace and width, it could work very very well if the players make it work!

There's harking back to the old days and then there's calling for the return of 2-3-5...

it all changed in '66 with Alf's wingless wonders, in effect the full back became the new wingers. The formation was far less rigid and more flexible, systems have constantly changed since then. Look at Barca/Spain playing with a real centre forward. I expect more ideas in the future as football continues to evolve.

Whilst the rolling around diving nambi pamby side of the game has increased, the eradication of the tackle from behind, 2 footed challenges and general over physical challenges has allowed good football to flourish and ensure the likes of Chopper harris, Claudio Gentile can't be thugs on a pitch getting in hard early and he won't fancy it mentality on Messi or any of the Spanish players can't happen.

I advocate a more simplistic system.

Its called score more than the opposition. Works every time if you want to win

I think that the mentality is the more important factor - winning used to be the name of the game - nowadays it seems to be not losing.

1 2 3 5 is a system would put the shits up most teams if played with pace