Sunday, December 28, 2008

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are”

George Santayana


Dedicated to Dr. James Merrell a true Historian

THE DEFINITION OF THE SYSTEM OF PLAY; SYSTEMS OF PLAY IN GENERAL

The system of play may be defined as the arrangement of the forces i.e. the team formation adopted in the field with a view to accomplishing tasks which have been set in advance and determined in general. I want to emphasize what are these duties which have been set in advance and defined in general. It goes without saying that the system of play alone is not enough to ensure the final objective of the game, all it can do is to help in achieving that purpose. The system of play cannot be relied on to deal with unexpected situations arising during a game. This falls into another sphere of strategy; that of tactics. So the system is only a frame which offers unlimited possibilities for the application of a wide variety of tactical ideas.
The system of play is in fact a relatively permanent form which dos not alter from time to time as tactics do. Similarly, the system adopted does not depend on the special characteristics of soccer in any country. The formation known as the 4-3-3 is now almost as much in use in the USA and the whole of the continent as it is in Europe and Latin America in general. As I have already mentioned, the system is the arrangement of forces in the area of play. In soccer, the line-up is much more flexible than say, in volleyball in which the position of each player is defined by rules. In soccer the formation gives the impression of being somewhat fixed only at the kick-off. Later, each player attempts to fulfill the tasks set by the system of play the team has adopted. Needless to say, the job of each individual player cannot be laid down in detail by any system of play. The wide variety of differences in individual styles, the balance of force as well as the unlimited possibilities offered by time and space make it impossible to describe fully what a player is expected to do. All that the team formation and system of play can do is to give a general direction; one player, for example, is required to act as a defender while another is entrusted with an attacking role.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF PLAY FROM THE HEROIC AGE OF SOCCER TO THE PRESENT DAY

And now let us look at the history of the game to see how the modern system of play and the team formation took shape.

THE INITIAL TRACES OF MODERN TEAM FORMATION

The first traces of team formation arose when players began to realize the importance of team work in order to make economic use of their strength. They saw that it was more useful to kick the ball to teammates positioned at various parts of the field than to kick at random. This meant a considerable economy of time and effort since all the players were no longer required to run in pursuit of each movement of the ball.
The next stage in the process was the beginning of an understanding that a more rational approach was required to the purpose of the game: the scoring of goals and, on the other hand, the prevention of being scored on by the other team. It was at this stage that the first traces appeared, however vague, of what is now considered to be regular team formation. The members of the team were now divided into two groups with fairly clearly defined duties; one group of players attacked the opposing goal while the other group tried to hold off the attacks of the opponents.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEAM FORMATION UNTIL THE BALANCE OF ATTACK AND DEFENCE WAS ESTABLISHED

In England, the country where modern soccer was born, the first team formation emerged and it consisted of nine attackers, one defender and a goal keeper. (Fig. 1)







Today this division appears to be extremely disproportionate, but this can be explained by the relatively poor technical standards and tactical knowledge of the day. It is unlikely that the players had developed even the most elementary form of team-play, and no doubt a two-man defense was successful against as many as nine attackers who tried to work the ball individually.

With the passage of time the development of players’ abilities and the supremacy of attacking tactics brought an imperative need to reorganize the defense through a more rational and proportionate disposition of the players. Since one defender and a goalkeeper were no longer capable of holding the attackers who not only outnumbered them but were efficient and modern by contemporary standards of play, team formation had to be altered. So, without considerably weakening the forward line, two of the nine forwards, the so called half-backs were drawn back to fill the gap between the single defender and goalkeeper and the line of attackers. (Fig. 2)







This formation was used for quite some time. The three man defense succeeded in withstanding the attack of seven forwards.
Then it was Scotland’s turn to introduce a new element into the formation. The forward line was reduced to six men while the defense was made up of two full backs and two halfbacks (today called midfielders) (Fig.3).







The Scots showed that withdrawing four men from the forward line strengthened the defense to a much greater extent than it weakened the attack.

NUMERICAL BALANCE BETWEEN THE ATTACKERS AND DEFENDERS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE “PYRAMID SYSTEM”

The development of the team formations discussed do far all took place in Great Britain, especially in England. Nothing was known of soccer in other countries at this time. Soccer started to be exported and made its way to mainland Europe than South America in the eighteen nineties or by the end of the nineteenth century, at a time when the playing system was taking yet another step forward towards a formation based on a complete numerical balance between attackers and defenders. This formation based on what was then known as the Pyramid system, was in vogue for many years and as such was developed and evolved by the soccer team of Cambridge University in England in 1883. It was this system that was adopted and used throughout the world. In the pyramid system the forwards found themselves faced with a five man defense, two fullbacks and three halfbacks (midfielders) (Fig. 4.)








The five defenders constituted a double line of defense. The fullbacks took up positions within the penalty area or around it and in front of the six yard box to return the balls that had been “filtered” by the half backs.
The other line of defense was composed of three midfielders. As compared with the strictly defensive duties of the two fullbacks flanking them the center midfielder (#5) was allowed to move relatively freely. When the opponents pressed hard for a long spell, he would help in defense, but normally he acted as a sixth forward to help in attack and in occasional thrusts at goal.
The two outside midfielders #4 and #6 positioned themselves in a line running between the corresponding inside and outside forwards of the opposing team. While they were not required to mark any particular opponent, the outside midfielders had the task of keeping an eye on the wingers as well as the inside forwards (#7 and #8 as well as #10 and #11) of the opposing team. The chief schemer in the attack was the center forward (#9) who often played somewhat deep. At first the attacks were carried out with all the forwards moving in one line. Later inside forwards began to lie back to collect the ball sent forward by the defenders. Wingers moved along the touch line where they were generally given plenty of room to work in.
Although the Pyramid system was later modified by the Italians and Austrians it continued to be the basic formation for many years.

THE SWISS “BOLT”

The Pyramid system was still flourishing when the Swiss (yes the Swiss) reorganized the defensive setup to provide greater safety.
The three spearhead forwards were now marked by the two outside midfielders and one of the fullbacks, with the other fullback patrolling the penalty area as a free or (reserve defender). The center midfielder and one of the inside forwards marked the opposing inside forwards and hampered them in building up attacks. (Fig. 5.)








The Bolt system was based on the reserve defender today called the sweeper. This extra man in the defense was ready to move back and forth in the penalty area ready to tackle an opponent who had slipped past the outer line of defense; while the extra defender went into action the player beaten by the opposing forward had to act as the reserve defender.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THREE BACK SYSTEM

After seven years of debate and pooling of experiences, the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA) altered what came to be known as the second off-side rule in 1925.
This rule which was formulated in 1866 was extremely favorable to defenders. The old rule made it clear that “….when a player touches the ball or throws it in, a team-mate standing nearer to the opponent’s goal line at the moment contact is made with the ball or the throw in is taken, is off-side and is only allowed to touch the ball or obstruct an opponent if there are at least three players of the opposite side standing between him and the opponent’s goal line….” In figure 6, B is offside but A is not in terms of the old rule.









This rule made things very difficult for the forwards and as a result few goals were scored. Attackers found it virtually impossible to be in the vicinity of the opponent’s goal area without the ball since there had to be three defenders between them and the goal line. Under the Pyramid system the defenders made full use of this advantage as one of the fullbacks generally moved forward almost as far as the half-way line. In order to be onside, the opposing forwards were forced to withdraw within their own half of the field of play to start an attack.
In order to maintain and increase interest in the game, the international body modified the rule so that only two defenders were required to stand between the attacker and the goal line. This alteration opened up immense new possibilities for the forwards, and these have been to the advantage of the game as a whole. Forwards were now able to approach much closer to the opponent’s goal line, since, in principle, the whole forward line was allowed to take up position in front of the player acting as a reserve defender (sweeper) as in (Fig.7.)







For a time ascendancy passed to the forwards as a result of the alteration. The new rule put the defense in a highly unfavorable or, shall I say, dangerous position. So it was imperative to make drastic changes in the defensive line up. Instead of positioning in depth, the fullbacks lined up in length (horizontally). As the forwards usually outnumbered the defenders, the center-half (Center Midfielder) had to be withdrawn to strengthen the second line of defense.
The zonal defense of the Pyramid System was no longer capable of coping with fast spearhead forwards. The new situation required a much greater degree of safety in covering, and this led to fundamental changes in the defensive methods. Hand in hand with the modifications in positions in the position of the defenders, zonal defense was replaced to man-marking. Thus, the basic difference between the Pyramid system and the new formation lay in the different methods of the two kinds of defense. The alteration to the rules was followed by a series of experiments and attempts to find a formation capable of regaining the initiative for the defense. Five years later, under the guidance of the famous manager Herbert Chapman, the English club Arsenal evolved the new three-back-defense. The new system was an enormous success, and Arsenal won the English Football League title 5 times in 8 years and the F.A. Cup twice. This unrivalled record was so convincing a proof of effectiveness of the new formation that it spread rapidly to all the European countries.
Since this formation of defense and attack is shaped like a WM when seen from above, the three-back formation has become known as the WM system. The five forwards play in a formation which resembled a W, while the fullbacks and the wingback play in a shape of a shallow and elongated letter M. (Fig. 8.)









DUTIES OF PLAYERS IN THE THREE BACK OR WM FORMATION

Again for the students of the game it is imperative to understand where and how the game evolved and the more it evolved the more it stayed the same with regards to the role of some players. It is interesting to watch today as many managers dip into the pages of “old school” formation do develop so called new systems yet for those who know the history of the game it is easy to see that these new systems are only derivatives of the old ones. So, with that in mind, let’s examine the duties of the players in the aforementioned system and I would like both the Demons and the Devils to ponder upon these roles and realize how close theirs is to this “ancient” system.

When we defined the system of play, we emphasized that the individual duties of each player determined by the system of play adopted by the team in advance, can only be regarded as general indications of what can be expected from the players during the game, while tactical considerations and unforeseeable situations and solutions will arise during the game. For this reason we can only give an outline of the tasks which confront the players in the defensive centre-half game.
In essence, the goalkeeper’s duties are the same in the WM formation as in any other system.
The defensive line in front of the goal is composed of three backs. The right and left backs mark the opponent’s left and right wingers, respectively the centre-half or the “policeman” as it was called according to popular terminology, must cover the opponent’s center forward.
The two wing-halves (midfielders #6 and #5) form the other defensive line running parallel with the backs. Their task is to mark the opposing inside- forwards. Their role is primarily defensive since their foremost duty is to help the backs. They were only allowed to take an active part in the attack if this is not at the expense of their defensive duties.
The forwards also position themselves in two parallel lines with the inside-forwards securing the line in the rear. Their main role is the preparing and building up of attacks, but they are also required to help in defense.
The first line is made up of three spearhead forwards, the wingers and the center forward who are nearest to the opponent’s goal. They were as today in our system assigned to an exclusively attacking role.

THE 4-2-4 FORMATION

Hungarian soccer initiated changes in the defensive centre-half game which gradually modified it in the early 1950’s. The first signs of these modifications were reflected by changes in the positions of the forwards, and this was a logical development since it was the attackers’ turn to adjust themselves to the new conditions in order to counter balance the supremacy of the defenders.

At first it was a revolutionary change that the center forward was withdrawn to be a deep lying engineer of attacks instead of acting as a spearhead forward. In the memorable game (also dubbed the game of the century, the 20th century that is) Hungary defeated England 6-3 at Wembley Stadium in 1953 (were England was up to that very day undefeated) and the experts were surprised to see the Hungarian wingers moving into attack from behind their inside forwards.
More and more modifications were made to the formation until all parts of the system were affected. For some time, however, the rearguard formation of the defensive center-half game was not affected by these changes, although the growing the distinction between the offensive and defensive roles of the wing-halves showed that something new was evolving.
Despite many tactical variations adopted, it appeared for a time that the basic formation of the defensive center-half game had remained intact.
The 1958 World Cup in Sweden, however, revealed that a new stage of development had been reached in the formation – they called it 4-2-4- system. As the name suggests, the line-up was; four defenders, and four attackers, with a midfield comprised of two players whose role was that of building and initiating attacks. (Fig.9)








This Brazilian system was the outcome of a process in which Hungarian soccer had played a major role between 1950 and 1956. Here it must be mentioned that with the outbreak of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 many Hungarian soccer experts, players as coaches decided either to leave or not to return to Hungary. Amongst these notables were as players, Puskas, Kocsis, Czibor amongst the most famous and Bela Guttmann one of the major architects of the Hungarian success of the 1950’s. Guttmann ended up as coach of Sao Paulo (Santos) in Brazil as well as the technical advisor to the Brazilian National team. Not only Santos but also Brazil as a national team started on their path of 5 World Cup Victories whereas only four years earlier they were ousted by the Hungarians at the 1954 World Cup.
In the rear line of the 4-2-4 system, the two defenders on the flanks have the duty of marking opposite wingers while the two man in the middle of the line cover the spearhead forwards. In contrast to the modified version of the defensive center-half game adopted by the all conquering Hungarian eleven in the early fifties, the four Brazilian defenders stood almost in line and did not venture over the half way line even when their forwards were besieging the other goal.
The greater security of the four man defense of their own goal gave the two middle line men much greater freedom to take part in attacks than was the case with the wing-halves of the defensive center-half game. This role was played by what would once have been described as an attacking centre-half and a forward drawn back from the attack.
The two forwards on the flanks generally moved along the touch line while the pair inside positioned themselves in line with the wingers.

What came next was again a variation on the Brazilian system as even though they have won the title in 1958 and than went on to defend the title in 1962 other footballing nations did not automatically adopt their system and continually experimented with other formations such as the 3-3-4 formation until the 1970’s again the most admirable system the 4-3-4 was introduced and from that moment on it was always the backbone of every system whishing to play a free-flowing beautiful attacking game. It is this 4-3-3 that I also use in my methodology in rearing young players and it is the 4-3-3 that is still being refined and modified. However, the numerical placement of lines will not change, on the other hand the roles of the players within the system at times can and it is my feeling that will continue to change.
To sum up, the constant struggle between defense and attack always gives rise to new tactics. After a time these variations begin to form a standard pattern and so new systems will still emerge.
It would be difficult to forecast the shape of the future in terms of systems of play. In my view it is the experience of the players and the standard of play rather than the team formation which ensure supremacy in soccer. For example with the Demos using a 4-3-3 we have handily beaten teams playing a 3-5-2 which clearly put our 3 midfielders at a disadvantage against the five lined up by the opponent, but do to the discipline and technical as well as tactical superiority of our team we have prevailed. Thus, players capable of taking the frame of the playing system and filling it out with the activity and initiative, imagination and “soccer magic” to give it life are the all important thing.

No comments: