Cardiff (a) 2-0

[okie fox]

The centre-half was unsurprisingly the middle position of the 3 half-backs (the line of the midfield 3) in the 2-3-5 formation. It is not the modern equivilent of a centre back at all, it is much more like a central midfielder or rather a defensive midfielder. Anyone using it to indicate the central position of the defensive line, either in the modern game or in the later WM formation is/was doing so incorrectly.

You also said in an earlier post: "No, it's not. A centre-half was a position popular decades a go (Billy Wright was a centre-half for example) that is virtually never played in the modern game. It was much more akin to the modern defensive midfielder, than the modern centre-back."

From Wikipedia Association Football Positions
The position [centre back] was formerly referred to as "centre-half". In the early part of the 20th century, when most teams employed the 2–3–5 formation, the row of three players were called halfbacks. As formations evolved, the central player in this trio (the centre-half), moved into a more defensive position on the field, taking the name of the position with them.

From Conrad Loziak Understanding Soccer Tactics 1966". In 1925 he [Herbert Chapman] converted the attacking centre half [in the 2-3-5] into a defensive player or third back".

In other words, the attacking centre half was moved back to central defence, but retained the name centre half and the number 5. The term centre back was never used back then (at least in England).

I saw Billy Wright. He never played in a position akin to to the modern defensive midfielder. He was the central defender in W-M (2-3-5 was long gone by then) and his job was to mark the opposing centre forward.

Some teams started playing a twin spearhead formation by moving an inside forward up along side the centre forward. To counter this, the other side moved a wing half back into the back line so he was virtually a second centre back, and the formation quickly evolved from W-M to 4-2-4.

 

[GazLCFC]

Whether the term centre half, centre back or central defender is used, we all know as to what it refers. so who gives a feck. Move on.....

 

[beaumontfox]

tbh whoever was playing whatever position last night...they were all CACK!


I hate having a non-existent midfield.....though strangely I was still half-expecting people around me blaming that on Oakley(like the last game) cos it's clear that Wellens and King only play shit when he's in the side:icon_roll


btw, Bruma reminds me of Vidic ....wouldn't want to see him in a dark alleyway...he's sooner slit your throat with a Bowie knife than speak to you i reckon!

 

[Profondo Rosso]

You also said in an earlier post: "No, it's not. A centre-half was a position popular decades a go (Billy Wright was a centre-half for example) that is virtually never played in the modern game. It was much more akin to the modern defensive midfielder, than the modern centre-back."

From Wikipedia Association Football Positions
The position [centre back] was formerly referred to as "centre-half". In the early part of the 20th century, when most teams employed the 2–3–5 formation, the row of three players were called halfbacks. As formations evolved, the central player in this trio (the centre-half), moved into a more defensive position on the field, taking the name of the position with them.

From Conrad Loziak Understanding Soccer Tactics 1966". In 1925 he [Herbert Chapman] converted the attacking centre half [in the 2-3-5] into a defensive player or third back".

In other words, the attacking centre half was moved back to central defence, but retained the name centre half and the number 5. The term centre back was never used back then (at least in England).

I saw Billy Wright. He never played in a position akin to to the modern defensive midfielder. He was the central defender in W-M (2-3-5 was long gone by then) and his job was to mark the opposing centre forward.

Some teams started playing a twin spearhead formation by moving an inside forward up along side the centre forward. To counter this, the other side moved a wing half back into the back line so he was virtually a second centre back, and the formation quickly evolved from W-M to 4-2-4.

Again, I'd recommend reading Jonathan Wilson's book "Inverting the Pyramid", where he talks about this. It's a casual use, as you state in England only and makes no logical sense, in other countries when the 2-3-5 evolved, the name of the position was changed, given that it was now a different position.

Can I call a number 10 centre forward an "inside right" seeing as that also moved to a different position in a similar evolution of tactics?

 

[fitz]

Whether the term centre half, centre back or central defender is used, we all know as to what it refers. so who gives a feck. Move on.....

There'll be a few more pages of this shite to come yet....

 

[bocadillo]

The centre-half was unsurprisingly the middle position of the 3 half-backs (the line of the midfield 3) in the 2-3-5 formation. It is not the modern equivilent of a centre back at all

May I add my name to the list of people who say you are wrong? For at least the first 20 years of my watching the game, 'centre half' was the term used for the central defender. In European terms he was a 'centre back', but in Britain he was always the 'centre half' - and this was long long after anybody played a 2-3-5.

 

[FryattFox]

I think that a centre back and a centre half are the same now. Ergo, I also add my name to the list.

 

[bocadillo]

Can I call a number 10 centre forward an "inside right" seeing as that also moved to a different position in a similar evolution of tactics?

You can't - but I know plenty of people who immediately think inside-LEFT when they see a number 10 shirt.

 

[Macky]

I refuse to add my name to a list of people accepting of ignorance.
Just because lots of people, for a long time, make the same mistake, it doesn't make it correct.

As the spiritual leader of the forum, I urge you to throw of the shackles of ignorance and the tyranny of perpetuating the mistakes of others.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I refuse to add my name to a list of people accepting of ignorance.
Just because lots of people, for a long time, make the same mistake, it doesn't make it correct.

As the spiritual leader of the forum, I urge you to throw of the shackles of ignorance and the tyranny of perpetuating the mistakes of others.

Exactly. Just because a lot of people say 'haitch' when they mean 'H', that doesn't make it right. Same principle.

 

[syd]

Of course, even great managers can fail, but you don't just "lose" your managerial ability. Of course, he may not succeed here, but you could say exactly the same thing about MON.

Again, why do we need a "plan B"? Where is Barcelona's? Where is Spain's? Where was West Brom's or Blackpool's "plan B" last season? They all play passing football and it brings them success.

The reasonable thing is to let the management and backroom staff, who have intelligent computer programmes with hundreds of statistics and in-depth analysis as well of videos of the game go over the game, see for themselves the reasons why we lost and correct them. Not to say make some half-arsed speculation that a player you've never even seen play was a mistake.

I'll address this point by point as I'm pretty useless with this quoting business.

Managers DO lose their coaching ability - Howard Kendall, Howard Wilkinson, Dave Bassett, Brian Clough, Ron Atkinson, Peter Reid, Terry Venables... all successful managers who had miserable ends to their careers because their methods became dated. O'Neill was still a successful manager last year, Sven was last successful in 1998. And I wouldn't put down O'Neill's work with Celtic - after all most of Sven's titles came in the Portuguese and Swedish leagues.

Secondly, comparing City's passing football with that of Barca is foolish to say the least. They can play whatever system they choose because they have the best players in the world. We don't even have the best players in the English second tier.

And finally, if we can't casually wonder why it is that we may be losing games - and if we all have to settle for the fact that the manager knows best - then why didn't we all just shut our mouths and let that lovely Sousa chap get on with his job?

And as for 'just because lots of people for a long time make a mistake it doesn't make it correct', well, isn't that exactly how language develops? If you use a word a certain way for long enough then, unless you're a good old Conservative, it becomes linguistically ackowledged. I'm not aware of 'centre half' ever becoming 'incorrect', though.

 

[homer]

I'm not aware of 'centre half' ever becoming 'incorrect', though.

It is to those complete twats who base their whole life around Wikipedia, rather than the real world, where most of us have been using the term for donkey's years

 

[spionfox]

We don't even have the best players in the English second tier.

When playing to the best of their abilities, are you seriously suggesting that the likes of King and Wellens wouldn't walk into any Championship side?

if we all have to settle for the fact that the manager knows best - then why didn't we all just shut our mouths and let that lovely Sousa chap get on with his job?

Christ on a bike. Sven has lost one league match this year to end a multi-game winning streak. How can you even start to compare him with Sousa.

 

[Macky]

And as for 'just because lots of people for a long time make a mistake it doesn't make it correct', well, isn't that exactly how language develops?

Yes, but this isn't about linguistics, it's a technical term.

If you use a word a certain way for long enough then, unless you're a good old Conservative, it becomes linguistically ackowledged.

This has nothing to do with politics.

I'm not aware of 'centre half' ever becoming 'incorrect', though.

It never did become incorrect. It has always been the correct term for a centre-half.

 

[DesertFox]

Again, I'd recommend reading Jonathan Wilson's book "Inverting the Pyramid", where he talks about this.

So would I. Excellent book.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Managers DO lose their coaching ability - Howard Kendall, Howard Wilkinson, Dave Bassett, Brian Clough, Ron Atkinson, Peter Reid, Terry Venables... all successful managers who had miserable ends to their careers because their methods became dated. O'Neill was still a successful manager last year, Sven was last successful in 1998. And I wouldn't put down O'Neill's work with Celtic - after all most of Sven's titles came in the Portuguese and Swedish leagues.

It's debatable whether O'Neill was successful at all at Villa. He spent a lot of money and delivered not one trophy. Yes, they were more or less in the mix for the last Champions League spot (but never got it), and they had a couple of European campaigns, but it came after enormous spending on players. It was the minimum Villa could have expected after such investment.

At the same time, I'd take issue with the idea that Sven wasn't a successful England manager. When the worldwide football picture is considered, we are truly a second-rate nation. Getting a country like England to three quarter finals is a decent, if not spectacular, achievement.

 

[Polar Bear]

He did well at Man City also, as I recall most of their fans were baffled to see him given the boot. Blotted his copybook a bit with Mexico, Ivory Coast and Notts County, but looking at the way he's overhauled and improved our team is surely enough to say he's a good, effective manager.

 

[syd]

Yes it's a technical term if you like - so football managers refer to the 'centre half', the dictionary acknowledges it, journalists use it, football fans use it... I'm not sure how that gives anyone else the grounds to say it's defunct either linguistically or technically. What's happened here is that someone tried their best to be picky and failed hilariously. Time to let it go.

Sven, for his part, has spent a lot of money at Leicester by the standards of any club at this level. I think he's done a good job so far, but if you're judging his success in February, after he was appointed in the autumn, then I stand by what I said; you're being premature. With England he was in charge of the national team of the best footballing league in the world, he should have done better. Don't let the fact that he's stooped to our level of football cloud your judgement.

 

[beaumontfox]

Errr, why should he have done better when the pool of players he was choosing from was becoming smaller due to the increase of players not from this island- The less decent players to choose from is surely not a good thing??

Come on, I'm not very good at using big words to argue a point but even I'm not stupid enough not to realise the influx of such players has seriously damaged the growth of English-born players being first-team regulars in the Prem sides.:icon_roll

 

[Macky]

What's happened here is that someone tried their best to be picky and failed hilariously. Time to let it go.

Oh for ****s sake
NO!!!!
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE!

I've made sure that this is in very big letters so that you are very clear about this syd, this is not about YOU.
I know that you love to get your rocks off feeding this pathetic persecution complex that you have, but what has happened is that you've stumbled into an old debate being rehashed.

This has got absolutely **** all to do with you syd, sorry about that fella