One of the most famous results in history is the famous England 3 - 6 Hungary game in 1953. The game was significant for any number of reasons and the result still resonates today.
The arrogance of Albion believed that they couldn't be beaten on home soil (in 90 years, England had never lost to a side from outside the British Isles on UK soil). For years, the FA had assumed that the English national team was superior to that of teams from around the world. They took little heed of the World Cup (a competition which had been taken on four occasions by 1953). This belief of superiority over the rest of the world included the belief they would beat the stunning Hungary team that arrived at Wembley that November day on an unbeaten run of 24 games.
So what happened in those 90 minutes?
The WM Formation was discredited. The English players were hapless in trying to grapple with concepts and tactics which, to them, were as alien as modesty is to Alex Salmond.
Heroes of the game - heroes to this day - like Wright, Matthews and Mortensen were outclassed and outshone. These men were titans of the British game.
The idea that the England manager didn't need to be a specialist was shown to be obviously laughable.
Six of the team, including Mortensen, never pulled on the white of England again.
Fifty years of British managers were affected. Busby, Revie, Nicholson, Ramsey (who played in the game), Clough, and Robson were all influenced by the Hungarians. The fall-out of that lives on. Sir Alex Ferguson was wowed by the Puskas-inspired Real Madrid in 1960. To a large extent, many of Britain's greatest teams were influenced and inspired by 11 Hungarians who not only beat, but destroyed, England in 1953.
Some may argue that some of the faults of that day still exist. That we believe that we are the rightful rulers of world football because of our founding role in the game; that we will, one day, rule the pitches of the world again; that we do not think enough about the game; that tactical innovation is a form of cheating; and that we lag behind the rest of the world in technical ability. There may well be some truth in all that. As important as that game was we still haven't learnt out lessons.
Still, the moment everything changed? Surely the dragback after 44 and 50 seconds in this game? If anything in that game typifies what happened it is Puskas making a fool out of the English defence.
RCM
3 comments:
It isn't *strictly* true that Hungary's victory came as a surprise - prematch interviews I've seen and read didn't rate England highly and were well aware of the Hungarian's recent run of results. And it was after 1950: Winterbottom and the English players who'd been to the World Cup and who'd seen Brazil knew we weren't the best.
It was the extent of the defeat that came as a surprise.
And so it might: there have never been two results in England's history like the Magyar pairing of 6-3 and 7-1 before or since. That's something to think about for those who reckon 1950s players were more skilful, brought up as they were on the street etc etc.
It would be fair to say that England recovered fairly quickly from 1953-54, and the run of results achieved between 1954 and Munich is astonishing - and matched by the Greaves blue streak of 1960-61.
But I see what you mean about England not learning the lessons: culture runs deeper than one result can shift.
But who did learn the lessons? After the '56 Uprising and subsequent defections, the Hungarians never returned as a world football power. West Germany won the '54 World Cup - and nothing else for another 18 years. Italy were knocked out in the first round in '54 and wouldn't win anything again for 14 years, by which time England were World Champions. Holland, France - nothing until the '80s and '90s respectively.
There may be something in that James.I think there was still a fair degree of arrogance, particularly given the fact this was played at home.
I think England did reasonably well in the next decade or so and would have done better but for Munich.
I think there many of the things the Hungarians showed us that day are still being shown in the game today. Why are the Spanish and Dutch so far ahead of us in terms of technique? Can you imagine any other major footballing country where the likely next national team manager seems so keen to avoid tactical discussion?
Who learnt the lessons? Well, firstly it isn't all about winning. The Dutch (whose star club dominated Europe) were the stars at 1974. The Soviet Union could be said to have learned the lessons and, most obviously, Dynamo Kiev within that entity.
Other than that: Clubs. Bar Ramsey (who did rather well with England) the men who were most affected in England were good club managers. Our club teams have always been better than our team - look, for instance, at English dominance of European football between 1975 and 1984. Look at our performance at international tournaments at the same time.
RCM
Re WM: it occurred to me the other day that some teams are now playing in a rather antique formation. Consider your defence: the two deepest, permanent defenders we call centre backs - but since they stay deep, they might as well be called full-backs. In front of them sits a "defensive midfielder" and wide of him are the players who have substantial defensive duties but who also go forward routinely. This trio might reasonably be called half-backs - specifically a centre-half and two wing-halves. Forward of our centre half play the five whom we might reasonably call forwards, two of whom typically play a bit deeper than the other three, and usually centrally - much like the inside forwards of old.
All-in-all this is like a pre-Chapman line-up of the sort my father would have played in in the 1920s.
Post a Comment