Chapter 6. Different - and Better - Full-Back Play

For one of the International matches of the 1951-2 season the England selectors chose Alf Ramsey and Arthur Willis as the full-back pair. Before enlarging on that interesting fact it is only right to say that the experiment was not an outstanding success. These two fellows did not play as effectively as an England pair as they had regularly played as a pair for their own club. Even that may have been at least partly due to the fact there was something rather different in their methods, and that those methods were not so well known to the other members of the England defence as they were to the other defenders of their own club.

Nor was it an entirely novel procedure for the England selectors to pick a club pair of backs for their country. Male and Hapgood of Arsenal, were for a time the recognized England full-backs. All the same, in giving caps to the Tottenham pair the selectors were, in the first place, paying some regard to the principle that full-backs must work together as a pair, and in the second place to the particular way in which these backs played.

We could argue for a long time as to whether full-back play is better in these days than it used to be. What can be said, with conviction, is that different ideas have been brought to bear on full-back play in recent times. Leaving aside the argument as to whether it is better, let us agree that it is different -and different in ways which, properly developed, can make it better. It is quite likely that if the Manchester United full-back pair -John Carey and John Aston - had both been English, they would have been capped at the same time. As a pair these men did as much as any other two I can think of to set the ball rolling in what I have called a different direction.

The idea of these differing full-backs, working as a pair, is that they should help each other to get the ball away from their own danger zone, and thence forward to members of their own side. Just a few words - as if describing an actual incident from play - will suffice to illustrate their particular methods. Here, then, comes Ramsey, with the ball, but so closely attended by an opponent that he can't kick clear. Willis, his partner, takes up such a position - clear of all opposition - that the ball can be passed to him in safety. The same move could be done the other way round, of course. The player receiving the ball in the open position would then be in a favorable position to make a clearance which would be of service to his side.

I hasten to add that these rather different - these up-to-date ideas of full-back play - do not meet with unanimous approval, There are risks attached to them, especially if they are not carried out well. It could be said, with truth, that the 'dallying' by the Tottenham full-backs, this passing of the ball from one to the other, has even led to goals against the side. On the other hand, the methods have also led to goals being scored by the Tottenham forwards as the result of the constructive play of the full-backs. To get at the truth as to whether these methods are good or bad, a balance must be struck, and certainly so far as the clubs of the full-backs who are playing this 'new' game is concerned, results in general suggest that the tactics pay. More goals are made than are given away.

Maybe the critics are not fully educated to the virtues, and are apt to exaggerate the risks. Again, it is probably true that the people who shout to the defenders to 'get rid of it' were brought up in the old school: in that school where the merits of a full-back were apt to be judged by the celerity with which the ball was kicked clear of the danger area, and the distance ii traveled towards the other end of the field before again coming in contact with the ground. But, merit is not necessarily in might. That seems to be one of the lessons the full-backs of to-day are trying to teach.

Having thus given a sort of blessing to the tactics of fullback play, now so noticeable, I must retract a little to get on the side of the kick-it-hard school. I certainly must not encourage any and every young full-back to fancy himself as first and foremost an artist because he makes the short pass to a colleague. There are times in every match when the danger to his goal is so acute that the full-back must join the get rid-of-it class: when he must say to himself, on the instant, that ball must go anywhere, rather than stay where it is. The 'anywhere' may be among the spectators - or over their heads - or it may be over the goal-line for a corner-kick. The point remains that the initial duty of the good full-back is to get the ball away from danger.

The tight corners apart, the mere order of the boot, hard-kicking for hard-kicking's sake, comes under the heading of bad play. Just as I have stressed the necessity of the goalkeeper learning the art of 'placing' the ball to a member of his side, so the full-back must do the same sort of thing - only more so. Even from a purely selfish angle it pays to place the clearances.

In these days no player can consider himself a complete full-back until he has learned to do nearly all the things a halfback does - or is expected to do. And between the half-backs and the full-backs there must be understanding as to method. In the make-up of a football team there are, potentially, five forwards trying their wits against five defenders - excluding the goalkeeper. So in theory each forward should be covered. This covering is not cut and dried, and the point is that it must be flexible. Different teams have differing ideas as to which forward should be considered the special care of each particular defender. For many years the West Bromwich Albion team toyed with the idea that the outside wing forward should be specially watched by their wing half-back, leaving the full-back on that side of the field to deal with the inside forward opponent. Most of the big clubs however, take the alternative line in relation to this defensive covering. The wing-half makes the inside forward his particular care, and the full-back gives his attention to the outside wing men.

The full-backs should swivel. Playing square, as shown in this diagram, they leave too much ground for the centre-half to cover.

As the left full-back moves to interfere with an attack on the right, the right full-back should come inwards to a position in the rear - a necessary cover movement.

Fig 3

This latter is the wiser course. It should have the effect of nipping an attack in the bud earlier than the other method. Moreover, it almost compels the attack to veer outwards -towards the wing. That is where the full-back comes in, and it is part of his job to cover the winger in such a way that he keeps him more or less tied to the touch-line.

I shall have more to say about tackling when I come to deal with half-back play, but not a lot, because the tackle seems to be among the features of football which are being pushed into the background. There are times, however, when the full-back must go into the tackle, and there is this to be said about it from the full-back's point of view. Go into the tackle if there is a reasonable chance of winning through with the ball, but don't tackle in such a way that, if the effort is unsuccessful, the tackier is out of it so far as that particular attack is concerned. The full-back who is beaten - and the best of them are beaten sometimes - must be able to recover so that he can continue to play his part in repelling the attack.

That replies to an obvious question as to how the full-back, making the opposing wing man his special pigeon, can do the other part of his job: that of covering comparatively close to goal. When the play is on one wing, the full-back on the other side of the field should come in towards goal. The danger is likely to develop around the penalty area when an outside winger is in possession. He won't send the ball right across the field to the opposite winger. This leads to an important feature about full-back play, as far as pairs of players are concerned. Far too many reasonably good full-back pairs play square: that is, about an equal distance from their goal. Such a method leaves too wide a gap, gives too much work for the centre-half to get through effectively. In my opinion this was one of the reasons - nay, the main reason - why Blackpool lost the 1951 Cup Final when they had Newcastle United as their opponents. The Blackpool full-backs played too square.

The idea behind this tactical move wasn't at all obscure. At the back of the minds of the Blackpool full-backs was the notion that, playing thus, they were better able to throw their opponents offside. What is more, they did succeed from time to time. Jackie Milburn was offside a few times, but twice during the match that same Jackie Milburn went through to score goals which carried the Cup to Newcastle. The offside-trap catches, very often, not the people it is supposed to trap, but the players who set it. Remember Punch's advice to those about to marry - Don't. Very strongly I give the same advice to the fullbacks who try to play the offside game. It is a boomerang. Among other reasons why it doesn't pay is that full-backs who move up the field in the hope that the referee's whistle for offside will come to their aid, are no longer in position to cover effectively.

Even in relation to this covering, this interference with the attacking schemes of opponents, ideas have changed in recent times. Many first-class clubs now adopt as a tactical scheme what can most fittingly be described as defence in retreat. As an opponent comes forward with the ball, the defenders backpedal towards their own goal, each closely marking an opponent other than the one who is in possession. When the danger develops, one defender does at least make a show of going in to tackle, putting the man with the ball in a quandary.

Watching the Austrians play at Wembley in the autumn of 1951 it was obvious that they were flummoxed by the defence in retreat tactics of England. These obviously provided a new problem to which they hadn't an inkling of the correct answer. Incidentally these tactics worried some of the people who were most anxious that England should win the match. They used a lot of wind telling those England defenders to 'get at him'. The advice fell on deaf ears, however. Because they were allowed to work the ball almost unmolested, the Austrian forwards played some very pretty football. The ball was passed and re-passed. I counted one Austrian move in which twelve short passes were made without an England player touching the ball. The pretty-pretty moves made little real progress, however, and when the Austrian forwards reached the edge of the penalty area they were faced by something like a solid wall of defenders. Neither of the goals came as the reward for the pretty stuff. Defence in retreat paid.

We are continually reading about, or watching, this or that side having most of the play yet failing to win because they did not manage to score. This failure to finish off attacks is often due to the fact that attackers are continually hammering at a goal too well packed with defenders for a way through to be found. The full-backs are a part of the packing.

There is no necessity for me to draw attention to the title which has often been given to the team for which I used to play - 'lucky Arsenal'. The words are constantly used. Although over-played, Arsenal prevented goals from being scored with a packed defence, and scored goals themselves in quick breakaways. Note was also made of the number of times so-called 'certain goals' were prevented by a full-back heading or kicking the ball away from under the bar on occasions when the goalkeeper was helpless. Lucky! Well, that wasn't luck anyway. A full-back can't head the ball away from under the bar - as Eddie Hapgood did dozens of times, and as Wally Barnes does now - unless he has taken up that position under the bar. He is there by design, not by accident.

In the course of the recent England - Austria match, to which I have previously referred, England's left full-back, Bill Eckersley, having taken up position under the bar, saved the England goal on three occasions. He was there to stop one low shot with his stomach: one with his head, and another - which was too high - with his hand. I am not advocating that fullbacks should become goalkeepers. It can even be argued that the full-back who punches the ball out with his hand when there is no other way he can stop it, is not 'playing the game'. It will continue to be done, however. Being under the bar with the object of stopping the ball from going in, almost any fullback will stop it with his hand, instinctively, if that is the only possible way. He certainly won't be able to stop it with body, head - or even hands - if he isn't in position.

When a corner-kick is being taken against his side the goalkeeper positions himself somewhere near the far post. The most useful position for one of the full-backs is close to the other post - that is the one nearest the kicker. He may not be wanted there, but being there he may be able to save what would otherwise be a certain goal. Thus, saving it is no fluke: just a part of the general defensive plan.

The full-back with a sense of positional play helps the goalkeeper. By way of returning thanks, the goalkeeper can help the full-back, and his side, out of trouble. It is with some misgivings that I advocate a backward pass to the goalkeeper by the defender who is in difficulties. The reason for the hesitancy is a definite opinion that this business of passing back to the goalkeeper is being over-done in these times. Some people would even bar it by football law. There isn't the slightest doubt, however, that the backward pass to the goalkeeper is a most valuable emergency move.

Of course it is true that the pass back sometimes leads to that dreadful mark which is placed, in the newspapers, alongside the name of a goal-scorer; the asterisk which denotes: 'Scored against his own side.' But the black marks which are the sequel to a deliberate back pass only get there because the back pass was a bad one. It is easy to make a pass back to the goalkeeper in such a way that even if he doesn't get to the ball there is no goal to be duly recorded and wept over. The back pass can and should direct the ball so that it will go wide of the goal.

This shows the positions of the full-backs when a corner-kick is being taken against them. The near full-back is on the goal-line, just outside the post. The other is a short way up the field of play, outside the far post.

Having taken up those positions the full-backs can move outwards if necessary. But if the goalkeeper goes out to meet the ball, the full-backs can take up positions under the bar in case he fails to clear. They become temporary goalkeepers.

Fig 4

Positional play, combination among the defenders, plus understanding! These are among the important things which serve to keep the goal intact. There are what might be called little things which call for attention too. When Newcastle United played Tottenham Hotspur in the Charity Shield match recently, the full-backs of Newcastle overlooked a minor detail which nearly cost their side a goal. The Newcastle goalkeeper fluffed a goal-kick: only rolling the ball to a place just outside the penalty area to where the Spurs centre-forward Duquemin was standing. Both the Newcastle full-backs were well away from goal, and Duquemin's shot, made with the goalkeeper out of position, only missed scoring by inches. On the next occasion on which the Newcastle goalkeeper took a goal-kick one of the backs stood under the bar until the ball had been truly hit by the goalkeeper. The precaution might have been too late.

Speed in general, and especially quickness in turning are valuable assets in a full-back. He must be strong too, but not necessarily big. I said earlier that the tackle was dying. I am almost prepared to say that the shoulder-charge is dead. Referees have come down on it: the obstruction rule has helped to kill it. Perhaps the almost complete passing of the shoulder charge is a good thing. To-day, to a greater extent than ever in my time, it is realized that full-back play consists of something more - much more - than brute force and ignorance.