| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football 20:34 - Sep 10 with 7254 views | Roller |
Interesting article in The Guardian, especially considering our formation discussions of late.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/sep/08/jim-smith-qpr-revolution-3
How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football
For more than 20 years, managers had stuck with the rigid 4-4-2 system favoured by Alf Ramsey. But that all changed when the ‘Bald Eagle’ guided the London club to the top of the table
Bob Yule
Monday 8 September 2014 13.53 BST Last modified on Monday 20 February 2017 13.39 GMT
The following is an extract from Bob Yule’s article from Issue Five of the Blizzard. The Blizzard is a quarterly football journal available from www.theblizzard.co.uk on a pay-what-you-like basis in print and digital formats.
15 August 1987, Upton Park. West Ham v QPR on the opening Saturday of the season. West Ham had finished 15th in the First Division the previous season and QPR 16th; no one expected much more than the usual rough and tumble of a London derby. And yet a significant piece of English football history was about to be made.
QPR lined up in a 3-5-2 system, with wing-backs, two man-to-man markers in central defence and a sweeper. It was the first time a major club side in England had opted for the formation as a first-choice strategy and, perhaps more significantly, it worked. QPR won 3-0, and went on to win six and draw one of their opening seven games. In a world that had been dominated by 4-4-2 since the 1960s, this was a radical departure and it took QPR to the top of the league.
“I first got the idea from watching European football on the TV, particularly the Germans,” said QPR’s manager, Jim Smith, who was already 18 years into his eventful management career. “I thought it was a great way to play.”
When I asked whether he went over to Germany to watch matches or consult with other managers, he laughed. “At Oxford, they couldn’t afford to send you to Carlisle,” he said. It was when he’d been manager of Oxford United in the early eighties, though, that he first tried playing with three at the back.
“In particular games,” he said, “when we were in trouble and needed a goal, we’d go three at the back, and push another man up into the attack to go 3-4-3. I can remember some games where it helped us to get a draw from a defeat, or a win from a draw.” Before he left for QPR in 1985, Oxford gained successive promotions from the Third Division to the First. Smith doesn’t believe the system was particularly significant in their success, as they only used it on half a dozen occasions, but he’d become convinced of its usefulness.
After finishing 13th and 16th in his first two seasons at QPR, Smith decided to take the plunge. “At the time, in England, there was such a lot of hostility about a sweeper system,” he said. “I told my coach, Peter Shreeves, and the players that I wanted to go to a three, and they didn’t like the idea at all. I had to promise that we’d go back to a four if it didn’t work.”
Before the opening league game, Smith was very aware that the new formation was unlikely to survive a defeat. He got lucky. “In pre-season, I’d bought Paul Parker from Fulham as a wing-back, but I got a bit worried because West Ham had Cottee up front, who was very fast,” he said. “Parker had a lot of pace and I decided to use him as my marker instead. It turned out that he was ideally suited to the position. That game was the making of him, really, and he went on to become an England player.”
Behind Parker and the solid Alan McDonald, Smith used Terry Fenwick as his sweeper. “He was a leader and organiser, and loved that position. It’s also important in the system that you have defenders who don’t mind going wide, to help the wing-back if necessary. Most centre-backs don’t like it, but Fenwick and Parker were comfortable.”
Success bred confidence, and although they were knocked off the top by a 4-0 defeat at Anfield, Rangers maintained their form and finished the season fifth. Bewildered teams struggled to contain their wing-backs, although as the season progressed, other managers gradually developed a counter-strategy. “They’d use wingers to double up on the wing-back,” Smith explained. “If you’re on top of your game, one of the three can go across to help, and the other full-back just tucks in. The problem was, we weren’t a major club and we didn’t have a large squad, and a difficulty of the system is that you need players who are familiar with it for it to work. That’s why, later on at Derby, I got the reserve team and the youth team to play 3-5-2 as well.”
Imitators quickly followed, although, somewhat to Smith’s exasperation, mainly among clubs who were struggling. “Our goals against was very good, so many teams saw it as a way of staying in the First Division,” he said. “I always played it as an attacking system, but they’d often end up with a five at the back, which I’ve never liked, because when you get the ball, there’s no-one to pass to.” Nevertheless, Smith’s experiment was a breakthrough, if only because he had demonstrated that British players did not have to be confined to 4-4-2 or its close variants. Two years later, Bobby Robson’s successful use of 3-5-2 in the 1990 World Cup was the final endorsement.
The system has gone in and out of fashion since. Smith believed that it should be used more widely, and felt that the conservatism and caution of many English players was an obstacle. “Many of our defenders are very reluctant to try anything except what they’ve already been taught,” he said. “They also like 4-4-2 because they have people around them. Full-backs want their winger to help them out and centre-backs don’t want a sweeper behind them, they want him alongside. You need the right players who can deal with one-v-ones.”
Smith admitted that the system is harder to coach because defenders need to make more decisions for themselves on the pitch and are less reliant on a pre-set structure. Fluidity comes at a price and particularly in that most exposed position of all, the sweeper. He sometimes had to import players from abroad who were more familiar with the role, such as Taribo West at Derby. For Smith, fluidity was key to any formation and, perhaps not surprisingly, he has admiration for Arsène Wenger’s Arsenal and Louis van Gaal’s Ajax.
When Jim Smith made the change from 4-4-2 to 3-5-2, he was not just replacing one set of lines with another, he was drawing his full-backs and sweeper away from any defensive or midfield line. Effectively, he was challenging the whole team to stop thinking in terms of lines and to improvise to a much greater degree. Those who didn’t grasp this drifted into a straight back five. The extra emphasis on improvisation also demanded that players retain possession and pass accurately on the ground, rather than hit the ball hopefully into space.
Although the 3-5-2 formation did not take a lasting hold on the English game, there is now far greater flexibility, far fewer teams reliant on a basic 4-4-2. Four at the back may have remained, but attacking formations have become more fluid. It is tempting to trace this trend back to the quiet revolution that Jim Smith began all those years ago, when he challenged his players to take the initiative and absorb new ideas.
I asked Smith if there were any reason he had been the first to take the risk, but he could offer no explanation. “You just study formations and systems, and try them out,” he said. It was in his nature as a manager to look outward and not inward, forward and not backward. It was also always evident that Smith loved football management, and to love management you must relish the tricky decision. Smith’s appetite for the bold stroke, the choice of player or formation that would give his team an unexpected advantage, was clear. In his career, he was always prepared to take risks.
There is usually a gap between the hopes of the dreamer who loves to see football at its most vibrant, and the view of the professional who must make things happen within the harsher realities of an imperfect world in which the sack is always waiting. Smith, though, managed better than most to reconcile his vision with the reality. When he cajoled his players at QPR into sharing his vision, they would have experienced him not as an unrealistic theoretician, but as a man who talked their language and who could handle their doubts.
Smith was successful, but not lucky in his career. He turned several moderate sides into good ones, but was never given the chance to turn a good side into a great one. But even if fate denied him the major opportunities and the major prizes, perhaps we can at least offer this genial Yorkshireman the recognition he deserves as a major innovator in the English game.
[Post edited 10 Sep 2017 20:37]
| | | |  |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 20:52 - Sep 10 with 7211 views | terryb |
Thanks Roller,
I enjoyed reading that. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 20:59 - Sep 10 with 7197 views | enfieldargh |
Loved that game at Upton Park
Kevin Brock, thought we found a world beater, he went down hill rapidly after that.
I can still see Mark Dennis bouncing West Ham players into the chicken run
Couldnt find a clip of that game but one from the following season which shows how lightweight Kevin Brock was.
Great goal from Mark Stein and I remember Trvor Francis fluffing his penalties. The Millwall one is etched in my mind for some reason
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=west+ham+v+qpr+1987&rlz=1C1TEUA_enGB501GB502&s | |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 10:13 - Sep 11 with 6947 views | daveB |
very interesting about Paul Parker that he was signed as a wing back, he's still the best centre half I've ever seen play live | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 10:46 - Sep 11 with 6895 views | ngbqpr |
Agree Dave. Me & my mates simply nicknamed him 'class'. I think he'd played fb at Fulham. So glad Smith didn't get put off trying him at cb by his lack of height.
Parker moving on was inevitable, but the one thing that really hacked me off was that Man U, and for the most part England, put him back to right back.
I always remember watching the Italia 90 third place play off. Robson rested / dropped one or two of the old warhorses, including Terry Butcher. He played PP in a back 3 with Des Walker and Mark Wright (able deputies for Macca and Fenwick ;)).
It looked brilliant, such a step up from the old school Butcher style England centre half...then Graham Taylor came in and we never saw it again. | |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 15:18 - Sep 11 with 6775 views | CiderwithRsie |
Every now and again I wake up the night, still p*ssed off about exactly this. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 15:31 - Sep 11 with 6746 views | CiderwithRsie |
Lovely article and Smith, who I never liked, goes up in my estimation: I have to admit that at the time I gave the credit to Peter Shreeves, because it was so unlike anything Smith had done with us before.
Also worth remembering that at the time a sweeper was seen as overwhelmingly defensive, especially as a few years earlier Sheff Weds used to play 5 strung across the back and then hoof the ball up the pitch, which was dire. I was always having to explain to people that playing a sweeper wasn't an extra defender, it was an extra midfielder whenever you had the ball. Fereday and Mark Dennis were key players in that set-up too.
Also as a sideline, I'm reminded of what a very good player Tony Cottee was at his peak. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 17:27 - Sep 11 with 6686 views | PlanetHonneywood |
That first half at UP was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play football!
Mark Dennis and Wayne Fereday shouldn't be overlooked, as they really made it all happen. Dennis was totally unplayable - never seen a full/wing back so boss a game as he did that day. | |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 17:29 - Sep 11 with 6686 views | LazyFan |
The article is correct.
We were the first do it properly for season after season. Aston Villa copied us for a while too.
However you need a really good winger and target man to make it work as well. As you will be short in midfield. So, you will have to have the target man hold it up and keep it for a long time. We had Byne, Falco and Sir Les.
Also there will be only the one winger so, you need to have him beat his man, put in quality crosses and have pace. Also play either wing if needed. We had Sinton. Also Wegerle could drop to the wing and dribble as well.
However if you play like this as a club for ages, it takes real effort to change the culture back to 4-4-2. Gerry Francis had trouble changing them. It took quite a few games before they could play with only 4 in defence. Very hard work for him.
But when we had that one season with Sinton and Gray on the wings, with Wilson and the Bard behind them we were devastating. Then silly Gray wanted to play CM and moved back to Palace. If he had stayed we would have started to challenge for honours. That's how good we were.
I would like to see 4-4-2 with proper pacey wingers again.
Very exciting football that.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 19:21 - Sep 11 with 6608 views | paulparker |
i cant believe its been 30 years since that team in 87 was the pioneers of the 3-5-2
kevin brocks winner at the dell , martin allens thunderbolt against everton and paul parker bossing the likes of sharp, fashanu and Harford, oh and terry fenwick bar none was one of the best sweepers ive ever seen gutted when he went to spurs , we also had a brilliant kit for half a season because we never had a sponsor
also i have to agree with the other posters PP was never a fullback, i could never forgive graham taylor for dropping him for keith curle what a plum him and des walker should have been our centre backs | |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 19:56 - Sep 11 with 6579 views | QPRski |
Roller, Thanks for a great insight.
I was really unaware of the fact. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 20:06 - Sep 11 with 6567 views | BrianMcCarthy |
I'm absolutely convinced that it was Shreeves that brought the sweeper system here with him. That was the chat at the time anyway.
He also seems to be taking credit for buying Parker when we all know that Parker and Coney were a product of the ballsed-up merger and not scouting by Smith. [Post edited 11 Sep 2017 20:09]
| |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 21:30 - Sep 11 with 6485 views | distortR |
i got nicked for protesting about Fenwick going to spurs!
sort of................ | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 21:47 - Sep 11 with 6462 views | CiderwithRsie |
Actually, that's another thing - I always really liked Fenwick but he went up to a new level in that sweeper system. Then he went to Spurs and they all thought he was sh*t - didn't they use him as a full-back?
There we were with the best and most innovative defence in England and absolutely no-one outside of QPR knew what to do with those players - not Ferguson, not Venables at Spurs, not Robson or Taylor at England, even though England had Des Walker who would have fitted the system down to the ground. It used to make me tear my hair out.
No wonder English football went down the toilet. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 15:03 - Sep 12 with 6321 views | paulparker |
Yeah Spurs never used Fenwick at all well, the fans got on his back big time
such a shame because fenwick was a brilliant player who don't forget played midfield for us in 86 when Waddock did his knee fenwick could play anywhere and as you rightly say the sweeper system was made for him as he could pass the ball as well as defend, take free kicks and penalties , you had the brute force of Macca with the speed and nimbleness of Parker it really was the perfect back three, its just a shame it didn't last long | |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 15:26 - Sep 12 with 6301 views | Antti_Heinola |
Shreeves is a strange character. Brilliant coach by all accounts, actually did well at Spurs as a boss for a while, too. Proper cockney wide boy, though, apparently. Loved the sweater draped on shoulders look while he was coaching Wales. And also, in the 80s, no one - and I mean no one - knew if his name was Shreeve or Shreeves. Hoddle calls him 'Shreeve' in his entire 80s autobiography, and he'd played under him for years. Even Peter was unsure, which led him to consider changing his name to Peter Smith for a while, before deciding it didn't matter that much. | |
| |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 08:58 - Sep 16 with 6078 views | francisbowles |
I believe Fenwick was a right back when he first came to us, having played left back for a while at Palace. He was supposedly the first full back to score from open play in an FA Cup Final in 1982. | | | |
| How Jim Smith’s 3-5-2 revolution at QPR altered the face of English football on 17:26 - Sep 16 with 5967 views | CiderwithRsie |
As far as I recall that's correct, though with Roeder, Hazell and then Steve Wicks about he wasn't necessarily going to get a chance at central defence straight off.
But it's the same as Parker being a right-back at Fulham - both players came into their own when we used them in central defence, then they were bought at a decent price (for those days) by bigger clubs - who immediately shifted them from the position they had been excelling at, and the formation that had brought out the best if them, and played them as full-backs in conventional 4-4-2 (where the full-back is arguably the last influential position on the pitch) FFS.
If either Ferguson or Venables and done the reverse - taken Fenwick or Parker from playing full-back at QPR and then built a sweeper-system round them - we'd have never heard the end of the tactical genius involved (and both the players would have been more famous and have had a stack more England caps.) And I say that as someone who thinks Venables was pretty much God. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
