In the first half, he wasn't beating his man, constantly playing a diagonal ball back to the wing half. In the 2nd half, he was doing much better, demonstrating that once he could get to the by-line he was lethal. People writing that he was past it, simply have no clue. He was double teamed, and Hungary parked the bus, the train and the car park (4-2-4) to stop him.
The more you look at this, the more you realise that one key play for the Hungarians (apart from third man theory - which is covered in detail in my book about Hogan) was double or treble teaming Matthews. Perhaps this would have been made redundant if the left outside forward position had gone not to George Robb (the amateur player) but to Tom Finney (who, let's face it, was a more devastating outside forward than Matthews and, arguably, one of the top 5 players to ever kick a football). Little wonder that George Raynor was able to work the Hungarians out so easily. I would have put Matthews up field, played Finney on the left. That way, the Hungarian defence would have remained stretched. Loaded the midfield to over-run their 2 there and just played ping pong with them all afternoon. Only after being 4-2 up in the 2nd half did Matthews start getting to the by-line and then you realise what damage he was causing. Before that, the Hungarians were loading that side of the field to stop him and leaving Robb to run around like a headless chicken. I would have gone for Finney on the left and that would have left a massive hole in the centre for Morty and Sewell to run through. You can see a similar tactic in 1980 when England played Belgium. The Belgian players weren't too worried about Keegan and Brooking and Wilkins but they were almightily shit scared of Coppell with good reason. The finest outside right in Europe, he was the equal of Robertson and Johnston and the best outside forward England have had since Matthews (and, yes, that includes the over-rated Saka). Getting back to Hungary, you also see that once that massed defence was breached, they were porous. Little wonder that they lost the World Cup. You can't win a World Cup if you give up 10 goals in 5 matches.
To be fair, I can't deny Hungarians had overall superiority against English players. Hidegkuti revolutionized the Center forward position, and Johnstone had no idea what he's doing in midfield. He chased Hidegkuti all night long, never understood anything, always late when things happened. Puskas was just the icing on the cake. Stan was different breed from all the other English players, but you can't really win the game by his own. Tom Finney replaced Matthews' place for their trip to Budapest, however faced even larger defeat. 7-1 still stood as the biggest defeat England has ever faced. I personally believe this England side was the second best team in the continent, and possibly one of the 5 best teams in the world. But Hungarians were just different. Defence matters, but we should consider it was the era with one of the highest scoring rates ever. It is natural to give up 10 goals in 5 matches when they score like 20~30 goals.
The overrated saka is right. not on his own, though, when it comes to his colleagues in the euro squad. most if not all. play against a team in Spain who have a number of technically gifted players and they can't get a kick.
@@Petes-jb5ic if I remember rightly that forward line only once played and that was when they won 10-0 in Lisbon. I could be wrong. But I think that's right. I don't think Carter was in Turin when England won 4-0 (Mortensen was the inside right that day). And I think Don Welsh was in the forward line when England beat Scotland 8-0 in 1943. I think England's wartime side would have definitely done well against Hungary because they were all so extremely gifted players.
@@Petes-jb5ic The person who revolutionised the centre-forward position was Gunnar Nordahl who played under Raynor in 1947 and 1948 for Sweden. Raynor first introduced the reserved centre-forward into mainland Europe because he had played under Norman Bullock at Bury in the 1930s who first tried the tactic with Ernie Matthews quite successfully. All covered in my book on Raynor. Nordahl wasn't in Budapest in 1953 of course because he was a professional player by that stage, but I'd say he was easily the best European striker before Muller; and possibly second only to Muller in history.
Matthews was undoubtedly a superb player, but age was catching up with him by 1953. He certainly had wonderful ball skills and was a master of delivering great passes, but his lack of pace and stamina with his advancing years was obvious. Stan’s dribbling skills were phenomenal, but at this level, speed and acceleration was called for to open up the defence. But the real problem with the England team at this time was the lack of athleticism and ball skills. The two English full backs and the half backs were by international football standards slow and ponderous in their play. In this particular match, a lack of pace was cruelly exposed by the Hungarians as they constantly beat the English defenders to the ball. Johnstone, Wright and Ramsay were good defenders and sound club players, but all three were painfully slow - and this was embarrassingly demonstrated in this match.
If Raynor had been England's coach instead of that cretin Winterbottom, England would have spanked Hungary. It's so obvious how you could have got a hatful of goals against the defence. The amount of players England had over in the box when the first man goes for goal is insane. No wonder Sweden came so close to winning in Budapest! Have we got footage of the Sweden game by any chance? See the magic of Raynor at work.
Soy español y no entiendo mucho de futbol, por eso apelo a ustedes. ¿Quién creen que fue mejor extremo, Sir Stanley o Garrincha?. Es la primera vez que veo a Matthews jugando y la verdad es que me ha impresionado, y dicen ustedes que estaba en la última fase de su carrera. ¿Cómo sería entonces en su mejor época? Maravilloso. Gracias por este video. Les espero a todos en las vacaciones de verano en España.
We have so few matches left on both wingers. So I can't be sure... but I had an impression that Matthews was better in terms of regularly winning side line 1on1. However, Matthews never combined his playmaking ability with enough amount of scoring. He was a better scorer when he was younger, but his playmaking got better in the 50s. Garrincha however was able to combine both abilities at the high level. He might not be as accurate or regular as Matthews was, but peak Garrincha was truly freak of nature. He had a tendency to be much more aggressive than Matthews was, roaming near the goal line. Briefly, peak Garrincha, longevity Matthews. I believe they were the two best 'classic' wingers in the history of football.
@@Petes-jb5ic Mejores que George Best? Cuando era un niño mi héroe era Georgie. Mientras mis amigos españoles idolatraban a Pelé, yo lo hacía a Best. Tal vez porque además de ser un fenómeno del futbol, él iba más allá del futbol y era un fenómeno de guapo, de mujeriego y de bon vivant, endemoniado irlandés lol lol. Además, era como el representante de The Beatles en el mundo del futbol lol lol lol
Por cierto, cuando era niño, yo admiraba sobre todo a George Best, ya lo dije, y a Sir Boby Charlton. Eran mis dos mayores ídolos del futbol. En los mundiales y la Eurocopa yo siempre iba a favor de Inglaterra, no de España lol lol lol Aún recuerdo de memoria los nombres de aquel equipo campeón del mundo del 66: Gordon Banks; Cohen, Jacky Charlton, Boby Moore, Ray Wilson; Peters, Steals, Sir Bobby Charlton; Bell, Hunt, Hearst. Recuerdo otros jugadores reservas como Bonetti (portero), Hunter, Newton, Greaves.
@budreverterbudreverter8304 What a great memories to listen to. I think George Best was more than just a winger. He could play everywhere and wasn't particularly specialized at crossing. So I don't really compare him with Matthews and Garrincha. Best was unfit sometimes and couldn't keep up his top form till he got older. Still He was the best player of the late 60s i guess...
@@Petes-jb5ic Jimmy Johnstone of Celtic and Scotland is also up there in the discussion of best pure wingers of all time. Phenomenally talented dribbler with a tremendous work ethic. Many feel that he was robbed of a balon d'Or in 1967.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
So predictable. Feint to the left then go to the right. Excellent quality video for the time.
Interessante: Esse jogador (Stanley Matthews) é muito famoso entre os ingleses, mas não é muito conhecido no resto do mundo! Por que será? Não teve destaque em Copa do Mundo?
1. He made his debut in early 1930s. Which means He was well past his prime when England started to participate World Cup. 2. In 1950, England lost to USA and Spain to fell out of World Cup. However, Matthews was injured and not quiet in fit. Actually England was on the way of re-building as Players like Lawton, Carter, and Mannion was past their prime. 3. It was obvious for ppl during the era that Matthews is a world-class player. In 1965, Matthews made his retirement testimonial match. Puskas and Yashin hold him over their shoulders to honour him! Pelé : "He was the one who taught us how to play football"
@@Petes-jb5ic Quem lê sua biografia, fica sabendo de sua importância para o futebol, tanto dentro de campo como fora do campo!!! Vale a pena conhecer quem foi SM fora de campo!.
This video shows how footballers have progressed. Stanley Mathews did not have the skills to take a man on and go round him. He always went to one side then passed the ball to another player. But that was acceptable in his day.
@johnchampion7819 Well you can't really say that when a player completes 17 dribbles a game. You're over exaggerating the case after watching just one of his films. I do agree footballers have progressed so much, but even Lionel Messi fails to pass through defenders sometimes. I analyzed every possessions of every Matthews game available. He succeded the 'average' of 15 one-on-one a day. That's not what you expected though. What's the difference between him and the modern footballers? It's not just about the skills as defenders facing him wasn't skillful enough to stop him either. He couldn't use his ability around the field. He was most useful by the line, but not a spectacular Inside forward nor He had a ability to score and playmake at the same time. What's separating him and the modern footballers is, the understanding of the tactics and the usage of space and time. He focused on the sideline 1on1 majorly by the end of his career. He tried to add some full-pitch impact in the late 50s, but couldn't really succeed as he was just too old. So I suppose Modern training and coaches would benefit him a lot. Don't you think so?
he was a great player played in his 50s my dad saw him play at his peak he was fast amazing dribbler and crossing and he could nutmeg Brazilians see the england brazil 4-2 win, he moved across the pitch like jimmy greaves another England genius or grealish of the modern players that southgate foolishly, ignored the disgrace to football that he was
@@karaperrio-du5gs I did watch the Brazil game and didn't think he justified his place, there were far better players available but England didn't have a manager in those days. The team was selected by a geriatric committee, and reputation trumped actual ability. The tragedy of Stan as with all players of his age was that his best years were taken away by WW2. He was still good for the 40's but after that he was living off his reputation.
Lovely video .. look at the determination of these guys vs today !!
In the first half, he wasn't beating his man, constantly playing a diagonal ball back to the wing half. In the 2nd half, he was doing much better, demonstrating that once he could get to the by-line he was lethal. People writing that he was past it, simply have no clue. He was double teamed, and Hungary parked the bus, the train and the car park (4-2-4) to stop him.
this is really good quality footage. I bought this game on VHS 30 years ago and the picture quality was really bad.
Ххх
The more you look at this, the more you realise that one key play for the Hungarians (apart from third man theory - which is covered in detail in my book about Hogan) was double or treble teaming Matthews. Perhaps this would have been made redundant if the left outside forward position had gone not to George Robb (the amateur player) but to Tom Finney (who, let's face it, was a more devastating outside forward than Matthews and, arguably, one of the top 5 players to ever kick a football). Little wonder that George Raynor was able to work the Hungarians out so easily. I would have put Matthews up field, played Finney on the left. That way, the Hungarian defence would have remained stretched. Loaded the midfield to over-run their 2 there and just played ping pong with them all afternoon. Only after being 4-2 up in the 2nd half did Matthews start getting to the by-line and then you realise what damage he was causing. Before that, the Hungarians were loading that side of the field to stop him and leaving Robb to run around like a headless chicken. I would have gone for Finney on the left and that would have left a massive hole in the centre for Morty and Sewell to run through. You can see a similar tactic in 1980 when England played Belgium. The Belgian players weren't too worried about Keegan and Brooking and Wilkins but they were almightily shit scared of Coppell with good reason. The finest outside right in Europe, he was the equal of Robertson and Johnston and the best outside forward England have had since Matthews (and, yes, that includes the over-rated Saka). Getting back to Hungary, you also see that once that massed defence was breached, they were porous. Little wonder that they lost the World Cup. You can't win a World Cup if you give up 10 goals in 5 matches.
To be fair, I can't deny Hungarians had overall superiority against English players. Hidegkuti revolutionized the Center forward position, and Johnstone had no idea what he's doing in midfield. He chased Hidegkuti all night long, never understood anything, always late when things happened. Puskas was just the icing on the cake.
Stan was different breed from all the other English players, but you can't really win the game by his own. Tom Finney replaced Matthews' place for their trip to Budapest, however faced even larger defeat. 7-1 still stood as the biggest defeat England has ever faced. I personally believe this England side was the second best team in the continent, and possibly one of the 5 best teams in the world. But Hungarians were just different. Defence matters, but we should consider it was the era with one of the highest scoring rates ever. It is natural to give up 10 goals in 5 matches when they score like 20~30 goals.
I think England team in 40s which consists of Finney, Carter, Mannion, Lawton, Matthews might have a pretty good fight against this Hungarian team.
The overrated saka is right. not on his own, though, when it comes to his colleagues in the euro squad. most if not all. play against a team in Spain who have a number of technically gifted players and they can't get a kick.
@@Petes-jb5ic if I remember rightly that forward line only once played and that was when they won 10-0 in Lisbon. I could be wrong. But I think that's right. I don't think Carter was in Turin when England won 4-0 (Mortensen was the inside right that day). And I think Don Welsh was in the forward line when England beat Scotland 8-0 in 1943. I think England's wartime side would have definitely done well against Hungary because they were all so extremely gifted players.
@@Petes-jb5ic The person who revolutionised the centre-forward position was Gunnar Nordahl who played under Raynor in 1947 and 1948 for Sweden. Raynor first introduced the reserved centre-forward into mainland Europe because he had played under Norman Bullock at Bury in the 1930s who first tried the tactic with Ernie Matthews quite successfully. All covered in my book on Raynor. Nordahl wasn't in Budapest in 1953 of course because he was a professional player by that stage, but I'd say he was easily the best European striker before Muller; and possibly second only to Muller in history.
What… no side to side or back passing? I don’t think teams were afraid to lose back then, they nailed their colours to the mast and went for it.
Matthews was undoubtedly a superb player, but age was catching up with him by 1953. He certainly had wonderful ball skills and was a master of delivering great passes, but his lack of pace and stamina with his advancing years was obvious. Stan’s dribbling skills were phenomenal, but at this level, speed and acceleration was called for to open up the defence. But the real problem with the England team at this time was the lack of athleticism and ball skills. The two English full backs and the half backs were by international football standards slow and ponderous in their play. In this particular match, a lack of pace was cruelly exposed by the Hungarians as they constantly beat the English defenders to the ball. Johnstone, Wright and Ramsay were good defenders and sound club players, but all three were painfully slow - and this was embarrassingly demonstrated in this match.
They were totally outclassed, full stop. 7-1 in Budapest.
All England yet somehow the score line shows 6 goals 4from Hungary
How misleading
Please read the title.
If Raynor had been England's coach instead of that cretin Winterbottom, England would have spanked Hungary. It's so obvious how you could have got a hatful of goals against the defence. The amount of players England had over in the box when the first man goes for goal is insane. No wonder Sweden came so close to winning in Budapest! Have we got footage of the Sweden game by any chance? See the magic of Raynor at work.
Soy español y no entiendo mucho de futbol, por eso apelo a ustedes. ¿Quién creen que fue mejor extremo, Sir Stanley o Garrincha?. Es la primera vez que veo a Matthews jugando y la verdad es que me ha impresionado, y dicen ustedes que estaba en la última fase de su carrera. ¿Cómo sería entonces en su mejor época? Maravilloso. Gracias por este video. Les espero a todos en las vacaciones de verano en España.
We have so few matches left on both wingers. So I can't be sure... but I had an impression that Matthews was better in terms of regularly winning side line 1on1. However, Matthews never combined his playmaking ability with enough amount of scoring. He was a better scorer when he was younger, but his playmaking got better in the 50s. Garrincha however was able to combine both abilities at the high level. He might not be as accurate or regular as Matthews was, but peak Garrincha was truly freak of nature. He had a tendency to be much more aggressive than Matthews was, roaming near the goal line. Briefly, peak Garrincha, longevity Matthews. I believe they were the two best 'classic' wingers in the history of football.
@@Petes-jb5ic Mejores que George Best? Cuando era un niño mi héroe era Georgie. Mientras mis amigos españoles idolatraban a Pelé, yo lo hacía a Best. Tal vez porque además de ser un fenómeno del futbol, él iba más allá del futbol y era un fenómeno de guapo, de mujeriego y de bon vivant, endemoniado irlandés lol lol. Además, era como el representante de The Beatles en el mundo del futbol lol lol lol
Por cierto, cuando era niño, yo admiraba sobre todo a George Best, ya lo dije, y a Sir Boby Charlton. Eran mis dos mayores ídolos del futbol. En los mundiales y la Eurocopa yo siempre iba a favor de Inglaterra, no de España lol lol lol Aún recuerdo de memoria los nombres de aquel equipo campeón del mundo del 66: Gordon Banks; Cohen, Jacky Charlton, Boby Moore, Ray Wilson; Peters, Steals, Sir Bobby Charlton; Bell, Hunt, Hearst. Recuerdo otros jugadores reservas como Bonetti (portero), Hunter, Newton, Greaves.
@budreverterbudreverter8304 What a great memories to listen to. I think George Best was more than just a winger. He could play everywhere and wasn't particularly specialized at crossing. So I don't really compare him with Matthews and Garrincha. Best was unfit sometimes and couldn't keep up his top form till he got older. Still He was the best player of the late 60s i guess...
@@Petes-jb5ic Jimmy Johnstone of Celtic and Scotland is also up there in the discussion of best pure wingers of all time. Phenomenally talented dribbler with a tremendous work ethic. Many feel that he was robbed of a balon d'Or in 1967.
So predictable. Feint to the left then go to the right. Excellent quality video for the time.
Interessante: Esse jogador (Stanley Matthews) é muito famoso entre os ingleses, mas não é muito conhecido no resto do mundo! Por que será? Não teve destaque em Copa do Mundo?
1. He made his debut in early 1930s. Which means He was well past his prime when England started to participate World Cup.
2. In 1950, England lost to USA and Spain to fell out of World Cup. However, Matthews was injured and not quiet in fit. Actually England was on the way of re-building as Players like Lawton, Carter, and Mannion was past their prime.
3. It was obvious for ppl during the era that Matthews is a world-class player. In 1965, Matthews made his retirement testimonial match. Puskas and Yashin hold him over their shoulders to honour him! Pelé : "He was the one who taught us how to play football"
@@Petes-jb5ic Quem lê sua biografia, fica sabendo de sua importância para o futebol, tanto dentro de campo como fora do campo!!! Vale a pena conhecer quem foi SM fora de campo!.
This video shows how footballers have progressed. Stanley Mathews did not have the skills to take a man on and go round him. He always went to one side then passed the ball to another player. But that was acceptable in his day.
@johnchampion7819 Well you can't really say that when a player completes 17 dribbles a game. You're over exaggerating the case after watching just one of his films. I do agree footballers have progressed so much, but even Lionel Messi fails to pass through defenders sometimes. I analyzed every possessions of every Matthews game available. He succeded the 'average' of 15 one-on-one a day. That's not what you expected though. What's the difference between him and the modern footballers? It's not just about the skills as defenders facing him wasn't skillful enough to stop him either. He couldn't use his ability around the field. He was most useful by the line, but not a spectacular Inside forward nor He had a ability to score and playmake at the same time. What's separating him and the modern footballers is, the understanding of the tactics and the usage of space and time. He focused on the sideline 1on1 majorly by the end of his career. He tried to add some full-pitch impact in the late 50s, but couldn't really succeed as he was just too old. So I suppose Modern training and coaches would benefit him a lot. Don't you think so?
Matthews was known as one of the best dribblers ever & at beating players.
You can show as many clips as you want, England got Wolleped !
Any chance of seeing the whole match
Or at least decent coverage of the goals both Hungarian and English
Thanks for your efforts so far
Matthews clearly past it by then, either that or all the hype about him was BS.
He was on the back end of his career. For the times he played in he was mercurial.
he was a great player played in his 50s my dad saw him play at his peak he was fast amazing dribbler and crossing and he could nutmeg Brazilians see the england brazil 4-2 win, he moved across the pitch like jimmy greaves another England genius or grealish of the modern players that southgate foolishly, ignored the disgrace to football that he was
@@karaperrio-du5gs I did watch the Brazil game and didn't think he justified his place, there were far better players available but England didn't have a manager in those days. The team was selected by a geriatric committee, and reputation trumped actual ability. The tragedy of Stan as with all players of his age was that his best years were taken away by WW2. He was still good for the 40's but after that he was living off his reputation.