Talk:Combination Game

message: The Royal Engineers section refers to Wall attending the 1872 international match. Can this really be true? According to his autobiography he was born in 1858 and would only have been a boy of 14 when the game was played. The match was played 400 miles away from his London home. There is nothing in his biography to say that he made the trip north.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FJ Wall

message: Some minor changes with explanations
1) Alteration to opening sentence. The sentence originally refered to the Combination Game only as being about 'ball passing' and does not account for the original system of 'cooperation' known as 'backing up'.
2) I took out the bit about the 1880 throw in rule (see reasoning below) and slightly amended text relating to the offside rule (which originally stated that there was not offisde rule in the 1863 Laws of the Game, when infact there had been - a rugby style rule which required players to remain behind the ball to be onside). 
3) C.W. Alcock - I merged the information on Alcock contained within the Queen's Park section with this text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit to text

message: The circa 1880 throw in is being presented on the same level as the change to offside (1866) as being a major factor in the end of dribblng. The quotation given by the Scottish reporter, from my understanding of the rules at this period (please correct me if I am wrong), is being taken out of context. There were two forms of throw in at the time of the quote - the throw in of the Football Association and that of the Scottish Football Association. The English throw in was a one handed hurl in any direction, the Scottish throw in was two hands behind the head with the ball entering the field at a right angle to the touch line. The FA, on occasion, tried to force the SFA to play their code in the internationals (the throw in and offside rules in particular were at a divergence). I think that the reporter is refering to the English style one handed hurl in his comment which enabled the ball quite literally (if the player took a run up) to be launched from one end of the pitch to the other. The two hands behind the head neccessitated a much shorter and more limited throw in. I think it is the Manchester Conference of 1882 which settles the dispute with a compromise between both codes (two hands behind the head but in any direction). If the year is 1880, the journalist, is likely refering to the English rule which allowed for the ball to be launched high into the air and over considerable distance which negated the prospect of players receiving the ball a relatively short distance from the throw in taker. I'm pretty sure that the 1879 international which took place in England was played under the code of the FA and the match which took place in 1880 in Scotland, was intended to be played under the Scottish code, but the FA refused to take part in the game unless the Scots played to their rules. The 1879 game refers to Scottish players back near their goal line trying to head away the long throw ins which are launched from distance.
I think though that the comments are not directly linked to a specific passing v dribbling debate - Players dribbled and passed the ball widely by this period. The journalist is using an alternative term for Association football (just as Soccer is an alternative term). In early publications Association football is often referred to as the 'dribbling game' to differentiate it from the 'handling game' of rugby. The quote 'Scotch players... positively declare it has spoiled the appearance of the dribbling game' is therefore likely to mean, "The Scottish players positively declare that it (the one handed hurl in any direction) has spoiled the appearance of the Association game." This would make the current line of argument wildly inaccurate and it should be taken out.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Throw in Rule c1880

message: Towards the bottom of the page there is reference to the 'likely' influence of the Cambridge team on the Corinthians playing style. Could you expand upon this please, as I have never come across information relating to this. The Corinthians are widely portrayed as the champion team of the amateur south - right from the off they are a high profile 'Allstar' team of leading amateur players and certainly provide enough England internationalists over the course of the 1880s to be considered the major power of the amateur teams in the south of England.  N.L Jackson himself attributes the foundation of the club to the success of the Scottish combination game and he also invites leading Queen's Park players in the shape of Dr John Smith, Walter Arnott and Andrew Watson, who played in Scotland's 6-1 win of 1881 and 5-1 win of 1882 over England (the latter being the game which motivated Jackson to set up the Corinthians). In relation to the Corinthians, the evidence points to the Scottish combination game as being the inspiration.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Corinthians

message: This is an interesting piece but raises some issues. 2-3-5 formation (pyramid or otherwise) is developed quite early on and sources point to a number of teams playing 2-3-5 long before 1883. The earliest that I am aware of is Wrexham FC (1878). In Scotland there is evidence of Rangers FC and Queen's Park playing 2-3-5 in 1880, while I am aware of Sheffield Wednesday also playing 2-3-5 in 1880 and Blackburn Olympic playing the system in 1881. Olympic also uses the formation when they win the FA Cup Final in 1883. The 2-3-5 system is a natural progression from the 2-2-6 game of the late 1870s - the deeper lying of the two centre forwards dropping permanently into a central midfield berth. Alcock's quote is interesting and comes from 1891 when the pyramid was still the latest development. Within a few years of this it is superseded by 2-3-5 'W W' formation, with the inside forwards dropping back deeper to improve the passing lines amongst the forwards. The difficulty here is that, as tactics improve and systems improve, newer and better examples can inevitably be given. Beyond Cambridge University there are strong cases which can be given for the Preston North End 'Invincibles' and the Corinthians for the 1880s, and of course Blackburn Olympic already feature as well. Moving even further forward you then have the Austrian Wunderteam's combination of the 1930s (still playing a form of W W) or the revolutionary form of combination displayed by the Hungarians during the early to mid 1950s (which superseded WM, the conventional British system of the time). You can then move further forward to the Dutch total football concept of combination etc.
My question is whether this contribution would be more appropriate for a 'history of tactics' or 'history of team formations' section, which identifies progression in combination (during the 'post established' period), or whether the page on the Combination Game should be expanded from the early period of development(1860s / 1870s) which relates to the origins and establishment of combination football and into a wider exposé on developments in combination (moving from the early 1880s through to the significant developments of the Twentieth Century)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge University

message: I have made two changes to your additions to the queens park component and justify them below:
First, to describe one's own club as the pioneers of the modern passing game ignores earlier contemporary evidence as well as the opinion of notable figures like Wall and CW Alcock (who state that the Royal Engineers and Sheffield were the pioneers).  Your notion that modern passing begins when your history begins is illogical, unfair and tantamount to saying the WW11 began in 1941.  No one doubts queens parks role, but you seem to want to use this to deny solid evidence for others' achievements.
I am refering to combination football based on systematic passing when I use the term (the article is entitled 'Combination Game' not 'The first team in history ever to make a pass'). Sheffield's history is well documented and exceptionally important - I would still say that their form of passing in 1860s and early 1870s is rudimentary, and Alcock himself confirms this. Sheffield rules football was based on the long direct pass, even by the mid 1870s, due to the lack of offside which enabled players to stand beside the goal keeper and poach. Alcock does not attribute it to 'combination' in the sense of inter passing between players. They also 'backed up' and a definition of backing up is provided below. Beyond Sheffield rules, the London Association game would have allowed the forward pass from 1866 onwards (absolutely no argument there), but what type of game was being played at this time and how long did it take for a systematic form of passing to take hold? The Old Boys teams just don't take to it and the London culture is primarily a dribbling game until the Corinthians arrive on the scene. The Engineers play a form of combination, yes, and great credit to them, but in my opinion it simply does not become a culture of passing like Queen's Park (or else the Engineers game would have been copied across the UK, with a legacy to show for it - they are, after all, an older club than Queen's and are based in the South East - the home of the Association game). You give a quote from 1869 relating to "Backing up". This form of combination is described by Geoffrey Green (Fabian A H (ed); Association Football Vol 3, London, 1960, P7) when he introduces the style of football being played at the time of the 1872 FA Cup Final,
“Here, too, was the age of the dribbler, pure, allied with a system of “backing up” as it was known, whereby a colleague supported the man with the ball, at the ready either to take it on, or to hustle and fend off any interference by the opposition."
It is described by Green as a system of support, the supporting player being ready to step in should the man in front falter, or of doing what he could to help fend off the charges from opposing players. A culture of cooperation and team work? Yes. A style in which the odd pass could have been made? Yes, judging from the references attributed to the Engineers and even from references that I have come across relating to the celebrated dribblers of the period, Alcock's Wanderers. But a culture of systematic passing? No. This is why Alcock refers to Sheffield when talking about early evidence of the pass in football, and Queen's Park and Scottish teams when talking about systematic passing.
I have added new material to show the evolution of the Queen's Park game which shows that simplistic passing (the beginning of World War II as you put it) for them was made possible as as early as 1867 (with their offside rule change) and I accept that the 1866 rule clearly made this possible in England, but from evidence provided it is 1872 when their game has reached an advanced form of combination (this might be the '1941 entry' as you put it in terms of the overall history of the pass but it marks the beginning of the game that Queen's would pioneer (the modern passing game) - from the Scotch Professors at the Preston 'Invincibles' and John Harley's revolution in Uruguay, to Jimmy Hogan's teaching of the short passing game in Central Europe (via his time at Fulham), the strands can be traced back to Queen's Park and 1872. The playing styles developed by Sheffield and the Engineers do not appear to share this experience. 
I take F.J. Wall's views into consideration but I would say that at times he displays an arrogant view of the game in Scotland, describing the FA in one particular article in 1906 as claiming an 'overlordship' over the Scottish FA (after the formation of the Scottish body in 1873)...'which was not fully accepted and ultimately not insisted upon.' Walls views have a haughtiness about them when it comes to Scotland and I'm not surprised that he demotes Queen's Park's contribution. In many respects he embodies the traditional anglo-centric viewpoint of the development of the game. In his autobiography he cites Major Marindin of the Royal Engineers as being one of the people responsible for him being appointed secretary of the FA. Understandably he would have a favourable outlook towards the Engineers although it has to be said that he does not specifically mention a passing game in his praise of the Engineers but rather uses terms like 'working in unison' and 'combination', terms equally suited to the system of 'backing up'. Alcock is fair minded towards football on both sides of the border and interestingly does not place the science of the Engineers game ahead of Queen's Park when it comes to the development of the passing game in any articles that I have viewed.
Second, you write off the Royal Engineers on the grounds that it is a rough game.  Contemporary evidence describes the Royal Engineers play as "beautiful", emphasizes strong teamwork and shows passing.  Sure, the game was rougher then, but is also true for Queens Park. I have therefore added contemporary evidence (as opposed to retrospective opinion) to show Queens Park playing a charging style as late as 1875.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More Revisions to Queens Park component

message: A few points and questions from this section of the page,
1) "The evidence above (relating to the quotes from games involving the Engineers) contains detailed descriptions of passing that are lacking in reports of the 1872 Glasgow international" - How can this comment be justified in relation to the Graphic's specific account of passing, allied to Walter Arnott's detailed eyewitness testimony, backed up by the frequent reference to team work mentioned in the other newspapers? The evidence from the Engineers games (aluded to in the passage) are individual accounts (fair enough) and are not cross referenced in the way that the account of the first international is.
2)"Unlike the 1872 Glasgow international - which was drawn - the contemporary evidence above shows that the Engineers' team playing style benefited their team play by winning games." In the international match of 1872 England, represented by players from nine different clubs, were expected to trounce a Scotland team made up from the members of one club - the combined approach was the salvation of Queen's Park in the game. If they had tried to play the dribbling game they would have been outpaced and out muscled. Moreover, in the March FA Cup semi-final tie Queen's Park draw against the Wanderers - in the FA Cup final tie the Royal Engineers lose to the Wanderers. This runs contrary to your line of argument. Queen's Park do not lose their first game until 1876.
3) "Similarly, the 5th March 1872 match between Wanderers and Queens park contains no evidence of ball passing" The Field's insightful description of the Queen's Park game (aided also by the observation of the Herald) presumably now changes this statement.
4)  "The Engineers are the first side to be considered to play the football "beautifully"" Fair enough, but beautifully does not necessarily equate to passing the ball, unless the account gives reference to this. 
5) "It is probable that Queen's Park FC observed the Engineers' passing game during one of their visits to England to participate in the 1871–72 FA Cup. Undoubtedly, their representatives in London were well aware of the Sheffield and Engineers' style." Nice attempt! but without facts and hence the use of 'probable'. A significant flaw in your entire line of argument is the alignment of 'backing up' with a 'passing game'. Backing up is simply a support of the dribbler. Individual references to a pass being made as part of this style of game does not equate to a culture of passing or passing game. The support players were also working together to fend off (charge into) opposing players as they tried to intercept the dribbler, or simply to pounce on the loose ball when the dribbler in front was felled. A passing game places an emphasis on the systematic movement of the ball from one player to another - as the players run forward with the ball, passing is a predominant tactic in their play. The Wanderers team are also quoted in contemporary accounts as playing a pass within their system of backing up, but Alcock does not refer to his team when he talks about a passing game. His silence in relation to the Engineers is deafening.
As it happens Queen's Park did have some awareness of the London football scene and a member resident in the metropolis reported back to Queen's Park about the 'dribbling' style of the London game. If the Engineers were pioneering a 'passing game' amongst the London clubs the brothers Smith and others don't mention it. Robert Smith after the Nov 1870 international, in which he played, refers to the practice of dribbling the ball with the feet, as opposed to high or long kicking, but no reference to a passing game. Queen's Park are already playing a passing game when they first visit London for the FA Cup tie with Wanderers in March 1872, so the point about learning the game then from the Engineers can't be true. The awareness of the Sheffield game is even less clear as there is no contact until 1872 when the Sheffield Association request a game, and once again they are not playing a passing game. 'Passing on' is an individual tactic not a passing culture. Knowledge of the Sheffield game also appears to be limited. A game eventually takes place between the Glasgow FA and Sheffield FA (1874), but the secretary of the fledgling Scottish FA, writing in 1873, although expressing knowledge of the distinctive offside rule, asks for a copy of their rules in advance of the game (this suggests that there could not have been much contact even by 1873).-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of the Royal Engineers early playing style

message: I have trimmed down the Queens Park component by removing two parts:
1) bits about the royal engineers and Sheffield that are clearly flawed as a result of earlier, irrefutable and contemporary evidence of passing.  That a historian should make conclusions such as these (for example that Sheffield and the Engineers copied Queens Park) without considering the evidence must call into question the other conclusions provided on this page about Queens Park.
2) the bit about the media not reporting the Dec 1872 match fully.  The Scotsman and most other papers (Scottish as well as English) provided very lengthy accounts of this match without mentioning passing.  The match accounts relating to Sheffield and the Engineers - on the other hand- were all very brief (literally a few lines!) and did include accounts of science, combination and passing.  This adds considerable weight to their evidence.
There is no doubt that Queens Park innovated short passing in the 1870s.  The question is when did it start.  The evidence that it started in 1872 (or before) is very thin indeed.  Once reference stating that they "seem" to be adepts at passing is far from convincing. It sounds like the author was not an observer:  certainly he pointed his readers away to sporting gazettes! The rest of the evidence to support 1872 is all retrospective and therefore must be viewed with caution by any serious historian.  Herein lies an important question and one that has not been tackled objectively.  (n.b. that players "worked well" or "combined together" is often reported in the early 1870s).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Queens Park Component

message: Montague Shearman's book on the history of Football (1904) apparently also has info about Cambridge's role in the combination game.  Very hard to come by tho'  If anyone has a copy, please could you have a look?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge AFC

message: this article would be a million times better if the Queens park section could go between Sheffield and Cambridge, in accordance with contemporary evidence.  It would need to be very much shortened and referenced.  Obviously if there is earlier contemporary evidence of passing it could go higher, but I have not found any such contemporary evidence either in books or early newspapers.  I know that some people will not like the idea, but the contemporary evidence seems to support it.  I do not think any historian worth their salt can depend upon very retrospective evidence, especially at a time when travel was so slow.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of the Scotland (Queens Park) section

message: Is there any proof that McGregor was present at the 1872 Glasgow international?  From his wiki page it looks as tho he was probably either in Birmingham or Perthshire at this time.  Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about William McGregor

message: Please could somebody tidy up and reference the section on scotland.  As in any scientific methodology, please give preference to contemporary (rather than retrospective) evidence.  From my readings there seems to be surprisingly little contemporary evidence for passing at the 1872 Glasgow international.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Scotland/Queen's park FC

message: thank you for this interesting info. What is the earliest contemporary evidence for short passing in Scotland (rather than tradition)? thanks  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thousandsofyears (talk • contribs). 
The Field's description of the 1872 FA Cup semi final involving Queen's Park is the earliest that I am aware of - the Field differentiates between the long pass from the full backs and the judicious passing on (short passes) of the forwards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have altered the R.Engineers part of this article.  You clearly know the Scottish story better than anyone (and must have the best job in Scotland????), so I will not alter that.  It seems to me that most of the evidence for combination is retrospective (often many years) and for that reason I have used evidence from a contemporary account. I have also added a bit to the public schools part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Engineers entry

message: I have moved Sheffield up on this page as I think there is their role early role is undisputed in the development of the game?  Does Alcock give a date or say anything more about the Sheffield contribution to the passing game? thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheffield

message: I propose a new page on spreading the game to different countries (instead of the section at the bottom of the page).  I think this would be better because most of this happened in the 1880s (later than the early combination game) and is therefore a separate issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spreading the game

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Combination Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330052703/http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm to http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Combination Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831113911/http://www.corinthian-casuals.com/clubinfo/history.php to http://www.corinthian-casuals.com/clubinfo/history.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified