14:33 Jun 20, 2011 

sorry everybody, Ive just read that last post again and I have spotted some tired mistakes. Of course instead of "3-5-2" it should read "2-3-5".
Apologies if it left anyone confused..

01:26 Jun 17, 2011 

Just to add, when teams moved to a back 4, in England, the centre-halves were seen to come back into the middle of defence and push the "fullbacks" out to the flanks. This is shown in the traditional shirt numbers that were used in 2-3-5 and subsequently 4-4-2.
3-5-2: GK 1, RFB 2, LFB 3, RH 4, CH 5, LH 6, RW 7, IR 8, CF 9, IL 10, LW 11
4-4-2: GK 1, RB 2, LB 3, CB 5, CB 6, RM 7, CM 4, CM 8, LM 11, CF 9, CF 10
with the wingers moved back to widemen in a 4 man midfield, one inside forward dropping back to CM to partner the remaining Halfback (4) and one joining up with the striker (10).

I have noticed in Brazil that this does not necessarily apply, with the leftback for ex. often wearing no. 6 (not 3). Maybe the changes to 4-4-2 were seen differently. This might account for the name in Portuguese for the original "fullback" from the 3-5-2 (zagueiro) being used to describe the two central members of a 4-4-2 defence nowadays.

However, in English this is not the case, and in referring to a "zagueiro" in a modern-day 3 or 4 man defence the correct translation is central defender. If the text was referring to a player in 3-5-2 it would be fullback. But today zagueiro = central defender.

00:57 Jun 17, 2011 

Its true that the names for positions come from a time when the 2-3-5 formation was common, even in English. Yet they have long since been adapted and universally accepted.


For example, the two defenders, as coolbrowne says, were originally called fullbacks as they were the furthest back of the outfield 10. The 3 midfielders (left-half, centre-half, and right-half) ahead of them, with the attack made up of a left and right winger (or outside left/right), inside left and inside right slightly more central to them, and a centre-forward in the middle.


As teams began to field more defensive formations and 2-3-5 became a thing of the past, the position names remained the same. This is why central defenders are still referred to as "centre-halves" as it was the old-style centre-half from the 2-3-5 formation who first dropped into defence (one at first, then eventually both).


This led to a situation where the full-back, despite the name, was no longer the furthest back - that now being the centre-halves. As the term "meio-zagueiro" is now almost obsolete (as is half-back), zagueiro (and beque) need no qualification and in English mean centre-back/central defender/centre-half.

00:28 Jun 17, 2011 

True enough, Wikipedia is not infallible, but this article may be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football_positions

Enjoy!

00:21 Jun 17, 2011 

The expression "zagueiro" is somewhat dated because it is part of the old formation (probably older than most forum members):

Keeper,
L/R fullbacks
L/C/R halfbacks
OL/IL/CF/IR/OR attackers

Apart from the obvious esquerda/direita (L/R), Brazilian terms were:

"zagueiro" (beque) - fullback
meio zagueiro ("alfe") - halfback

And there was no specific "attack" tem for the attackers, which were simply identified by position: "ponta" (for outside), and "meia" (for inside) and, finally, "centro-avante" ("centerfór") for the center-forward.

As sophisticated translators you will notice the use of corrupted English forms in Portuguese (beque, alfe) for some positions. Anyway, that's why a "zagueiro" needs some qualifier (such as "meio", "quarto", "central", etc.) to establish a halfback versus fullback position. As they used to say in Brazil, "sóri periferia", but most of you aren't old enough ;-).

Of course, since those olden times, there have been may other different formations (W-M, 4-2-4, 4-3-3, and so on), but the unqualified "zagueiro" (or "beque") is still a fullback.