Talk:Match of the Century (1953 England v Hungary football match)

Footnote expanded

• I believe you'll find the first international football match ever took place between England and Scotland in 1872. Therefore the assertion that it was the first time the England National Football team had lost to a side from outside since 1863 is misleading and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.249.85 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it too the first defeat at Wembley for the English team? (i.e. after 50 years of home-matches at Wembley). -DePiep 13:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, and less than 30 years. The first 2 internationals at Wembley were against Scotland: 1-1 in 1924 and 1-5 in 1928. [1] Joestynes 11:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. (The "30" I should have found myself). Is the 1-5 mentioned in Scottish history? ;-) -DePiep 11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there is also a famous Hungarian film called 6:3, i think it should be included in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.214.171 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Version as at 26 Jan 2010

Can I invite people please to look at the quality of this article. Someone has actioned a major re-write of this article and packed it with unreferenced POVs written in poor quality English (by that I mean when you read it a lot of it is unclear and doesn't make sense).

Decide for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.181.14.50 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I don't really see the poor quality English in the article, and the large number of entirely unexplained (and sometimes puzzling) changes you are making have, apparently, raised some eyebrows. Please be more specific here on the talk page, and please at the very least start by explaining every change you make. I think you were referring to changes made by User:Gallopingmajor--I have asked them also to start using edit summaries. Because neither of you use edit summaries, and both of you are making tons of small changes, the article history is very confusing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I also don't see the "poor English" that you assert - you need to be a lot more specific and state exactly what you think constitute POV changes. Also, when you make so many changes, you really should provide an explanation in the edit summary of each and every one of them, not just revert lots of changes rapidly with no explanation. The way you went about it made it look like vandalism, even if that was not your intention. Oscroft (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oscroft, I don't feel like plowing through this cluttered edit history to see who did what--but I gotta say, someone's been writing who should be editing some blog somewhere. Check out sentences like this:

    On a foggy Wednesday afternoon on November 25, 1953, in front of 105,000 in Empire Wembley Stadium and to millions of worldwide listeners and television viewers the "The Magical Magyars" mesmerized, the tactical mileage and individual skill sets between the two teams were seen and revealed immediately. Within the first minute, the whole English defense experienced and fell under ever-changing geometric pressure invented out from midfield.

    Holy crap! I don't think that that is what the IP was talking about, though. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I have only looked at the IP's recent reversions, and they did not appear to be justified by anything said here - I have not reviewed the entire article. If the IP thinks there are specific edits that need to be reverted (rather than a general cleanup), then that needs to be explained in far more detail - especially if all the reverts are to one specific editor's changes, otherwise it just looks like an edit war. Oscroft (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree. Feel free to trim some more fat out of the article; I'm all larded up for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        • That's a nice improvement Drmies - If I have the time (and the courage) over the next few days, I'll try to contribute too. Oscroft (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

<--Thanks. BTW, congrats on the new name--though I thought "Oscroft" had a nice ring to it. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - wanted to get away from my real name a bit, and I'm a geek at heart :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, this is NOT a Wikipedia article, it's a story. Stories don't belong here. I agree with previous comments, this is written in completely the wrong style and it bothers the hell out of me. I could go to professionals if I wanted a story about this match, but on Wikipedia I just want the facts. Psyklax (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few mistakes in the article. It refers to Billy Wright as a centre half. But in 1953, Wright was still a wing half. he switched to the centre at the 1954 World Cup. I don't think it is true to say that the wingers were withdrawn in the Hungary side. It was really a 3-2-1-4 formation. Stanley mortenson could not be described as a "powerful" centre forward. He relied more on quickness and although he did play the No. 9 role in this game, he wasn't a centre forward at all - he was an inside right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirlo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a few random facts/encyclopedic material scatter around, but most of the first half of the article is not even close, including entire sentences that have no encyclopedic value I can see:

The anxiously promising match was ever England's sternest challenge to stem a gathering juggernaut from across the Channel from behind the Iron Curtain that had remained unbeaten for over three and a half years — and in deference to a remarkable tradition, un-trampled power in Europe and treasured home record England would have its place in the sun again as the highly approved side.

Has this sort of stuff been added since January, otherwise it is hard to see how anyone could have been defending this article in any way, it needs a lot of work. --81.151.97.246 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

An example, possibly my favourite:

This highly successful system mated to a hardy, open, spontaneous and industrial style with its usually high quality personnel, united by a wondrous unmistakable English competitive spirit... - Dudesleeper talk 02:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Whether Ireland is part of "the British Isles" is debatable, but I think that the Football Association are still trying to label the defeat by Hungary as the first on English soil by a non-British team. It was not. England lost to Ireland in 1949, at Liverpool. Ausseagull (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity that British Isles is a purely geographical term than includes the entire island of Ireland. The term may be controversial in the Republic of Ireland, but that doesn't make its meaning ambiguous. You can replace by "Britain and Ireland" if you feel strongly. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbeaten at Wembley for 90 years.

This article cites the BBC as stating that, prior to this match, England had been unbeaten at Wembley for 90 years. Wembley, however, was not built until 1923. The relevant section of the source is clumsily written, so it is unclear whether the author was unaware of when Wembley was built or whether he meant to imply that the record predated the stadium. Either way, I have amended the article to clarify the point. 81.178.218.109 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, and well done. Coopuk (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Barbados v Grenada (1994) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article name

This page has been moved a number of times since it was created. The current title is very clunky. I'd welcome comment about what it should be called. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For information: Match of the Century is a disambiguation page. And here's the Category with England's matches in it, so people can compare titles. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest 1953 England v Hungary football match ("Match of the Century"). Make the title exactly what it is, but include the common moniker so it is easily found by search. --John, AF4JM (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Either 1953 England v Hungary football match, for consistency with several others, or England 3–6 Hungary (1953 association football friendly), for consistency with Hungary 7–1 England (1954 association football friendly). If anyone really does search for this game as Match of the Century, there's the dab page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Sturway2, though really Hungary 7–1 England (1954 association football friendly) should be moved back to 1954 Hungary vs England football match and this should then go to 1953 England v Hungary football match. I'd suggest opening up requested move for both of these articles --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Match of the Century (1953 England v Hungary football match). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/news/newsid%3D510979.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522081950/http://www.englandstats.com/matchreport.php?mid=284 to http://www.englandstats.com/matchreport.php?mid=284

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)