Fair point, but without video evidence, it'd be hard pressed to trace the nuances. I've done some research on Hapgood for earlier draft and all I found was that he was a classy defender excellent in the air. Unless played tucked in, the expectation from a modern back 4 fullback is vastly different and it's difficult for manager to make a case. Looking forward to the match thread. I promise to have an open mind.
I think first it's useful to make a distinction between fullbacks in the WM vs. "full backs" in the Metodo and the WW. The majority of teams pre-50s played one of those three formations. All of them included out and out wingers with very little defensive responsibility - outside of their lack of defensive responsibility they played pretty much like out and out wingers today. Hug the touchline, create space by beating players, create chances from out wide. Whose responsibility was it to deal with them?
In the Metodo and WW it fell upon the half backs on either side, while the "full backs" were entirely comparable to centre backs of today.
In the WM that centre halfback was pushed back, the two outside half backs were brought into the centre, and the two original fullbacks were pushed out wide. As a result, the two outside full backs dealt with the wingers.
We look at the W-M and see a three man defence, which in any modern interpretation means three centre backs, but the key difference is any 3-man defence these days also has wingbacks / wide midfielders who are tasked with patrolling the wing both offensively and defensively. The only way you could describe those outside fullbacks as centre backs is if...
a) No-one marked the wingers
b) The two halfbacks, who marked wingers in the Metodo / WW, still marked the wingers...and they just had a gaping hole in the middle of the pitch
c) The wingers covered the entire wing, not just offensively but defensively
I think we can agree that wingers didn't just stroll about the pitch free of any defenders - they were in constant combat. So we can rule out a). And I think we can agree that the half backs, or centre halves, did in fact play in the centre much like holding midfielders would do today both in and out of possession - they faced up primarily against the opposition's attacking midfielders / inside forwards. So we can rule out b). If you think about Paco Gento, Zoltan Czibor, Amancio and other great wingers of their day, I think it's fair to say defensive contributions aren't what immediately come to mind...they stayed high and wide in much the same way a winger does now in any modern formation, only with less defensive responsibilities.
So the only reasonable conclusion is that the outside fullbacks were primarily responsible for dealing with wingers. In which case, this comparison falls down at a fundamental level:
How would one rate Nesta at LB? I'd give Hapgood the same credit.
No matter which setup he played in, Nesta was never primarily responsible for dealing with wingers. That's not a subtle difference but a huge one. It instantly implies that if he were faced up against someone like Stanley Matthews, or Luis Figo, he'd be completely outside his comfort zone. In reality Hapgood did face up 1 on 1 with Stanley Matthews, and needed to have the basic skillset to deal with that - namely being comfortable one on one in wide areas against pacey, direct, tricky players.
On the other hand it is of course true that, with very few exceptions, they weren't tasked with contributing offensively in the way a well-rounded modern fullback like Zanetti was, never mind an offensive fullback like Junior. They didn't operate in the same spaces on the ball, they weren't tasked with injecting pace into the attack, they were defendes first and foremost and had a conservative mindset. However some full backs contributed in possession from that deep position, and some were just all-out defenders.
So I'd say the majority of fullbacks in the W-M were somewhere between Bossis and Vogts. All comfortable defending against modern wingers, all conservative in their positioning in possession, and the major distinction is whether they contributed to the build-up with their technique and intelligence. I don't think you'll find a report on Hapgood that criticises his technique or intelligence.
Goal.com said:
Hapgood had become peerless in his position, carving out a reputation for class, composure and elegance in a previously unfashionable position. Technically outstanding, with great anticipation that contributed to astute positional sense, he was also a byword for consistency, playing in at least 35 matches in League, FA Cup and Charity Shield for the Gunners during each of ten consecutive seasons between 1929-30 and 1938-39.
So if an argument is put forward that he couldn't play as a modern fullback, I think that'll be mostly smoke and mirrors. He couldn't play the role of one of
these Barcelona fullbacks, but he could clearly play the role of the other...but with actual class on the ball. Your view of his possession game will dictate whether you view him as playing like Bossis, Bergomi or Vogts, but not Nesta.
Fair play, there are others that rate him higher then Dave(lets call the cnut like this), still find it amazing to be honest. Im not dismissive at all, at worst i probably rate him as third best leftback england had which is a pretty high praise if you ask me but its just that i rate the modern one much higher. Its fair to assume the competition in the league was much higher when Dave played in there, he also dominated it but also played fantastically well in European competitions, not to mention that the quality of opposition he faced was much higher then anyone Hapgood faced or will we find some prewar players that are better then Ronaldo, Messi and co.
Pre-war players are tricky tbh, i rate them obviously as you cant dismiss any period of the game but its very hard to choose the best players in that era over best post war players and modern ones as the game became much more professional so therefor the standard was higher and the competition was bigger.
Im sure as im not the only one as you dont see people rating Nasazzi the same as they rate Baresi or Scirea, Meazza and Pedernera are not in the same category as Maradona and Pele, Bican is not in the same category as Gerd Muller and so on. They are all rated very high(same as i rate Hapgood) but they cant compere with the very best.
Final point from me on this one...in the article quoted above, they rate Hapgood as England's best left back and England's 2nd best fullback. You can see the full list
here. Dave doesn't even make it onto the list of England's top 50 players, which is expectedly top heavy - 8 defenders in there. I don't agree with the list on a lot of levels but worth throwing it out there...two very different sources with two very different rankings, but Hapgood is a constant in both of them. I don't think that should be such an amazing thing. Debatable certainly, but not absurd.