15 Tactical Formations and What They're Good For (PT 1)

 

We take a look at some world football tactical formations—past, present and hibernating—in order to gauge how modern managers think about the game.

We've unearthed some old-school ones, looked at once-successful systems that are now confined to the pages of history and evaluated the current trends.

From Euro 2012 to the 1878 Welsh Cup final, we've got you covered.



2-3-5

For a bit of fun (or in some cases, a history lesson), we'll start with the first formation that was commonly accepted by the masses—the 2-3-5.

No, you didn't misread that. Check it again—it says 2-3-5. English football aficionados were all in agreement that this was the de facto most solid formation back in 1880.

Two at the back, five up front.

The Wrexham Druids took it a step further during the 1878 Welsh Cup final by playing a 2-2-6, only to find out that, six years earlier, England had played a 1-2-7 against Scotland. Unreal.

What's it good for then?

In modern-day terms, nothing. These games were full of goals even with the old offside laws in place, but defensively, this formation is—for obvious reasons—an abomination.

4-4-2

Turning our attention to modern day, you don't get anything more typically British than the good old 4-4-2.

Sir Alex Ferguson has long been a proponent of this formation that favours two out-and-out strikers and traditional, chalk-on-your-boots style wingers.

It would be fair to say that this formation is dying out, as even Fergie is turning his back on it. This has contributed widely to a lack of traditional targetmen and a severe lack of classic No. 7s and No. 11s.

A player like Antonio Valencia or John Carew is a dying breed, and the decline of the 4-4-2 is a major reason why. 

4-5-1

The 4-5-1, perhaps best epitomised by Jose Mourinho and Chelsea, is a footballing lesson on how to stay compact and grind out 1-0 victories.

Most 4-5-1s incorporate a midfield destroyer in the role of Claude Makelele, and under Mourinho, the Frenchman was complemented perfectly by Michael Essien and Frank Lampard.

This formation is ideally set up to counterattack. The destroyer is tasked with winning the ball and then feeding the ball to his colleagues quickly.

The full-backs remain cautious, and almost all of the attacking work is done by three or four players. 

4-3-3

What's the difference between a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1?

On paper, not a lot, but the changes are apparent in the style of play utilised despite the same basic shape.

The 4-3-3 is generally recognised as the shift away from counterattacking football (as seen with the 4-5-1) and toward possession-based play.

Paulo Bento's Euro 2012 Portugal side are perfect exponents of the modern 4-3-3, and Andre Villas-Boas' work at Tottenham is developing nicely in this shape.

In contrast to Jose Mourinho's template, the full-backs in a 4-3-3 push forward with free license, while there is no designated midfield destroyer; there is more a "sitter" (e.g. Miguel Veloso).

The midfield trio press when off the ball and create whilst on it. The wingers are more wide forwards than anything else, suiting the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo perfectly.

 

4-4-2 Diamond

The 4-4-2 diamond is a formation that's received a fair amount of attention over the last few months.

Most recently, Manchester United used it to combat Newcastle's dominant midfield pairing of Cheick Tiote and Yohan Cabaye, while Cesare Prandelli used it with Italy during Euro 2012.

The diamond in midfield is built to control the centre of the park and dictate the tempo of the game.

While the player playing at the base and point of the diamond can have different roles in different systems, the two true central midfielders often "shuttle" up and down the lanes.

It allows significant space for full-backs to bomb forward, and both Internazionale and AC Milan have used this system to great effect in the last decade.

 

 

Comments