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
Post a Comment