Forum
{{ post.commentCount }}

Didn't find anything.

{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}



Classic & Modern Football Formations
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

Classic Formations:

2–3–5 (Pyramid)

The first long-term successful formation was first recorded in 1880. However, in "Association Football" published by Caxton in 1960, the following appears in Vol II, page 432: "Wrexham ... the first winner of the Welsh Cup in 1877 ... for the first time certainly in Wales and probably in Britain, a team played three half backs and five forwards ..."

The 2–3–5 was originally known as the "Pyramid", with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. By the 1890s, it was the standard formation in England and had spread all over the world. With some variations, it was used by most top level teams up to the 1940s.

For the first time, a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (fullbacks), would watch out for the opponent's wingers (the outside players in the attacking line), while the midfielders (halfbacks) would watch for the other three forwards.

The centre halfback had a key role in both helping to organise the team's attack and marking the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

It was this formation which gave rise to the convention of shirt numbers.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Metodo (2–3–2–3)

The Metodo was devised by Vittorio Pozzo, coach of the Italian national team in the 1930s. It was a derivation of the Danubian School. The system was based on the 2–3–5 formation, Pozzo realised that his half-backs would need some more support in order to be superior to the opponents' midfield, so he pulled two of the forwards to just in front of midfield, creating a 2–3–2–3 formation.
This created a stronger defence than previous systems, as well as allowing effective counter-attacks.

The Italian national team won back-to-back World Cups in 1934 and 1938 using this system. It has been argued that Pep Guardiola's Barcelona used a modern version of this formation.

This formation is also similar to the standard in table football, featuring two defenders, five midfielders and three strikers (which cannot be altered as the "players" are mounted on axles).

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

WM

The WM system was created in the mid-1920s by Herbert Chapman of Arsenal to counter a change in the offside law in 1925. The change had reduced the number of opposition players that attackers needed between themselves and the goal-line from three to two.

This led to the introduction of a centre-back to stop the opposing centre-forward, and tried to balance defensive and offensive playing. The formation became so successful that by the late-1930s most English clubs had adopted the WM. Retrospectively, the WM has either been described as a 3–2–5 or as a 3–4–3, or more precisely a 3–2–2–3 reflecting the letters which symbolised it.

The Gap in the centre of the formation between the two wing halves and the two inside forwards, allowed Arsenal to counter-attack effectively. The W-M was subsequently adapted by several English sides, but none could apply it in quite the same way Chapman had.
This was mainly due to the comparative rarity of Alex James in the English game.

He was one of the earliest playmakers in the history of the game, and the hub around which Chapman's Arsenal revolved.

WW
The WW was a development of the WM created by the Hungarian coach Márton Bukovi who turned the 3–2–5 WM into a 2–3–2–3 by effectively turning the M "upside down".
The lack of an effective centre-forward in his team necessitated moving this player back to midfield to create a playmaker, with a midfielder instructed to focus on defence. This created a 2–3–1–4, which morphed into a 2–3–2–3 when the team lost possession, and was described by some as a kind of genetic link between the WM and the 4–2–4. This formation was successfully used by fellow countryman Gusztáv Sebes in theHungarian national team of the early 1950s.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–2–4

The 4–2–4 formation attempts to combine a strong attack with a strong defence, and was conceived as a reaction to WM's stiffness. It could also be considered a further development of the WW. The 4–2–4 was the first formation to be described using numbers.

While the initial developments leading to the 4–2–4 were devised by Márton Bukovi, the credit for creating the 4–2–4 lies with two different people: Flávio Costa, the Brazilian national coach in the early 1950s, as well as another Hungarian Béla Guttman. These tactics seemed to be developed independently, with the Brazilians discussing these ideas while the Hungarians seemed to be putting them into motion. The fully developed 4–2–4 was only "perfected" in Brazil, however, in the late 1950s.

Costa published his ideas, the "diagonal system", in the Brazilian newspaper O Cruzeiro, using schematics as the ones used here and, for the first time ever, the formation description by numbers as used in this article. The "diagonal system" was another precursor of the 4–2–4 and was created to spur improvisation in players.

Guttmann himself moved to Brazil later in the 1950s to help develop these tactical ideas using the experience of Hungarian coaches.

The 4–2–4 formation made use of the players' increasing levels of skill and fitness, aiming to effectively use six defenders and six forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks. The fourth defender increased the number of defensive players but mostly allowed them to be closer together, thus enabling effective cooperation among them, the point being that a stronger defence would allow an even stronger attack.

The relatively empty midfield relied on defenders that should now be able not only to steal the ball, but also hold it, pass it or even run with it and start an attack. So this formation required that all players, including defenders, are somehow skilful and with initiative, making it a perfect fit for the Brazilian player's mind. The 4–2–4 needed a high level of tactical awareness, as having only two midfielders could lead to defensive problems. The system was also fluid enough to allow the formation to change throughout play.

4–2–4 was first used with success at club level in Brazil by Palmeiras and Santos, and was used by Brazil in their wins at 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup, both featuring Pelé, and Mário Zagallo, the latter of which played in 1958 and coached in 1970. The formation was quickly adopted throughout the world after the Brazilian success.

9
Comments
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

Modern Formations:

The following formations are used in modern football. The formations are flexible allowing tailoring to the needs of a team, as well as to the players available. Variations of any given formation include changes in positioning of players, as well as replacement of a traditional defender by a sweeper.

4–4–2

This formation was the most common in football in the 1990s and early 2000s, so well known that it has even inspired a magazine title, FourFourTwo. The midfielders are required to work hard to support both the defence and the attack: typically one of the central midfielders is expected to go upfield as often as possible to support the forward pair, while the other will play a "holding role", shielding the defence; the two wide midfield players must move up the flanks to the goal line in attacks and yet also protect the fullback wide defenders.

On the European level, the major example of a team using a 4–4–2 formation was Milan, trained by Arrigo Sacchi and later Fabio Capello, which won three European Cups, two Intercontinental Cups, and three UEFA Super Cups between 1988 and 1995.[10] Under Milan's example, it became very popular in Italy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

More recently, commentators have noted that at the highest level, the 4–4–2 is being phased out in favour of formations such as the 4–2–3–1. In 2010, none of the winners of the Spanish, English and Italian leagues, as well as the Champions League, relied on the 4–4–2. Following England's elimination at the 2010 World Cup by a 4–2–3–1 Germany side, England National Team coach Fabio Capello (who was notably successful with the 4–4–2 at Milan in the 1990s) was criticised for playing an "increasingly outdated" 4–4–2 formation.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–4–1–1

A variation of 4–4–2 with one of the strikers playing "in the hole", or as a "second striker", slightly behind their partner. The second striker is generally a more creative player, the playmaker, who can drop into midfield to pick up the ball before running with it or passing to teammates. Interpretations of 4–4–1–1 can be slightly muddled, as some might say that the extent to which a forward has dropped off and separated himself from the other can be debated.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–3–3

The 4–3–3 was a development of the 4–2–4, and was played by the Brazilian national team in the 1962 World Cup. The extra player in midfield allows a stronger defence, and the midfield could be staggered for different effects. The three midfielders normally play closely together to protect the defence, and move laterally across the field as a coordinated unit.

The three forwards split across the field to spread the attack, and may be expected to mark the opposition full-backs as opposed to doubling back to assist their own full-backs, as do the wide midfielders in a 4–4–2.

When used from the start of a game, this formation is widely regarded as encouraging expansive play, and should not be confused with the practice of modifying a 4–4–2 by bringing on an extra forward to replace a midfield player when behind in the latter stages of a game.

A staggered 4–3–3 involving a defensive midfielder (usually numbered four or six) and two attacking midfielders (numbered eight and ten) was commonplace in Italy, Argentina, and Uruguay during the 1960s and 1970s. The Italian variety of 4–3–3 was simply a modification of WM, by converting one of the two wing-halves to a libero (sweeper), whereas the Argentine and Uruguayan formations were derived from 2–3–5 and retained the notional attacking centre-half. The national team which made this famous was the Dutch team of the 1974 and 1978 World Cups, even though the team won neither.

In club football, the team that brought this formation to the forefront was the famous Ajax team of the early 1970s, which won three European Cups with Johan Cruyff, and Zdenek Zeman with Foggia in Italy during the late 1980s, where he completely revitalised the movement supporting this formation. It was also the formation with which Norwegian manager Nils Arne Eggen won 15 Norwegian league titles.

Most teams using this formation now use the specialist defensive midfielder and Barcelona are the most famous recent example.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–3–1–2

A variation of the 4–3–3 wherein a striker gives way to a central attacking midfielder. This formation was adopted by Massimiliano Allegri for the 2010–11 Serie A season for Milan.

The formation focuses on the attacking midfielder moving play through the centre with the strikers on either side. It is a much narrower setup in comparison to the 4–3–3 and is usually incredibly dependent on the "1" to create chances.

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

4–4–2 diamond or 4–1–2–1–2

The 4–4–2 diamond (also described as 4–1–2–1–2) staggers the midfield. The width in the team has to come from the full-backs pushing forward. The defensive midfielder is sometimes used as a deep lying playmaker. Its most famous example was Carlo Ancelotti's Milan, which won the 2003 UEFA Champions League Final and made Milan runners-up in 2005.

Milan was obliged to adopt this formation so as to field talented central midfielder Andrea Pirlo, in a period when the position of offensive midfielder was occupied by Rui Costa and later Kaká. This tactic was gradually abandoned by Milan after Andriy Shevchenko's departure in 2006, progressively adopting a "Christmas Tree" formation.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–3–2–1 (the "Christmas Tree" formation)

The 4–3–2–1, commonly described as the "Christmas Tree" formation, has another forward brought on for a midfielder to play "in the hole", so leaving two forwards slightly behind the most forward striker.

Terry Venables and Christian Gross used this formation during their time in charge of Tottenham Hotspur. Since then the formation has lost its popularity in England. It is however most known for being the formation Carlo Ancelotti utilised on and off during his time as a coach of Milan.

In this approach, the middle of the three central midfielders act as a playmaker while one of the attacking midfielders plays in a free role. However, it is also common for the three midfielders to be energetic shuttlers, providing for the individual talent of the two attacking midfielders ahead.

The "Christmas Tree" formation is considered a relatively narrow formation and depends on full-backs to provide presence in wide areas. The formation is also relatively fluid. During open play, one of the side central midfielders may drift to the flank to add additional presence.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

5–3–2

This formation has three central defenders (possibly with one acting as a sweeper.) This system is heavily reliant on the wing-backs providing width for the team. The two wide full-backs act as wing-backs.
It is their job to work their flank along the full length of the pitch, supporting both the defence and the attack.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–4–3

Using a 3–4–3, the midfielders are expected to split their time between attacking and defending. Having only three dedicated defenders means that if the opposing team breaks through the midfield, they will have a greater chance to score than with a more conventional defensive configuration, such as 4–5–1 or 4–4–2. However, the three forwards allow for a greater concentration on attack. This formation is used by more offensive-minded teams.

The formation was famously used by Liverpool under Rafael Benitez during the second half of the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final to come back from a three goal deficit.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–5–2**

**

This formation is similar to 5–3–2 except that the two wingmen are oriented more towards the attack. Because of this, the central midfielder tends to remain further back in order to help prevent counter-attacks. It differs from the classical 3–5–2 of the WW by having a non-staggered midfield.

It was used for the first time at international level by the Argentine coach Carlos Bilardo. Terry Venables notably used this formation (along with a 4–1–2–1–2) during England's campaign in Euro 96, with Gareth Southgate or Paul Ince acting as defensive midfielder.

Many teams also use a central attacking midfielder and two defensive midfielders, so the midfielders form a W formation.
Sebastião Lazaroni used this formation for Brazil during the unsuccessful participation to the 1990 FIFA World Cup.

Cesare Prandelli used this formation for the Italian national team in the UEFA Euro 2012 Group C game against Spain, with some commentators seeing Daniele De Rossi as a sweeper.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–6–1**

**

This uncommon modern formation focuses on ball possession in the midfield. In fact, it is very rare to see it as an initial formation, as it is more useful for maintaining a lead or tie score.
Its more common variants are 3–4–2–1 or 3–4–3 diamond, which use two wingbacks. The lone forward must be tactically gifted, not only because he or she focuses on scoring but also on playing the ball back towards the own goal to assist with back passes to his teammates. Once the team is leading the game, there is an even stronger tactical focus on ball control, short passes and running down the clock.

On the other hand, when the team is losing, at least one of the playmakers will more frequently play in the edge of the area to add depth to the attack. Guus Hiddink is one of the few coaches who has used this formation, recently for Australia during the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–5–1**

**

4–5–1 is a defensive formation; however, if the two midfield wingers play a more attacking role, it can be likened to 4–3–3. The formation can be used to grind out 0–0 draws or preserve a lead, as the packing of the centre midfield makes it difficult for the opposition to build-up play. Because of the "closeness" of the midfield, the opposing team's forwards will often be starved of possession.

Due to the lone striker, however, the centre of the midfield does have the responsibility of pushing forward as well. The defensive midfielder will often control the pace of the game. Dick Advocaat used the very same formation for the Russian national team twice in the UEFA Euro 2012 Group A tournament: first time in the game against Poland, and second time against Greece.

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

4–2–3–1

This formation is widely used by Spanish, French and German sides. While it seems defensive to the eye, it is quite a flexible formation, as both the wide players and the full-backs join the attack. In defense, this formation is similar to either the 4–5–1 or 4–4–1–1. It is used to maintain possession of the ball and stopping opponent attacks by controlling the midfield area of the field.
The lone striker may be very tall and strong to hold the ball up as his midfielders and full-backs join him in attack. The striker could also be very fast. In these cases, the opponent's defense will be forced to fall back early, thereby leaving space for the offensive central midfielder. This formation is used especially when a playmaker is to be highlighted.

At the international level, this formation is used by the French national team, the Dutch national team and the German national team in an asymmetric shape, and often with strikers as wide midfielders or inverted wingers. The formation is also currently used by Brazil as an alternative to the 4–2–4 formation of late 1950s to 1970.

Implemented similarly to how original 4–2–4 was used back then, use of this formation in this manner is very offensive, creating a six-man attack and a six-man defence tactical layout. The front four attackers are arranged as a pair of wide forwards and a playmaker forward who play in support of a lone striker. Mário Zagallo also considers the Brazil 1970 football team he coached as pioneers of 4–2–3–1.

In recent years with full-backs having ever more increasing attacking roles, the wide players (be they deep lying forwards, inverted wingers, attacking wide midfielders) have been tasked with the defensive responsibility to track and pin down the opposition full-backs.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

5–4–1

This is a particularly defensive formation, with an isolated forward and a packed defence. Again, however, a couple of attacking fullbacks can make this formation resemble something like a 3–6–1. One of the most famous cases of its use is the Greek National Team.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–2–2–2 (Magic Rectangle)**

**Often referred to as the "Magic Rectangle" or "Magic Square". It's been used in France in the 80s and a whole generation, for Brazil with Telê Santana, Carlos Alberto Parreira and Vanderlei Luxemburgo, by Arturo Salah and Manuel Pellegrini in Chile and Francisco Maturana in Colombia.

The "Magic Rectangle" is formed by combining two box-to-box midfielders with two deep-lying ("hanging") forwards across the midfield. This provides a balance in the distribution of possible moves and adds a dynamic quality to midfield play. This formation was used by former Real Madrid manager Manuel Pellegrini and met with considerable praise.

Pellegrini had also used this formation whilst at Villarreal. The formation is closely related to a 4–2–4 previously used by Fernando Riera, Pellegrini's mentor, and that can be traced back to Chile in 1962 who (may have) adopted it from the Frenchman Albert Batteux at the Stade de Reims of 50s. Also before in the Real Madrid, this formation was most infamously used by Wanderley Luxemburgo during his failed stint at Real Madrid in the latter part of the 2004–05 season and throughout the 2005–06 season. This formation has been described as being "deeply flawed" and "suicidal".

Luxemburgo is not the only one to use this although it had been used earlier by Brazil in the early 1980s. At first Telê Santana, then Carlos Alberto Parreira and Vanderlei Luxemburgo proposed basing the "Magic Rectangle" on the work of the wing backs. The rectangle becomes a 3–4–3 on the attack because one of the wing backs moves downfield.

In another sense, the Colombian 4–2–2–2 is closely related to the 4–4–2 diamond of Brazil, style different from the French-Chilean trend and is based on the complementation of a box-to box with 10 classic. Emphasises the triangulation, but especially in the surprise of attack. The 4–2–2–2 formation consists of the standard defensive four (right back, two centre backs, and left back), with two centre midfielders, two support strikers, and two out and out strikers.

Similar to the 4–6–0, the formation requires a particularly alert and mobile front four to work successfully. The formation has also been used on occasion by the Brazilian national team, notably in the 1998 FIFA World Cup final.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–3–1–3**

**The 3–3–1–3 was formed of a modification to the Dutch 4–3–3 system Ajax had developed. Coaches like Louis van Gaal and Johan Cruyff brought it to even further attacking extremes and the system eventually found its way to FC Barcelona, where players such as Andrés Iniesta and Xavi were reared into 3–3–1–3's philosophy. It demands intense pressing high up the pitch especially from the forwards, and also an extremely high defensive line, basically playing the whole game inside the opponents' half.

It requires incredible technical precision and rapid ball circulation since one slip or dispossession can result in a vulnerable counter-attack situation. Cruyff's variant relied on a flatter and wider midfield, but van Gaal used an offensive midfielder and midfield diamond to link up with the front three more effectively. Marcelo Bielsa has used the system with some success withArgentina's and Chile's national teams and is currently one of the few high-profile managers to use the system in competition today. Diego Simeone had also tried it occasionally at River Plate.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–3–3–1**

**The Triple Three-One system is very attacking formation and its compact nature is ideally suited for midfield domination and ball possession. It means a coach can field more attacking players and add extra strength through the spine of the team.
The attacking three are usually two Wing-Backs or wide Midfielders with the central player of the three occupying a Central Attacking Midfield (CAM) or Second Striker role behind the Centre Forward. The Midfield three consists of two Centre Midfielders (CM) ahead of one Central Defensive Midfielder (CDM) or alternatively one CM and two CDM's. The defensive three can consist of 3 Centre Backs (CB) or one CB with a fullback either side.

The 3–3–3–1 formation was used by Marcelo Bielsa's Chile in the 2010 World Cup, with three centre backs coupled with two wingbacks and a holding player, although a variation is the practical hour glass, using three wide players, a narrow three, a wide three and a centre-forward.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4–2–1–3**

**The somewhat unconventional 4–2–1–3 formation was developed by José Mourinho during his time at Internazionale including in the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final. By using captain Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso in holding midfield positions, he was able to push more players to attack. Wesley Sneijder filled the attacking midfield role and the front three operated as three strikers, rather than having a striker and one player on each wing. Using this formation, Mourinho won The Treble with Inter in only his second season in charge of the club.

As the system becomes more developed and flexible, small groups can be identified to work together in more efficient ways by giving them more specific and different roles within the same lines, and numbers like 4–2–1–3, 4–1–2–3 and even 4–2–2–2 occur.

Many of the current systems have three different formations in each third, defending, middle, and attacking. The goal is to outnumber the other team in all parts of the field but to not completely wear out all the players on the team using it before the full ninety minutes are up.

So the one single number is confusing as it may not actually look like a 4–2–1–3 when a team is defending or trying to gain possession. In a positive attack it may look exactly like a 4–2–1–3.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3–4–3**

**Using a 3–4–3, the midfielders are expected to split their time between attacking and defending. Having only three dedicated defenders means that if the opposing team breaks through the midfield, they will have a greater chance to score than with a more conventional defensive configuration, such as 4–5–1 or 4–4–2. However, the three forwards allow for a greater concentration on attack. This formation is used by more offensive-minded teams. The formation was famously used by Liverpool under Rafael Benitez during the second half of the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final to come back from a three goal deficit.

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

What is your favorite formation guys? and What formation do you think would fit your club more? as for me I'm not convinced with the 4-2-3-1 anymore. I missed the good old 4-4-2 or the 4-1-2-1-2. The 4–3–2–1 (Christmas Tree formation) is quite good for Chelsea. I've noticed Mourinho is trying to use the same formation he played at Inter Milan which is 4-2-1-3 But I don't see it working here at Chelsea.

0
Dynastian98 11 years ago
Real Madrid 483 7140

Didn't Mourinho popularize the 4-2-3-1? It worked at Inter, Porto, and at Madrid. I don't know what lineup he used on his first try at Chelsea, unfortunately. :P

1
Lodatz 11 years ago
Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

Awesome post, Alex :)

I think you missed out 3<4>3 though! (that is, a 3-4-3 with a diamond midfield)

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

Mourinho played a 4-3-3 while most English teams were playing 4-4-2 which worked well for him. But, I don't think we can play that now.. We don't have Makelele and as for our Strikers Ba/Torres/Eto'o I don't think it will work the same way it did before, and our young squad still need more experience. 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-1-2 would fit our current squad much more than 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-1-3.

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

@Lodatz Thanks mate :) It took me like an hour to edit it here. Oh yes and the 3-4-3 formation is missing. I will add it now. I just thought about posting it because of our never ending story I hope this will be fixed as soon as possible, it makes you feel like the formation doesn't suit strikers.. If you noticed our loss against Everton we dominated the match with a lot of passes and holding possession but the main reason we lost that match was because of our poor finishing. 22 chances was just too much to not score. yes Everton's defense were fantastic, but still we should have scored 2 goals at least. Our loss last night against Basel.. We dominated the first half and Basel were defending like crazy we couldn't score more than one goal and their counter-attacks were great. in the second half we played very poor and did a lot of mistakes that caused us the loss to Basel after pressing too much to get our second goal. they were discipline on the pitch and deserved the result. this is why ball possession is nothing if you can't score.. I just hope we consider a different formation because it looks so easy for our opponents to just counter-attack us.

0
tiki_taka 11 years ago
Barcelona, France 367 9768

Very instructive post +1, my best one ? it depends on the team you have, in Spain the 4-3-3 works very well.
Ohh you forgot the parking bus formation, 8-0-1 or 9-0-0 i know some big specialist about this genious and courageous way of palying :D

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

@Tiki_taka There is no such formation as 8-0-1 or 9-0-0. You prolly mean the 5-4-1 formation as mentioned up above and yes it's a defensive formation. Now on *off topic* If you mean Chelsea then yes we had our reasons to use it for 3 matches knowing that we had an aged players who can't run as fast as Barcelona or Bayern players at that time to win us the first champions league which was totally worth it and we still beat Barcelona and Bayern just like how Basel depended on counter-attacks and beat us :) But the key for winning that champions league was our comeback against Napoli ;)

1
tiki_taka 11 years ago
Barcelona, France 367 9768

@alex
I know i was joking nothing serious :) I understand clearly Di Matteo's move there, and it worked (with an incredible Karma) was also talking about some Mou's Classico's with RM, or Inter Biggest parking bus ever against Barça with Eto'o playing as a lateral... not speacially Chelsea.
But as incredible as it looked, i supported Chelsea in the CL final knowing it was Drogba's final season, but yeahh you got very lucky i can say it was a divin justice after what happened at 2009 and our incredible lucky Iniesta goal, so 1-1 No problem :)

Didier won it himself, i loved the final since one of my best African players became a Legend for his team...

1
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

Yes, he totally deserved it and I already missed him :) It was a dramatic season for us that year and it never fails to brighten my day whenever I watch the highlights. HE'S DONE ITTTTTTT!! :)

1
quikzyyy 11 years ago
Arsenal 429 9002

nice post! Here it's nice seen how is football changing forward. I remember when defenders was "just" defenders and not supporting attack. It's really nice to see it on for. example Daniel Alves(and many others these days too), how is he supporting attack.
4231 is now using a lot of teams not just Spanish, French or German sides. U can see it on Arsenal when Wenger changed from typical 442.

1
WayneRooney 11 years ago
Manchester United, Argentina 52 488

Nice post Alex +1, imagine the classic formation making a comeback in modern football!!??

0
man_utd 11 years ago
Manchester United, South Korea 91 1444

The Classic Formations had much cooler names than the boring one's nowadays.

1
TheGame 11 years ago
Manchester United 104 1380

At the end of the day, it is 11 v. 11. If you don't have the right personnel or the tactical prowess, formations don't mean anything. Good post nonetheless.

2
AlexBatak 11 years ago
Chelsea, Italy 204 2707

Thanks guys :)

@TheGame It's not just 11 vs 11 The manager is the one who controls the whole game and he is the one to decide how his players should play under his formation and style too :)

0
TheGame 11 years ago
Manchester United 104 1380

@AlexBatak, yes. Hence why I said "personnel".

1