|
Formation in association football (soccer) describes how the players in a team are positioned on the pitch. Different formations can be used depending on whether a team wishes to play more attacking or defensive football.
Formations are described as the number of players in each area from the defensive line (not including the goalkeeper). For example 4-4-2 describes the formation as having: 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 forwards. Conventionally the formation can be described with 3 numbers, although 4-numbered (e.g. 4-4-1-1) and 5-numbered formations (e.g. 4-1-2-1-2) can be used. The numbering system was not present until the 4-2-4 system was developed in the 1950s.
Formations can be altered during a game, but requires adaptations of the players to fit in to the new system. This can be due to a team wishing to defend or attack more, or even due to the loss of a player. Some formations also lend themselves to dynamically changing as players move up and down the field, e.g., the Brazilian 4-2-4 could effectively become a 2-4-4 during a match.
Formations are used in both professional and amateur football matches. However in amateur matches these tactics are sometimes adhered to less strictly. Skill and discipline on behalf of the players is also needed to effectively carry out a given formation in professional football. Formations need to be chosen with the players available in mind, and some of the formations below were created to address deficits in different types of players.
Early days
In the football matches of the 19th century, defensive football was not played, with the line-ups reflecting the all-attacking nature of these games.
At the time of the first international game, Scotland - England in 1872-11-30, there was really no team formation. All players chased the ball all over the pitch, in what can be considered a 0-0-10 formation. But even then there were some initial signs of team organization as Scotland surprised England by actually passing the ball among its players, instead of always trying to run forward with it. Paradoxically this game ended with a 0-0 draw.
The fast growing number of teams led to fast tactical evolution. Progressively some forwards were positioned either as defenders or midfielders. In 1880, Bolton Wanderers F.C. (England) used a 1-1-8 formation. In 1884, Aston Villa F.C. (England) started using a second midfielder, in a 1-2-7 formation.
Classic formations
2-3-5 (The Pyramid)
Later in 1884, Blackburn Rovers (England) introduced what would become the first long-term successful formation - the 2-3-5; this was originally known as the Pyramid with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. By the 1890s it was the standard formation in Britain 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 insides (the second and fourth men in the attacking line); while the midfielders (halfbacks) would watch for the other three forwards.
The center halfback had a key role, he should both help organizing the teams attack and mark the opponent's center forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.
- Teams that used this formation
- Uruguay, 1930 World Cup winner:
- Team: Ballestero; Mascheroni and Nasazzi; Andrade, Fernández and Gestido; Dorado, Scarone, Castro, Cea and Iriarte. Coach: Alberto Suppici.
- Argentina, 1930 World Cup runner up:
- Team: Botasso; Della Torre and Paternoster; J.Evaristo, Monti and Arico Suárez; Peucelle, Varallo, Stábile, Ferreira and M.Evaristo. Coach: Juan José Tramutola.
The Danubian school
The Danubian School of football is a modification of the 2-3-5 formation as played by the Austrians, Czechs and Hungarians in the 1920s, and taken to its peak by the Austrians in the 1930s. It relied on short-passing and individual skills, and was a derivation of carpet football which emphasised keeping the ball on the ground.
- A team that used this formation
Metodo
The Metodo was devised by Vittorio Pozzo, coach of the Italian national team in the 1930s [1]. It was a deriviation of the Danubian School. The system was based on the 2-3-5 formation, Pozzo realized that his halfbacks would need some more support in order to be superior to the opponents' midfield, so he pulled 2 of the forwards to just in-front of midfield, creating a 2-3-2-3 formation. This created a stronger defense than previous systems, as well as allowing effective counterattacks. The Italian national team won back-to-back World Cups in 1934 and 1938 using this system.
- A team that used this formation
- Italy, 1934 World Cup winner:
- Team: Combi; Monzeglio and Allemandi; Ferraris IV, Monti and Bertolini; Schiavio and Ferrari; Guaita, Meazza and Orsi. Coach: Vittorio Pozzo.
The WM
|
The WM system was created in the mid-1920s by Herbert Chapman of Arsenal to counter a change in the offside rule in 1925. The change had reduced the number of opposition players that an attacker needed between himself 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.
|
|
The WW
The WW was a development of the WM created by the Hungarian coach Marton Bukovi who turned the 3-2-5 WM "upside down" [2]. 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 3-5-2 (also described as a 3-3-4), and was described by some as an early version of the 4-2-4. This formation was succesfully used by fellow countryman Gusztáv Sebes in the Hungarian national team of the early 1950s.
4-2-4
The 4-2-4 formation attempts to combine strong offence with 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 [3] [4] [5]. However the fully developed 4-2-4 was only 'perfected' in Brazil 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.
Guttman 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 increasing players skills and fitness, aiming to effectively use 6 defenders and 6 forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks. The 4th 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 skillful and with initiative, making it a perfect fit for the Brazilian players mind. The 4-2-4 needed a high level of tactical awareness as having only 2 midfielders could lead to defensive problems. The system was also fluid enough to allow the formation to change throughout play. It has been said that one of the aims of the formation was to score more goals than were conceded.
4-2-4 was first used with success at club level in Brazil by São Paulo and Santos, and was used by Brazil in their wins at 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup, both featuring Pelé, and Zagallo who played in the first and coached the second. The formation was quickly adopted throughout the world after the Brazilian success.
- Teams that used this formation
- Brazil, 1958 World Cup winner:
- Brazil, 1970 World Cup winner:
Common 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.
4-3-3
|
The 4-3-3 was a development of the 4-2-4, and was played globally by the Brazilian national team in the 1962 World Cup. The extra player in midfield allowed a stonger defence, and the midfield could be staggered for different effects. The three midfielders normally play closely together to protect the defense, and move laterally across the field as a coordinated unit. The three forwards split across the field to spread the attack, and are expected to "tackle back". Few teams often start a game in this formation, but may change to it late in a game if a goal is needed.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
4-4-2
|
This adaptable formation is the most common in football today, so well known that it has even inspired a magazine title, Four Four Two. The midfielders are required to work hard to support both the defense and the attack: 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 defense; the two wide midfield players must move up the flanks to the goal line in attacks and yet also protect the fullback wide defenders.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
4-4-2 diamond
|
The 4-4-2 diamond (also described as 4-1-2-1-2) staggers the midfield.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
4-4-1-1
|
A variation of 4-4-2 with one of the strikers playing 'in the hole' slightly behind his partner.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
4-3-2-1 (the 'Christmas Tree' formation)
This is another variation of the 4-4-2, commonly described as the 'Christmas Tree' formation. Another forward is brought on for a midfielder to play 'in the hole'. so leaving two forwards slightly behind the most forward striker.
Teams that used this formation
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 defense and the attack.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
5-3-2 with Sweeper
|
A variant of the above, this involves a more withdrawn sweeper, who may join the midfield, and more advanced full-backs.
|
|
3-4-3
|
Using a 3-4-3 the midfielders 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 offense. This formation is used by more offensive-minded teams.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
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.
|
|
4-5-1
|
4-5-1 could be seen as 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. However, because of the lone striker the centre of the midfield does have the responsibilty of pushing forward as well. The defensive midfielder will often control the pace of the game. This formation has, much to the chagrin of many fans, become popular amongst teams in English football, who tend to emulate Chelsea (themselves using a more agressive 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1 formation. Manchester United were also forced into it for much of the 2004-05 season through a succession of injuries to their forwards.
|
|
4-2-3-1
|
This defensive formation is quite flexible, as both the side midfielders and the fullbacks may join the attack, usually on the counter. Tactically, this formation is similar to the 4-5-1. It is used maintain the possession of ball by controlling the midfield area of the field. The lone striker tends to be very tall and strong to hold the ball up as his midfielders and fullbacks join him in attack.
Teams that used this formation
|
|
5-4-1
|
This is a particularly defensive formation, with an isolated forward and a packed defense. Again however, a couple of attacking fullbacks can make this formation resemble something like a 3-6-1.
|
|
Incomplete formations
When a player is ejected (after being shown a red card), the teams generally fall back to defensive formations such as 4-4-1 or 5-3-1. Only when the defeat is not an option (e.g. in a playoff game) will a team with ten players play in a risky attacking formation such as 4-3-2 or even 4-2-3.
When more than one player is missing from the team the common formations are generally disbanded in favor of either maximum concentration on defense, or maximum concentration on offense.
See also
External links
|
