Is 4-4-2 the best formation? I can't really see any flaws in it and it's most used in lower leagues where players aren't as skilled. What do you guys think is the best soccer/football formation?
>>69228212
that's the formation Portugal is using lmao
>>69228212
>I can't really see any flaws
That's because you are american.
>>69228262
Okay?
>Brazilian banter
>>69228237
It must be good then.
>>69228331
y-yeah ha ha
>>69228401
??????
4-4-2 it's a little outdated, now it's 4-3-3 or 4-5-1
>>69228416
we haven't won any game this Euro
doe that's also partly Ronaldo's fault for fucking up every time
4-2-3-1 > 3-5-2 > 4-3-3 > 4-1-3-2 > 4-4-2
prove me wrong
4-1-4-1
>>69228492
>3-5-2
Nobody but SA teams play like that
>>69228492
-2 > -4 > -2 > -2 > -2
Depends entirely on the personell.
442 these days is mostly a defensive shape. I personally like the 4231 if you have a quality number 10
>>69228553
It worked well for Italy in the euros too. That formation takes a lot of running
Why does 4-2-3-1 work so well?
It's one of the most dynamic formation you can play and it is therefore very tactically good, you can fluidly change your shape during the game without losing much pace. You can drop a striker down into a 4-4-1-1, push the wingers forward into a 4-2-3-1, it can work wonders if you have players that understand the basics of football tactics and that have the stamina and work-rate to run around like madmen.
3-3-1-3 goat formation
>>69228212
Gonna need the insta famalam
>>69228212
who is the semen demon in front?
>>69228681
Based Iceland. Yeah I mean your team seemed to do very well with it and I agree with everything you just said. 4-2-3-1 is practically a variation of the 4-4-2.
3-4-3 is the only choice.
>>69228553
Wales do
Why does nobody play a 4-5-4? Evening out the players seems like the best idea 2bh
>>69228741
>>69228747
No clue.
>>69228831
There's only 11 players on the field mate.
>>69228212
4-4-2 is what I'm going to give them all night, if you know what I mean
>>69228553
doesn't juventus use that one?
>>69228879
Wait, I thought the numbers meant how the midfielders played (like 9, false 9, etc). So they mean numbers of players?
>>69228964
It's a formation. Like in football there's nickel, dime, 4-3, 5-wide, shotgun, pro, and 3-4 formations.
>>69229052
I've never watched football before. Isn't soccer supposed to be football anyways?
>>69228212
It all depends on who are your players
4-4-2 is easy to master and you can play defensively or offensively with it
But Conte proved that it's still possible to play well with 3 CBs
PSG have been great in a 4-3-3 in recent seasons because we have great midfielders
>>69229306
Right, but is a 4-3-3 objectively better? I feel like you would have little width with that formation. 3 strikers? That's too much.
>>69228831
>Why does nobody play a 4-5-4?
>>69229115
> I've never watched football before
>>69229337
You don't have 3 strikers in a 4-3-3
You have 2 wingers and 1 striker
I won't say it's the best system
It depends who are your best players and how you want to play
>>69229337
2 of those 3 strikers are wingers, also generally the fullbacks use the space to go up and down as they see fit
4-3-3 is the patrician formation
>>69229394
How is that different from a 4-3-2-1?
>>69229337
4-3-3 isn't really supposed to have 3 strikers. You have 1 striker and 2 wingers, it's just that a lot of teams nowadays use wingers who like to cut inside a lot (like Real Madrid with Ronaldo and Bale).
>>69228212
A proper 4-4-2 requires proper 2-way midfielders which are hard to come by these days
It's not a good formation nowadays because of that
>>69228831
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Is objectively the best
1-2-1-2-1-2-1 Is a close second
>>69228443
I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Texas here.
>>69228492
4-2-3-1 is trash
4-3-1-2 is objectively the best
>>69228303
BTFO
>>69229402
In practice it's the same, it's like saying 4-1-2-2-1 because one of the midfielders works on recovering the ball
>>69229405
>It's not a good formation nowadays because of that
It's not a good formation because your 2 midfielders will always be outnumbered by a 3-man midfield. A flat/traditional 4-4-2 just doesn't work, Atletico and Leicester use it very differently than the teams that played 4-4-2 back at the turn of the century.
>>69229337
Barcelona plays 4-3-3 and they've done pretty well
I think real also used to play 4-3-3 with ronaldo, bale, and benzema up front but that ended up being a failed experiment though. But then again I can't remember
>>69229420
>4-3-1-2
You have no width there unless your fullback is insanely fast
>>69229402
That's Ancelotti's "Christmas tree" which he used at AC Milan
He had 1 striker and two n°10 with Kaka playing behind Chevchenko
>>69229444
>win Champions League
>failed experiment
m8...
>>69229449
*your fullbacks are
In video games I like playing 4-3-3 and putting 3 strikers up front and scoring 10 goals a match, I don't have as much fun nor cause as much chaos with other formations
>>69229444
>I think real also used to play 4-3-3 with ronaldo, bale, and benzema up front but that ended up being a failed experiment though
>used to
>failed experiment
They've been doing that for the last 3 years and they won the Champions League twice
>>69228831
>>69229402
It's basically the same thing. Fans tend to get too caught up with the formations but all of them are fairly fluid
>>69229430
Oh yeah. I've seen that. I guess the general trend now is to have a lone striker who is a complete forward. It seems kind of really dependent on that one striker though. What happens if he has an off day? Wouldn't a striker partnership be best?
>>69229458
Well I couldn't remember if they were still doing that, I remember them doing that 2 seasons ago
>>69229436
>It's not a good formation because your 2 midfielders will always be outnumbered by a 3-man midfield
No
There's 4 midfielders in a 4-4-2
But the Side-Midfielders need to be very good at both attacking and defending
It's a hard formation to play top-level attacking football with
>>69229436
How did they use it differently?
>>69229490
This, formations aren't that important unless you're playing 3 at the back. 4-2-3-1 can be the same as 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, or 4-3-3 depending on how the team plays.
>>69229508
This
City couldn't achieve shit in the Champions League with their 4-4-2
>>69229449
Back in my day Fullbacks used to know how to cross the damn ball
You also can have extra width from one of the 2 forwards too anyways
>>69228831
Oh jesus
>>69229508
Those wide players usually stay wide and get forward, though. So you're at a disadvantage in the middle of the field unless you sit really deep and have everyone defend (which is what Atletico and Leicester do).
>>69229494
Depends entirely on what players you have available, the chances of having 2 strikers that merge well together, are very rare
On the other hands, >le pacey wingerman are always available, thats why many teams go for a 4-3-3
>>69229508
Yeah nowadays a lot of teams will switch to a 442 or like 4411 to defend, it's basically all its good for
>>69228831
>4-5-4
There are only 11 players on each team, and 1 of them is a goalkeeper so your formation can only add up to 10...
>>69229450
He only used that formation sometimes when Sheva was here
After Sheva left he shifted to it full-time and built the team around Kaka which won the Champions League
>>69229522
There's a big difference between having 3 or 2 midfielders
With 3 midfielders it's easier to play possession football
With 2 you can play quick football the way Ferguson's United did but you need guys like Scholes and Keane to make it work
>>69229558
I forgot it was Inzaghi time back then
>>69229546
>the chances of having 2 strikers that merge well together, are very rare
Wtf really? Isn't it usually the 9-10 partnership where the 10 is usually the more complete player that works wonders?
>>69229607
The n°10 is dead and buried
You won't find a Zidane, Platini or Kaka now
>>69229490
So what's better? A fluid 4-4-2, a fluid 4-2-3-1 or a fluid 4-3-3?
>>69229628
a fluid 4-3-3 IS a 4-2-3-1
>>69229551
It's not that the formation itself is bad it's just that you need to have a top-class 2-way midfielders which are pretty rare nowadays
Which is why it's use in modern football is pretty low
>>69229607
The number 10 is not usually a striker but more of a playmaker who plays behind the 9 and also has some defensive responsibility. Not many teams play with 2 out and out strikers anymore
>>69229607
The devil is in the details, you need a partership that can consistenly give results, relaying on them both
But in a 4-3-3 in general it's a more teamwork oriented formation
Also >>69229624, n°10 is long gone
>>69229628
>4-2-3-1 or a fluid 4-3-3?
They can be the same thing in a game. Like Tottenham theoretically play 4-2-3-1, but during the game Eriksen drops deep, Alli moves left, Dembele moves up, and it looks just like a 4-3-3.
>>69229539
>Those wide players usually stay wide and get forward, though.
Top class 2-way midfielders like in the 90s go back as soon as they get attacked to recover the ball and they constantly press
Attacking 4-4-2 and Defensive 4-4-2 are two different things
A true 10 like a fantasista is mostly gone but it's turned into a support striker which a lot of teams use to play off the 9
>>69229607
>where the 10 is usually the more complete player that works wonders?
That type of player is dead now, defensive midfielders are just too fast and strong so they don't get the time and space that they used to.
>>69229661
In a 4-3-3 you have one n°6 and two n°8
At PSG Motta is the n°6
At Barcelona Busquets is the n°6
For France it was Kanté
Can someone explain to me why Leicester won the league (by 10 pts more at that) with a 4-4-2 if it's not as good as a 4-2-3-1? It must have some saving grace.
>>69229602
Sheva was usually paired with Inzaghi(or with Crespo in the 2004/05 season)
>>69229624
Kaka was not really a Classic No.10
If anything he was more of a Winger playing in a Central Position
He was a pretty modern player
>>69229702
I know. What I'm saying is that Spurs theoretically have a "10" (Eriksen) and 2 "6"s (defensive mids, Dier/Dembele). But Eriksen often moves back and Dembele moves up, leaving them with 2 "8s" and one "6". A fluid 4-2-3-1 basically is a 4-3-3.
>>69229702
Huh?
>>69229713
A formation isn't inherently better than other (but some are more commonly used than others), the thing is that leicester had great player on key positions, like Kanté on the DM role, Mahrez as a winger, or Vardy as a goalscorer
Also every "big" team was utter shit
>>69229713
Leicester defend really deep and rely on hoofing the ball up to their insanely fast striker, 4-4-2 is perfect for that.
literally the most economical use of space, triangles all out this bitch
>>69229763
6=defensive midfielder
8=central midfielder
>>69229693
More like players just aren't skilled enough these days to play that role
Defensive Midfielders used to be tougher back in the day if anything
>>69229770
Okay but what about them made it work when teams that used a 4-2-3-1 lost against them?
>>69229763
>2-3-5
Wtf
4-2-3-1 is most popular for a reason.
The midfield naturally forms three triangles \/\/ which makes it easier to pass.
The '10' would also be free to find space between the opponents' midfield and defence.
Since the line of 3 is pushed further forward than normal midfielders they can press more and win the ball back higher up the pitch.
>>69229713
Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpoo, Arsenal and Man City all shit the bed. And Leicester had Vardy and Mahrez scoring and creating at elite levels.
>>69229818
I think he meant that football is faster than before, so the idea of a classical n°10 (think Riquelme type players) just aren't viable options
>>69229794
Isn't most of English football hoofball? Is this a case of one team just being much better at it than everyone else for some inexplicable reason?
>>69229624
The 10 still exists imo, they just can't play the same way they used to. It's the slow 10s who can only play in the middle that are extinct (like Riquelme).
>>69229840
Exactly.
>>69229844
>Isn't most of English football hoofball?
Not at all. The "traditional" style is hoofball, and if you watch a lower division game you'll still see it, but the top teams in England all play a possession-oriented game (except for Leicester).
>>69229826
Team cohesion, workrate, inspiration, bus parking, luck...
Too many factors go into a match to pinpoint the deciding one, but Ranieri, like a classical italian coach, was able to create a defensive wall to strong for the opposition to break, and let the fowards to tear it up on their own
>>69229840
>I think he meant that football is faster than before
I don't buy this at all
Football in the late 90s/early 2000s was much faster than it is nowadays if anything
>>69229826
>Okay but what about them made it work
1. They put everyone behind the ball
2. Won it back
3. Passed to Mahrez
4. He kicked it way downfield
5. Vardy got to it before anyone else could because he's fast as fuck
6. Vardy either gets fouled in the box (and scored the penalty) or simply scored
>>69229829
I'm guessing its blackwards. I can't imagine playing a team with only 2 defenders.
>>69229879
Players today are much faster and stronger. You can see this across all sports, even olympic track & field events.
>>69229885
What were their possession numbers like? I can't seem to get my head around the fact that a team playing counter attacking football won the premier league by such a relatively comfortable margin. It just can't be sustainable after winning so many games.
>>69229829
>>69229909
2-3-5 was how they played before WWII, and in the past century it's been slowly flipped so now we have teams playing 5-3-2
>>69229879
Athleticism is much more prevalent now, TSUUU would've tore everyone apart
>>69229942
>5 people up front, 2 defending
Sounds terrible 2bh
>>69229909
That's how they played 100 years ago mate. Even up until the 1950s and maybe the early 60s. River Plate played la maquina which was 4 forwards attacking in the 1940s.
>>69229940
>What were their possession numbers like?
Atrocious, something like 35-45% on average.
> I can't seem to get my head around the fact that a team playing counter attacking football won the premier league by such a relatively comfortable margin
Neither can anyone else
>It just can't be sustainable after winning so many games.
It really shouldn't have been. Luck was a factor too. There were very few key injuries, Leicester got twice as many penalties as everyone else, 50/50 referee decisions often went their way, and opposing players seemed to have hilarious brain farts at the worst moments, like Fabio Borini kicking himself in the face instead of scoring.
>>69229947
Holy shit, imagine Ronaldo going up against those relatively scrawny/slow guys from the 1970s and 80s. He would have scored 100 goals a season, they might have banned him for the good of the game.
>>69228443
4-3-3 only works if you have world class midfielders.
>>69230009
You can make fun all you want about the guy, but he is a complete machine, I can't imagine being a RB and trying to stop him
>>69229981
Suppose Leicester wins again playing the same way next season, in the same fashion, what would that mean for football as a whole going forward?
>>69229960
It was a different game.
>no offside
>shitty mud pitches so there was hardly much passing along the ground
>tackling from behind was allowed
4-6-0 Master race
>>69230039
So is 4-4-2 better for less skilled players? Less reliance on ability and more on teamwork?
>>69230068
shinning was allowed as well
>>69230056
Not all that much, Atletico Madrid has been doing basically the same thing for 3 years now.
>>69230068
Were there a lot more goals scored? I'd assume if there were no offsides it would just be the forward camping the penalty box waiting for a pass.
>>69230094
What's shinning?
>>69230103
I thought atletico had >world class players?
>>69230110
There were in international competition. This French guy scored 13 goals in 6 games at the World Cup back in the 1950s, nobody else has scored more than 8 since the 1980s
>>69230125
They do, that's why they're able to beat top teams.
>>69230131
Damn lol. So I guess what I can draw from this thread is that 4-2-3-1 is ideal and nothing else really comes close in terms of versatility.
>>69230056
It would mean that they are incredibly lucky and that PL managers are awful tacticians. I suppose alot of weaker teams already try to copy that kind of counterattacking 4-4-2 so the next 'tactical revolution' will be something that allows you to break that down.
>>69230125
when instead of defending you kick a guy on the shins
4-3-3 is the most versatile formation and is the basis for the more attacking oriented 4-2-3-1 and more defensive 4-5-1.
A team playing a 4-3-3 base can essentially shift to either of the others depending on the situation.
4-3-3 tends to be more possession based.
4-2-3-1 tends to be more overloading/attacking at the front.
4-5-1 tends to rely on counter attacks from a strong defense.
All 3 of those formations basically have 3 attackers, 3 midfielders, and 4 defenders and the defining change is how the 3 man midfield plays.
You could say that 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 are mirrors of each other where the attacking midfielder in the former turns into a defensive midfielder in the latter.
Bottom line is that if you have good, versatile players, formations are pretty irrelevant and you can get away with playing a more fluid game. The worse your players are, the better off you're playing a more rigid style so that the formation makes up for deficiencies.
>>69230337
So the best fluid formation is clearly 4-3-3 but what about the best rigid formation?
>>69230527
Something defensive with clearly defined roles for each player.
>>69230131
Just Fontaine
>>69228553
and nobody memes harder than us
>>69230584
>tfw Pep used every other Bundesliga club as lab rats
>>69230590
Fucking unreal, imagine the reaction if something like that happened today.
>>69230572
What a cop out.
>>69230590
that fucking shirt tho
>>69228553
Juventus plays 3-5-2 all the time
>>69230527
In short: the one that suits your players.
Assuming you could fill whatever formation with equally good players at whichever positions, probably a 4-4-2, which is why you see it used so often in lower leagues and on "bad" teams.
It's very well balanced and if players stick to their sectors it essentially provides a 2 line deep defense that covers the entire width of the field.
>>69230658
So 4-4-2 for rigid and 4-3-3 for fluid. That makes sense.
>>69230640
It completely depends on your players. 4-4-2 is used a lot by smaller clubs because it's so common at the youth level, so even the worst players are familiar with it and how it works.
>>69230131
This meme needs to stop.
Take the WC 1958: most games have perfectly normal scores like 1-0, 2-2, 1-1, 3-1, 0-0, 2-1, etc.
The few games with exotic scores like 7-3 or 5-2 is because a team was getting steamrolled, exactly like tonight's 5-2, or WC 2014's 7-1.
![fake-smile[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kYw7S4s.jpg "fake-smile[1].jpg")
>>69230703
>or WC 2014's 7-1.
I enjoyed reading this thread, much better without all the memes
>>69228212
It won SAF enough titles
Christmas tree a goat
>>69231214
I wonder why though. Everyone in this thread bashed it.
depends on your squad and coach. if you have boss wingers 3-5-2 is my pref
>>69228532
Tite
>>69231332
Probably because the weakest part of his midfield for a long time was Beckham.
>>69228212
sir alex ferguson won leagues and european cups with it and he's the most successful manager of all time. leicester won the bpl playing that formation too.
>>69231480
Also helped that he assembled dome pretty GOAT teams
>>69228212
4-4-2 is absolute disgusting cancerous anti-football bullshit that relies on blooters, parking the bus and counter attacks to "win"
3-5-2 is and will ALWAYS be the GOAT formation because of the midfield, which is where plays and goals are created and goals are scored from
3-3-1-3 is also welcome
anyone else fuck off
>>69231480
oy lad what's the best way to get from bath to stansted airport? car hire is fucking extortionate
>>69231524
Man city and atletico also used it to win their respective leagues. I think it's far from outdated. People are saying that a 3 man midfield will almost always beat a 2 man midfield, but with four wingers it kind of negates the disadvantage. I'd love to hear what each top manager has to say about the formation.
>>69231524
after 2005 his teams gradually became more shit every season but he still won 5 more titles in 8 years after that with shitty players like cleverly and an aging carrick as a central midfield partnership, and also bang on average wingers like when he won the league in 2013 he had young and valencia.
he perfected the formation and even average players like anderson played well in it.
>>69231480
Underachieved for years in Europe until he dropped 442
>>69231480
>and he's the most successful manager of all time
Only in England though, he's not even the most successful manager alive when it comes to European competition.
i prefer 5-0-5
>>69231579
try national express or megabus. it's pretty cheap.
also check the trainline.com. it'll be faster but a bit more expensive.
>>69228212
>140 replies
>no source on the slut on the right
gj guys
>>69231524
He also managed to win with crap once, though, that 2012/13 team had no business winning the title but they somehow ran away with it.
>>69231599
>after 2005 his teams gradually became more shit every season
He still had peak Ronaldo and prime Rooney until 2009 though, it wasn't like he was working miracles with scrubs
>>69231633
>though
>tfw your verbal tics carry into your writing
>>69231623
good looking out, man. i checked national express and they wanted to put me on two buses for a total of 6 hours, no thank you
>>69231600
i remember reading somewhere that he said you can't win a european cup playing 4-4-2 so i think he knew that. he mostly played 4-3-3 in the champions league. i'm almost certain that he played 4-3-3 in all the champions league finals between 08 and 12.
>>69231613
to be fair he did come up against a god tier barcelona in 09 and 12. if he had won those two he would have had 4 titles.
>>69231641
Wtf? Writing though is perfectly normal and not even close to being a verbal tic unless you use it excessively. Don't be so autistic next time mate.
>>69231599
IMO it's the most versatile formation for players to chop and change position in
>>69231653
they can be dodgy like that sometimes, but they're cheap so i guess i can't complain.
>>69231787
it's probably the best defensive formation in football. all these teams like bayern and barca which set up in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1 all drop back and defend in two banks of four with two players pressing the opposition when the opposing team are on the offensive. we've seen how efficient it is with atletico over the last 3 seasons. it's so hard to penetrate two banks of four players.
>>69231677
>i remember reading somewhere that he said you can't win a european cup playing 4-4-2
Somebody should have told Simeone
Really the main issue nowadays is 2 or 3 center backs. Everything else is pretty fluid. That means three guys holding the offside line or two. Can be an issue.
They're all the same. Soccer doesn't have tactics. The players just spread themselves out and make 15 useless passes in the back field before someone decides, on a whim, to make a stretch pass which fails 75% of the time.
>>69228212
I always thought you should adapt your formation to your personel. But if you don't want to do that, 4-4-2 and its variations allow you to play all your best players at positions that are at least semi-optimal.
Also a lot of it is meme anyway. Like France yesterday was allegdly playing a 4-5-1 but Payet on the left played more like a winger while Cissoko on the other side played further back like a CM that just happens to play on the right side.
>not playing the superior 1-2-7
>>69228212
4-1-4-1, with fast running Fullbacks, a physically strong Holder, who can move the ball around confidently, one runner, one creator, two fast technically good wingers and one a decent striker.
Dortmund played something like this last season with Weigl holding, Gündogan running, Kagawa creating, Mikhi and Reus being the wingers and Auba their striker. The flaw of the team was, that Schmelzer is not good enough as a fb, and Piszczek was injured a few times. With Raphael they replaced schmelzer, and with Dembele/Mor Mikhi. I don't really feel like the replacement for Gundi is found (maybe Pulisic or Castro), but they will be really strong if they can keep Aubameyang.
The Neverlands
343 diamond is the best system
but very hard to play
>can't really see any flaws in it
You only have 2 midfielders in the centre of the pitch.
It's kinda hard to come up with triangles to quickly pass the ball.
You need the 2 wingers to defend a lot, this means they won't contribute much offensively. This often means that they will become players who run a lot and cross, but don't do much else.
Having already a wide midfielder means that the fullback won't have much space when attacking.
I like to play a cheeky 3-2-1-4
>americans discussing football
hilarious
>>69236565
>implying they aren't just illegal Mexicans
