Sunday, January 11, 2009

What is your favorite soccer formation?

Quick post before my next official post. After watching Liverpool play a 4-5-1 with FUCKING KUYT AS THE LONE STRIKER and almost vomiting for hours on end, I ended up thinking about how I don't like the massive number of teams who play 4-5-1's recently. Although it seemed much more prevalent last season, I still don't like watching the slow, non-offensive 4-5-1 teams that play now.

On that same note, what is your favorite soccer formation? I think if I coached a team, I would lean to a 4-4-2, but my favorite formation that I ever played in was the 3-5-2 with 2 holding midfielders. I typically think that holding/defending through the midfield is much more important than having the 4th defender.

Opinions/thoughts?

6 comments:

nyphon said...

cool topic term. i think most of us would agree that the formation kind of depends on the players you have. But with that assumption, I'd have to say 4-4-2 with diamond shaped midfielders. Second place would be 3-5-2, but for that to work you'd need solid defensive midfielders and great sweeper and outside backs. idk I just kind of feel you have to have better players and a better team for that formation to work.

pex said...

gonna have to go with the classic 4-4-2. pretty much covers all the bases. strong defense with solid offensive support from the 2 outside midfielders. very balanced formation in my opinion, but of course like boon said it greatly depends on your players

Staboski said...

I'd say my fav formation is 3-5-2. I do agree with everyone else it depends on your players but to me it achieves the best balance. Now of course growing up it was a 4-4-2. Which I'm still a fan on but I would switch it up a bit. Where Pex was talking about a diamond midfeild config on the 4-4-2 I'd go with a flat mid, maybe have the wings pushing up a bit more. My two up top would play with a point man and one withdrawn and then I'd go with an old school sweeper position in the back. The 4-5-1 formation that is soo popular (and boring) now a days I think can be played effectively but you need players to understand what is involved. For a 4-5-1 to work you need your wing midfeilders to really be able to work the sidelines and get up and then you need your attacking midfeilder to be able to push forward and link up with the forward. It worked for Chelsea in the first part of the season. Anelka would be up top and Lampard would make the runs off of him. It does occasionally work at Liverpool with Torres and Gerrard with good work on the wings. Again this was at the start of the season. I think people now know how to shut this formation down. Everyone else who uses this formation is doing so for defensive purposes. It was like the post I read a few months ago on one of the soccer websites stating that the striking partnerships that use to exist don't anymore. It seems like everyone wants to work alone.

Prime said...

Hard for me to really say what I like, as everyone said, it depends on your players. A 4-4-2 can be completely different for two different teams depending on the personnel. For instance, I'm sure Nigeria running a 4-4-2 would look totally different then England running a 4-4-2. I've always thought teams needed to get a little more creative with formations, but from the little soccer I watch it seems like everyone is becoming more conservative. If I was the coach say, for England, a team that imo has no legitamite offensive player, I would try to forumulate some sort of 3-4-3 to try and force some offense. Obviously your players would need to be aware of the situation though and realize when to come back. A team with forwards who had the ability to beat people 1 on 1 tho and create goals, I'd be more inclined to play a standard 4-4-2.

Also, I've always preferred the diamond midfield in the 4-4-2, but I think this probably only works best if you have a real sick offensive player to put at the top of the diamond, and a guy who can play solid defense at the back of the diamond

Staboski said...

I agree with you Prime on mixing it up with like a 3-4-3. And England do need some offense but I think they lack on the wing defensive backs so it might be hard. But with Capello as manager now you won't see this anytime soon. He prefers a 4-5-1 and only sometimes uses a 4-4-2. It will be interesting to see how Portsmouth do now. For the first half of the season they were playing with a 4-4-2 with what I call a true strike partnership with Crouch and Defore. Big guy and little fast guy and it seemed to work well. Now that Defoe is goning back to Spurs they are going to switch to a 4-5-1 with Crouch in the middle. I think if they can get good wing play and decent balls in it will be good because crouch is good in the air but we'll see.

term said...

I think that I would only play a diamond midfield (in pro-level) would be if I had a sick defensive midfielder; the offensive midfielder is less important. The amount of running and positional awareness required for the holding midfield is high against teams with good midfielders or 4-5-1 teams. I am pretty sure I would lean more toward Boski's type with flat 2 inside and 2 outside pushed more up. But again, as we all agree, completely depends on the players involved.

I am surprised that Prime did not support a 4-2-4 since that was his International SuperStar Soccer favorite.