deadlight
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2006
- 1,361
- 788
Source: teamTALK
There has been another debate this week about whether teams can get away with playing 4-4-2 any more.
Liverpool were outnumbered and losing the battle in midfield against Aston Villa playing 4-4-2 until they sacrificed a man at the back to play a 3-5-2, but I can assure you there is no belief within the game that a particular formation is better than any other.
The success of a team simply depends on the players at your disposal, your strengths and weaknesses, and the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents.
The very best coaches are the ones that know which formation suits their players the best and then have the capability to alter if their opponent is superior in one area that is hurting them.
Roberto Martinez, for example, showed his tactical knowledge when he kept Wigan up by switching from a 4-3-3 to a 3-4-3. He recognised that in games where opponents only played with one up front that there was no need to play with a back four so he added an extra player into midfield to give them a greater foothold in games and bring them more goals. But now at Everton he has a different set of players and is currently using 4-2-3-1.
In the summer, or when a manager takes over, he should assess his players to decide which formations he can use. He might think, 'I can play 4-4-2 and I can play 3-5-2 but what I can't do with these players is play 4-3-3'. I believe a manager needs at least two formations that he knows he can use just in case of injuries. You need an alternative plan.
When Andre Villas-Boas was at Tottenham, it highlighted the danger of sticking with a formation that may not suit the players at your disposal.
Injuries meant that Spurs had Etienne Capoue playing at centre-half and either a right footer in Kyle Naughton or a centre-half in Jan Vertonghen playing at left-back.
If you play with wrong foot wingers on each flank like Villas-Boas did then your full-backs need to overlap otherwise you have no width, but if your players aren't athletic enough to overlap and your wingers keep coming inside the opponents can force play infield and you lack a threat out wide.
Danny Rose can overlap but you can't ask Vertongen to be a dynamic, overlapping full-back. By playing him at left-back it meant the opposition could double up on Spurs' winger down that side and nullify the threat.
You don't get the best out of your players when they are in a position that isn't really their strength - I remember for Wigan I played on the left of a front three at Old Trafford but lacked the tactical know-how which was exploited by Gary Neville and Cristiano Ronaldo down the right. Any formation has to suit the players at your disposal whilst minimising the threats of your opponents.
Villas-Boas also made the tactical error of playing a high line when it didn't suit the players and if he'd have used a deeper line Spurs might not have capitulated the way they did against Manchester City and Liverpool.
Since Tim Sherwood has taken over he's played with a deeper line and got some good results using 4-4-2 a lot, which just proves that no formation is better than any other, but he has been fortunate that he's had Rose available again.
If you play with two up front you need to get crosses into the box which means you need to get your full-backs overlapping to ensure you're not outnumbered in the wide areas.
As I've said, Rose can do that but Spurs might not have done so well under Sherwood if Vertonghen was still playing at left-back.
They're also fortunate to have Christian Eriksen fit again. I visited my old manager Bert Van Marwjk a few years ago to watch the Dutch national team train and the qualities of a top No.10 were evident. Wesley Sneijder could turn and pivot off both feet, assist and pass with both feet, switch the play with both feet and had a quick footballing brain. They're all qualities I see in Eriksen.
Going back to 4-4-2, there can a problem with two midfielders playing against three. Even Manchester City found it earlier in the season against Bayern Munich. Their extra players in midfield suffocated City, and their high defensive line coupled with their high pressing game prevented City from playing in the opposition half.
City were caught offside a lot, thus were unable to penetrate, and against such a well-coached team a 4-4-1-1 looked outdated that night but it was the coaching detail that Pep Guardiola put into his team that made the result happen.
The high-pressing game would not have worked quite as well if their defensive line was deeper but the pressing high up the pitch either forced ball turnovers in the City half or long balls which were dealt with easily by Jerome Boateng and Dante. Even if they weren't, Manuel Neuer effectively acts as a sweeper on the edge of the area, particularly when the ball is deep in the opponent's half.
When City played Bayern again they played with one up front and an extra man in midfield, and they got the win. If you cannot win the midfield battle with two central midfielders then you need to sacrifice either one up front or one in defence. Even a top team like Manchester City sometimes have to change their shape to combat a superior opponent.
A 4-2-3-1 is not the answer for every team, though. The four up front have to be extremely talented - excellent wingers, with a talented No.10, and pace and penetration in a No.9 - and I think it's counter-productive playing with two shielding midfielders as some teams do.
If the opponents have two really talented strikers who are strong to feet then a screener may be needed but invariably at the moment teams are coming up against one striker - the centre-halves should be able to deal with that without needing two midfielders sitting in front of them. Who are the centre-halves marking? What are they doing?
I feel it is a negative tactic as your units can become disjointed and too distant, but a manager has to get the best out of the players he has available.
Van Marwjk was roundly criticised in Holland for playing 4-2-3-1 with two so-called destroyers in midfield in Mark van Bommel and Nigel De Jong because it was a system that lacked flair and was designed not to lose rather than the win. But Van Marwijk argued that the system suited the players at his disposal and he came ever so close to delivering their first World Cup.
If you need more evidence that there is no 'best' formation, just look at what teams in other European countries are doing. In Italy, lots of teams play with three at the back, in Holland most teams play 4-3-3 but in England there's a mix.
It's a cultural thing. At Juventus, for example, Antonio Conte is an amazing coach, and he plays 3-5-2 because they have two talented strikers in Carlos Tevez and Fernando Llorente.
The best formation is simply the one which suits your players.
I did think about posting this in the 'General Football' forum rather than in 'Spurs Chat', but I decided on the amount of Tottenham content to belong here, no?
There has been another debate this week about whether teams can get away with playing 4-4-2 any more.
Liverpool were outnumbered and losing the battle in midfield against Aston Villa playing 4-4-2 until they sacrificed a man at the back to play a 3-5-2, but I can assure you there is no belief within the game that a particular formation is better than any other.
The success of a team simply depends on the players at your disposal, your strengths and weaknesses, and the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents.
The very best coaches are the ones that know which formation suits their players the best and then have the capability to alter if their opponent is superior in one area that is hurting them.
Roberto Martinez, for example, showed his tactical knowledge when he kept Wigan up by switching from a 4-3-3 to a 3-4-3. He recognised that in games where opponents only played with one up front that there was no need to play with a back four so he added an extra player into midfield to give them a greater foothold in games and bring them more goals. But now at Everton he has a different set of players and is currently using 4-2-3-1.
In the summer, or when a manager takes over, he should assess his players to decide which formations he can use. He might think, 'I can play 4-4-2 and I can play 3-5-2 but what I can't do with these players is play 4-3-3'. I believe a manager needs at least two formations that he knows he can use just in case of injuries. You need an alternative plan.
When Andre Villas-Boas was at Tottenham, it highlighted the danger of sticking with a formation that may not suit the players at your disposal.
Injuries meant that Spurs had Etienne Capoue playing at centre-half and either a right footer in Kyle Naughton or a centre-half in Jan Vertonghen playing at left-back.
If you play with wrong foot wingers on each flank like Villas-Boas did then your full-backs need to overlap otherwise you have no width, but if your players aren't athletic enough to overlap and your wingers keep coming inside the opponents can force play infield and you lack a threat out wide.
Danny Rose can overlap but you can't ask Vertongen to be a dynamic, overlapping full-back. By playing him at left-back it meant the opposition could double up on Spurs' winger down that side and nullify the threat.
You don't get the best out of your players when they are in a position that isn't really their strength - I remember for Wigan I played on the left of a front three at Old Trafford but lacked the tactical know-how which was exploited by Gary Neville and Cristiano Ronaldo down the right. Any formation has to suit the players at your disposal whilst minimising the threats of your opponents.
Villas-Boas also made the tactical error of playing a high line when it didn't suit the players and if he'd have used a deeper line Spurs might not have capitulated the way they did against Manchester City and Liverpool.
Since Tim Sherwood has taken over he's played with a deeper line and got some good results using 4-4-2 a lot, which just proves that no formation is better than any other, but he has been fortunate that he's had Rose available again.
If you play with two up front you need to get crosses into the box which means you need to get your full-backs overlapping to ensure you're not outnumbered in the wide areas.
As I've said, Rose can do that but Spurs might not have done so well under Sherwood if Vertonghen was still playing at left-back.
They're also fortunate to have Christian Eriksen fit again. I visited my old manager Bert Van Marwjk a few years ago to watch the Dutch national team train and the qualities of a top No.10 were evident. Wesley Sneijder could turn and pivot off both feet, assist and pass with both feet, switch the play with both feet and had a quick footballing brain. They're all qualities I see in Eriksen.
Going back to 4-4-2, there can a problem with two midfielders playing against three. Even Manchester City found it earlier in the season against Bayern Munich. Their extra players in midfield suffocated City, and their high defensive line coupled with their high pressing game prevented City from playing in the opposition half.
City were caught offside a lot, thus were unable to penetrate, and against such a well-coached team a 4-4-1-1 looked outdated that night but it was the coaching detail that Pep Guardiola put into his team that made the result happen.
The high-pressing game would not have worked quite as well if their defensive line was deeper but the pressing high up the pitch either forced ball turnovers in the City half or long balls which were dealt with easily by Jerome Boateng and Dante. Even if they weren't, Manuel Neuer effectively acts as a sweeper on the edge of the area, particularly when the ball is deep in the opponent's half.
When City played Bayern again they played with one up front and an extra man in midfield, and they got the win. If you cannot win the midfield battle with two central midfielders then you need to sacrifice either one up front or one in defence. Even a top team like Manchester City sometimes have to change their shape to combat a superior opponent.
A 4-2-3-1 is not the answer for every team, though. The four up front have to be extremely talented - excellent wingers, with a talented No.10, and pace and penetration in a No.9 - and I think it's counter-productive playing with two shielding midfielders as some teams do.
If the opponents have two really talented strikers who are strong to feet then a screener may be needed but invariably at the moment teams are coming up against one striker - the centre-halves should be able to deal with that without needing two midfielders sitting in front of them. Who are the centre-halves marking? What are they doing?
I feel it is a negative tactic as your units can become disjointed and too distant, but a manager has to get the best out of the players he has available.
Van Marwjk was roundly criticised in Holland for playing 4-2-3-1 with two so-called destroyers in midfield in Mark van Bommel and Nigel De Jong because it was a system that lacked flair and was designed not to lose rather than the win. But Van Marwijk argued that the system suited the players at his disposal and he came ever so close to delivering their first World Cup.
If you need more evidence that there is no 'best' formation, just look at what teams in other European countries are doing. In Italy, lots of teams play with three at the back, in Holland most teams play 4-3-3 but in England there's a mix.
It's a cultural thing. At Juventus, for example, Antonio Conte is an amazing coach, and he plays 3-5-2 because they have two talented strikers in Carlos Tevez and Fernando Llorente.
The best formation is simply the one which suits your players.
I did think about posting this in the 'General Football' forum rather than in 'Spurs Chat', but I decided on the amount of Tottenham content to belong here, no?
