What's Your Favourite Formation?

Paully D

As the thread title says - what's your favourite formation?

In your own opinion, what formation do you think suits your team best?

Also, out of interest, do you think 4-4-2 is obsolete and outdated in the modern game?

Personally I like a 4-2-3-1 best. I also feel this is the formation that works best for my team (Sunderland) as our main striker (Gyan) works better on his own upfront, and Sessegnon is excellent playing centrally as one of the three off him. We also have two good DM's to protect the back 4 in Cattermole and Meyler (when fit). It's definitely how I'd like us to line-up for the coming season providing we can get an attacking FB like Hutton in and another part of the 3 going forward in midfield who's comfortably playing in the same formation such as N'Zogbia or similar.

I'll get a poll up ASAP and apologies if I miss any obvious one's out because I'm half asleep here :pac:

dfx-

Other (Please State)

3-5-2

Hence, I like Busquets dropping back between the centre-halves and pushing the full backs on, Benitez employing 352 at Newcastle years ago and causing consternation and Dalglish's 352

Professional Griefer

4-1-2-1-2.

Or else, 7-1-2 :p

Glico Man

I thought Hiddink's formation for Australia at the 2006 WC was quite good. Something like a 3-6-1, focused entirely on retention in midfield. Worked a treat until Lucas Neill fouled/Italian player dived and they got knocked out.

Christmas Tree formation is also one of my favorites. Narrow but fluid, requires some fairly speedy full backs with high stamina. Dani Alves and Cafu would be pretty handy to have in this type.

Headshot

Oat23

4-2-2-2 is my favourite.

Morf

4 3 1 2

Worked a treat in Championship Manager.

eagle eye

2-3-2-3

lordgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

2-3-2-3

thing is, you're probably being serious with that ^

4-4-1-1

eagle eye

lordgoat wrote: »

thing is, you're probably being serious with that ^

4-4-1-1

Its basically what Barca play. They'll tell you its 4-3-3 but its not really because both full backs push up but of course you would never see it that way because you listen to the commentators and read reports which tell you its something different.

---

Pique

---

Puyol
Dani Alves

---

Busquets

---

Abidal

---

Iniesta

---

Xavi
Pedro

---

Messi

---

Villa

PHB

I love 4-2-3-1, but only when the front four are extmremely fulid ala the United double team. I want all four of them to be switching positions constantly. Pacey, skillful, with a direct approach, happy to lose possession.

G.K.

4-2-3-1

Paully D

Lots of different opinions

D'Agger

4-2-1-2-1

Like how I used to setup Liverpool back when Pro Evo was worth playing...they were great days:

---

Reina

---

--Johnson---Skrtel----Agger---Insua

---

Mascherano

---

Alonso

---

---

Gerrard

---

Kuty

---

Torres

---

Babel


Worth noting that Babel wasn't as shít in Pro Evo as he was in real life, hence my daring selection

flahavaj

Its a bit silly to have a favourite formation per se.

My favourite formation is whichever one puts your best players in their best position in order to get the best results.

Mr. Guappa

flahavaj wrote: »

Its a bit silly to have a favourite formation per se.

My favourite formation is whichever one puts your best players in their best position in order to get the best results.

This.

Whatever formation leads to my team winning the game they are playing is my favourite formation.

I do like to see a new formation, such as Chile's 3-3-1-3 at the World Cup and Ossie Ardiles' 5-0-5 formation at Spurs was a fantastically entertaining tactical disaster.

mike65

Horse for courses really, 4-2-3-1 offers a mix of solid defence and attack assuming players are capable of getting forward from the back and the deeper central midfielder is able to cover the ground to fill in the gaps when they happen.

MUSEIST

4-2-3-1 for me, it just has a nice balence imo. Sometimes variations can be used but it depends on the team, the formation should be designed to get the best out of the players avaliable.

flahavaj

4-2-3-1 is fsahionable at the moment but it does kina lead to players being shunted out of position a lot as well, you see a lot of central strikers being asked to play on the wing, or midfielders with more attacking instincts being asked to sit more in midfield. Liverpool played for a long time under Benitez for example without having proper wide attackers to really do damage to teams for example.

Dozen Wicked Words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDMx3kYe7ZY

pablo-jericho

Marcelo Bielsa's 3-3-1-3 is refreshing to watch with the right players, best I've seen in a good while

bamboozling

My favourite formation was probably the legendary 4-1-5 formation I used to play in Fifa 99 with Liverpool.

A good solid back 4, Jamie Redknapp performing heroics on his own in the middle and the ever potent strike force of Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman, Karl Heinz Riedle and of course Sean Dundee.

Many goals were scored but opposition teams had an alarming amount of success in scoring goals against us in said formation...

Pinturicchio

2-1-2-2-2-1

dsmythy

4-1-4-1

No lazy players in the "1" positions need apply.

craggles

Chile's 3-3-1-3 / 3-2-1-1-3 / 3-1-3-3 with the bloody inside wingbacks. Whopper

born2bwild

Recently saw Monaghan Utd playing 4-1-3-2 (like England's 1966 WC final and semi-final set up only a bit more offensive).
Interesting variation on 4-4-2. Is 4-4-2 obsolete? If it's played too statically, yes: wingers and full backs have to be working together (prepareed to move up/back as needed to cover/suppport and centre mids have to work box - to - box with the centre backs prepared to close gaps in the midfield too.
2 - flat banks of four can be easily swamped by 5-man midfields.

lordgoat

Flying V anyone?

inmyday

eagle eye wrote: »

Its basically what Barca play. They'll tell you its 4-3-3 but its not really because both full backs push up but of course you would never see it that way because you listen to the commentators and read reports which tell you its something different.

---

Pique

---

Puyol
Dani Alves

---

Busquets

---

Abidal

---

Iniesta

---

Xavi
Pedro

---

Messi

---

Villa

You are right in what you say, But when Barca dont have the ball, they are more like 4-5-1, what ya think? Doesnt happen too often as they usually have the ball.
But its very smart what they do with the ball, sergio would just fall back and let alves and adibal loose. So its 3-4-3 with the ball.


Also, I dont know why people are talking about pro evo and champ manager, what has that got to do with the topic?

parker kent

It depends on the team they are playing, the players available and what they are looking for in the game. I don't think any formation is "better" than another (other than say outdated formations such as the W-M that won't work due to changes in laws).

jcf

My favourite formation has to be the Mike Basset tinkering 3-2-1-1-1-2 ...

Beautiful football, I hope Chelsea adopt this next season.

born2bwild

parker kent wrote: »

It depends on the team they are playing, the players available and what they are looking for in the game. I don't think any formation is "better" than another (other than say outdated formations such as the W-M that won't work due to changes in laws).

Why wouldn't the WM work? 3 - man defences were popular in the 90s for a time.

flahavaj

born2bwild wrote: »

Why wouldn't the WM work? 3 - man defences were popular in the 90s for a time.

It was more a one man central defence with two full backs slightly tucked in, two half backs, two inside forwards a striker and two wingers. I don't see how it could work nowadays, it looks like the crazy formation Spirs played in the 90's under Ossie.:pac:

Any team with decent width would destroy it.

born2bwild

Yeah the rotation of the four points made by the half backs and the inside left and right would approximate a diamond formation - there's Ossie's Argentinian pedigree.
Width could be provided by the outside left and right and the full backs needn't tuck in.
The other poster mentioned something about changes in the laws of the game preventing a team from setting up with 3-2-2-3 (W-M). Offside rule?

flahavaj

born2bwild wrote: »

Yeah the rotation of the four points made by the half backs and the inside left and right would approximate a diamond formation - there's Ossie's Argentinian pedigree.
Width could be provided by the outside left and right and the full backs needn't tuck in.
The other poster mentioned something about changes in the laws of the game preventing a team from setting up with 3-2-2-3 (W-M). Offside rule?

I was under the impression W-M came in as a response to a change in the offside rule - it used to be two at the back, but then they introduced a third more central defender. Could be wrong though, its a long time since I read up on this stuff.

parker kent

born2bwild wrote: »

Yeah the rotation of the four points made by the half backs and the inside left and right would approximate a diamond formation - there's Ossie's Argentinian pedigree.
Width could be provided by the outside left and right and the full backs needn't tuck in.
The other poster mentioned something about changes in the laws of the game preventing a team from setting up with 3-2-2-3 (W-M). Offside rule?

The offside rule would be one reason (particularly since the WM was invented to combat the change in the offside law in 1925), but in general the game is completely different from when Herbert Chapman first used that formation. I say the offside rule has ruled out that formation as the game is currently far too stretched to use it effectively. The 3 fullbacks would be slaughtered out wide. Modern offside rules and modern tactics (full backs attacking etc) mean it is best left in the 1930s.

Hungary showed in the 50s what happens to the W-M when the other team moves beyond simple positional play. Fluid movement would destroy the W-M. Modern football laws encourage attacking play and fluid movement (such as players being active and inactive).

For anybody wondering, this is the WM.

GavRedKing

Mine is 4-1-2-3

Works well if you have a good DM and attacking full backs, the central striker has to be good at palying on his own though but the optin for the front three is 2 out wide or 2 support strikers, lots of variation with this formation IMO.

Nailz

3-1-3-1-2. Classic.

cournioni

A proper 4-1-1-4.

Two full backs, two centre halves, one defensive midfielder, one attacking midfielder, two strikers, left and right forwards.

stovelid

Christmas tree.

born2bwild

parker kent wrote: »

The offside rule would be one reason (particularly since the WM was invented to combat the change in the offside law in 1925), but in general the game is completely different from when Herbert Chapman first used that formation. I say the offside rule has ruled out that formation as the game is currently far too stretched to use it effectively. The 3 fullbacks would be slaughtered out wide. Modern offside rules and modern tactics (full backs attacking etc) mean it is best left in the 1930s.

Hungary showed in the 50s what happens to the W-M when the other team moves beyond simple positional play. Fluid movement would destroy the W-M. Modern football laws encourage attacking play and fluid movement (such as players being active and inactive).

For anybody wondering, this is the WM.

Yeah prior to 1925 if the ball was played to an attacker with one full back and the keeper between him and the goal , that attacker was deemed to be offside. After 1925 he was no longer offside in that circumstance - the defending team would not get a free kick and the attack would continue. For this reason the centre half was pulled back from the 'Roy Keane' position to the Vidic 'centre back' position - to defend the attack - 3 defenders where before there had been two, right? There's your W-M. (Although in your picture you need to rename the centre 'fullback' to either 'centre half' or 'centre back')
The 1953 Hungary-England matches are often cited as the death of the W-M. It puzzles me though - most people comment not on the formations in play (3-2-2-3 versus 4-2-4) but on the fluidity of the Hungarians versus the Rugby-style fixed positions of the English. Surely a W-M would be superior to the 4-2-4 if it were played using a more mobile approach to positions: far greater manpower in the middle of the park for starters? But I suppose I'm talking about 3-4-3 you score 2 we'll score 6, then.

Dolph Starbeam

4-2-3-1 for me, the way Germany used it in the last WC was brilliant. Saying that it really depends on the opposition and the team available. To play 4-2-3-1 the defensive and attacking midfielders all have to be very good players.

born2bwild

stovelid wrote: »

Christmas tree.

Yeah but you get the same present every time with that: 0-0.