If
there's one thing that has permeated football debates since the birth
of the sport, it's the validity and effectiveness of one formation over
another. With no 'perfect' answer, history has seen an ebbing and
flowing between one formation and the next as coaches try to overcome
and reinvent the prevailing trends of the moment.
This unyielding race towards new knowledge and innovation
is one of the primary reasons behind the constant evolution of the
sport. Without doubt, a coach that can implement a formation strategy
that their peers are unfamiliar with has an enormous advantage going
into a competition.
Below we dissect some of the most popular formations in
football today and highlight some of their most crucial strengths and
weaknesses.
4-4-2
One of the oldest formations still in regular use today,
4-4-2 might be most commonly associated with English football but many
teams around the world have dedicated themselves to it at some point in
their history.
Whatever the case, the formation's Golden Age has well and
truly passed. To employ 4-4-2 today, particularly if you're a 'big' club
with grand ambitions, is often seen as something of a defeat and an
indication that a club is unconvinced of its players' ability to execute
a more advanced gameplan when in possession.
The Milan side of Arrigo Sacchi and Marco van Basten were hugely successful using 4-4-2
4-4-2 is easy to understand and implement, meaning a
well-drilled team can still find genuine success through it, but it does
lack the complexity and more sophisticated passing lanes/angles offered
by more modern, forward-thinking systems.
Strengths
Unlike
formations in which only one striker is played, 4-4-2 allows the
primary attackers to drive forward without having to wait for support
from the midfielders
Having two dedicated strikers means that the midfield and
defence needn't delay their attempts to get the ball into advanced
positions. Unlike formations in which only one striker is played, 4-4-2
allows the primary attackers to drive forward without having to wait for
support from the midfielders. For this reason, the best strikers to
have ever played in a 4-4-2 are those that are adaptable and able to
contend with a wide variety of situations with minimal midfield support.
Playing two wide midfielders, as well as very wide
full-backs, allows for the creation of width. This can result in
flurries of crosses being driven into the box, but it also forces the
opposition to stretch their defensive line to counter any threat down
the wings. Often, this can leave defensive gaps through the centre for
the two strikers to take advantage of.
Simeone continues to enjoy success with the 4-4-2
Due to its clear structure and ease of execution, many
teams, no matter what their 'primary' formation, will adopt something
close to a 4-4-2 when under pressure and defending deep in their own
half.
Weaknesses
Predictability and rigidity are typically the problems
associated with a 4-4-2, as is the enormous pressure on the central
midfielders to both attack and defend constantly. The formation has been
around for so long that any number of ways to overcome it have been
developed, a task made particularly easy if the wide players in a 4-4-2
lack discipline when it comes to their defensive duties.
Having just two players in the centre of midfield can make
keeping the ball difficult against teams playing a three-man central
midfield. However, often you'll see one of the two forwards dropping
back into midfield when not in possession in an attempt to even up the
numbers.
In order to counter this, many 4-4-2 practitioners will
play a defensively minded central midfielder alongside a more
attack-focused individual, it being the former's job to cut out any
danger posed by an opponent's superior numbers before the backline is
put under pressure. However, this takes a body away from the centre of
the pitch and can force a team into playing a predictable wide game.
Who uses it?
Atletico Madrid, Leicester City, Borussia Monchengladbach, Milan (1987-1991).
Which formation does it trump?
While it's difficult to pinpoint a specific formation
against which 4-4-2 is especially effective, there is a case to be made
for using the system when playing a team that is overly aggressive in
attack. The even distribution of players across the pitch tends to lend
itself to players being unmarked at the moment possession is won back,
opening the potential for an instant attack.
Comments
Post a Comment