RedrebelAs I was looking through one of the Chelsea's reports against Bolton it said that Bolton used the 4-1-3-2. This formation bothered me so I thought about it and came up with this. If it's a 4-1-3-2 than it must be this and if it is what an unorthodox formation. What you think about this?

20.01.2009

Agent_LewisI find it a bit odd, but nonetheless interesting. The question is, do the fullbacks get involved out on the flanks in the attack or not? I would imagine that they do, based on this diagram (as opposed to a flat back 4). It almost looks like the 4-3-3 variant I drew awhile back, if you were to drop the left and right mids back to the midline while pushing the center mid up in attack. Would it work? You're asking a lot from the mids and fullbacks in terms of stamina, but if they're up to it, it just might.

20.01.2009

nvrThis is a legacy of Sam Allerdyce in Bolton. Back in his day they used to play 4-1-4-1. The trick was to get everybody behind the ball apart from the lone striker, and use breaking as attacking strategy.

4-1-3-2 is a variant of this. Now, they have this Elmander guy who can play both striker and right wing. They switch between 4-1-4-1 and 4-1-3-2 when needed.

21.01.2009

RedrebelBut, is the 4-1-3-2 variant like this?

21.01.2009

nvrNot exactly. The left and right mids do not play that close to the touchline. It's more like a block in the middle and the DM acts like sweeper behind these guys. It's intended to be a super defensive layout.

22.01.2009

RedrebelSo, the outside midfielders are center-midfielders?

22.01.2009

nvrYes, more or less.

23.01.2009