RedrebelWell, as you guys know I like making "different" formations than everyone else. So, I came up with this classy formation. This formation without doubt can overrun the simple 4-4-2.
13.02.2009
RedrebelDon't hate on me first of all, I am just trying to be creative.
13.02.2009
jmancubsfanI've been reading Jonathan's Wilson's book "Inverting the Pyramid" about the history of football and one particular drawing would show you what you need to do to really examine this formation. You simply plot out the opponent's players going the other way and see where they match up. The first glaring issue is the two strikers in the 4-4-2. Your defensive mids would have to at least help cover those two and then that would also pull your attacking mids back to cover the central mids. So in essence if they could defend as though they were in a 3-4-3 it might work to some degree. Of course if your outside mids got beat by the opponent's outside mids everything would likely fall apart from there. It's certainly creative...
14.02.2009
RedrebelThank you. At least you are open-minded about football, unlike some people on this website.
14.02.2009
Robert O'CarlosGood back that Inverting the Pyramid. I get the impression there's a few people on here that have read it.
:-)
As for your latest, Red, it's perfectly possible to overcrowd your own formation and stifle a game, so my first thought would be to play this as a 3-4-3. Which probably doesn't answer your question, but ...
:-D
I've always been of the opinion that, to create space in the opposition, you often need to let them have a bit of space to come onto you. All about finding a balance for me, so I'd tend to discount using something like this. Good to have something new to consider tho.
15.02.2009
RedrebelThank you and you are right about that, but like I said before it is only an option.
16.02.2009
kirbyim seeing this formation and its perfect
:-)
LAM,RAM is the playmakers, playmaking is one of football style, the wings they the RIght ,lef WIngers and R,L Midfielders and there in the middile even those two can get the ball up to the striker or get it back to defence.
:-)
Great One, Didnt thought of it well when i saw it the first time.
16.02.2009
RedrebelThat's a good thought and also I don't see a problem with defending in this formation.
16.02.2009
jmancubsfanNow that I think about it, I wonder which is more likely to happen:
1) Will the opposing team track back to cover your numerous advanced midfield players?
or
2) Will most of your midfielders drop into a deeper, more defensive role?
I suppose both teams will have to do drop back or the game would become high scoring very quickly. My only thought about defending though is if you're asking true outside midfielders to drop back like full back and you're asking two defensive mids to fall back like a couple of full backs, wouldn't you be better off with players who normally play those positions to begin with?
16.02.2009
RedrebelYes, but this formation only shows that the team who uses this formation will most likely be playing far forward.
17.02.2009
Robert O'CarlosPurely from an entertainment point of view, I'm not sure I'd like to see a team play like this because it would encourage the opposition to revert to long ball tactics, and it'd be Wimbledon all over again.
:-D
To counter this formation, a team would pack their own half with defensively adept players to (hopefully) kill off the attack, win the ball, and lump it upfield to 2 forward players, who would be looking to get 2 on 1 with the centre back.
That's not a criticism of this formation in any way, merely a comment on what the opposition would end up doing.
:-)
17.02.2009
eddy98would rather play 3-6-1.. but looks cool anyhoo
04.03.2009
RedrebelThank you sir.
04.03.2009
