SpaceGhostIf destructive mids abound, and teams are loosing their compactness, and everyone plays 4-2-3-1, what problems does this formation create for an opponent?
Specifically, would it effectively disrupt the use of fullbacks & holding mids to link the back to the front? Would numerical superiority in the opponents 2nd of 4 lines generate a breakdown in the CB's, or pull back the number 10? Is there a team out there who could use it and still play unpredictable, attacking football?
11.08.2009
FeriAtsTo stop a 4-2-3-1 team at its tracks, you have to interfere with the pass flow first. So I like the idea of having three defensive midfields.
However, the way you placed them seems a bit odd to me. Maybe because I haven't seen such a layout in practice before.
12.08.2009
SpaceGhostThe defensive mids could be anything really - defensive forwards (like ManU's Park), any attacking mid with a goodwill deficit, or one of those "defensively suspect" attacking fullbacks. I only say DM's because they seem a more economical choice.
The point is, what happens when you start marking the DM's of the opponent who plays 4-2-3-1 (or 4-2-2-2)? And at the same time, put two wing forwards deep and wide to both harrass the fullbacks during transition into attack and to freeze them in the back line and think twice about bombing forward. Finally, if your wing forwards are going to provide depth and set the back line of the opponents defense, why not drop the center forward and replace him with a mediapunta who sits in the hole and helps the two advanced destroyers overwhelm the opponents DM's?
This way you have numerical equality everywhere but 3 places. In the center of the back line you have numerical superiority 2-1; in the "hole" you have numerical superiority 3-2; in the opponents center back you have numerical inferiority 2-0. But, the CB's can't come off their line for multiple reasons, so they have two players tied up in an uncontested area, at least uncontested until you decide to have a player run at them with pace, and that player could be any one of 5 from various directions.
12.08.2009
jmancubsfanI have to wonder if the two center backs and the entire back line altogether would stay back in that uncontested area as you say if they could just move up and help apply pressure in the crowded midfield.
16.08.2009
RoberticusThis isn't unlike Guardiola's set-up for Barça's two most important games of last year; vs Madrid and United in May.
Messi as a false centre-forward who drops deeper to link up with Xavi and Iniesta, often leaving the opposing centre-backs marking thin air. Etoo and Henry out wide.
The idea in fact came from Cruyff who sometimes used to use Laudrup (a No.10) as the false 9, whenever he wanted to add variety to his 4-3-3/3-4-3 system (accordingly, the real centre forward would start from the wing, either Salinas or later Stoichkov).
Interestingly, Cruyff appeared on Catalan TV about two years ago with a tactics board, and explained this tactic works best when playing against two big centrebacks who aren't the greatest technically nor blessed for pace.
16.08.2009
RoberticusThis would appear to support your argument SpaceGhost, and I too have long thought that fewer fixed forwards (as seen in Man U and Romas 4-2-4-0 and 4-3-3-0 formations from 07-08) would be the future tactically.
Most centrebacks will be unwilling to leave the line because either their technique or pace is deficient (which is why Guardiola envisages a team where all the centre backs are de facto sweepers). Look what happened to slow defenders like Metzelder and Vidic when faced with this system, they couldn't track the runners from Barca's midfield
16.08.2009
RoberticusAlso, historically there is a precedent for the positioning of your nominal centre-forward.
The attacking half of the 50s Hungary team was pretty much like yours, at least in terms of shape and movement (they didn't use a back four). Puskas and Koscis were creative inside-frwards and therefore nowhere near as industrious as say your hypothetical Parks in this band. But when No.9 Hidegkuti dropped deep, any one of the inside and outside fwds from the "U" shape would run in to fill the vacated space. Puskas and Koscis did this to such an extent that they came to be considered almost as auxiliary strike partners and hence the common perception of Hungary playing a front four.
16.08.2009
SpaceGhostjmancubsfan - They could step up, but it would be risky, especially if they have CB's that are the bigger, slower variety, like Roberticus is referring to when he mentions comments by Guardiola and Cruyff. It is also important to consider WHEN they would step up. Let's think about what happens if we have possession.
At this point most teams will be giving ground in general to limit the space between their backline and their keeper (so that our speedy wingers can't run on to a through ball past their slow CB's). This means that the attacking team can define the relative distance between their attacking players and the opposition CB's. If they set a high back line, this creates problems if they lack pace (speedy wingers and AM run past them). If they have one CB step forward and one stay behind (which is probably what happens) then they either open big spaces between the fullbacks and one remaining CB, or the fullbacks have to tuck in (probably what happens) and then we open space for the wingers to attack the flank. Also, their shape is now changed from a 4-2-3-1 to a 3-3-3-1 (is Herrera still around?) so if they regain possession their outlets from the back are in the wrong places.
17.08.2009
SpaceGhostAlso, if they bring their back four up to the same depth as their DM's, then again they have lost their shape, and the defensive principal of cover that the zonal defense relies on has been destroyed. There is no 2nd defender if everyone is on the same line as the ball.
But the primary motivation for drawing this formation was to consider how it would create problems for the opposition immediately after they regain possession. And once they have possession, they will not be moving CB's up into the hole to help the DM's win their battle (at least not both of them).
17.08.2009
SpaceGhostThought about what I wrote, "one CB step forward and one stay behind (which is probably what happens)," and I don't think that is what happens. Most back lines are two well drilled to maintain the four man line and all move with close proximity. They would only break the line if a man were dribbling at them uncovered close to their eighteen (which is still a very likely scenario with this formation).
@ Roberticus: Any thoughts on the use of destructive, tackling players deployed in the opponents half? My thought is they would attack the DM's of a 4-2-3-1 when possession is lost, and when in possession sit as an offensive outlet for redirection and be positioned for immediate pressure on the DM's when possession is lost. And then track fullbacks or DM's if/when they move forward into attack. Probably wouldn't be "joga bonito" but would probably contribute to more chances on goal with loss of possession in the defense.
Also, by forcing the ball back to the CB's a team could be selective with ultra-aggressive pressing and look for perfect opportunities to jump the pass from the fullback to a CB when the fullbacks flank outlets are cutoff by the winger and advanced destroyer combo.
Maybe this is the beginning of the return of box-to-box mid's? It doees seem like everything old is eventually new again . . .
18.08.2009
willieI just want to say, I love hearing all these different ideas & suggestions on tactics, its so interesting & educational lol. Now, I have always pondered the same question, & now I feel, it's ultimately the players. I know the modern game relies on tactics & physical presence, but I believe in the old ways, fluid movement of the ball dictating pace. So, my preference is & will always be the traditional game. I love the 4-3-1-2 & think it could be overcome a
4-2-3-1 when properly played. When in possession & attack, it turns into a 2-4-2-1 ( fullbacks move up & striker comes down). But in the end, it's the players who must overcome what I call "negative futbol".
19.08.2009
Roberticus..."Any thoughts on the use of destructive, tackling players deployed in the opponents half?"
Well, I don't think you need overtly destructive players. The limit I would accept would be one box-to-box battler like Park.
Think about Chelsea's old 4-1-4-1 when not in posession...Ballack and Lampard would be my cut-off point for brawn vs skill. And even in a side like Barca, you could have maybe Keita to add steel by pressing high up the opponents half.
But definitely not two Keitas!
20.08.2009
RoberticusRE: box-to-box mids, in any case, the modern full-backs have become this age's box-to-box player. Look what happens when Alves, Bosingwa, Evra etc. launch a diagonal run through the middle..
We have these guys, so why bother further populating the midfield with box-to-box players who when cluterring the midfield become 7/10 in everything and 10/10 in nothing differential.
20.08.2009
ArasYea It's True.
Galatasaray Use This Formation Last Year On Super League.
We Mean It : 4-6-0 :)
If U Got Dribbler, Finisher AMR-AML Players and Good Shooter Midfielders u can use this formation.
30.08.2009
SpaceGhostWould never suggest this for a Barca. Was mostly thinking about what a team that couldn't afford that kind of talent could do tactically to mitigate the skill differences and choose where the 1 vs. 1 battles take place.
Point taken on full-backs being de facto box-to-box players. Never thought of it that way though before now.
Maybe we will see CB's being double sweepers. Could be the "Metodo" will return, with 2-3-2-3 where the back 2 are double sweeper. It would make for convenient passings lanes when transitioning back out into attack . . .
02.09.2009
