The Great Formation Debate

[The Boys from Up the Hill]

Lots of people seem to have questioned Wilder's choice of formation lately, but we've been given this great article defending Wilder's choice of 4-3-3.

http&#58//theboysfromupthehill&#46blogs ... rd&#46html

So what does everyone think? Is 4-3-3 the right choice or would you rather something else?

[Paul Cooper]

To me in order to play 4 3 3 the two wide men up front can not be simply converted centre forwards.

So Midson and Smalley for example can not be at their best when playing off Constable in a 4 3 3. The success in the past 2 games seems to have co incided with the defence suddenly getting it's act together as well as Potter coming alive and Hall fitting into the formation seamlessly. I thterefore think that it has to be Smalley OR Constable and they should not be in the same team other than if CW reverts to 4 4 2 which he does sometimes.

The other key issue is the full backs which can be exposed against good quality wing players from the other team, but at the same time, they are required (especially at home) to provide width going forwards. In my view Davis and Batt are far more likely to do this and therefore open up the other teams defence.

Many of the top teams now seem to play in a 4 3 3 or 4 2 3 1 formation and the traditional 4 4 2 is favoured less. My personal view is that it is the players attitude and the instructions rather than the formation which matters. Atkins' 5 3 2 was horrible because the full backs didn't get forward as much as they should have done and we were negative. Under 4 3 3 or 4 4 2 if we go out with the intention of attacking teams and getting players forward, then we can score goals.

[GodalmingYellow]

Lots of people seem to have questioned Wilder's choice of formation lately, but we've been given this great article defending Wilder's choice of 4-3-3.

http&#58//theboysfromupthehill&#46blogs ... rd&#46html

So what does everyone think? Is 4-3-3 the right choice or would you rather something else?

Far too many inherent and inaccurate assertions in that blog post. Who says 4-4-2 is used to get an extra striker int he box? Who says you can match up man for man against 3-5-2 or 4-5-1. All nonsense and if I could be bothered to read it in detail I could spend pages giving the alter arguments.

The two main advantages of 4-4-2, are the creation of extra width without loss of defensive capability, and strikers working much closer together and so forming a workable partnership. No other formation gives both these advantages.

Any formation with 3 up front means strikers playing out of position and too far apart. Any formation with 3 in the middle gives lack of width. Any formation with 5 in the middle means loss of defensive capability or loss of striking abiility or both.

[The Boys from Up the Hill]

To me in order to play 4 3 3 the two wide men up front can not be simply converted centre forwards.

So Midson and Smalley for example can not be at their best when playing off Constable in a 4 3 3. The success in the past 2 games seems to have co incided with the defence suddenly getting it's act together as well as Potter coming alive and Hall fitting into the formation seamlessly. I thterefore think that it has to be Smalley OR Constable and they should not be in the same team other than if CW reverts to 4 4 2 which he does sometimes.

Have to agree with you there, it's no coincidence that Midson and Green have started scoring for others clubs now they're no longer being forced to play wide in a 4-3-3. I think Wilder's recent signings probably recognise this as well, Potter's found a bit of form out wide and Hall so far looks to be an inspired signing.

The one player who does stand out is Tom Craddock, who was played out wide a lot last season and he still seemed to find the net quite regularly.

[The Boys from Up the Hill]

Lots of people seem to have questioned Wilder's choice of formation lately, but we've been given this great article defending Wilder's choice of 4-3-3.

http&#58//theboysfromupthehill&#46blogs ... rd&#46html

So what does everyone think? Is 4-3-3 the right choice or would you rather something else?

Far too many inherent and inaccurate assertions in that blog post. Who says 4-4-2 is used to get an extra striker int he box? Who says you can match up man for man against 3-5-2 or 4-5-1. All nonsense and if I could be bothered to read it in detail I could spend pages giving the alter arguments.

The two main advantages of 4-4-2, are the creation of extra width without loss of defensive capability, and strikers working much closer together and so forming a workable partnership. No other formation gives both these advantages.

Any formation with 3 up front means strikers playing out of position and too far apart. Any formation with 3 in the middle gives lack of width. Any formation with 5 in the middle means loss of defensive capability or loss of striking abiility or both.

GY, you make some good points. And if you find the time to read the article in detail and still find yourself disagreeing with most of it, I'd be happy to publish a response if you'd like to write one.

[Baboo]

I've often thought that there's a huge amount of debate to be had with regard to formations. I'd even been thinking of whacking my view down in &quotThe Fan's View&quot on this topic.

Have not got time to go through the whole thing now but for starters I can't agree with

&quotOne of the key strengths in the 4-3-3 formation is the central midfield three. An initial strength, is that this formation is never short of numbers in the midfield. If the opponent plays a 4-4-2 formation, United have a midfield three to cope with the opposition's two central midfielders. If the opponent plays with a 4-5-1 or a 3-5-2, Oxford's midfield can match up on a man to man basis. If the players in the system organise themselves efficiently, the midfield should not be overrun.&quot

A lot of the &quotnever short of numbers&quot thing depends on how quick and fit your (central) midfielders are. If player x is twice as quick as player y he will be able to close down and exploit space - provided he's not a headless chicken - much more effectively than player y.

And how on earth can a midfield 3 &quotmatch up on a man to man&quot basis with a midfield 5 ? (Is that Maths &quotA Level&quot - I have only got O level)

[Ancient Colin]

Presumably the idea is that the full backs pick up the two wide players in the 5. The evidence of our eyes is that we do fairly frequently get over-run in midfield, but that quite often that's linked to substitutions that put on more attacking players who are more likely to get stuck upfield?

For me, the main problem is that with a tight middle three, when the fullbacks push forward, there's far too often a big hole behind them. My understanding is that there should be a rotation, a bit like in ice hockey formations, or a drift to counter that, but it doesn't seem to happen. Maybe too many of the players have been drilled into a more rigid 4-4-2 and it just isn't instinctive to them to do that cover job. Some of the players that have come down from the higher leagues seem to be more natural at it?


As said above, a formation requires the appropriate players. It's not ideal having a central striker who doesn't seem to be able to trap the ball at the moment, never mind hold it up ...

Leaving aside GY's rather intemperate dismissal of the blogpost, there has to be a reason why so many leading sides at club and international level have abandoned 4-4-2 ... so if it does have the benefits claimed it must have significant flaws too.

[Baboo]

Presumably the idea is that the full backs pick up the two wide players in the 5.

Don't the full backs always pick up the wide players. And if they have to venture into midfield to do so wouldn't we then be playing 2-5-3 (??)

Liquid football, that's the name of the game.

[x586]

Until United visit the East Midlands (and get close enough for a &quotday out&quot (Macclesfield)) they remain unseen this season by me. Please then forgive my likely ignorance.

When Oxford played Burton last season (FAC1), it looked like Wilder was experimenting with a 'WM' formation - one that appeared to cause confusion as the left wing-back in the W was invading the space of the left-midfielder in the M. It was the only time I've perceived a tactic I used in Football Manager in the real game. But - equally it might have been 3133 and I'm an idiot ...

Has this been dusted off again, and is the 433 more of a WM in actuality?

[Kernow Yellow]

Atkins' 5 3 2 was horrible because the full backs didn't get forward as much as they should have done and we were negative.

I was thinking about this recently. Atkins' full backs were of the Robinson/Stockley mould. That formation with Batt and Davis as 'wingbacks' would be a different proposition altogether. But then there wouldn't be much room for the Potters/Halls of this world.

***

I don't like the 4-3-3 we played last year with three centre forwards, as there's no real width and two of them are out of position. And for home games I wouldn't like a Beano-Potter-Hall type combination up front, as it leaves a shortage of target men in the box when the nippy players do get out wide and put crosses in. Though I think that kind of set-up has its merits away from home when we're not expected to make all the running and break down stubborn defensive opposition (as the last couple of games appear to have vindicated).

Of course, if we're going to continue to score Barcelona-esque goals with deft flicks and chips all over the park, then it will all be fine. But I have a feeling that might not work against eg Accrington's parked bus, and I'd rather see players like Potter and Hall given two strikers to aim at in the box. But that seems to be a very old-fashioned way of approaching things these days, so what do I know?

[GodalmingYellow]

Presumably the idea is that the full backs pick up the two wide players in the 5. The evidence of our eyes is that we do fairly frequently get over-run in midfield, but that quite often that's linked to substitutions that put on more attacking players who are more likely to get stuck upfield?

For me, the main problem is that with a tight middle three, when the fullbacks push forward, there's far too often a big hole behind them. My understanding is that there should be a rotation, a bit like in ice hockey formations, or a drift to counter that, but it doesn't seem to happen. Maybe too many of the players have been drilled into a more rigid 4-4-2 and it just isn't instinctive to them to do that cover job. Some of the players that have come down from the higher leagues seem to be more natural at it?


As said above, a formation requires the appropriate players. It's not ideal having a central striker who doesn't seem to be able to trap the ball at the moment, never mind hold it up ...

Leaving aside GY's rather intemperate dismissal of the blogpost, there has to be a reason why so many leading sides at club and international level have abandoned 4-4-2 ... so if it does have the benefits claimed it must have significant flaws too.

Rather intemperate? You read far too much into far too few words and extrapolate a long way beyond a rational conclusion as a result.

And if you leave it aside, why mention it?

Wierd.

Getting back to the matter in hand, I'll ry to put a few lucid thoughts together BFUTH if I get a chance to read the whole blog. That's if grumpy sensitive Colin doesn't mind of course...

[GodalmingYellow]

Atkins' 5 3 2 was horrible because the full backs didn't get forward as much as they should have done and we were negative.

I was thinking about this recently. Atkins' full backs were of the Robinson/Stockley mould. That formation with Batt and Davis as 'wingbacks' would be a different proposition altogether. But then there wouldn't be much room for the Potters/Halls of this world.

***

I don't like the 4-3-3 we played last year with three centre forwards, as there's no real width and two of them are out of position. And for home games I wouldn't like a Beano-Potter-Hall type combination up front, as it leaves a shortage of target men in the box when the nippy players do get out wide and put crosses in. Though I think that kind of set-up has its merits away from home when we're not expected to make all the running and break down stubborn defensive opposition (as the last couple of games appear to have vindicated).

Of course, if we're going to continue to score Barcelona-esque goals with deft flicks and chips all over the park, then it will all be fine. But I have a feeling that might not work against eg Accrington's parked bus, and I'd rather see players like Potter and Hall given two strikers to aim at in the box. But that seems to be a very old-fashioned way of approaching things these days, so what do I know?

I kind of agree about Atkins. His 5-3-2 was in effect a flat back 5, rather than the wing back system that 5-3-2 was supposed to bring.

Denis Smith knew how to produce decent 4-4-2 systems. The key is in not allowing both your wide men to push on too far at the same time, and having one defensive and one creative in central midfield.

Wilders 4-3-3 is only a short hop away from a Smith 4-4-2. play Potter and Payne wide, bring the 2 remaining strikers together, and hey presto. Well almost. Not sure Payne could be converted into a wide man, but it's not that far apart.

[ty cobb]

Atkins' 5 3 2 was horrible because the full backs didn't get forward as much as they should have done and we were negative.

I was thinking about this recently. Atkins' full backs were of the Robinson/Stockley mould. That formation with Batt and Davis as 'wingbacks' would be a different proposition altogether. But then there wouldn't be much room for the Potters/Halls of this world.

***

I don't like the 4-3-3 we played last year with three centre forwards, as there's no real width and two of them are out of position. And for home games I wouldn't like a Beano-Potter-Hall type combination up front, as it leaves a shortage of target men in the box when the nippy players do get out wide and put crosses in. Though I think that kind of set-up has its merits away from home when we're not expected to make all the running and break down stubborn defensive opposition (as the last couple of games appear to have vindicated).

Of course, if we're going to continue to score Barcelona-esque goals with deft flicks and chips all over the park, then it will all be fine. But I have a feeling that might not work against eg Accrington's parked bus, and I'd rather see players like Potter and Hall given two strikers to aim at in the box. But that seems to be a very old-fashioned way of approaching things these days, so what do I know?

I kind of agree about Atkins. His 5-3-2 was in effect a flat back 5, rather than the wing back system that 5-3-2 was supposed to bring.

Denis Smith knew how to produce decent 4-4-2 systems. The key is in not allowing both your wide men to push on too far at the same time, and having one defensive and one creative in central midfield.

Wilders 4-3-3 is only a short hop away from a Smith 4-4-2. play Potter and Payne wide, bring the 2 remaining strikers together, and hey presto. Well almost. Not sure Payne could be converted into a wide man, but it's not that far apart.

So who was the creative one from David Smith and Martin Gray?

[Ancient Colin]

Ah, better rise to the bait, then

Rather intemperate? You read far too much into far too few words and extrapolate a long way beyond a rational conclusion as a result.

Far too many inherent and inaccurate assertions in that blog post ... All nonsense and if I could be bothered to read it in detail I could spend pages ...

Let the world judge! Anyway, always good to have some cantankerous outbursts.


For me, most of this is about the ability of players to react to particular formations. In principle, I think that 4-3-3 does give more attacking options provided that they can think in attacking combinations and are fit enough ... as I understand it, the principle is that if the fullback pushes right on, then his wide midfield player should come behind him to provide an outlet (and a defensive back up for when he shanks the ball to the nearest defender), the centre backs shift across to close the loop and, critically, the far side front player drops back and in slightly too. It should also allow you to press further up the field. I am not sure that rotation really works if you are employing a holding defensive midfielder - which really goes back to the diamond midfield - which is no criticism of McLaren. Or if your newly arrived right back has the speed of a sleepy sloth.

Looking at the premiership formations at the weekend, seemed like many of the leading sides were playing 4-2-3-1?

[slappy]

Seems a bit simplistic to just say Which is Right?
Surely it depends on the players available, the opposition, the width of the pitch and surface quality.