What formation do you prefer?

[perseus]

For home matches mostly, not necessarily for tricky away fixtures.

Ipswich Town vs Brighton & Hove Albion in The Championship 2011/2012

 

[perseus]

Ees complicated.

See

The Question: is the box-to-box midfielder dead? | Sport | guardian.co.uk

However, I am not following this lead. It is just that I thought the best domestic teams I have seen were Liverpool with Ray Kennedy and Souness, Manchester United with Bryan Robson and to a lesser extent the role of Trevor Brooking for West Ham. These are box-to-box midfielders in a 4-3-3 for League matches. Nowadays, the best player is Frank Lampard.

Also, I not believe in the universality of total football: some players are specialists. Too many in a team and you may have weaknesses.

But if we have not got the players, we can't play it. I think unless you have the right "presence" in midfield, the opposition can sus the king pin and neutralise the effect. The opponents can then gain possession and play a long ball to the channels.

If the players behind the main striker are of genuine quality, the formation can be a dream for a striker as he should receive plenty of balls into the penalty area.
The 4-2-3-1 formation can accommodate a big target man who can hold the ball up and lay it off for the oncoming midfielders, or a more nimble striker capable of running on to balls and finishing chances. Orange text from the 4-2-3-1 page.

If you click on the 4-2-3-1 text and other bold text it links into a simplified tactical view. However, the 4-3-3 is how it may be played now, not the classic 4-3-3.

soccer formations - About.com : World Soccer

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

How about:

4-1-2-1-2

Bridcutt

Dicker Harley

Vicente

Barnes CMS

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I prefer the old 2-3-5 W formation we used to play at school.

 

[perseus]

I prefer the old 2-3-5 W formation we used to play at school.

Played 4-2-4 at one of my schools. Mike Smith (Ex-QPR Reserves) was Coach.

While the quality of player at a coach’s disposal is the fundamental factor in how a team performs, soccer formations can also have a decisive influence on the course of a game. Some professional coaches swear by particular formations, with Fabio Capello known as a 4-4-2 man, Jose Mourinho an advocate of the 4-3-3 and Rafael Benitez a believer in the 4-2-3-1. Here is a look at five popular formations in modern day soccer.

A Guide to Soccer Formations - Football Formations - Different Soccer Formations

 

[Lush]

I prefer the one that wins the match.

 

[Triggaaar]

How about:

4-1-2-1-2

No wingers! Don't let Gus hear you.

 

[We're the Stripes]

4-3-3 was pretty effective last season.

Bridcutt
Dicker---Bennett
-------------------
Barnes-----Wood
Murray​

Remember we had it for a run of games around the time of the 4-2 away at Bristol Rovers. Never seemed to struggle for chances, but I'm not sure we'd get away with a midfield like that in this division (not least because we are now Bennett-less).

I quite like the look of the 4-2-3-1:

Bridcutt--Dicker
Buckley--Vicente--Noone
-----------CMS------------​

Preferably with this midfield enforcer Gus is after next to Liam. Hoskins & LuaLua also capable to play in that wide-left forward role that Noone would occupy. Possible doubts over whether CMS can operate as a lone striker, but he should get some decent service from that lot. I'd like to see that at home, anyway.

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

I like the 3-5-2 but you need two wide guys with bags of energy and defensive nous

 

[perseus]

I prefer the 4-3-3 classic style with a diagonal box-to-box midfielder, but unless your central midfielder is a good bit ahead of the opposition, it simply won't work as the other side will put four in midfield and outnumber you.

The classic 4-3-3 (my interpretation) employs not only the central midfielder of superior quality, but a left winger and an overlapping right back. If one of the central defenders is "Lawrenson" class, you might be able to employ this system in the Championship. This system has been described on Radio Sussex as lob-sided. Nothing wrong in this as it is not practical to play on two wings at the same time.

However, even Busquets for Barcelona rarely turns up in the opponents penalty area. So it is not box-to-box, but a central midfielder feeding the forwards. If you do not have one central midfielder good enough, it usually ends up something like 4-4-2 anyhow.

4-3-3 can lose to weaker teams though, when Norway beat Brazil in a World Cup. The opposition pump long balls into the channels. The same happens with 4-2-3-1 although the two holding midfielders are meant to stop this.

My main objection with 4-2-3-1 is that the team is divided into four sections which results in too slow play. If both teams play 4-4-2 with two strings of four at the back, the football can be boring as the teams stifle each other.

Nowadays, good teams fluctuate between the systems according to the opposition and the score.

 

[lichfield seagulls]

Would like us to try a 5-3-2 ie with full backs as wing backs.

Ankers

Greer-al bad-Dunk
colly painter
Buckley Bridcutt nooney
cms Barnes

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I like the formation we've been playing, with Bridcutt holding, one wide player and one midfielder playing just behind the front man - and one striker pulling out wide when defending. I just think we need someone who can hold the ball up as the main striker, CMS doing the Barnes role, and I would like to see Noone tried in Bennetts role.

 

[perseus]

Actually, I do not like 4-2-3-1 at all. The players are strung out leaving big gaps, it tends to be narrow, the team is in trouble if any of the four at the front lose the ball suddenly, the lonely "target man" gets get caught offside. I like 3-5-2 even less as the midfield gets over crowded and if the players are not totally useless four of them should be able to cover the width of the pitch. 4-5-1 is preferred as one of the midfielders can take turns to push forward and support the striker.

As for the Albion, it was all set up for a classic 4-3-3 like last year. But the departures of Murray and Elliott mucked it all up. It was always going to be difficult because of the better opposition. All formations have their counter policies.

Four at the back is standard nowadays but there is the old system I like called the "the attacking centre half system" where there is five at the back but one of the powerful centre-backs can move into midfield and into the opposing box, especially for corners.

 

[Yoda]

Actually, I do not like 4-2-3-1 at all. The players are strung out leaving big gaps, it tends to be narrow, the team is in trouble if any of the four at the front lose the ball suddenly, the lonely "target man" gets get caught offside. I like 3-5-2 even less as the midfield gets over crowded and if the players are not totally useless four of them should be able to cover the width of the pitch. 4-5-1 is preferred as one of the midfielders can take turns to push forward and support the striker.

As for the Albion, it was all set up for a classic 4-3-3 like last year. But the departures of Murray and Elliott mucked it all up. It was always going to be difficult because of the better opposition. All formations have their counter policies.

Four at the back is standard nowadays but there is the old system I like called the "the attacking centre half system" where there is five at the back but one of the powerful centre-backs can move into midfield and into the opposing box, especially for corners.

I thought it worked well enough in the second half against Liverpool.

 

[perseus]

I thought it worked well enough in the second half against Liverpool.

It worked well against Doncaster as well. I am not so sure this was the system we played against Liverpool though?

It make sense when chasing the game and with Noone on the pitch. With Noone and Buckley it was devastating against Doncaster. But Doncaster are not very good.

 

[kevtherev]

I loved the system England played in euro 96, weather its just the memories or the age I was at the time (25) but I thought it was the best England team I've ever seen.
Flat back four (Neville, Pearce, Adams, Southgate) holding midfielder (Ince) and the other five Anderton, Gazza, McManaman, Shearer, Sheringham...I know there was a few changes in personal but the system stayed the same... I think we got the personal to play that system atm, with Vicente in the Gazza role.

 

[The Terminator]

good old fashioned 4-4-2 for me

 

[perseus]

I think the current Albion squad leads to 4-4-2.

It is not my favourite though. 4-3-3 is, but our players are not good enough.

Top 25

Ankergren
Calderón El-Abd Vincelot Painter
Buckley Bridcutt Navarro Vicente
Mackail-Smith Barnes

Subs: Greer, Cook, Brezovan, Lua lua, Sparrow
Travelling non-subs: Noone, Dunk, Hoskins, Dicker
Five Reserves: Harley, Poke, Barker, Elphick, Bergkamp

 

[shaolinpunk]

The flying V

 

[Perkino]

I like having 2 CB's and 2 ST's. It's also more intersting to see Lualua and Noone on the pitch rather than Navarro and Dicker.

442 with 2 very wide wingers will do me every day