Formation (association football)


Formation (association football)

In association football, the formation describes how the players in a team are positioned on the pitch. Different formations can be used depending on whether a team wishes to play more attacking or defensive football.

Formations are used in both professional and amateur football matches. In amateur matches, however, these tactics are sometimes adhered to less strictly due to the lesser significance of the occasion. Skill and discipline on behalf of the players is also needed to effectively carry out a given formation in professional football. Formations need to be chosen bearing in mind which players are available. Some of the formations below were created to address deficits or strengths in different types of players.

Contents

Nomenclature

Formations are described by categorising the players (not including the goalkeeper) according to their positioning along (not across) the pitch, with the more defensive players given first. For example, 4-4-2 means four defenders, four midfielders, and two forwards.

Traditionally those within the same category (for example the 4 midfielders in 4-4-2) would generally play as a fairly flat line across the pitch, with those out wide often playing in a slightly more advanced position. In many modern formations this is not the case, which has led to some analysts splitting the categories in two separate bands, leading to four or even five numbered formations. A common example is 4-2-1-3, where the midfielders are split into two defensive and one offensive player; as such this formation can be considered a kind of 4-3-3.

The numbering system was not present until the 4–2–4 system was developed in the 1950s.

Choice and uses of formations

The choice of formation is often related to the type of players available to the coach.

  • Narrow formations. Teams with a surfeit of central midfielders, or teams who attack best through the centre, may choose to adopt narrow formations such as the 4–1–2–1–2 or the 4–3–2–1 which allow teams to field up to four or five central midfielders in the team. Narrow formations however depend on the full backs (the flank players in the "4") to provide width and to advance upfield as frequently as possible to supplement the attack in wide areas.
  • Wide formations. Teams with a surfeit of forwards and wingers may choose to adopt formations such as 4–3–2–1, 3–5–2 and 4–3–3, which commit forwards and wingers high up the pitch. Wide formations allow the attacking team to stretch play and cause the defending team to cover more ground.

Teams may change formations during a game to aid their cause:

  • Change to attacking formations. When chasing a game for a desirable result, teams tend to sacrifice a defensive player or a midfield player for a forward in order to chase a result. An example of such a change is a change from 4–5–1 to 4–4–2, 3–5–2 to 3–4–3, or even 5–3–2 to 4–3–3.
  • Change to defensive formations. When a team is in the lead, or wishes to protect the scoreline of a game, the coach may choose to revert to a more defensive structure by removing a forward for a more defensive player. The extra player in defence or midfield adds solidity by giving the team more legs to chase opponents and recover possession. An example of such a change is a change from 4–4–2 to 5–3–2, 3–5–2 to 4–5–1, or even 4–4–2 to 5–4–1.

Formations can be deceptive in analysing a particular team's style of play. For instance, a team that plays a nominally attacking 4–3–3 formation can quickly revert to a 4–5–1 if a coach instructs two of the three forwards to track back in midfield.

Early days

In the football matches of the 19th century defensive football was not played, and the line-ups reflected the all-attacking nature of these games.

In the first international game, Scotland against England on 30 November 1872, England played with seven or eight forwards in a 1–1–8 or 1–2–7 formation, and Scotland with six, in a 2–2–6 formation. For England, one player would remain in defence, picking up loose balls, and one or two players would hang around midfield and kick the ball upfield for the other players to chase. The English style of play at the time was all about individual excellence and English players were renowned for their dribbling skills. Players would attempt to take the ball forward as far as possible and only when they could proceed no further, would they kick it ahead for someone else to chase. Scotland surprised England by actually passing the ball among players. The Scottish outfield players were organised into pairs and each player would always attempt to pass the ball to his assigned partner. Ironically, with so much attention given to attacking play, the game ended in a 0–0 draw.

Classic formations

2–3–5 (Pyramid)

The Pyramid formation

The first long-term successful formation was first recorded in 1880.[1] However, in "Association Football" published by Caxton in 1960, the following appears in Vol II, page 432: "Wrexham ... the first winner of the Welsh Cup in 1877 ... for the first time certainly in Wales and probably in Britain, a team played three half backs and five forwards ..."

The 2–3–5 was originally known as the "Pyramid", with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. By the 1890s, it was the standard formation in England and had spread all over the world. With some variations, it was used by most top level teams up to the 1940s.

For the first time, a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (fullbacks), would watch out for the opponent's wingers (the outside players in the attacking line), while the midfielders (halfbacks) would watch for the other three forwards.

The centre halfback had a key role in both helping to organize the team's attack and marking the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

It was this formation which gave rise to the convention of shirt numbers.[2]

Danubian School

The Danubian School of football is a modification of the 2–3–5 formation as played by the Austrians, Czechs, and Hungarians in the 1920s, and taken to its peak by the Austrians in the 1930s. It relied on short-passing and individual skills.

Metodo (2–3–2–3)

Metodo formation

The Metodo was devised by Vittorio Pozzo, coach of the Italian national team in the 1930s.[3] It was a derivation of the Danubian School. The system was based on the 2–3–5 formation, Pozzo realized that his halfbacks would need some more support in order to be superior to the opponents' midfield, so he pulled two of the forwards to just in front of midfield, creating a 2–3–2–3 formation. This created a stronger defence than previous systems, as well as allowing effective counterattacks. The Italian national team won back-to-back World Cups in 1934 and 1938 using this system. Some say that Pep Guardiola's Barcelona is using a modern version of this formation.[4]

WM

WM formation

The WM system was created in the mid-1920s by Herbert Chapman of Arsenal to counter a change in the offside law in 1925. The change had reduced the number of opposition players that attackers needed between themselves and the goal-line from three to two. This led to the introduction of a centre-back to stop the opposing centre-forward, and tried to balance defensive and offensive playing. The formation became so successful that by the late-1930s most English clubs had adopted the WM. Retrospectively, the WM has either been described as a 3–2–5 or as a 3–4–3, or more precisely a 3–2–2–3 reflecting the letters which symbolised it.

WW

The WW was a development of the WM created by the Hungarian coach Márton Bukovi who turned the 3–2–5 WM "upside down".[5] The lack of an effective centre-forward in his team necessitated moving this player back to midfield to create a playmaker, with a midfielder instructed to focus on defence. This created a 3–2–1–4, which morphed into a 3–2–3–2 when the team lost possession, and was described by some as a kind of genetic link between the WM and the 4–2–4. This formation was successfully used by fellow countryman Gusztáv Sebes in the Hungarian national team of the early 1950s.

3–3–4

The 3–3–4 formation was similar to the WW, with the notable exception of having an inside-forward (as opposed to centre-forward) deployed as a midfield schemer alongside the two wing-halves. This formation would be commonplace during the 1950s and early 1960s. One of the best exponents of the system was the Tottenham Hotspur double-winning side of 1961, which deployed a midfield of Danny Blanchflower, John White and Dave Mackay. FC Porto won the 2005–06 Portuguese national championship using this unusual formation under manager Co Adriaanse.

4–2–4

The 4–2–4 formation

The 4–2–4 formation attempts to combine a strong attack with a strong defence, and was conceived as a reaction to WM's stiffness. It could also be considered a further development of the WW. The 4–2–4 was the first formation to be described using numbers.

While the initial developments leading to the 4–2–4 were devised by Márton Bukovi, the credit for creating the 4–2–4 lies with two different people: Flávio Costa, the Brazilian national coach in the early 1950s, as well as another Hungarian Béla Guttman. These tactics seemed to be developed independently, with the Brazilians discussing these ideas while the Hungarians seemed to be putting them into motion.[5][6][7] The fully developed 4–2–4 was only "perfected" in Brazil, however, in the late 1950s.

Costa published his ideas, the "diagonal system", in the Brazilian newspaper O Cruzeiro, using schematics as the ones used here and, for the first time ever, the formation description by numbers as used in this article.[6] The "diagonal system" was another precursor of the 4–2–4 and was created to spur improvisation in players.

Guttmann himself moved to Brazil later in the 1950s to help develop these tactical ideas using the experience of Hungarian coaches.

The 4–2–4 formation made use of the players' increasing levels of skill and fitness, aiming to effectively use six defenders and six forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks. The fourth defender increased the number of defensive players but mostly allowed them to be closer together, thus enabling effective cooperation among them, the point being that a stronger defence would allow an even stronger attack.

The relatively empty midfield relied on defenders that should now be able not only to steal the ball, but also hold it, pass it or even run with it and start an attack. So this formation required that all players, including defenders, are somehow skillful and with initiative, making it a perfect fit for the Brazilian player's mind. The 4–2–4 needed a high level of tactical awareness, as having only two midfielders could lead to defensive problems. The system was also fluid enough to allow the formation to change throughout play.

4–2–4 was first used with success at club level in Brazil by Palmeiras and Santos, and was used by Brazil in their wins at 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup, both featuring Pelé, and Mário Zagallo, the latter of which played in 1958 and coached in 1970. The formation was quickly adopted throughout the world after the Brazilian success.

Common modern formations

Common modern formations

The following formations are used in modern football. The formations are flexible allowing tailoring to the needs of a team, as well as to the players available. Variations of any given formation include changes in positioning of players, as well as replacement of a traditional defender by a sweeper.

4–3–3

The 4–3–3 was a development of the 4–2–4, and was played by the Brazilian national team in the 1962 World Cup. The extra player in midfield allows a stronger defence, and the midfield could be staggered for different effects. The three midfielders normally play closely together to protect the defence, and move laterally across the field as a coordinated unit. The three forwards split across the field to spread the attack, and may be expected to mark the opposition full-backs as opposed to doubling back to assist their own full-backs, as do the wide midfielders in a 4–4–2. When used from the start of a game, this formation is widely regarded as encouraging expansive play, and should not be confused with the practice of modifying a 4–4–2 by bringing on an extra forward to replace a midfield player when behind in the latter stages of a game.

A staggered 4–3–3 involving a defensive midfielder (usually numbered four or six) and two attacking midfielders (numbered eight and ten) was commonplace in Italy, Argentina, and Uruguay during the 1960s and 1970s. The Italian variety of 4–3–3 was simply a modification of WM, by converting one of the two wing-halves to a libero (sweeper), whereas the Argentine and Uruguayan formations were derived from 2–3–5 and retained the notional attacking centre-half. The national team which made this famous was the Dutch team of the 1974 and 1978 World Cups, even though the team won neither.

In club football, the team that brought this formation to the forefront was the famous Ajax team of the early 1970s, which won three European Cups with Johan Cruyff. Most teams using this formation now use the specialist defensive midfielder; Barcelona, Arsenal, and the England national football team are the most famous recent examples.[8]

4–4–2

This formation was the most common in football in the 1990s and early 2000s, so well known that it has even inspired a magazine title, FourFourTwo. The midfielders are required to work hard to support both the defence and the attack: typically one of the central midfielders is expected to go upfield as often as possible to support the forward pair, while the other will play a "holding role", shielding the defence; the two wide midfield players must move up the flanks to the goal line in attacks and yet also protect the fullback wide defenders.[9][10] On the European level, the major example of a team using a 4–4–2 formation was Milan, trained by Arrigo Sacchi and later Fabio Capello, which won three European Cups, two Intercontinental Cups, and three UEFA Super Cups between 1988 and 1995.[11] Under Milan's example, it became very popular in Italy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

More recently, commentators have noted that at the highest level, the 4–4–2 is being phased out in favour of formations such as the 4–2–3–1.[12] In 2010, none of the winners of the Spanish, English and Italian Leagues, as well as the Champions League, relied on the 4–4–2. Following England's elimination at the 2010 World Cup by a 4–2–3–1 Germany side, England National Team coach Fabio Capello (who was notably successful with the 4–4–2 at Milan in the 1990s) was criticized for playing an "increasingly outdated" 4–4–2 formation, despite the fact that Germany themselves can regularly be seen in versions of the same formation under coach Löw.[13]

4–4–2 diamond or 4–1–2–1–2

The 4–4–2 diamond (also described as 4–1–2–1–2) staggers the midfield. The width in the team has to come from the full-backs pushing forward. The defensive midfielder is sometimes used as a deep lying playmaker. Its most famous example was Carlo Ancelotti's Milan, which won the 2003 UEFA Champions League Final and made Milan runners-up in 2005. Milan was obliged to adopt this formation so as to field talented central midfielder Andrea Pirlo, in a period when the position of offensive midfielder was occupied by Rui Costa and later Kaká.[14] This tactic was gradually abandoned by Milan after Andriy Shevchenko's departure in 2006, progressively adopting a "Christmas Tree" formation.

4–4–1–1

A variation of 4–4–2 with one of the strikers playing "in the hole", or as a "second striker", slightly behind their partner. The second striker is generally a more creative player, the playmaker, who can drop into midfield to pick up the ball before running with it or passing to teammates.[15] This formation has recently been used by Tottenham Hotspur to accommodate Rafael van der Vaart

4-3-1-2

A variation of the 4-3-3 wherein a striker gives way to a Central Attacking Midfielder. This formation is adopted by Massimiliano Allegri for the 2010-2011 Serie A season for A.C Milan. The formation focuses on the attacking midfielder moving play through the center with the strikers on either side. It is a much narrower setup in comparison to the 4-3-3 and works extremely well for a team with smallish strikers like Robinho and Alexandre Pato.

4–3–2–1 (the "Christmas Tree" formation)

The 4–3–2–1, commonly described as the "Christmas Tree" formation, has another forward brought on for a midfielder to play "in the hole", so leaving two forwards slightly behind the most forward striker.

Glenn Hoddle used this formation during his time in charge of the England national football team. Since then the formation has lost its popularity in England.[citation needed] It is however most known for being the formation Carlo Ancelotti utilized on and off during his time as a coach of Milan.

In this approach, the middle of the three central midfielders act as a playmaker while one of the attacking midfielders plays in a free role.

The "Christmas Tree" formation is considered a relatively narrow formation and depends on full-backs to provide presence in wide areas. The formation is also relatively fluid. During open play, one of the side central midfielders may drift to the flank to add additional presence.

5-0-5

A formation that is commonly used by secondary schools in Hong Kong. This formation is used with the 'kick and run' tactics. The first '5' includes five full backs who concentrate on clearing the ball and organise attack by kicking the ball directly into the opponent's box. As only long balls are used, midfielders are not needed to organise the attack. This formation is useful for teams that do not have good skills but have good physical fitness.

5–3–2

This formation has three central defenders (possibly with one acting as a sweeper.) This system is heavily reliant on the wing-backs providing width for the team. The two wide full-backs act as wing-backs. It is their job to work their flank along the full length of the pitch, supporting both the defence and the attack.[16]

5–3–2 with sweeper or 1–4–3–2

A variant of the above, this involves a more withdrawn sweeper, who may join the midfield, and more advanced full-backs.

3–4–3

Using a 3–4–3, the midfielders are expected to split their time between attacking and defending. Having only three dedicated defenders means that if the opposing team breaks through the midfield, they will have a greater chance to score than with a more conventional defensive configuration, such as 4–5–1 or 4–4–2. However, the three forwards allow for a greater concentration on attack. This formation is used by more offensive-minded teams. The formation was famously used by Liverpool under Rafael Benitez during the second half of the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final to come back from a three goal deficit.

3–5–2

This formation is similar to 5–3–2 except that the two wingmen are oriented more towards the attack. Because of this, the central midfielder tends to remain further back in order to help prevent counter-attacks. It differs from the classical 3–5–2 of the WW by having a non-staggered midfield. It was used for the first time at international level by the German coach Franz Beckenbauer.[17] Terry Venables notably used this formation (along with a 4-1-2-1-2) during England's campaign in Euro 96, with Gareth Southgate or Paul Ince acting as defensive midfielder. Many teams also use a central attacking midfielder and two defensive midfielders, so the midfielders form a W formation. The formation was also used by Egypt national football team in their 3 successful 2006 African Nations Cup, 2008 African Nations Cup,2010 African Nations Cup.

3–6–1

This uncommon yet modern formation obviously focuses on ball possession in the midfield. In fact, it is very rare to see it as an initial formation, as it is more useful for maintaining a lead or tie score. Its more common variants are 3–4–2–1 or 3–4–3 diamond, which use two wingbacks. The lone forward must be tactically gifted, not only because he or she focuses on scoring but also on playing the ball back towards the own goal to assist with back passes to his teammates. Once the team is leading the game, there is an even stronger tactical focus on ball control, short passes and running down the clock. On the other hand, when the team is losing, at least one of the playmakers will more frequently play in the edge of the area to add depth to the attack. Guus Hiddink is one of the few coaches who has used this formation, recently for Australia during the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

4–5–1

4–5–1 is a defensive formation; however, if the two midfield wingers play a more attacking role, it can be likened to 4–3–3. The formation can be used to grind out 0–0 draws or preserve a lead, as the packing of the centre midfield makes it difficult for the opposition to build-up play. Because of the "closeness" of the midfield, the opposing team's forwards will often be starved of possession. Due to the lone striker, however, the centre of the midfield does have the responsibility of pushing forward as well. The defensive midfielder will often control the pace of the game.[18]

4–2–3–1

This formation is widely used by Spanish and French sides. While it seems defensive to the eye, it is quite a flexible formation, as both the wide players and the fullbacks join the attack. In defense, this formation is similar to either the 4–5–1 or 4–4–1–1. It is used to maintain possession of the ball and stopping opponent attacks by controlling the midfield area of the field. The lone striker may be very tall and strong to hold the ball up as his midfielders and fullbacks join him in attack. The striker could also be very fast. In these cases, the opponent's defense will be forced to fall back early, thereby leaving space for the offensive central midfielder. This formation is used especially when a playmaker is to be highlighted.

On the international level, this formation is used by the Spanish national team, the Dutch national team and the German national team in an asymmetric shape, and often with strikers as wide midfielders or inverted wingers. The formation is also currently used by Brazil as an alternative to the 4–2–4 formation of late 1950s to 1970. Implemented similarly to how original 4–2–4 was used back then, use of this formation in this manner is very offensive, creating a six-man attack and a six-man defence tactical layout. The front four attackers are composed as wide forwards and playmaker forward in support of a target striker in front.

Mário Zagallo also considers the Brazil 1970 football team he coached as pioneers of 4-2-3-1. [19]

In recent years with fullbacks having ever more increasing attacking roles, the wide players (be they deep lying forwards, inverted wingers, attacking wide midfielders) have been tasked with the defensive responsibility to track and pin down the opposition fullbacks.

In the 2010 World Cup, this formation was successfully used by multiple sides such as Germany, Spain and Ghana.

4–6–0

A highly unconventional formation, the 4–6–0 is an evolution of the 4–2–3–1 in which the centre forward is exchanged for a player who normally plays as a trequartista (that is, in the 'hole'). Suggested as a possible formation for the future of football,[20] the formation sacrifices an out-and-out striker for the tactical advantage of a mobile front four attacking from a position that the opposition defenders cannot mark without being pulled out of position.[21] Owing to the intelligence and pace required by the front four attackers to create and attack any space left by the opposition defenders, however, the formation requires a very skillful and well-drilled front four. Due to these high requirements from the attackers, and the novelty of playing without a proper goalscorer, the formation has been adopted by very few teams, and rarely consistently. As with the development of many formations, the origins and originators are uncertain, but arguably the first reference to a professional team adopting a similar formation is Anghel Iordănescu's Romania in the 1994 World Cup Round of 16, when Romania won 3–2 against Argentina.[22][23] The first team to adopt the formation systematically was Luciano Spalletti's Roma side during the 2005–06 Serie A season, mostly out of necessity as his "strikerless" formation,[24] and then notably by Alex Ferguson's Manchester United side in the 2007–08 Premier League season (who won the Premier League and Champions League that season).[25] The formation was unsuccessfully used by Craig Levein's Scotland vs Czech Republic to widespread condemnation.[26]

5–4–1

This is a particularly defensive formation, with an isolated forward and a packed defence. Again, however, a couple of attacking fullbacks can make this formation resemble something like a 3–6–1.

1–6–3

The 1–6–3 formation was first utilised by Japan at the behest of General Yoshijirō Umezu in 1936. Famously, Japan defeated the heavily favoured Swedish team 3–2 at the 1936 Olympics with the unorthodox 1–6–3 formation, before going down 0-8 to Italy. The formation was dubbed the "kamikaze" formation sometime in the 1960s when former US national team player Walter Bahr used it for a limited number of games as coach of the Philadelphia Spartans to garner greater media and fan attention for the struggling franchise.[27]

4–2–2–2

Often referred to as the "Magic Rectangle", this formation was used most infamously used by Wanderley Luxemburgo during his failed stint at Real Madrid in the latter part of the 2004–05 season and throughout the 2005–06 season. Although this formation was branded "deeply flawed"[28] and "suicidal",[29] Luxemburgo is considered the pioneer of this formation (although it had been used earlier by Brazil in the early 1980s[30][31]), and it was used by former Real Madrid manager Manuel Pellegrini to much appreciation and positive feedback.[32] Pellegrini had also used this formation whilst at Villarreal. The formation is closely related to the 4–2–4 and 4–4–2 diamond. It consists of the standard defensive four (right back, two centre backs, and left back), with two centre midfielders, two support strikers, and two out and out strikers.[33] Similar to the 4–6–0, the formation requires a particularly alert and mobile front four to work successfully. The formation has also been used on occasion by the Brazilian national team,[31][34][35] notably in the 1998 FIFA World Cup final.[36]

3–3–1–3

The 3–3–1–3 was formed of a modification to the Dutch 4–3–3 system Ajax had developed. Coaches like Louis van Gaal and Johan Cruyff brought it to even further attacking extremes and the system eventually found its way to FC Barcelona, where players such as Andrés Iniesta and Xavi were reared into 3–3–1–3's philosophy. It demands intense pressing high up the pitch especially from the forwards, and also an extremely high defensive line, basically playing the whole game inside the opponents' half. It requires incredible technical precision and rapid ball circulation since one slip or dispossession can result in a vulnerable counter-attack situation. Cruyff's variant relied on a flatter and wider midfield, but van Gaal used an offensive midfielder and midfield diamond to link up with the front three more effectively. Marcelo Bielsa has used the system with some success with Argentina's and Chile's national teams and is currently one of the only high-profile managers to use the system in competition today. Diego Simeone had also tried it occasionally at River Plate.

3–3–3-1

The 3-3-3-1 formation was used by Marcelo Bielsa's Chile in the 2010 World Cup, with three centre backs coupled with two wingbacks and a holding player, although a variation is the practical hour glass, using three wide players, a narrow three, a wide three and a centre-forward.[37]

4–2–1–3

The somewhat unconventional 4–2–1–3 formation was developed by José Mourinho during his time at Inter Milan including in the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final. By using captain Javier Zanetti and Esteban Cambiasso in holding midfield positions, he was able to push more players to attack. Wesley Sneijder filled the Trequartista role and the front three operated as three strikers, rather than having a striker and one player on each wing. Using this formation, Mourinho won The Treble with Inter in only his second season in charge of the club. Currently, under Mano Menezes management, the Brazil national football team uses this formation.

As the system becomes more developed and flexible, small groups can be identified to work together in more efficient ways by giving them more specific and different roles within the same lines, and numbers like 4-2-1-3, 4-1-2-3 and even 4-2-2-2 occur.

Many of the current systems have three different formations in each third, defending, middle, and attacking. The goal is to outnumber the other team in all parts of the field but to not completely wear out all the players on the team using it before the full ninety minutes are up. So the one single number is confusing as it may not actually look like a 4-2-1-3 when a team is defending or trying to gain possession. In a positive attack it may look exactly like a 4-2-1-3.

Incomplete formations

When a player is sent-off (i.e. after being shown a red card or taken off the field due to injury or tactical reasons), the teams generally fall back to defensive formations such as 4–4–1 or 5–3–1. Only when facing a negative result will a team with ten players play in a risky attacking formation such as 4–3–2 or even 4–2–3. When more than one player is missing from the team the common formations are generally disbanded in favour of either maximum concentration on defence, or maximum concentration on attack.

See also

References

  1. ^ Murphy, Brenden. From Sheffield with Love. SportsBooks Limited. p. 83. ISBN 9781899807567. 
  2. ^ "England's Uniforms — Shirt Numbers and Names". Englandfootballonline.com. http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamUnif/UnifNosNames.html. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  3. ^ Ingle, Sean (15 November 2000). "Knowledge Unlimited (November 15, 2000)". London: Guardian. http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,398055,00.html. Retrieved 10 July 2006. 
  4. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (26 October 2010). "The Question: Are Barcelona reinventing the W-W formation?". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/oct/26/the-question-barcelona-reinventing-w-w. 
  5. ^ a b "Gusztáv Sebes (biography)". FIFA. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/cc/hun/sebes.html. Retrieved 10 July 2006. 
  6. ^ a b Walter Lutz (11 September 2000). "The 4–2–4 system takes Brazil to two World Cup victories". FIFA. Archived from the original on January 9, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20060109164350/http%3A//www.fifa.com/en/development/index/0%2C1219%2C16310%2C00.html%3Farticleid%3D16310#. Retrieved 10 July 2006. 
  7. ^ "Sebes' gift to football". UEFA. 21 November 2003. Archived from the original on December 27, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20051227095747/http%3A//www.uefa.com/magazine/news/Kind%3D128/newsId%3D127467.html. Retrieved 10 July 2006. 
  8. ^ "Formations: 4–3–3". BBC News. 1 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/rules_and_equipment/4197558.stm. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  9. ^ "Formations: 4–4–2". BBC News. 1 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/rules_and_equipment/4197518.stm. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  10. ^ "National Soccer Coaches Association of America". Nscaa.com. http://www.nscaa.com/subpages/20060331160611105.php. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  11. ^ [1][dead link]
  12. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (18 December 2008). "The Question: why has 4–4–2 been superseded by 4–2–3–1?". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson. .
  13. ^ "England's World Cup disaster exposes the antiquity of 4–4–2". CNN. 30 June 2010. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/06/30/tactics.2ndrd/. 
  14. ^ [2]
  15. ^ "Formations: 4–4–1–1". BBC News. 1 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/rules_and_equipment/4197708.stm. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  16. ^ "Formations: 3–5–2". BBC News. 1 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/rules_and_equipment/4197684.stm. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  17. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (19 November 2008). "The Question: is 3–5–2 dead?". London: Guardian Unlimited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/19/argentina-napoli. Retrieved 19 November 2008. 
  18. ^ "Formations: 4–5–1". BBC News. 1 September 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/football/rules_and_equipment/4197702.stm. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  19. ^ "Zagallo at 80 - A legend of football". http://www.sambafoot.com/en/news/22872_zagallo_at_80_-_a_legend_of_football.html. 
  20. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (8 June 2008). "The end of forward thinking". The Guardian (London). http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/08/the_end_of_forward_thinking.html. Retrieved 11 July 2008. 
  21. ^ "Gramsci's Kingdom:Football, Politics, The World: July 2008". 10 July 2008. http://gramsciskingdom.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html. Retrieved 11 July 2008. 
  22. ^ Smyth, Rob (22 January 2010). "The Joy of Six: Counter-attacking goals". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/jan/22/joy-of-six-counterattacking-goals. Retrieved 25 March 2010. 
  23. ^ "ROMANIA — ARGENTINA 3–2 Match report". http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1994/r2_rom_v_arg.html. 
  24. ^ Moore, Malcolm (5 June 2008). "Chelsea and Roman Abramovich may be drawn to Luciano Spalletti's style at Roma". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/06/05/sfnche105.xml. Retrieved 11 July 2008. [dead link]
  25. ^ Marcotti, Gabriele (31 March 2008). "Roaming Roma find follower in Sir Alex Ferguson". The Times (London). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article3648903.ece. Retrieved 11 July 2008. 
  26. ^ Grahame, Ewing (11 October 2010). "Scotland v Spain: Craig Levein defends his strikerless 4-6-0 formation". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/scotland/8053954/Scotland-v-Spain-Craig-Levein-defends-his-strikerless-4-6-0-formation.html. 
  27. ^ Radnedge, Keir; Robson, Bobby. [2007] The Complete Encyclopedia of Soccer.
  28. ^ "Real Madrid manager madness: Spurs flop Juande Ramos becomes 10th in 10 years". Mirrorfootball.co.uk. 9 December 2008. http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Real-Madrid-manager-madness-Spurs-flop-Juande-Ramos-becomes-10th-in-10-years-article34645.html. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  29. ^ "Curses, wallies and the return of the Russian linesman". Fourfourtwo.com. http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/championsleague/archive/2009/02/20/curses-wallies-amp-the-return-of-the-russian-linesman.aspx. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  30. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (24 June 2009). "The Question: How is Brazil's 4–2–3–1 different from a European 4–2–3–1?". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jun/24/the-question-brazil-4-2-3-1. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  31. ^ a b "Tim Vickery column". BBC News. 2 April 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6517085.stm#questions. Retrieved 2 May 2010. 
  32. ^ Spain (19 September 2009). "I Like Pellegrini's 4–2–2–2 formation — Real Madrid Star Kaka". Goal.com. http://www.goal.com/en/news/12/spain/2009/09/19/1510122/i-like-pellegrinis-4-2-2-2-formation-real-madrid-star-kaka. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  33. ^ "4–2–2–2". Football-lineups.com. http://www.football-lineups.com/tactic/4-2-2-2. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  34. ^ "Football Tactics: 4–2–2–2 | Deak's Football Blog". Deak.co.uk. http://deak.co.uk/2009/04/11/football-tactics-4-2-2-2/. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  35. ^ Posted by Roberticus (19 May 2009). "santapelota: Overview of Brazilian Football Part II:". Santapelota.blogspot.com. http://santapelota.blogspot.com/2009/05/overview-of-brazilian-football-part-ii.html. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  36. ^ "FIFA World Cup Finals — France 1998". Cartage.org.lb. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sports/football/br-fr.html. Retrieved 28 June 2010. 
  37. ^ Wilson, Jonathan (25 May 2012). "The Question: How best for Manchester United to combat Barcelona?". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/25/manchester-united-barcelona-champions-league. .

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Formation (American football) — A formation in American football refers to the position players line up in before the start of a down. There are both offensive and defensive formations and there are many formations in both categories. Contents 1 Offense 1.1 Offensive positions… …   Wikipedia

  • Association football positions — For typical field formations, see Formation (association football). Modern player positions. A second striker (SS) is often employed instead of the centre forward (CF). In the sport of association football, each of the eleven players on a team is …   Wikipedia

  • Association football — Soccer redirects here. For other uses, see Soccer (disambiguation). Association football An attacking player (No. 10) attempts to kick the ball past t …   Wikipedia

  • Association football in Tasmania — Association football (soccer) in Tasmania is organised by Football Federation Tasmania. Football Federation Tasmania is a member of the Football Federation Australia (FFA) which controls the sport at a national level in Australia. While… …   Wikipedia

  • Association football in Victoria — Association football (soccer) in Victoria is organised by Football Federation Victoria (FFV). National RepresentationMelbourne Victory is the only team in Victoria to compete in the national A League. Past RepresentationMany clubs represented… …   Wikipedia

  • Association football tactics and skills — There are various individual skills and team tactics needed to play effective Association football. Football is in theory a very simple game, as illustrated by Kevin Keegan s famous assertion that his tactics for winning a match were to score… …   Wikipedia

  • Association football — Football Pour les articles homonymes, voir Football (homonymie). Football Soccer …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Defender (association football) — Defender redirects here. For other uses, see Defender (disambiguation). Within the sport of association football, a defender is an outfield player whose primary role is to prevent the opposition from attacking. There are four types of defender:… …   Wikipedia

  • Passing (association football) — Passing the ball is a key part of association football. This brings an advantage in that helps secure possession of the ball, particularly as play is taken towards the opponents goal. The skill of dribbling the ball is seen much less in modern… …   Wikipedia

  • Marking (association football) — In association football, marking is an organized defensive strategy which aims to prevent a member of the opposing team (usually a striker) from taking control of the ball. Several marking strategies exist in football, and they mostly differ to… …   Wikipedia


We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.