Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Formation review ♯3: 4-2-3-1

Despite the overwhelming interest in the last few posts we must regretfully wrap this series up with looking at the 4-2-3-1. What's with 4 bands? See here

How does a team play 4-2-3-1? It is similar to 4-3-3 though the winger play slightly deeper and 2 of the midfielders are more defensive minded instead of 1. There are numerous examples but here is one that illustrates how it is done.

Why might the Stallions play this formation? It creates depth. With the "2" playing more like DCM's they provide support to the defence while allowing more freedom for the wide players and the ACM to attack.

It might seem that it leaves fewer people to get in the box but at times that is a good thing - after a while adding more people into the box just means more chance of getting in each others way. The DCM's are still available for a shot from outside the box or to move the ball somewhere there is more space.

Why might it not be a good idea for the Stallions to play 4-2-3-1? Do we have someone who can play the ACM role - someone who instead of being alongside the striker plays a little deeper, collecting the ball at their feet?

Also like in 4-3-3 the DCM's have to be positionally strong - maintaining a central position, good communication between each other to ensure they don't both go for the same person or make the same run to receive the ball.

And the winner formation is...
Well none (all) of them. They all have strengths and weaknesses which is why they are all still legitimate formations. The point is that do we have the tactical nouse to make changes if things aren't working? Different formations have different positional requirements and if we know how to play those different patterns we'll keep getting results, regardless of the opposition.

My view is that there will be times when we should drop another player into centre midfield to improve our control on the game, and most likely it will be a striker that is replaced. In that situation how do the roles change so that we don't reduce our attacking ability? That is where knowing how to play a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 will come in handy.

5 comments:

005 said...

Thanks to Tangihaere's tactical posts Wed had the heaviest traffic to this blog ever - about 120 hits. I'm sure many people left feeling a little bit wiser on the virtue of 4-3-2-1 vs 4-3-3 (unless those 100+ hits were Tangiheare checking it to make sure people weren't challenging him!)

T said...

Well maybe only 50

StevieG said...

My personal fave, but I don't think we could hold this shape as our mids like getting forward too much... :P

005 said...

Bah, you just want to a willing midfielder to help clean up your messes.

StevieG said...

"our" messes...