Is 4-4-2 the best formation...

Is 4-4-2 the best formation? I can't really see any flaws in it and it's most used in lower leagues where players aren't as skilled. What do you guys think is the best soccer/football formation?

that's the formation Portugal is using lmao

>I can't really see any flaws
That's because you are american.

Okay?
>Brazilian banter

It must be good then.

y-yeah ha ha

??????

4-4-2 it's a little outdated, now it's 4-3-3 or 4-5-1

we haven't won any game this Euro

doe that's also partly Ronaldo's fault for fucking up every time

4-2-3-1 > 3-5-2 > 4-3-3 > 4-1-3-2 > 4-4-2

prove me wrong

4-1-4-1

>3-5-2
Nobody but SA teams play like that

-2 > -4 > -2 > -2 > -2

Depends entirely on the personell.

442 these days is mostly a defensive shape. I personally like the 4231 if you have a quality number 10

It worked well for Italy in the euros too. That formation takes a lot of running

Why does 4-2-3-1 work so well?

It's one of the most dynamic formation you can play and it is therefore very tactically good, you can fluidly change your shape during the game without losing much pace. You can drop a striker down into a 4-4-1-1, push the wingers forward into a 4-2-3-1, it can work wonders if you have players that understand the basics of football tactics and that have the stamina and work-rate to run around like madmen.

3-3-1-3 goat formation

Gonna need the insta famalam

who is the semen demon in front?

Based Iceland. Yeah I mean your team seemed to do very well with it and I agree with everything you just said. 4-2-3-1 is practically a variation of the 4-4-2.

3-4-3 is the only choice.

Wales do

Why does nobody play a 4-5-4? Evening out the players seems like the best idea 2bh

No clue.

There's only 11 players on the field mate.

4-4-2 is what I'm going to give them all night, if you know what I mean

doesn't juventus use that one?

Wait, I thought the numbers meant how the midfielders played (like 9, false 9, etc). So they mean numbers of players?

It's a formation. Like in football there's nickel, dime, 4-3, 5-wide, shotgun, pro, and 3-4 formations.

I've never watched football before. Isn't soccer supposed to be football anyways?

...

It all depends on who are your players
4-4-2 is easy to master and you can play defensively or offensively with it
But Conte proved that it's still possible to play well with 3 CBs
PSG have been great in a 4-3-3 in recent seasons because we have great midfielders

Right, but is a 4-3-3 objectively better? I feel like you would have little width with that formation. 3 strikers? That's too much.

>Why does nobody play a 4-5-4?

> I've never watched football before

You don't have 3 strikers in a 4-3-3
You have 2 wingers and 1 striker
I won't say it's the best system
It depends who are your best players and how you want to play

2 of those 3 strikers are wingers, also generally the fullbacks use the space to go up and down as they see fit
4-3-3 is the patrician formation

How is that different from a 4-3-2-1?

4-3-3 isn't really supposed to have 3 strikers. You have 1 striker and 2 wingers, it's just that a lot of teams nowadays use wingers who like to cut inside a lot (like Real Madrid with Ronaldo and Bale).

A proper 4-4-2 requires proper 2-way midfielders which are hard to come by these days

It's not a good formation nowadays because of that

...

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Is objectively the best
1-2-1-2-1-2-1 Is a close second

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Texas here.

4-2-3-1 is trash


4-3-1-2 is objectively the best

>

BTFO

...

In practice it's the same, it's like saying 4-1-2-2-1 because one of the midfielders works on recovering the ball

>It's not a good formation nowadays because of that

It's not a good formation because your 2 midfielders will always be outnumbered by a 3-man midfield. A flat/traditional 4-4-2 just doesn't work, Atletico and Leicester use it very differently than the teams that played 4-4-2 back at the turn of the century.

Barcelona plays 4-3-3 and they've done pretty well

I think real also used to play 4-3-3 with ronaldo, bale, and benzema up front but that ended up being a failed experiment though. But then again I can't remember

...

>4-3-1-2

You have no width there unless your fullback is insanely fast

That's Ancelotti's "Christmas tree" which he used at AC Milan
He had 1 striker and two n°10 with Kaka playing behind Chevchenko

>win Champions League
>failed experiment
m8...

*your fullbacks are

In video games I like playing 4-3-3 and putting 3 strikers up front and scoring 10 goals a match, I don't have as much fun nor cause as much chaos with other formations

>I think real also used to play 4-3-3 with ronaldo, bale, and benzema up front but that ended up being a failed experiment though
>used to
>failed experiment

They've been doing that for the last 3 years and they won the Champions League twice

...

It's basically the same thing. Fans tend to get too caught up with the formations but all of them are fairly fluid

Oh yeah. I've seen that. I guess the general trend now is to have a lone striker who is a complete forward. It seems kind of really dependent on that one striker though. What happens if he has an off day? Wouldn't a striker partnership be best?

Well I couldn't remember if they were still doing that, I remember them doing that 2 seasons ago

>It's not a good formation because your 2 midfielders will always be outnumbered by a 3-man midfield
No
There's 4 midfielders in a 4-4-2
But the Side-Midfielders need to be very good at both attacking and defending

It's a hard formation to play top-level attacking football with

How did they use it differently?

This, formations aren't that important unless you're playing 3 at the back. 4-2-3-1 can be the same as 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, or 4-3-3 depending on how the team plays.

This
City couldn't achieve shit in the Champions League with their 4-4-2

Back in my day Fullbacks used to know how to cross the damn ball

You also can have extra width from one of the 2 forwards too anyways

Oh jesus

Those wide players usually stay wide and get forward, though. So you're at a disadvantage in the middle of the field unless you sit really deep and have everyone defend (which is what Atletico and Leicester do).

Depends entirely on what players you have available, the chances of having 2 strikers that merge well together, are very rare
On the other hands, >le pacey wingerman are always available, thats why many teams go for a 4-3-3

Yeah nowadays a lot of teams will switch to a 442 or like 4411 to defend, it's basically all its good for

>4-5-4

There are only 11 players on each team, and 1 of them is a goalkeeper so your formation can only add up to 10...

He only used that formation sometimes when Sheva was here

After Sheva left he shifted to it full-time and built the team around Kaka which won the Champions League

There's a big difference between having 3 or 2 midfielders
With 3 midfielders it's easier to play possession football
With 2 you can play quick football the way Ferguson's United did but you need guys like Scholes and Keane to make it work

I forgot it was Inzaghi time back then

>the chances of having 2 strikers that merge well together, are very rare
Wtf really? Isn't it usually the 9-10 partnership where the 10 is usually the more complete player that works wonders?

The n°10 is dead and buried
You won't find a Zidane, Platini or Kaka now

So what's better? A fluid 4-4-2, a fluid 4-2-3-1 or a fluid 4-3-3?

a fluid 4-3-3 IS a 4-2-3-1

It's not that the formation itself is bad it's just that you need to have a top-class 2-way midfielders which are pretty rare nowadays

Which is why it's use in modern football is pretty low

The number 10 is not usually a striker but more of a playmaker who plays behind the 9 and also has some defensive responsibility. Not many teams play with 2 out and out strikers anymore

The devil is in the details, you need a partership that can consistenly give results, relaying on them both
But in a 4-3-3 in general it's a more teamwork oriented formation
Also , n°10 is long gone

>4-2-3-1 or a fluid 4-3-3?

They can be the same thing in a game. Like Tottenham theoretically play 4-2-3-1, but during the game Eriksen drops deep, Alli moves left, Dembele moves up, and it looks just like a 4-3-3.

>Those wide players usually stay wide and get forward, though.
Top class 2-way midfielders like in the 90s go back as soon as they get attacked to recover the ball and they constantly press

Attacking 4-4-2 and Defensive 4-4-2 are two different things

A true 10 like a fantasista is mostly gone but it's turned into a support striker which a lot of teams use to play off the 9

>where the 10 is usually the more complete player that works wonders?

That type of player is dead now, defensive midfielders are just too fast and strong so they don't get the time and space that they used to.

In a 4-3-3 you have one n°6 and two n°8
At PSG Motta is the n°6
At Barcelona Busquets is the n°6
For France it was Kanté

Can someone explain to me why Leicester won the league (by 10 pts more at that) with a 4-4-2 if it's not as good as a 4-2-3-1? It must have some saving grace.

Sheva was usually paired with Inzaghi(or with Crespo in the 2004/05 season)

Kaka was not really a Classic No.10
If anything he was more of a Winger playing in a Central Position

He was a pretty modern player

I know. What I'm saying is that Spurs theoretically have a "10" (Eriksen) and 2 "6"s (defensive mids, Dier/Dembele). But Eriksen often moves back and Dembele moves up, leaving them with 2 "8s" and one "6". A fluid 4-2-3-1 basically is a 4-3-3.

Huh?

A formation isn't inherently better than other (but some are more commonly used than others), the thing is that leicester had great player on key positions, like Kanté on the DM role, Mahrez as a winger, or Vardy as a goalscorer
Also every "big" team was utter shit

Leicester defend really deep and rely on hoofing the ball up to their insanely fast striker, 4-4-2 is perfect for that.

literally the most economical use of space, triangles all out this bitch

6=defensive midfielder
8=central midfielder

More like players just aren't skilled enough these days to play that role

Defensive Midfielders used to be tougher back in the day if anything

Okay but what about them made it work when teams that used a 4-2-3-1 lost against them?

>2-3-5
Wtf

4-2-3-1 is most popular for a reason.

The midfield naturally forms three triangles \/\/ which makes it easier to pass.

The '10' would also be free to find space between the opponents' midfield and defence.

Since the line of 3 is pushed further forward than normal midfielders they can press more and win the ball back higher up the pitch.

Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpoo, Arsenal and Man City all shit the bed. And Leicester had Vardy and Mahrez scoring and creating at elite levels.