5-4-1 formation is the most red-pilled formation

5-4-1 formation is the most red-pilled formation.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2I358ChcY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What does that even mean?

Chelsea currently play a 3-4-3 you spastic

Kek. You're falling for the infographics meme. That means Real is playing 2-5-3, right? You name formations after defensive lines, fag. No wonder your coaches are all foreign, your IQ is just too goddamn low.

r u from republika srpska

Herzeg-Bosnia.

>implying formations matter

JEJ

This.
Average positions is THE thing.

Have you ever, and I mean literally ever, watched a football game?

4-2-4 is how real men play footy.

>Sup Forums
>sports

we're just an amalgamation of rejects from other boards, mostly Sup Forums, Sup Forums and Sup Forums at this point although I hail from /k/, sports are just an excuse so mods let us carry on with our shit

Doesn't exist.

He isn't that wrong 2bh. Formations are neat things that appear on the match report, but they provide very little insight into what actually happened on the pitch.

Is a 5-3-2 always defensive? Is a 4-3-3 a guarantee for flexible offensive football? Does a 4-4-2 always result in hoofball?

Good football analysis goes beyond just spouting formations.

very true. but that doesn't mean they don't matter. they are still a base foundation.

Daily reminder that Victor Moses is our lord and saviour and will successfully vanquish any doubt >Mouyes cast upon his ability

Croats from BiH are true Croats and not the fag lovers like in RH.

it's basically a 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-4

You're right, the sheer number and infographics don't matter much when it comes to approach and philosophy, I mean Greece 2004 did play 5-4-1 but I swear a god they always had like 3-4 players in their opponent's box waing for a header. Rehhagel always said "it's not about how many players you defend yourself with, it's about how many you attack with".

Brazil 2002 used 5-3-2, which might sound defensive, but the line was set high on the pitch, it makes for faster transitions. If you're willing to play offensive football, why not secure yourself with an extra defender anyway?

Croatia was a mistake. They don't deserve a fucking country, fucking socialist parasites and whiners. I only respect Slavonians. To think that my father spent 5 years in the fucking war all over Velebit, Knin and Mostar, and for what?

>You name formations after defensive lines, fag

this

I see so many people acting like smart-asses about formations without getting this basic concept

Brazil played with Edmilson as a libero back then. Sometimes he would act as a CB, many times not.

I'll never forget this goal:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2I358ChcY

Formation by itself says nothing, but in the context of the playstyle it is decisive how the team organizes itself in space, both in attack and defense.

As every red-pilled person knows the 3--1-4-2 which turns into a 5-3-2 in defense is the truly red pilled formation

>You name formations after defensive lines, fag

This is also not entirely true. it's simply easier to discern the defensive lines. As movement and occupation of space are much more fluid in offense people often get the formation wrong. But Chelsea doesn't play with 2 fullbacks, which is what a 5-4-1 indicated. They are playing with 2 defensive wide midfielders that move fluidly between more offensive and more defensive positions depending on the situation on the pitch.

Both 5-4-1 and 3-4-3 are correct

Alonso and Moses are LITERALLY in the same parallel line with the CB trio every time their opponent has the ball approaching their 30-40 meters. I mean fuck, I can take multiple screenshots from their games to testify that. There's no such thing as "three-man defense", no one is that insane to put only 3 defenders to cover the width of 60 meters, it's suicide. Pedro and Hazard spend A LOT of time playing defense by doubling the flanks.

Also, Matić and Kante are not DMFs in this formation, they're literally the first line of Chelsea's defense. Kante was the DMF in 4-5-1, but not here. I mean fuck, they both have like dozens of passes in their opponent's 30m. Defensive midfielders always guard someone's back, which is not the case here, unless you count Costa.

>Doesn't exist.

I still think his point stands. If we only looked at the defensive shape, practically most teams with a 4-man backline would be playing a form of 4-4-2.

So you can taste godly "slanina"

Or not?

ITT: people not understanding fluid formations

so explain it.

le total football meme

>replying to a 2 hour old post
kill yourself

haha love how he's doing better than ibrahimovic, pogba, martial, pogba & smalling combined

>3 defenders to cover the width of 60 meters, it's suicide.

God dammit I fucked up

>They arent defensive midfielders. They are the first line of the defence

A true footballista

Position >>>> Formation

>Doesn't exist.
This is why Zlatan picked Sweden.

Daily reminder 4-3-3 killed the 3-5-2.

Allahu Ekber?

Vietnam with the red pill bomb.

Mighty magyars

Anything but 4-4-2 is a meme.

> simple cancellation

KEK