4-4-2

>4-4-2

3-5-2

> dime package
> bunch formations

4-2-2-2

>3-7-0

>zonal marking

>false 9

can't handle it kiddo ?

>10-0-0

>3-4 man to man defense

>only 1 attacker

>stretch 5

> read option

there are only about 4 different formations.

when the players are actually out on the park, 4-4-2 is the exact same thing as 4-4-1-1, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1 and pretty much every single thing else with a back four

there are only four formations. one with 3 defenders, one with 4 defenders, one with 5 defenders and one with 0 strikers. every single otehr one is just a derivative of the four mentioned

>there are only about 4 different formations.

>when the players are actually out on the park, 4-4-2 is the exact same thing as 4-4-1-1, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1 and pretty much every single thing else with a back four

>there are only four formations. one with 3 defenders, one with 4 defenders, one with 5 defenders and one with 0 strikers. every single otehr one is just a derivative of the four mentioned

But a 4-5-1 is also a 4-3-3 due to the wingers falling back

4-1-4-1 is also another 4-3-3 variation

>flying V

Playing with 3 defenders is the same as playing with 5 defenders, it's just that your wing backs have come back to defend.

yes thats the point, all formations with 4 defenders is the same.

WATCH IT LOUIE

>5-2-1-2

So what you're saying is its either 4 at the back or 3 at the back. The other one being le no striker meme.

How is a 0 striker formation any different from any other formation? Your forwards are just playing further back than usual. Also .

Really, there are only two places where a formation varies. At the back (either 3/5 defenders or 4 defenders) and at the front (either 1/3 forwards or 2 forwards). And since you can argue that forwards don't need to strictly be in position all the time (unlike defenders who need to maintain their defensive line), you could argue that there are only two different formations.

it's pretty different to have fullbacks in a 5 atb formation than to have midfielders with 3 defenders

>3-1-2-1-2-1

No.

It's either 5 at the back, or 4 at the back.

>yfw you realise all formations are just variations of the historic 10 formation

I'm still calling it 3 at the back.

why dont teams use a 3-3-2-3

who could score on 3 keepers in nets?

Literally everyone because of the offside rule.

and only one player able to touch the ball with their hands obviously. Otherwise even with offside, 3 keepers would be pretty OP

>3-4-2