How is this formation not used more often in football? It seems like it would be ideal for possession football and for hoofball. Shouldn't this formation get teams 3-4+ goals a match?
I honestly want to know a legitimate reason why it's not more common in football
>4-3-2-1 isn't common
wat
For me, It's the diamond.
it's the most used formation nowadays
and it's utter shit
>4-3-2-1
Isn't it 4-1-2-2-1?
That formation looks bad.
>Isn't it 4-1-2-2-1
1-2-2-1-2-2-1 ftfy
>Isn't it 4-1-2-2-1?
you can name them whatever you want, so long as the name isn't retarded, your name seems retarded.
>That formation looks bad.
it's the most common and effective formation in the world.
>4-3-3
>not common
American opinions everybody.
>Not using based 1-3-2-3-2
4-3-3 is 3 strikers and no defensive midfielder mate
This is literally Real Madrid's Formation
I've also heard it called 4-5-1 V, cause there are 5 midfielders with the wingers, though they can also be more like forwards in 4-3-3.
There's some good parts and some bad parts to it, but I'm sure I'd explain it wrong considering almost everything I've learned about Football is from video games.
like any formation, it takes the right kind of players to make it work effectively
keyword: effectively
>3 man midfield have to cover a shit ton of ground and keep their shape/work as a unit
>wide attacking players need excellent positioning else the center forward will be isolated
>meinneger.jpeg
>americans
>high workrate
>those positions were Xavi's and Iniesta's on the sextuple-winning Barca squad
Nah I'd rather have skill there.
Can't really take that from a fucking finn of all Nordic countries.
This is one of the most common formations that teams use. Pretty much every top team has used it in the last decade at some point.
I miss the days when americans on Sup Forums recommended silly formations like the circle.
>that flag
>this post
>this whole thread
So that formation looks like you have one defensive midfielder and two also rather defensive midfielders, than a large gap, and then your attacking trio.
To overcome that gap you have to either 1. kick long balls to the front, which is pretty inefficient, since your opponent has only three players to cover. So unless you have three tall guys up front that win every ball in the air, this is inefficient.
2. Move the whole squad up the pitch while being in posession aka Guardiola-style. This can be hard to beat if you have top-notch midfielders. plus your full and centre backs are also capable to play clean passes. You dont though, a team with a good pressing will counter attack the shit out of you and rape you anally (see Bayern vs. Real in 2013 for example).
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
every player is a different special individual and just fusing them is disrespectful.
this thread makes me depressed
>How is this formation not used more often in football?
Literally the most common formation.
>It seems like it would be ideal for possession football and for hoofball
It is ideal for possesion football and that's why most possession minded teams play it, see Barcelona, Real, ManCity, Dortmund, PSG, Napoli.
It's not good for hoofball though. Crosses come either from the wings or from the back. What you have here is a lone striker that even if he heads the ball, there's no follow up and 3 midfielders who you practically waste by moving the ball directly to the striker. The hoofball formation is 4-4-2 for a reason, one less CM for a second, usually more mobile forward that can gather the ball the target man heads down and score.
That's soccer not football
...
>False ten
>What is Chelsea's 3-5-2
It’s a more defensive minded 4-3-3, with a holding mid and 2 central mids pal
I like what the back three with bombing wing backs forward.
Using wing backs to keep the width so the attacking players can stay forward is nice.
>4-3-3
>not used
'b-but it's 4-1-2-2-1', I know you are american but that's extremely dumb; fucking Real played with this formation last season, Boca is playing with this system; the real question is why is no one playing with the aesthetic christmas tree
4-3-2-1 is the patricians way
>2017
>still thinking players stand in position as marked on a formation graphic
you've got 1 player too many there, you dummy.
Barcelona played that formation last season
>naming the goalkeeper
The fact that you name a position after fucking Casemiro tells how little you know about the sport
Im literally laughing out loud at imagining a circle
thatis basically a 4-1-4-1, and it is used quite often. When you attack it looks like that, when you defend the wings retreat back.
I personally prefer a 4-2-3-1, but then again, formations change depending on if you attack or defend.
Along with 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1 its the most common formation
your wings are weak for defensive purposes
We played this formation with Bauza as the manager vs Bolivia in the last Qualies
The very best teams attempt to maintain a shape, so as to know where their players might be at any time. Sure, players HAVE to move, meaning the formation is fluid, but a standard shape and identity is what a team's ultimate goal is.
And this against Singapore with Sampaoli as the manager
casemiro has great potential. at any rate, what i mean is that he is of a new mold of CDMs that are cattivo defensively (alla gattuso) and competent on the ball. that's my justification.
what will your captious reply be?
they don't play a 3-5-2 you fuckin wanker
neck yourself fedora poster. be serious.
the wide players are supposed to be fullbacks like marcelo or alves who id rather have cutting inside in the final third than hugging the touchline.
choke on some pickled herring, lustig.
it's about average positions with or without the ball and what space a given player will occupy in relation to the spaces occupied elsewhere by his teammates. fucking mick
People think there are big differences between formations. From midfield up there really isn't. 3 at the back vs 4 at the back is a massive difference. But in midfield the players will be in more or less the same positions even if they are on paper as different formations.
4-3-3 and 4-5-1 are essentially the same if both are well coached teams.
Why is everyone bullying poor OP? Be nice, you faggots.
>4-3-3 and 4-5-1 are essentially the same
no. the wingers usually have more to do defensively than in most 4-3-3s. and the space between the 3 central midfielders and the striker is larger in a 4-5-1 than it is in a 4-3-3. also, the striker in a 4-5-1 will have more hold-up play than he would might otherwise have so the wingers (and LCM and RCM for that matter) can join the attack.
i reckon that the differences - though subtle, youre right - between/among a 4-3-3, a 4-5-1, and/or a 4-1-4-1 come down to differences in work-rates and, by extension, spacing (e.g., a compact side vs a wide-sprawling side - which, for tactically-sound managers like poop, will change as the ball moves up the pitch)