Need Info on the "Christmas Tree" Formation: 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-2-1

[TOROROJO]

Since I had so much help last time I asked I thought I would try it again. I was wondering if anybody on here could help me find some information (training videos, player responsibilities, etc) on the "Christmas Tree" formation. 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-2-1 however you want to look at it. I've found some articles, but thought I'd ask to see if anybody has anything that I haven't found...thanks.

[rca2]

I never heard of this system. Is it supposed to be a variation of a 433 or a 451?

BBC is a pretty good resource. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4197420.stm

Its pretty basic stuff, but the videos are worth watching. Systems not included but used in the US at least are 343 and 352.


Edit: I can't find the videos. Apparently they were taken down. Here is another site: http://www.elitesoccerconditioning.com/4-3-3/4-3-3.htm
This is a great comparison of four different systems played by advanced players. http://nscaa.com/subpages/200905281208241011.php

[igli]

thats the same formation i use for my team. it's excellent if you have very creative players and really want to see some beautiful football, and if you get the defense part right its almost unbeateable in open play.
what kind of team do you coach?
i coach an open mens team in new york.

[Twenty26Six]

I never heard of this system. Is it supposed to be a variation of a 433 or a 451?

It's the formation that AC Milan have used under Carlos Ancellotti for a few successful years.

It's basically consists of: a four-man back line, a diamond midfield, and two "split" strikers - one poaching and another drifting wide or back into the midfield.

GK
RB - CB - CB - LB
P1
CM - CM
P2
P3---------
ST

The "P"s represent where the playmakers could be found within the formation for Milan. P1= Andrea Pirlo, P2= Clarence Seedorf, and P3 = Kaka. The fullbacks are expected to provide width via overlapping runs. And, the twin CMs do all the dirty work for the team in midfield.

[rca2]

It's basically consists of: a four-man back line, a diamond midfield, and two "split" strikers - one poaching and another drifting wide or back into the midfield...

Thanks. I don't understand why people can't just say 442. I call that type of midfield an inverted T rather than a diamond. I suspect that it plays very much like a standard 433 (the three midfielders control the middle of the field) except with only one winger up front instead of two. If the back line supports closely on the attack (Dutch total soccer style) the wingbacks will be better able to provide the second winger and not have so far to track back on transistion.

[Twenty26Six]

Thanks. I don't understand why people can't just say 442.

I think that pro game is taking us to a point where no one plays a system with three lines of players. It's almost always 4 now - which isn't so revolutionary. The standard system of the day was once 3-2-2-3 or 2-3-3-2.

I just see it so much more now. 4-2-2-2, 4-2-1-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-3-2, and of course Milan's 4-3-2-1. The trend toward "specialization" of roles rather than fluid interchanging has made it this way.

[ranova]

I think that pro game is taking us to a point where no one plays a system with three lines of players...

The three "lines" are really only supposed to indicate roles of the field players: fullback, halfback, or forward. Not a physical location on the field. Everything else is supposed to indicate how the team is organized. I think its the fans, not the professional players and coaches that are analyzing play as four or more lines. Not that fans shouldn't be analyzing. Historically some innovations have come from mere fans analysing the game in Eastern Europe. I think the trend at the top levels over the last 30 years has been away from specialization incorporating some Dutch concepts and some Brazilian concepts. The best example I can give is the change in how the 442 is organized. The double diamond has lost favor to a double flat four over the years. With that has been a move from individual zones to block defending. I think that is the clearest support for my position. I see today as the day when generic CM and CB are in demand.

[Twenty26Six]

The three "lines" are really only supposed to indicate roles of the field players: fullback, halfback, or forward. Not a physical location on the field.

I don't know why in the hell you resist this so much. Using three numbers to designate formation was never the standard or the accepted "normal" way to describe a formation. It's like you get upset when people use more/less numbers. :D


Two things...

* The holding/defensive midfield position has become very specialized. It operates without connecting to the back four or the other attackers. There used to be 1 DM/HM - like Claude Makelele. Now, teams use 2 DM/HMs - like Mascherano and Alonso for Liverpool. Some, even 3. These are entirely new midfield roles - which is why they are getting their own classification with numbers.

** The average football fan cares much more about the organization of the team. They want to know precisely how teams are playing. They are obsessed with it much more than before. Thus, formations go into much more detail.

[striker2019]

I think it's been both ways. So many teams play with just one striker now that the trend seems to be towards players who are well rounded. Zlatan is the type of guy who is complete, good ability to dribble, good size, can play as a target man, can link up with his teammates, etc. I think Benzema is similar as well, kind of the new breed of striker right now. I think central midfield roles have become a bit more specialized, you have destroyers, box to box, creators, etc. The only trend I think is generally seen in that regard and really all across the board is toward more athleticism. Makelele was great at dm, but now they have Mikel who is a man child. Essien is a beast physically. All over the field you're seeing more athletic players I think. I don't think some of Inter's players would look out of place in the NFL.

I think we're heading toward generalization over specialization. The whole sport at the top level seems like it's going toward big, fast guys who can do some of everything. Tonight, at the end of the Milan game, Gooch is up top to act as a target man. Now the average center back can handle the ball fairly well and is considered lesser if he can't dribble out of the back on occasion.

But overall the game is pretty cyclical it seems. Greece won Euro 2004 because, as I believe Jonathan Wilson put it in Inverting the Pyramid (excellent book if you like soccer tactics): they posed a problem that people forgot how to solve. So I think it's just an evolution and at some point some team will win against a utilitarian machine through individual inspiration from one or two players and then the whole thing will start swinging back towards specialists.

[ranova]

I don't know why in the hell you resist this so much. Using three numbers to designate formation was never the standard or the accepted "normal" way to describe a formation. It's like you get upset when people use more/less numbers. :D...

Why I think it matters is twofold. First I think it perpetuates the notion that the symbols instead of representing systems of play, represent a phsycial formation like an American football formation, in which the players arrange themselves on the field. Second I have a tough time figuring out what system the people are actually describing. This post was a good example. I asked if it was a variation of a 433 or a 451 and got told it was a 442.

I think this numerical system became popular when the 424 and 433 systems were prominent 50 years ago, at least in North American and European literature. I don't recall seeing a multiplication of lines in the numerical system before 1990. This is going by memory, and I did most of my reading in the 80's and all of it was English language books. So I could be wrong. Most of the formal writing I see today still uses three lines, although not exculsively.

[Twenty26Six]

It's the formation that AC Milan have used under Carlos Ancellotti for a few successful years.

It's basically consists of: a four-man back line, a diamond midfield, and two "split" strikers - one poaching and another drifting wide or back into the midfield.

GK
RB - CB - CB - LB
P1
CM - CM
P2
P3---------
ST

The "P"s represent where the playmakers could be found within the formation for Milan. P1= Andrea Pirlo, P2= Clarence Seedorf, and P3 = Kaka. The fullbacks are expected to provide width via overlapping runs. And, the twin CMs do all the dirty work for the team in midfield.

Why I think it matters is twofold. First I think it perpetuates the notion that the symbols instead of representing systems of play, represent a phsycial formation like an American football formation, in which the players arrange themselves on the field. Second I have a tough time figuring out what system the people are actually describing. This post was a good example. I asked if it was a variation of a 433 or a 451 and got told it was a 442.

I think this numerical system became popular when the 424 and 433 systems were prominent 50 years ago, at least in North American and European literature. I don't recall seeing a multiplication of lines in the numerical system before 1990. This is going by memory, and I did most of my reading in the 80's and all of it was English language books. So I could be wrong. Most of the formal writing I see today still uses three lines, although not exculsively.

First, I didn't tell you it was a 4-4-2. I didn't say it was anything. I just explained it to you in terms I thought you'd understand. It's often stated to be a 4-3-2-1.

Second, according to Johnathan Wilson's book (The History of Football Tactics) most of the original "4 line" stuff predates 1960 and could originated when the 2-3-5 was changed to a 3-2-2-3 (or WM). By 1960, we began to se the 4-2-4 take hold. So, unless you're reading books about Hungarian, Austrian, or 1930s Italian tactics, you're obviously not going to be reading about formations with "four lines". That doesn't mean it didn't exist or hasn't made a revival this past decade. Using four numbers to describe a formation isn't a passing fad, and you come off as old and stubborn when scoffing at its usage.

Third, the numbers are relevant to anyone who wants to study the game on the deepest level. If you're calling the Milan "4321" a "442", then you're missing the point. You're so hung up on it being "three lines" that you have trouble understanding the formation in the first place. The "four line" description doesn't cloud your understanding. Your strict adherence to "three line" nomenclature does.

Fourth, this has to do more with professional play and not youth play. Notice, this isn't the "youth coaching" forum. In the professional game, there are very specific tactical restrictions that the players must follow. This is what brings the formations to "4 lines" more often than "three".

[igli]

it is not a 4-4-2 or watever. it is a formation of 4 defenders, 5 midfielders, and 1 forward. in the simplest terms it is a 4-5-1 however the most accurate would be 4-1-2-2-1.

rb----cd----cd----lb
---------dm--------
---cm--------cm---
------am---am-----
---------st---------

what players go where is entirely up to the coach. however it is a system that plays predominately through the middle, so your players better be good technically.

[igli]

another crucial thing is if you're going to use 5 creative midfielders who arent so good at defending than your fullbacks should be players that stay back and are primarily central defenders.
if you wanna use attacking fullbacks than you need 2 good defensive midfielders who are good tacklers playing in the cm roles.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

TOROROJO, I have a couple of questions.

Which age level are you looking to implement this said formation/system? And what level are the kids at technically and tactically?

I ask this because it is important to understand what each player must do in the system.

Defense - Like someone said earlier. The fullbacks must be very good in this system. As they will be asked to defend well but still provide width in attack. Your center backs must also be strong at marking because you most likely be dealing with a lot of crosses if/when your outside backs get beat.

Midfield - Your midfielders must be very aware of their role on the pitch. Despite the players being set in a formation like 4-3-2-1 or whatever, their roles vary from player to player. This is true in all formations, but especially in this one. Your three midfielders will each have a different role (holding, creative, etc). Your two attacking midfielders will also have to learn to make different runs.

Forward - Must always be willing, and also must be willing to not always be playing center of the pitch and just banging in goals. The way a forward plays in this formation will be way different than in a formation that provides more players out on the wings.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

First, I didn't tell you it was a 4-4-2. I didn't say it was anything. I just explained it to you in terms I thought you'd understand. It's often stated to be a 4-3-2-1.

Second, according to Johnathan Wilson's book (The History of Football Tactics) most of the original "4 line" stuff predates 1960 and could originated when the 2-3-5 was changed to a 3-2-2-3 (or WM). By 1960, we began to se the 4-2-4 take hold. So, unless you're reading books about Hungarian, Austrian, or 1930s Italian tactics, you're obviously not going to be reading about formations with "four lines". That doesn't mean it didn't exist or hasn't made a revival this past decade. Using four numbers to describe a formation isn't a passing fad, and you come off as old and stubborn when scoffing at its usage.

Third, the numbers are relevant to anyone who wants to study the game on the deepest level. If you're calling the Milan "4321" a "442", then you're missing the point. You're so hung up on it being "three lines" that you have trouble understanding the formation in the first place. The "four line" description doesn't cloud your understanding. Your strict adherence to "three line" nomenclature does.

Fourth, this has to do more with professional play and not youth play. Notice, this isn't the "youth coaching" forum. In the professional game, there are very specific tactical restrictions that the players must follow. This is what brings the formations to "4 lines" more often than "three".

I also think that when discussing a formation or a system, it is important the understanding your players possess.

If you tell U13s who are new to playing 11-a-side to play a 4-3-2-1. Well, without any coaching or explanation they will be pretty poor.

Honestly. Formations could be listed in 5 lines for some teams. For example, 26, your explanation of Milan's 4-3-2-1 (which was quite good by the way :)) is a perfect example of this. You could have said that Milan "technically" plays a 4-1-2-1-1-1...:D

Sometimes we get hung up too much on the formation or too much on the system. When, I believe, talking about tactics, one should combine both together and not take everything so literally.

[Grinners89]

I also think that when discussing a formation or a system, it is important the understanding your players possess.

If you tell U13s who are new to playing 11-a-side to play a 4-3-2-1. Well, without any coaching or explanation they will be pretty poor.

Honestly. Formations could be listed in 5 lines for some teams. For example, 26, your explanation of Milan's 4-3-2-1 (which was quite good by the way :)) is a perfect example of this. You could have said that Milan "technically" plays a 4-1-2-1-1-1...:D

Sometimes we get hung up too much on the formation or too much on the system. When, I believe, talking about tactics, one should combine both together and not take everything so literally.

Stop pumping him up ;)