What do you think is the best formation

[Voodudejnr]

Theres so many, like:

4-4-2
3-5-3
3-4-4
5-3-2
(or the first ever formation England style) 1-1-8

[Ray Luca]

First a formation has 10 field players and a keeper in the adult game.

You don't mention the keeper because there is always a keeper. So when refering to a formation it is like calling it a 4-4-2 ten field players.

Some of the other formation numbers you were throwing around had 11 field players? Like your 3-4-4 and your 3-5-3.

Now to answer your question your players that you have dictate the formation that you will use on attack. Even more then what the opponent uses.

Plus a formation is only a starting point. How the formation looks changes at any give time and space.

So it looks different when attacking and different when defending.

At this point in time in the pro game 3-4-3 is the preferend starting point. Why? Because it can change from having more strikers on attack and then looks like a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 on defense when you lose the ball.

You want to be numbers up when you attack and also be numbers up against an attacking team when your on defense.

The formation used from the 1960s till now the early 90s for the most part is the 4-4-2 then in the last ten years it was 3-5-2 and now it is the 3-4-3.

It all depends on the players you have to work with.

[uniteo]

It all depends on the players you have to work with.

That was enough

It also depends on how you want to play, realizing that all formations have advantages and disadvantages and that style of play will be more important than where players are standing when the whistle blows.

[Paddy31]

[QUOTE=Ray Luca]
At this point in time in the pro game 3-4-3 is the preferend starting point. Why? Because it can change from having more strikers on attack and then looks like a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 on defense when you lose the ball.

You want to be numbers up when you attack and also be numbers up against an attacking team when your on defense.

The formation used from the 1960s till now the early 90s for the most part is the 4-4-2 then in the last ten years it was 3-5-2 and now it is the 3-4-3.

[QUOTE]

Which teams use 3-4-3 regularly? I can't think of one in Europe, but perhaps its popular in the Americas.

However, I'd agree that the formation must match the players available.

[Ray Luca]

[QUOTE=Paddy31][QUOTE=Ray Luca]
At this point in time in the pro game 3-4-3 is the preferend starting point. Why? Because it can change from having more strikers on attack and then looks like a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 on defense when you lose the ball.

You want to be numbers up when you attack and also be numbers up against an attacking team when your on defense.

The formation used from the 1960s till now the early 90s for the most part is the 4-4-2 then in the last ten years it was 3-5-2 and now it is the 3-4-3.

[QUOTE]

Which teams use 3-4-3 regularly? I can't think of one in Europe, but perhaps its popular in the Americas.

PSV Holand, Chelsea England

[Ray Luca]

[QUOTE=Paddy31][QUOTE=Ray Luca]
At this point in time in the pro game 3-4-3 is the preferend starting point. Why? Because it can change from having more strikers on attack and then looks like a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 on defense when you lose the ball.

You want to be numbers up when you attack and also be numbers up against an attacking team when your on defense.

The formation used from the 1960s till now the early 90s for the most part is the 4-4-2 then in the last ten years it was 3-5-2 and now it is the 3-4-3.

[QUOTE]

Which teams use 3-4-3 regularly?

PSV Holand, Chelsea England

[Paddy31]

Which teams use 3-4-3 regularly?

PSV Holand, Chelsea England

Both PSV and Chelsea play 4-3-3. For example, a Chelsea team could be

---------------Cech--------------

Ferreira----Gallas----Terry----Bridge

----Lampard----Makelele----Tiago--

------Duff------Drogba------Robben


or PSV

---------------Gomes------------

Alex-----Bouma-----Ooijer----Lee

----Lucius---- Vogel-----Cocu

---- Park------Farfan---- Vennegoor


Do you see what I'm on about? Did you mean 4-3-3 all along? Now I've reread the posts I think you might have.

[GROVESHSCOACH]

The most important aspect of picking a formation is what type of players are on your squad.

After that you can tweak it. Flat back four instead of a sweeper system or playing a tight triangle in the 3-5-2.

[CCTX SoccerFreak]

The most important aspect of picking a formation is what type of players are on your squad.

After that you can tweak it. Flat back four instead of a sweeper system or playing a tight triangle in the 3-5-2.


I love the 3-5-2 when I'm heavy with midfielders and not enough defenders. Make the wingbacks come back and forth and keeping a tight triangle in the middle with a designated attacking mid on the overlap.


------S------S-------

--WB----AM-----WB--

------DM----DM------

--LB-----CB------RB--

----------GK----------

It clogs up the middle and opens the flanks for the counter with your LB and RB overlapping on the counter as needed. I like this when I'm heavy of midfielders as their endurance/speed and natural attacking instincts are able to come out. You need a very solid CB though to orchestrate and organize the Back 3 and to call their L/RB back after the counter. It has worked time and time again for me even if I'm going up against a 3-4-3,4-4-2 or a 3-5-2. It's awesome in that situation...but every team is different and the system should be built around the players you have. Good luck!

[GROVESHSCOACH]

Make the wingbacks come back and forth and keeping a tight triangle in the middle with a designated attacking mid on the overlap.


I love the 3-5-2 as well. I start defensively with 2 DCM and the get into numbers up situations with delayed runs from the wingbacks. I also overload the weak side with my LB or RB for delayed runs as well. I am lucky that I have a very skilled CB. I also pull th trap.

I know it is a lot going on on the field but if the flow is right, it gets the other team confused and on their heels.

[Ray Luca]

I played under a 4-4-2 and coached under a 4-4-2.

I was able to do it in an adult game because we paid our players and had a big player pool because of it.

I like 4 backs for a lot of reasons. On attack you can use one of them as an attacker maybe even rwo. On defense you have 4 backs who can fall back and you have at least one of the mids the far side mid as another back during transition to defense depending if you over lap or not.

Why so many players back like Arena I fear the counter. I also fear have only 3 mids on defense because I don't want to lose midfield either so one of the two fowards is recessed in our defensive half so he acts as a mid as well.

How many counter attack goals do the US team let it during a season? Not many I don't like counter attack goals against our team either. It is not even don't like I hate that it spoils the whole day for me even if we win the game.

On attack why only 2 strikers and not three? So on attack a mid any mid has more space to attack or you have space for a back to use. Have 3 strikers you have less space to attack if those three are up and don't come to the ball that much.

[tacticone]

eriksson came with a big reputation for winning after using a different tactic in the last half hour of games so what does he do?
i'll tell you he tries out about 50 players in 6 months first with 4-3-3 then all the time 4-4-2 until the diamond system with gerrard on the left and frank lampard in defensive midfield, ridiculous.
but now it is time for england to WIN the world cup again to shut up the idiots north of the border we need 3-5-2.
goalkeeper:robinson
defence:campbell
defence:terry(c)
defence:ferdinand
wing back:a cole
wing back:wright phillips
centre: gerrard
centre: lampard
centre: beckham
second striker:rooney
centre forward: owen

[Mr Martin]

Best formation? It depends, of course...

Are you coaching a professional team? Can you pick and cut players? Do you have speed? Size? Skill? What formations are you most experienced with and knowledgeable about (you will coach those better, most likely)?

Or, are you coaching youth? Younger teens and development/teaching is the main objective? Older teens and winning cup competitions is the goal?

So many variables.

I like to think of the 4-3-3 as the "standard", simplest formation, because it spreads players out aound the field somewhat evenly. I then use that or change it to something else based on my team's talent and/or my goals/objectives.

If you are coaching a pro team or a high-level, older competitive youth team, you will definately want to fit the formation to your team's strengths. Have a number of good, but conservative defenders??? ===> Then play with three backs who don't attack much. Some good defenders who are also good at attacking??? ===> Then play with 4-backs and have the outside backs attack a lot. Lots of workers/runners??? ===> Maybe 4 or even 5 midfielders. Not so many 2-way players??? ===> then use fewer midfielders. Dangerous forwards who play good, quick combinations? ===> you'll want at least 2 so that they have someone to partner with. Etc...

If you are coaching a younger youth team and you are still developing players and learning what their potential is, then you need to think differently from the pro team coach. Do you want to teach forwards to move diagonally and also teach midfielders to step into offensive space and attack? ===> Then you may want to use a formation with only 2 forwards and 4 or 5 midfielders. Two forwards creates purposeful gaps and spaces up front that players are supposed to read, move into and out of, and exploit. Do you want to teach defenders to attack? ===> Then avoid 3-back systems because they tend to restrict defender's attacking options (less space to step into, and less cover if you do step forward). Etc.

Basic, simple formations that are good for younger players and beginners or for players with clearly specialized skills: 4-3-3 and 3-4-3.

Formations that help encourage movement and interchanging positions: 4-4-2 and 4-5-1.

Formations for more experienced players who have specialized skills: 3-5-2 or the "4-line" formations some people use like 3-2-3-2, 4-2-3-1, 1-4-4-1, etc.

[Mani]

5-3-2 is in my opinion the best formation in amature soccer.

[GROVESHSCOACH]

5-3-2 is in my opinion the best formation in amature soccer.


In amateur soccer i would think that it would be hard to find playhers that both have the endurance and fully understand a wingback system.

[usscouse]

I introduced my U14's to 442 last season. Flat back 4, Diamond mid. with 2 up front. A taget man and an out and out striker. We had great results and finished unbeaten in our league and had a decent run in the State Cup. The 442 looked more like this though.

RB-----CB-----CB-----LB
---------CM
RM-------------------LM
--------------CM
--------S
-------------S

We play overlapping backs and one CB supporting attacks and free kicks and corners.
The defensive mid is a stopper and stays between the ball and goal to slow down an attack before that get to our back line.
The taget men are the attacking mid and right striker. The striker is a "greyhound" who can shoot.

[smith07]

It depends on where your talent & depth is. I have 3 decent strikers, lots of midfielders and an adequate number of midefielders so i go 3-5-2 if I want a wide open game and 4231 when I want to get conservative

[Royal Revolt]

i've been in a lot of positions through several formations,
4-2-1-3
3-4-2-1 (yeah,3-6-1 on defense)
3-3-1-3
3-2-2-3
3-3-2-2
as an attacking midfielder i must say that i like formations with more than 3 players at midfield,because for ex,the first form,i'm the '1',have to play as playmaker,but in defensive pos i end as centrehalf mid,you get early fatigue in the game if your train is no so good,because that 'route' (from area to area)takes a lot of energy,and you know i'm not pro,so can´t run all day long like forrest gump :D

[thepundit]

this isn't the best formation by any means but one time while i was watching two teams play on this relatively short, extremely narrow field near my house, and i was thinking that on a field like that it would be fun to watch a team playing a 3-3-4. they could overload the final third and get the defense spread really badly, and if they had decent speed in the back they wouldn't be especially vulnerable to counter-attacking because of the fact that the small field is so easily covered. i just think that would be fun to watch, not necessarily the best.

[ReyesIsMyMate]

my favourite is 4-2-3-1/4-5-1:

--------GK--------
RB---CB---CB---LB
-----DM---DM-----
--RW---AM---LW--
-------ST--------

can be switched to a 4-4-2 easily if the wingers stay back and the am pushes up. very popular in the spanish league: valencia, deportivo, real madrid, barcelona.... very versatile formation :D

Guillermo