Scourge of the 4-5-1

[FutbolCrazy]

I am absolutely perplexed by the number of coaches who trotted out the negative 4-5-1 formation and then were shocked to learn that it is real hard to score goals playing it.

Why on earth would you EVER play a 4-5-1 ???

[2-8-0]

Only a simpleton(don't take it personally, you're not alone) would assume a formation with more forwards would produce more attacking chances and goals. That would be true if you're talking about football which is predominantly played with direct and long balls. However, in reality, most of the possession are carried out in the midfield. The rationale behind coaches utilising a 4-5-1 is actually to allow their teams to have more possession of the ball in order to create chances and score. In this respect, a 4-5-1 might actually be a more attacking formation than the 4-4-2.

[Maruti]

That depends on what 4:5:1 formation you choose. If you have agressive wingers and one or two midfielders coming up to help out the lone striker - yes it can be a more aggressive formation. But if the other team plays 4:5:1 chances are you will end up being bogged down in midfield.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Most of the 4-5-1 formations involve two holding midfielders, which therefore allows you to grant total freedom to three attacking midfielders to roam behind a lone striker. It's not negative in the slightest.

[sinner78]

Most of the 4-5-1 formations involve two holding midfielders, which therefore allows you to grant total freedom to three attacking midfielders to roam behind a lone striker. It's not negative in the slightest.


arranged properly its a nice tactic.
not like svens version which was totally unbalanced.
or bruce arena's joke version of 4-5-1.

[mfw13]

But that's not what is happening. The way people are using the 4-5-1 at this world cup is that the second striker is being replaced by a defensive midfielder, not an attacking player.

In the 4-4-2, you already have two attacking wingers, along with a defensive midfielder and an attacking midfielder. If the 4-5-1 was used to add a second attacking midfielder, it would probably be ok. However, instead it is being used to add a second defensive midfielder, which is clogging up the center of the pitch and leading to boring midfield battles.

Look at yesterday's matches where four of the top teams in the world (Brazil, France, England, Portugal) all played a 4-5-1, scored exactly 1 goal between them and produced so few good scoring chances that they could be counted on one hand.

It's one thing when minnows play the 4-5-1 against better teams in order to try to squeak out a draw. It's embarassing when the top teams in the world do.

[leg_breaker]

Barcelona play 4-5-1, I suppose you think they're negative?

You'll find that games are low-scoring and tight at this level as the teams are so well organised and evenly matched, and so much is at stake that no team really gives an inch.

It has nothing to do with formations. In fact England attacked more with a 4-4-1 than Portugal did with a 4-3-3.

[XaviandXabi]

I am absolutely perplexed by the number of coaches who trotted out the negative 4-5-1 formation and then were shocked to learn that it is real hard to score goals playing it.

Why on earth would you EVER play a 4-5-1 ???

because Brasil did it in 2002

[Goal_Crazy]

Yea, Scolari invented the 4-5-1 formation in 2002, and now everyone else is copying him. :rolleyes:

[2-8-0]

It was a 3-6-1 rather. There's no way you gonna have the 3Rs incorporated into a 4-5-1 structure. They had a back three of Roque Jr, Lucio and Edmilson. Cafu and Roberto Carlos played on the flanks as wingbacks with Gilberto Silva and Kleberson anchoring midfield. Ronaldo was the lone man upfront supported by Rivaldo and Ronaldinho in the "hole".

[sidis]

the great part of 4-5-1 formarions have 1, 2 or 3 players that can be the second striker when the team need.

holland for example: in defense they play in 4-5-1 because the wingers go back, in attack and counter attacks they play in 4-3-3

[sidis]

Yea, Scolari invented the 4-5-1 formation in 2002, and now everyone else is copying him. :rolleyes:


4-5-1 is older than 02, scotland play in 4-5-1 in 94 and don't was the first.

[Goal_Crazy]

lol, thats what I was trying to imply with the rolleyes.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

But that's not what is happening. The way people are using the 4-5-1 at this world cup is that the second striker is being replaced by a defensive midfielder, not an attacking player.

In the 4-4-2, you already have two attacking wingers, along with a defensive midfielder and an attacking midfielder. If the 4-5-1 was used to add a second attacking midfielder, it would probably be ok. However, instead it is being used to add a second defensive midfielder, which is clogging up the center of the pitch and leading to boring midfield battles.

Look at yesterday's matches where four of the top teams in the world (Brazil, France, England, Portugal) all played a 4-5-1, scored exactly 1 goal between them and produced so few good scoring chances that they could be counted on one hand.

THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING

As I clearly stated previously, most of the 4-5-1 formations mean playing with two holding midfielders but therefore granting almost complete freedom to three attacking midfielders. In a normal (flat) 4-4-2 you have three attacking players (two wingers and an attacking central midfielder), with perhaps one striker dropping deep. The problem that results is it forces them to all drop back to defend and they must stick to their positions. If they don't you will be overrun by the opposition when not in possession and particularly on the break.

4-5-1 means the three attacking players can be given the freedom to roam around and do whatever they want, without the added defensive responsibility. You are basically taking the shackles off your attacking talent.

[FutbolCrazy]

[QUOTE=Teso Dos Bichos4-5-1 means the three attacking players can be given the freedom to roam around and do whatever they want, without the added defensive responsibility. You are basically taking the shackles off your attacking talent.[/QUOTE]

Taking the shackles OFF the attacking talent ? Brazil had like 1 shot on goal for the first 80 minutes or so. :rolleyes:

[2-8-0]

Ronaldinho started ALONGSIDE instead of BEHIND Ronaldo. Rewind the tape pal.

[Figo Rules]

4-5-1 is too general a term. Most teams use a 4-2-3-1 like Portugal has done for years. The key is that one of the def. mids is actually used to support the attack like Maniche does and Vieira does for France, for example, while Costinha and Makalele are the true def. mids.

The 4 out and out attackers usually play in a diamond shape, with one main creator, 2 wingers and a lone striker at the top of the diamond.
The weakness of the system is that you only have one target man in the box to aim for, and he can sometimes be marked out of a game, whereas if you have 2 strikers, it forces the defense to defend two channels as the attack
builds up through the middle (I need a chalkboard, dammit:D), and the strikers can play off each other, setting each other up in the box.

England, I'm pretty sure was lined up more in a 4-1-4-1, with Hargreaves in front of the back four so there are variations on a 4-5-1 and with the right personnel, it works.
Now, if you're England and you don't have a true #10, you end up with Gerrard and Lampard getting in each other's way and no one running the show.

Most systems should be geared to your personnel, instead of trying to fit round pegs into square holes.

I still can't believe Janas switched to 4-2-3-1 on the eve of the WC. Playing Zurawski alone up front? Bringing Radomski in to partner Sobolewski to play 2 def. mids. Poland should have stuck to the 4-4-2 that served them well in the qualifiers. Oh well, my Polish friends will keep fighting.

[neilgrossman]

Anyone know the record of team starting just one forward? It seems like those teams almost always tie or lose. I'm having trouble thinking of teams who won with that starting formation.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Portugal and France play it. They are in the next semi-final.

[neilgrossman]

I did my own research and spreadsheet work.

I looked up each match report on FIFA's WC website. I counted the number of forwards listed as starters. I counted shoot-out wins/losses as wins/losses, not ties. This includes 1st round, round of 16 and quarter finals.

Here is what I found out:
Teams starting one forward had 8 wins, 4 ties, and 16 losses
Teams starting multiple forwards had 41 wins, 18 ties, and 33 losses

I'll be happy to send the excel file to anyone who wants it. Also, I started a new thread with more details.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8926396