[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/foot...nt/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]

Originally Posted by rca2

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]

Originally Posted by Twenty26Six

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]

Originally Posted by rca2

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]

Originally Posted by Twenty26Six

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]

Originally Posted by ranova

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.


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]

Originally Posted by Twenty26Six

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. ...

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.