Does anyone know of any team in any of the top leagues around the world that play an 'official' 4-2-3-1?
We don't generally deal with a lot of that kind of stuff around here, and as ou can maybe tell we don't get a lot of traffic through these parts regarless. Your best bet might be to ask the same question in this forum. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=24 Can I ask why you're wondering though. Are you trying to draw some kind of theory on success of different formations?
Tracking success/scoring trends/etc. would certainly be interesting; Last season Peter Hirdt had some nice observations about the 4-4-2 vs. 3-5-2 in MLS. Getting back to the original question, this article (in Italian) seems to suggest that Deportivo la Corun~a "traditionally" plays a 4-2-3-1. http://it.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/FixturesResults/Round=1636/Match=1036475/Report=PR.html
Yeah, I'm interested in particular application of lineups and the resulting statistics relative to success ratio. Thanks for the link!
I really appreciate the effort on finding the link. I'm fascinated with player personnel, style application and relative positioning - as well as the comparative results from unique lineups. Thanks again!
Big-time Deportivo fan here. I usually attend a couple of games a year in person (this year some family health problems have kept me home), and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about how Depor uses their 4-2-3-1. Take care.
Big-time Depor fan here. I usually attend a couple of games a year in person (this year some family health problems have kept me home), and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about how Depor uses their 4-2-3-1. Take care. Just an FYI on earlier comments regarding the formation and scoring - I have no idea without some research on how Depor's scoring has compared with the rest of La Primera, but I do know they've used the formation to create two pichichis (European top goal-scorers) out of Tristan and Makaay. Pandiani - their latest front runner (or the "1") - was on a holy tear at the beginning of this season before he was injured. Counting Champions League, Copa del Rey, and La Liga matches, I think at one point he'd scored in 8 straight matches and 9 out of 10. Javier Irureta almost never, ever detours from the formation. It works best when Valeron is healthy and in form, Mauro Silva is the prototypical DMid for the formation, and it helps to have two good wingers on each side. Like I said, if you have any other questions, just drop me a PM or email.
Nutmeg, since you've seen the 4-2-3-1 a lot, could you spend some time discussing it's strengths and weaknesses? Who else plays it? I think that would be interesting in and of itself, apart from a purely statistical analysis. I think a soccermetric study of formational approaches measured against goals allowed and goals scored would be very stimulating. Since, as you say, Deportivo uses this formation consistently, they seem to be an excellent candidate for this kind of study, compared to say a team that uses another formation consistently. As you know, Bruce said earlier in the last WC cycle that he thought the international play demanded 4 in the back, given the high quality front runners you would face. Then, of course, he changed his mind facing both Mexico and Germany in the knockout rounds. Then you have Brazil, who abandoned their traditional 4-4-2 for a twin d-mid setup.
I'd be curious as to HOW goals were scored. (Understanding that there's alot of subjectivity in the categorizing.) I'm a CM fanatic. I had 3 different formations...a 4-2-3-1, a 3-5-2, and a 3-1-4-2. Of the three, I got the most goals from bringing the ball in from wide in the 4-2-3-1, and the most goals from coming down the middle in the 3-1-4-2. Defensively, in the 3-5-2, I knew I was weak wide, so I got guys who were beasts in the air to deal with the inevitable crosses. I mention this NOT because I think it's directly relevant, but to bring up the kinds of questions that I think it would be interesting to explore.
I think you touched upon the real attacking plan of a successful application of the 4-2-3-1 Wide attacks spread defenses, and the transition coming from the wide backs, or defensive mids - starts the attack. Ideally, distribution from the back comes to the A-mid, then is immediately sent wide for a run. Meanwhile, the opposite wide mid makes a diagonal to the box, and the striker is taking a defender near post. The attacking mid heads diagonal toward the ball carrier for service. The immediate options of the ball carrier are the striker at the near post, and the following A-mid. This creates an effective triangle deep in the attacking zone. If the ball carrier is forced wide and deep, he should have the option of crossing to the far post where the other wide mid is. If one of the D-mids gets into good position at the top of the eighteen, it leaves a strong option of the A-mid gathering a pass and redirecting the attack from a more centered alignment. And the options become even more varied with most of the 'front four' already deep. The part that really impresses me about this kind of attacking philosophy - is that the back four are not committed upfield, and one of the D-mids is not penetrating the attacking third, therefore adding all-that-much-more support defensively.
Quick google search yeilded that Peter Hirdt column that was mentioned. Here's the part where he talks about formations. Not much there, but hey.
It would be interesting to model soccer teams on a computer, and use that to examine different formations. That way, you can control for the quality of players and coaching. I stumbled across this a few days ago: http://sserver.sourceforge.net/
It was a 4-3-3 for the last couple years but the 4-3-2-1 is taking over as the flavor of the flavor of the next couple years. The Netherlands even switched from the 4-3-3 which they used religiously to a 4-3-2-1. There was an article in 4-4-2 (the magazine) about it. It's called El Espaniol or something like that because so many teams in La Liga use it. Both Argentina and USA used it today. Formations are overrated. Systems of play are what matter.
http://www.football-lineups.com is an extensive database about formations used all over the world, you might want to take a look.
I don't think formations are overrrated at all. What Holland did to Italy yesterday was mainly possible through their 4-2-3-1 and hitting on the break. Holland does not win 3-0 with their tradtional style (although let it be known I am in mourning for it).
Liverpool played 4-2-3-1 for the majority of games in the 2nd half of last season. This coincided with the team winning 7 games in a row.
Shouldn't be anything revolutionary since France in 2006. They showed both the advantages and limitations of using 4231. Just watch all their matches, especially the knockout rounds.
First of all, it's important to say that 4-2-3-1 has 2 versions of itself: wider one which employs wingers and narrower one with no wingers, but with 3 Central Attacking Midfielders. Just like any other formation, 4-2-3-1 has its strengths & weaknesses and could be more or less suitable for various teams, depending on structure and qualities of their players. While wider version is best empoyed within teams tending to dominate and control the game with reasonably slower build-up of their play and exploiting full width of the pitch (i.e. Barca, although they use offensive 4-3-3), narrower 4-2-3-1 is, on the other hand, most successfully used by teams of high (or a bit above average), but not the highest (top) quality and is based on more cautious approach with counter-attack as the main weapon. Recent examples of success with 4-2-3-1 (in its more defensive version) are Liverpool's victory (1:0)over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge in their last match and Roma's victory also over Chelsea (3:0) in the Champions League.
There are various ways it can be utilised depending on the composition and role of the attacking three and whether you opt for a traditional striker or someone who will drop back to link the play. Roma have used the system to great effect but arguably the best example of it being used was against Roma in that Man Utd demolition job. If you have the right players (with the central midfield duo being key) then you can have a system that grants almost total freedom to the attacking quintet. It is very difficult to defend against an attacking midfield triumvirate all with a free role to roam and attack as they see fit. That is the fundamental advantage to a 4-2-3-1 used correctly and as it was originally intended. It takes a certain type of player and it needs a certain level of chemistry between your attacking players but get it right and it is deadly.
I totally agree with you and just want to add this: two central midfielders are key players (as you said) in order to provide cover either for attacking or for defending 4 and to improve defensive stability which is partly imperiled by the lack of players (more uncovered space between the back and frontline) in "holding midfield zone". So, both central MFs should be able to act not only as CMs but also as (hard-working) DMs (i.e. Mascherano & Xabi Alonso)
Well the team that iam fan of (Junior de Barranquilla) use 4-2-3-1, for me this one is the best formation below the diamond (4-1-2-1-2), i can see that for attacking it turns into a 4-3-3 with one mdfielder as a playmaker so is like a 4-2-1-3, so the backs of the wings dont go attacking that all, for deffendig, the two wingers go backwards to turn a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-5-1, is a very effective formation depending on the type of players yo have, if you have two very good wingers, a fast playmaker and a center forward that can move all along the area, it will succes.