What are the positives and negatives of a: 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 3-6-1, 4-3-3, etc...? I realize many things are factored into a choice but what are they and what is everybody using? Is there a combination of two depending if you are playing with a lead or playing from behind? I have my theroies but want to hear what others think.
What are the positives and negatives of a: 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 3-6-1, 4-3-3, etc...? 4-4-2 is considered a more defensive formation because you have the four backs and a defensive inside mid. Plus when you lose the ball your flank mids try to get behind the ball as well. -------------- 3-5-2 is less defensive because one less back. You have 5 mids to help you control the midfield. It is even more important for your flank mids to get behind the ball on defense because you have one less back then the 4-4-2 You can play 2 defensive mids in this formation. ------------- 3-6-1 Means you have an abundance of midfielders on your particular team, and or you have a weak midfield and are trying to shore it up with extra mids. You better have a really good striker, and your other mids have to know how to get into the attack when you have the ball. It can also confuse the opponents on which midfielders they have to worry about on an attack at a particular time. ----------------------- 4-3-3 is the first formation new teams use to start off with. Girls teams seem to like it and use it more then mens teams. Weakness is less open space for strikers to attack because you have that extra striker. Another weakness the first pass in transition can beat those three strikers and be into your midfield. That is a problem because you only have three midfield players. Strenghts are you have that extra striker. Which may or may not force the opponent to play with and extra back to be numbers up. Richie
Two things: First, you work to get your best players into their best positions and decide your alignment from that. I typically build the line-up out of the defense and move forward. Second, your players will need to understand a variety of alignments. That way, they can switch alignments during the course of a game if the situation changes. One of the teams I coach has been using a 5-3-2 alignment with good success. The defense consists of two wing-backs, two marking backs (or central backs) and a sweeper. The wing-backs need speed, as they get to run end-to-end. This systems tires them out, so they will need subbing. The three middies play in an interior triangle, and move about the field as a unit. The strikers stretch out the field, with the strong-side striker supporting the wing play and the weak-side striker pressing forward. We switch to a 3-5-2 when we need to press on their goal. We switch to a 4-4-2 when we need to slow the game down. Field coverage is quite good with a 4-4-2 and slightly defensive, and we use the diamond midfield. Field coverage is best with 4-3-3, but it definitely is a waste to have too many forward. Most 4-3-3 implementations migrate to a 4-2-3-1, with four backs, a defensive midfielder to break up the opponent and a defensive midfielder to distribute. Then you have two wing players that are very attack-minded and an attacking middie. The lone striker should be a very powerful player, able to fend off defenders a la Ruud van Nistlerooy or Ronaldo.
My club team plays a 3-5-2 and it works great! Are Center Back is the best player in the state so we can afford to only have 3 defenders, but although only 3 defenders are listed...this is a very defensive formation because there are two defensive midfielders. The offensive midfielder (which I play) is the creation, and playmaker. They make most of the goals happen. The outside midfielders, which we call Ala's, come back and play defense but also attack as much as offensive midfielders. You have to have two outside midfielders, or ala's which are in very good shape. This formation works great because there is always shape. If the ball is on the left and the left outside midfielder is taking the ball downfield, then the right outside midfielder drops back and your defense drops across, so it is like there are 4 backs all the time. If one side goes, then the other side stays back and the defense drops across. There are alwayz many people in midfield and the midfield is what wins or loses games. Try this formation it is the BeST.
Since we're talking coaching here, I assume you mean formations for youth teams. So, I'll stick with that that thought. I once had an instructor tell me to pick the players, then build the formation around their strengths and weaknesses. After trying both that and picking players to fit my "ideal" formation, he was 100% correct. 4-4-2, as was mentioned, is the generic, defensive minded setup. IMHO you're either playing for a 0-0 draw using a quick conter attack, or you have a wonderful pair of attackers up front who can get the job done against 4-6 defenders. Maybe both. 4-3-3 is a very balanced approach allowing players to play a bit more rigidly and will allow players to make more mistakes without hurting the shape on the field. This is a great place to start a formation and see where you're strengths and weakness really are. 3-5-2 is where I'd love one of my teams to be; I believe all games live and die in the midfield. Unfortuantely, I've never had the midfielders who could control the ball well enough to pull it off. If your league play is anything like mine, the size of the field varies a ton and is rarely full size. Putting 5 people in the midfield, on a smalll field is tough unless you have players with the control and vision of Brazil. My players would just get in each others way so I made the system more simple and worked on those skills. I have made changes from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 (even 5-4-1) for defensive purposes, but usually not to control a lead... generally because we were outmatched and I really was playing for a draw. If I had a lead, generally we got that lead for a reason, so I would just keep pressing that reason while it still was working.