Hi, I am trying to understand the 4-4-2 with a diamond backline (sweeper, stopper, two outside backs). A new head coach wants to go with that and it occurs to me that I have never played or coached in that formation. First, I want to understand the defensive responsibilities with the backs then perhaps the offensive tendencies. Defensively, is it similar to the 3-5-2 with one defensive midfielder playing withdrawn or is it a totally different animal? If it is similar to the 3-5-2, does it imply that the sweeper provide cover and the two other backs man-mark? Also, does it require the backs to stay compact and closely connected like the 3-5-2 or can the backline play wider like a flat (or swoosh) back four? Does it imply a man-to-man defense or can it be played zonally? And finally, how far up or far back does the stopper play. Does he withdraw to make the backline look like a 1-3 or does he stay farther up to make the backline look like a 3-5-2 with one defensive midfielder? I am going to research the subject if I can find a good resource, but I have noticed a lot of folks have some good ideas about formations and tactics and was curious about your opinions. Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Well, you'll get as many different answers as you get replies. And the answer is it that all depends. When I play 4 back with a sweeper, it is less of a diamond and more of a back three with a single player behind the three man line, i.e. the sweeper. The forward of the two centerbacks, the stopper, is the marker, and all the defenders have a primary responsbility for marking a player, as opposed to true zonal play. I don't worry too much about opposing teams trying to overload the zone, because I have the sweeper to cover anyone who comes free or leaves their area. I primarily coach girls using the 3-4-3, so when I have the extra defender, yes, I do have/allow my two outside fullbacks to play wider than they would in the 3-5-2. Every time I have coached a 4-4-2 sweeper, I have had central midfielders who tended more to a defensive (though I don't much use the term "defensive mid") role, and that midfielder's job has been to cut off the wide player angling in diagonally in the final third. Playing a sweeper this way really requires a superb player to be that sweeper, someone who can win the ball, distribute well (and given this subset, want to play back) and can communicate decisively. I firmly believe that players are more important than position in soccer (as opposed to baseball and football, where the positions of pitcher and QB are of greater importance), but when you play a sweeper, s/he really is the key to whether your team will be any good. I would not play a sweeper back four if you don't have a quality player to fit in there.
I've used a diamond back several times at different age and skill levels. I don't think it works well with man-to-man marking. Definitely zonal with the fullbacks, the stopper picking up point-of-attack and the sweeper, as Val1 says, basically playing life saver. Without a reliable sweeper (who can compensate for flaws in the other three defenders) the diamond back won't work. In other words, the diamond is only as effective as the sweeper is talented. I think the system works best for players high school age and younger. Some defenders on the men's club I coach asked for this system earlier this season but have realized it isn't appropriate for this level of play. So when we're using four backs (we prefer the WM), it has been either a flat back four or three backs playing flat with a very brilliant sweeper behind them when we defend and ahead of them distributing and directing play when we have the ball. Mature, intelligent players know how to pick a diamond apart.
I agree totally, and have moved all my teams to flat backs for the last 6 or 7 years because of it... the only good news is that depending on your team's level of play, you may not see very many mature intelligent players. For those teams that I did use the diamond back with though, our success depended totally on two things from those four players: Absolute understanding of each other's strengths and weaknesses and lots of blazing speed to help cover each other's butts.
Which is why this formation is bad for younger kids; it stifles development. The three "inferior" backs are hidden [compensated for] without having their true weaknesses addressed. And, the sweeper, becomes a reactionary player who spends most of his time covering for his players - rather than dictating play and developing to his full potential.
duh. Forgot to mention it. U12-U14 boys. Since I work with keepers I am trying to understand the the strengths and weaknesses of the formation primarily to have the keepers recognize problems with the defense and fix them, and two, understand the strenghts and weaknesses and formation and the danger areas, lastly what at the offensive tendencies that the formation has. Thanks there have been a lot of good comments which I am studying. I am curious from those who have mentioned it, how do you attack a diamond backline in a 4-4-2.
(My chief complaint about a 4 back system is that you often don't need a three marking backs, so the team must be constantly adjusting to be efficient. I don't coach at the level that these others do, but from my observation--it is the midfield support that keeps the defense from breaking down. But I think that is true of any system.) I am posting just to mention the common zonal system when used: the three marking backs in three zones accross. The boundaries of the zones shift to the strong side with the weak side full back covering near the far post. Thinking of the field as divided into four lanes in the defensive third, this leaves the lane along the weakside touchline open. Common variations would be to assign the stopper (central marker) a role instead of a zone, i.e., mark a particular individual man-to-man or go to the point of attack as DoctorK mentions. That would leave only two zonal markers so the zones would have to change and leave the defense more vulnerable to flank play. I disagree that using this system inhibits development. First you can rotate players through the different positions. Second during the run of play each of the backs will assume the role of sweeper at some time (a beaten marking back recovers to the sweeper's covering position). The biggest problem I see in this system is that the backs need to be able to spot trouble early and the team must communicate and adjust. The advantage of the system is that the far post should never be uncovered.
The key is getting the sweeper to commit. Attack on one flank, and, after the sweeper commits, change the direction of attack so that the sweeper is out of the play, eliminating the defensive cover behind the marking backs. Typically you see a lot of early long diagonal balls and crosses while there is still space behind the defense to exploit.
I'm not a fan of this system for many reasons, but in the few occasions I've used it, it's been zonal. Outside backs deal with the flanks when the ball's wide and pinch in when it's central. The stopper's main responsibility is to clog the middle and prevent service up the gut. The sweeper's job, as always, is to be the last man. But there are different ways this can be run, as you can see from the responses above. I think you're forgetting the best method of research: just ask your coach how he wants it done. Besides, if you're not exactly sure what he wants, then chances are some of your teammates aren't either.
Great, great comments everyone. Thanks. Given the responses and from what I have read, I am now curious about the actual SHAPE of the back line. SMU coach, Hyndman, list a sweeper and a “center back” in his description of the 4-4-2 but he diagrams all the backs straight across, as flat a back four as your can diagram. He seems to prefer a high back line, which would imply a sweeper playing without much depth. Is the standard shape of the back line a “T” with the 3 backs straight across and the sweeper centered behind? Or is the shape a diamond with the stopper playing ahead of the sweeper and the outside backs and the sweeper with some depth, that is, behind the horizontal line of the outside backs? If the stopper is ahead and the sweeper behind, how far ahead and behind are they in a standard formation? Let me tell you what I am used to in a 4-4-2. Back line: Some people call it flat, but it is more of a swoosh, which seems to be the new word, playing zonally. In my mind, it is a lot like the pivoting 3 and 4 man back lines that have been around forever. The 2 center backs would generally alternate the marking/cover duties depending on who was ball side and who was weak side. At the younger age group (U12 and under) I was accustom to the “T” shaped back line with the sweeper playing deep behind a flat 3. Midfield: Diamond midfield and also the 4 straight across. Problems with the 4 man back line with a deep lying sweeper. Balance: If the sweeper is playing with a lot of depth, when the ball is at the wing, the group shifts toward the ball side which gives the defense balance problems. If you play a team that can make the final pass to unbalance the defense, it is really tough. Depth: When the ball is at the wing, if the sweeper drifts toward the wing too much, then the center back has to drop back to mark the center forward. This leaves open space behind the center forward at the 18 for clear and easy shots on goal. Hopefully your defensive midfielder will recognize this and drop back to occupy that open space but how often does that happen? These are two of the scenarios that cause problems with a sweeper playing deep. Any thoughts on weaknesses of this system of play when the attack is central? I was going to talk to the head coach about how he implements the diamond back of the 4-4-2 but I wanted to get a better understanding of it in order to ask more intelligent questions. Thanks.
Yeah, and if you can attack from the side into the middle so you pull a defender with you, then pull in the sweeper as well by attacking straight at them. basically you want to have the defense collapse on a player who then plays the ball into space.
Most effective dismantling of the diamond I've seen is incremental waves down the flank to the inside. Third man in has space for a shot, as the diamond's been stretched with the opposing side's back unwilling to commit that far inside. Other effective way is attack central to pull out the stopper, send the ball down the flank to pull a fullback and dump the ball in the space between the sweeper and the stopper. With either approach, you're trying to pry the diamond apart. If it want stretch, send wings in to switch through the area, in hopes of being open in the confusion, passing through areas of coverage.
Don't read too much into a diagram. What I would assume from them being placed straight across in a diagram is that all three marking backs would have the same role offensively and defensively. The actual position on the field is going to be determined by the circumstances. What I normally use is a modified zone where the markers defend within a zone and mark man-to-man within that zone (assuming that a midfielder has come back to help). The sweeper's location (and the ball) defines the depth of the zone that defender must mark within. I prefer a sweeper that varies his depth behind the markers based on the circumstances. (Quickness of the markers and attackers being a big factor.) The best sweepers I have observed normally were 2-5 yards behind the marking backs and trapped early to keep the attackers high and cautious. In practice you often see the weakside fullback sagging back rather than staying high because he does not need to mark as tight with the ball distant. Edit: To clarify: this means that the sweeper may be 10-15 yards behind the strongside fullback but only 2-5 yards behinds the weakside fullback.
One place you can start is at uefa.com - Training Ground - Team Tactics - Formations, http://www.uefa.com/trainingground/index.html#34002 You can get some insight into several different systems. I hope that helps.
Thank you all for the great postings sharing your experience with the diamond back. Thanks for the pointer to the UEFA web site. I always lose that link. I think that site is a good example of the many different ways that people implement the 4-4-2. I think a couple of questions I should pose of the head coach are: - How much depth do you want the sweeper to have? - When the ball is at the wing, where do you want the sweeper, and under what circumstances do you want him to move? - How much do you want the off-the-ball fullback to pinch in? (This is the balance problem we talked about earlier with the formation.) Thanks again everyone. You posted some very, very good observations.