Can someone explain merits/drawbacks of formations?

[Unregistered]

If he wants to be a good defender sweeper or not he needs dicipline. Always cover his other defenders. That means he needs to learn the correct distance and angles.
God tackler. Know when to tackle ,know when to push to weaker side. He needs quick feet to catch up to speedy forwards or recover to defensive position. He needs to be good in their with timing of defensive crosses.
For me it about dicipline. A non decipline sweeper will not be effective. Hope this helps

Meant to write good in the air. Look at the way Robert huth from Leicester city plays

[Unregistered]

Excellent, thanks for your reply.

[Unregistered]

Well, with one, you have four in the back.
With the other, you have three in the back.
Hope this helps...

This is why I hate this site. It would be so much more enjoyable if people like this didn't exist. Like if their Mom and Dad never met.

[Unregistered]

For example, 4 vs 3 in back?

This is why I hate this site. It would be so much more enjoyable if people like this didn't exist.
Like if their Mom and Dad never met.

Watch a freaking match once in a while...

[Unregistered]

This is why I hate this site. It would be so much more enjoyable if people like this didn't exist.
Like if their Mom and Dad never met.

Watch a freaking match once in a while...

I watch matches with my kids all the time. I have yet to see a match where the commentators broke down the responsibilities, advantages and disadvantages of a 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 3-5-2 etc. It's especially interesting to understand why coaches adjust formations during a tie game, for example (most of us can figure out why a player gets pushed forward when trailing, etc).

[Unregistered]

Best Analysis/Learning Site

http://www.zonalmarking.net/

Best site ever but not so active now... Anyone have something close that's active now?

[Unregistered]

I watch matches with my kids all the time. I have yet to see a match where the commentators broke down the responsibilities, advantages and disadvantages of a 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 3-5-2 etc. It's especially interesting to understand why coaches adjust formations during a tie game, for example (most of us can figure out why a player gets pushed forward when trailing, etc).

Simple answer
4-3-3 regarded as the most attack oriented formation
4-4-2 the old standby
3-5-2 when you have a team heavy in midfielders
It depends entirely on your team make-up. Simple game to play, simple game to coach.
Far too much overcoaching..
And idiots like to throw out the old "he got outcoached" slogan...

[Unregistered]

This is why I hate this site. It would be so much more enjoyable if people like this didn't exist.
Like if their Mom and Dad never met.

Watch a freaking match once in a while...

The site is named talking soccer. Thus one would presume it's about talking about soccer. Instead it is more about giving soccer snobs like you a venue to spew their bile. You are probably the type of person that likes to hoard info at work, so you appear to be the smartest person in the room. In reality you are an insecure POS.

Some of us are interested in seeing soccer become more popular. Sharing insight is a good way to facilitate that. The sport would benefit from having few snobs.

[Unregistered]

Simple answer
4-3-3 regarded as the most attack oriented formation
4-4-2 the old standby
3-5-2 when you have a team heavy in midfielders
It depends entirely on your team make-up. Simple game to play, simple game to coach.
Far too much overcoaching..
And idiots like to throw out the old "he got outcoached" slogan...

With 3 in the back, how do they function to cover the width of the field and not allow either split balls or balls over the top to runners- especially the center back? Don't they get too stretched? Is 3 in the back only workable with either tremendous defensive speed or midfielders that can get all the way back? What shape are the 5 midfielders in?

[Unregistered]

With 3 in the back, how do they function to cover the width of the field and not allow either split balls or balls over the top to runners- especially the center back? Don't they get too stretched? Is 3 in the back only workable with either tremendous defensive speed or midfielders that can get all the way back? What shape are the 5 midfielders in?

You need track stars for your wide midfielders. Some times a 3 in the back scenario play real tight, almost 3 central defenders. Some, it's just one, with two wide defenders. One of the 5 midfielders plays very deep. Your five could look like this:

*
* * *
*

[Unregistered]

You need track stars for your wide midfielders. Some times a 3 in the back scenario play real tight, almost 3 central defenders. Some, it's just one, with two wide defenders. One of the 5 midfielders plays very deep. Your five could look like this:

*
* * *
*

Yeah, I figured that formatting wouldn't come out right. Picture it like a diamond, with one in the middle. You'd have your attacking, playing behind and between two forwards. Three in a line, and one holding behind them.

OR

Two holding midfielders, playing deep. Then, three across the second tier, almost like an inverted V.

Depends on personnel/opponent/tactics.

[Unregistered]

Yeah, I figured that formatting wouldn't come out right. Picture it like a diamond, with one in the middle. You'd have your attacking, playing behind and between two forwards. Three in a line, and one holding behind them.

OR

Two holding midfielders, playing deep. Then, three across the second tier, almost like an inverted V.

Depends on personnel/opponent/tactics.

Thanks. I imagine that at least a couple of the midfielders would have to maintain a very defensive mindset. Otherwise, the 3 in back can't support each other and any 1v1 mistake would be a huge problem. It would seem to be very risky to play this way vs a 4-3-3 for example.

[Unregistered]

Thanks. I imagine that at least a couple of the midfielders would have to maintain a very defensive mindset. Otherwise, the 3 in back can't support each other and any 1v1 mistake would be a huge problem. It would seem to be very risky to play this way vs a 4-3-3 for example.

It would be risky if your opponent played from the wing often. If they themselves overloaded the central, then not as much. Even still, the wings do need to cover it.

I personally don't like it, more of a 4-2-3-1 guy myself, which is just a nifty way of saying 4-5-1 mind you. Depends on how well your central mids are interchangeable.

[Unregistered]

Worth noting that in some tactical ways, a 3-5-2 is more defensive since the 3 in the back rarely attack. With 4 in the back, the outside two have responsibilities to get forward as well as back.

[Unregistered]

Thanks. I imagine that at least a couple of the midfielders would have to maintain a very defensive mindset. Otherwise, the 3 in back can't support each other and any 1v1 mistake would be a huge problem. It would seem to be very risky to play this way vs a 4-3-3 for example.

From my observations over the years, you are exactly right. 3 in the back almost never works on the field the way it is supposed to on paper. In a 3-5-2, the outside kids are responsible to defend the touch line all the way back to the goal line. They rarely do simply because they're not trained or conditioned to do so. So when attacking balls to wide, one of the outside defenders is forced to get over and cover that leaving behind him tons of space that is very difficult for the remaining 2 defenders to cover.

Usually, a 3 back formation is the result of a coach trying to do something different in order to show that they're smarter than everyone else. Over coaching.