The Fraudulence of Soccer Formations

[Mosiah]

This is going to be difficult for soccer traditionalists to swallow, but here goes.

Formations in soccer don't matter. Not anymore. Their chief function nowadays is to justify coaches' salaries and make TV commentators sound smart.

For some reason, in the run-up to any big match—like Thursday's Euro 2012 semifinal between Italy and the favored Germans—the chatter always centers on the formations each team will employ. Through the first 28 games at this year's Euro, teams used five distinct formations, a greater spread than at any Euro since 1996, according to UEFA, European soccer's governing body.

Read more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...688623764.html

[Mosiah]

I have long thought that formations were overrated.

[GazX]

This is going to be difficult for soccer traditionalists to swallow, but here goes.

Formations in soccer don't matter. Not anymore. Their chief function nowadays is to justify coaches' salaries and make TV commentators sound smart.

For some reason, in the run-up to any big match—like Thursday's Euro 2012 semifinal between Italy and the favored Germans—the chatter always centers on the formations each team will employ. Through the first 28 games at this year's Euro, teams used five distinct formations, a greater spread than at any Euro since 1996, according to UEFA, European soccer's governing body.

Read more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...688623764.html

Scotland v England (1872) was the first ever official international football match to be played. It was contested by the national teams of Scotland and England. The match took place on 30 November 1872 at West of Scotland Cricket Club's ground at Hamilton Crescent in Partick, Scotland. The match finished in a 0–0 draw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_v_England_(1872)

[TheDread]

My contention has always been that the game boils down to 11 vs 11; starting formation is useless once the whistle blows.

[Assasin]

Mo you done play this and you know formation work for some teams but for most teams it is down to adjustment on the field and one vs one. In most cases you stop the offensive threat wherever it is and try impose yourself on the opposition.

Formation works when you have players good enough at all the positions and the opposition doesn't.

[Mosiah]

It would make more sense if we spoke about formations in attack and also in defence. I would like to think they are not the same.

[Paul Marin]

My contention has always been that the game boils down to 11 vs 11; starting formation is useless once the whistle blows.

I don't agree that formations don't matter, but I do agree that STARTING formations are simply the first move as in a chess game. However, as the game progresses, many formations can come into play depending on the situation at hand...but while *starting* formations may not matter, formations - generally - do matter.

I think that formations are far more important for defensive shape than they are for attacking. It is when you have the ball that formations are less important other than to have a common frame of reference for defensive recovery - i.e. when you lose the ball. Without a formation, you will not have:

1. understanding of the role each player on the field is to play (i.e. you could have a squad of 11 messi's or 11 puyol's if formations did not matter); you only have to go to the Barcelona v. Chelski game to see that formations - even if it is 11 men behind the ball - do matter.

2. balance of tactical abilities - if I put out a squad of 11 messis I would probably get destroyed by a team that has a more balanced set of skills - formations help you get the balance right.

Where I do agree that formations are less important is when you are the attacking team and more creativity is needed to create space. Only a system of pressure and cover is needed in attack, and less so shape. In other words, if I am the right back and I press down the wing, someone needs to cover me in the event I lose the ball and the other team counters. That cover should and can come from anywhere and therefore, requires communication. Same thing applies if I am a center forward and I have the ball, I will release it to anyone applying pressure on the defense who happens to be in space, that could be my center back for all I care.

[Assasin]

Paul I remember while playing a game we had a forward who would constantly offside. He was fast but just couldn't beat the offside trap so halftime we adjusted. We were playing with two forward and what we did was pull back at the top of the mid where it was harder for him to offside and he scored two.

Vancouver now play with Mattocks as the forward and drop two other forward behind him like a diamond. Because Mattocks is fast and know how to move between defense and keep them at home while creating space for the other forwards who are slower but can shoot with space.

Formation only work if you have good players to play it in my view. On defensive if you playing against a player like Pele, Maradona, or Messi it is hard to hold shape.

[Stonigut]

Starting formation is theory, it is the execution of the strategy around it which is formidable.

I am not sure how anyone can say formation and execution to formation is useless, it is the key behind closing gaps or weaknesses in your team. It is exactly the same thing as style of fighting in boxing and say southpaw versus regular Fighting stance and say the southpaw is a bruiser with a wicked right cross and upper cuts in repertoire and his opponent is a boxer with a tendency to drop the left hand and move to the left then the boxer better change something as that is probably going to be a short fight, so switching stance if he is able, actually changes the fight dynamic as his weak point is less exposed thus enabling his strong point to become more effective. Same in ball if you have a weakness or better yet if your opponent has an undeniable advantage then strategy and execution can even make a 100 rank team able to draw or beat a number 1 team, if they played an open style of ball the 100 rank team would get 6 however knowing their weak spot they play a 5-3-2 or even a 6-3-1 stacking the defense And playing the counter attack/long ball strategy. We have seen this time and again over the years. I remember playing division 1 Muniball in Texas some years ago and as typical the Jamaican team turned up short, but this time we were truly short only 6 turned up Including goalie and the other team turned up with their full squad with reserves in tow, well they were smiling relishing the thought that this would be either no game So easy points or a very easy win, well we wanted to play and decided to employ a 4-0-1 strategy , our defense stymied them ad we also played a hard core offside trap and the refs were very fair, we ended up drawing the match 3-3 after going up 3-0 using long ball to the forward and exceedingly quick breaks when the opponent attack faltered, truth was they were nonchalant to start and then were shocked to be down, to there credit they pulled three back for the draw but needless to say we were done by the end and happy to hang on for the draw, that was an excellent demonstration of playing and executing to formation and achieving the result.

Another example is Jamaica playing 5-3-2 versus brazil in the gold cup some years back and we got the draw, no way that would have been a draw without that formation and execution to the formation. Formation and execution are critical in being able to adapt to the complexities of the opposition and their strengths, simple as that.

[Paul Marin]

Paul I remember while playing a game we had a forward who would constantly offside. He was fast but just couldn't beat the offside trap so halftime we adjusted. We were playing with two forward and what we did was pull back at the top of the mid where it was harder for him to offside and he scored two.

Vancouver now play with Mattocks as the forward and drop two other forward behind him like a diamond. Because Mattocks is fast and know how to move between defense and keep them at home while creating space for the other forwards who are slower but can shoot with space.

Formation only work if you have good players to play it in my view. On defensive if you playing against a player like Pele, Maradona, or Messi it is hard to hold shape.

Sass - I guess my point is that formations are a frame of reference that highlight the skills of players relative to the situation at hand. If you play chess, you'll understand that the ability of the player to apply the role and function of each chess piece to situations as they unfold on the board becomes a critical part of whether one player will beat another. However, there are well known defensive "formations" that when properly applied do neutralize threats. There is a corollary in football. Chelsea put 10 men behind the ball against barca in as rigid a formation as you could imagine going from 4-5-1 to 4-2-3 to 4-3-2 to 4-4-1 all within a 25 yard space depending on the situation they faced. That shape was critical in neutralizing Barca who appeared to be far more random...which is why I submit that the attacking team is the one that abandons formation, not the defensive.

For the defending team - formation is critical...it is both a mechanism for communication and application of each individual's respective skills. Said another way - the attacking team wants the defending team to descend into chaos and do so by being random themselves as chaos only aids the team with the ball, not the defending team. Order gives the defending team control. That order comes from a mix of positional placement (formation) and appropriate skill in the appropriate spot (i.e. don't put Messi in the holding midfielder spot). Being adaptable to the various attacking tactics without losing defensive shape will make a defending team much more successful than being random themselves...in fact, I think they EXPRESSLY CANNOT be random.

[Paul Marin]

I am not sure how anyone can say formation and execution to formation is useless, it is the key behind closing gaps or weaknesses in your team.

Agreed. Execution is key, otherwise, it is nothing, which is why the skill of the players and positional placement are tantamount to successful application of any strategy which I can't see not including formations - which can and often should change - throughout the game.

[Karl]

we had a forward who would constantly offside..

He was stupid!

...what was the adjustment?
Telling him to cut giving the ball to the opponents and a few big bax?

[Jawge]

I agree; look at the 66 game between England and Germany. They play 4-2-4 the middle of the field is wide open. If say a modern team came along and play just 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 it would be over those teams (disregarding fitness level).

[Karl]

mmmm?

Isn't it about adjusting to problems set by an opponent?
- Late repeat of my position on formations.

http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...tions#post6629

http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...ions#post16508

What yuh seh Gamma bout mi consistency/being consistent? ...btw Tek nuff-nuff derision/was di subjek ave nuff-nuff derision pon di board ova di 'ears bout dis yah position pan formations.

[Jawge]

let me hasten to add that formation is over rated (in the strictest sense) because teams have to interchange and adjust to situations (because football is a dynamic game).

At the same time if a team adopts a 4-2-4 against that of 4-4-2 the former will lose to the latter. When I came to my team the coach was using two wingers , two forwards two mids and four defenders, he would insist that they all hold their positions. I said you are giving away the middle of the field. They would lose almost every game then.