4-2-3-1

[Anzac]

IMO it's the best formation to play to our strengths & cover our weaknesses without compromising the attack or defence. It also allows us to exploit our short pass & move in the attacking 3rd.

But the key is to get the ball to Cesc/Nasri quickly and settle the ball from inside their half & then either look for the runners or work the short pass & move amongst the attackers with movement off & around the ball, and utilise space.

 

[kel varnsen]

4-2-3-1 is just a fancy way of saying 4-5-1. the point is you have just one striker and 5 midfielders. though, i agree. i want us to play 4-5-1 with rosicky, cesc, nasri and arshavin all playing at the same time in midfield. think that would give us a lot of movement and mobility.

 

[hackajack]

451 is just an umbrella term for a number of formations that use five midfielders. It is useful to be more specific with 4141 to describe Chelsea and 4231 to describe Liverpool.

 

[Anzac]

If you look at my formation above I'm only using 3 midfielders - Cesc, Diaby & Nasri - RVP & AA are deep lying forwards & not playing from the flanks. It's closer to a 433 like banduan said rather than a 451 with 5 mids as the positions on the field are staggered.

Call it half way between the two if it's any easier, but the depth/different planes occupied on the field by the CMs-AMC-AMRC/LC provide fluid options as opposed to having a flat 5 man midfield or even the 4411.

If you wanted a more defensive option then play two wide AMs on the flanks so as to turn it into a 4411/451 on defence, but play a 2nd striker in the hole & Ade or Nik as 1 of the 2 strikers for the crosses.

 

[Zico]

Meh, just throw on your best players with enough defensive and offensive qualities about them, and let them run around. Doesn't matter how they line up really. Wenger's boys end up running all over the park anyway, so formations are quite fluid. The key is to use the best available players

 

[Anzac]

Meh, just throw on your best players with enough defensive and offensive qualities about them, and let them run around. Doesn't matter how they line up really. Wenger's boys end up running all over the park anyway, so formations are quite fluid. The key is to use the best available players

It's all about balancing those aspects with a formation, style & players that compliment. I mentioned elsewhere that we have a history of creating chances but not finishing them - part of the reason is our style & player selections is more to do with creating chances than taking them. You can further influence this by playing 3 creative attacking players & only 1 in the striking role, and more so if that striker isn't 'clinical'.

Just putting your best players out there & letting them run around ain't going to get the job done, unless you have the finances of CFC & ManC to assemble your own Super Squad.

 

[Zico]

Anzac, all I'm saying is that with most of the players we have seen playing recently for Arsenal, we could line up with 4 4 2, 4 4 1, 4 5 1, 4 2 3 1, 4 3 2 1, etc, etc, etc.

Just look at yesterday's line-up. You would not find it difficult to find a way to arrange the players in any of the above formations and more. Once you move away from very position-specific players like a big target man or traditional wingers, your formation options open up dramatically. Yes?

 

[arsmile]

i HATE the liverpool formation

but somethign simialr to a 4231 would be okay providing cesc was part of the 2 and not the 3, i think it could be particularly good if our 2 are both box to box players (cesc denilson diaby) not dms like liverpool play them- both behind the ball the whole match.

having said that, what we played on tuesday could easily be seen as a

eboue-diaby-denilson-bendtner
nasri
robin

which is not radically different to anything we've done. Tactically i think the formation is MORE like our usual 4411 than the typical 4231 that liverpool play. Having said that it is a subtle twist to the formation that could suit our squad

 

[hackajack]

having said that, what we played on tuesday could easily be seen as a

eboue-diaby-denilson-bendtner
nasri
robin

which is not radically different to anything we've done. Tactically i think the formation is MORE like our usual 4411 than the typical 4231 that liverpool play. Having said that it is a subtle twist to the formation that could suit our squad

But eboue-diaby-denilson-bendtner weren't in a line eboue nasri and nik were. There's nothing wrong with Liverpool's formation it's just they play two DMs and their fullbacks don't come forward ie they set it up defensively. Spain play 4231 and they set it up to attack - as we do.

 

[arsmile]

having said that, what we played on tuesday could easily be seen as a

eboue-diaby-denilson-bendtner
nasri
robin

which is not radically different to anything we've done. Tactically i think the formation is MORE like our usual 4411 than the typical 4231 that liverpool play. Having said that it is a subtle twist to the formation that could suit our squad

But eboue-diaby-denilson-bendtner weren't in a line eboue nasri and nik were. There's nothing wrong with Liverpool's formation it's just they play two DMs and their fullbacks don't come forward ie they set it up defensively. Spain play 4231 and they set it up to attack - as we do.

but this formation is differen to to liverpool's...primarily becasue of the role that the fullback's and CMs play- the CMs are not DMs, therefore they are higher up the pitch- they are as much level with the wingers as they are in a 442, the wingers in our '4231' sat deeper than narsi BECAUSE the CMs were higher and the fullbacks also..it was a
----x--x---
x--------x
--x----x---
x--------x
-----x----
-----x----

liverpool's is

x--x---x---x
---x-----x---
-------------
x------x-----x
-------x------



the first formation is as similar to our usual 4411 when you consider each player's role instead of just where they stand on the pitch.

 

[hackajack]

the first formation is as similar to our usual 4411 when you consider each player's role instead of just where they stand on the pitch.

In terms of role I agree it's not much different to the 4411, but I'd argue that it gives a bit more defensive stability since the CMs are deeper and more involvement from the 'wingers' since they're narrrower and higher. Plus I think it lends itself to rotation between the front 4.

 

[clockwork orange]

4-2-3-1 is just a fancy way of saying 4-5-1. the point is you have just one striker and 5 midfielders. though, i agree. i want us to play 4-5-1 with rosicky, cesc, nasri and arshavin all playing at the same time in midfield. think that would give us a lot of movement and mobility.

About anything is 4-5-1 according to you, isn't it. :wink: Basically you've 2 options: you can play either 1 or 2 strikers?

4-2-3-1 is NOT just a fancy way of saying 4-5-1. It's far more specific; 4-5-1 can be with 1 or 2 DMFs. The tactical implications of which option you choose for are major.

 

[ivansen]

When we play 4-4-2 with something like:

Nasri - Denilson - Song - Arshavin

RvP - Adebayor

Isn't that basically us playing 4-2-3-1 anyway? I mean RvP drops deep, and neither Nasri or Arshavin does much defensively. They don't act like regular wingers either, they drift inside more. And Denilson and Song rarely venture forwards much, not unless we dominate massively. So that makes it look like:

Denilson-Song
Nasri-RvP-Arshavin
Adebayor

A 4-2-3-1

 

[hackajack]

If you look across the pitch during quiet parts of the game you can see the striker - line of three - pair of CMs.

 

[clockwork orange]

Nah, 4-4-RVP-Ade is playing with a withdrawn striker (that's the way RVP plays it), which does not give you the same central midfiled triangle as in 4-2-3-1

-----------Denislon--Song-----------
---------------Nasri----------------

 

[otfgoon]

The formation itself is very similar, but its not really the formation thats changed anyway but the roles played by the players are whats very different.

The main difference being that the wide players have far more freedom, which is compensated for by the two deeper lying centre mids.

 

[kel varnsen]

4-2-3-1 is just a fancy way of saying 4-5-1. the point is you have just one striker and 5 midfielders. though, i agree. i want us to play 4-5-1 with rosicky, cesc, nasri and arshavin all playing at the same time in midfield. think that would give us a lot of movement and mobility.

About anything is 4-5-1 according to you, isn't it. :wink: Basically you've 2 options: you can play either 1 or 2 strikers?

well, you either have one striker or you have two AND you either play with a flat, zonal back four or a man marking back three. those are the key aspects of tactics.

the rest is just details.

 

[ivansen]

Well you can play the old handball style: Defend deep as ****, and just wait patiently for the opposition to shoot into the wall of players, and then overrun them with a counterattack so fierce and clinical it would scare whoever was their goalie. And do that a couple of times and you're sure to get a goal. One nil to the Arsenal.

 

[truth_hurts]

Definately think a 4-2-3-1 (it is different from 4-5-1/4-3-3) would bethe most fuid system for our players and it is the formation which we used to great effect on tuesday. On tuesday although denilson and diaby had defensive duties they were also able to get forward and alsways seemed to have passing options ahead of them - so it wouldn't affect Cescs game too much and may actualy add to it if he has passing options.

Defensively little would change as we stillwoldn't be playing with much width so or full backs could still charge upfield. Our forward 4 would need to utilise limited space and ithink a combination of arshavin, Vela and theos directness, nasri, rosicky, or cescs industry, eduardo and van persies abillity to turn in tight spaces and Adebayor and Bendtners abillity to find goalscoring positions will always leave us with enough options.

Either way Wenger seems like a slave to 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 particlarly in the league so bar europe I don't feel we will see the formation much.

 

[banduan]

one could argue 4-3-3 is just another 4-5-1

Usually how people differentiate it is that a the former has 2 forwards wide while the latter has two midfielders. The lines get blurred because a winger is almost equal to a wide forward, very often the same in practice.

The real difference is the content of the midfield.

4-5-1 has one full-time DM, one playmaker and one A-M with two wingers.

4-3-3 has two holding midfielders who share defensive duties, one full-time playmaker AM with much less defensive duties