4-2-3-1

[hackajack]

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

Not sure I agree with that - classic 433 has a central holding mf with two more creative mfs flanking him. See Barca (who are the only team who play it today in my opinion) with Toure flanked by Xabi and Iniesta.

 

[Anzac]

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?

Agreed - and as I said elsewhere the actual starting formation at kick offs has little semblance to how we execute our play. We have a measure of the flexibility that AW has been searching / striving for, but we still need to be mindful of the best pattern that suits our purpose, and the best players to execute those patterns.

I'm still an advocate of horses for courses as much as I am for a change to our patterns, depending on the purpose.

 

[clockwork orange]

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

Not sure I agree with that - classic 433 has a central holding mf with two more creative mfs flanking him. See Barca (who are the only team who play it today in my opinion) with Touré flanked by Xabi and Iniesta.

it's either or. 4-3-3 can be played with midfield pointing forwards, i.e. with central midfielder more attacking & 2 DMFs behind him (this variant gives more support to the CF & less -attacking support- to the wingers; this is very close to 4-2-3-1, just a bit more attacking) or with midfield pointing backwards, i.e. the central midfielder is the most defensive (this variant has the risk of leaving your CF on an island, but has 2 midfielders providing more attacking support to the wingers).

Both are widely used. depends on your squad & who you play which to pick.

 

[hackajack]

it's either or. 4-3-3 can be played with midfield pointing forwards, i.e. with central midfielder more attacking & 2 DMFs behind him (this variant gives more support to the CF & less -attacking support- to the wingers; this is very close to 4-2-3-1, just a bit more attacking) or with midfield pointing backwards, i.e. the central midfielder is the most defensive (this variant has the risk of leaving your CF on an island, but has 2 midfielders providing more attacking support to the wingers).

Both are widely used. depends on your squad & who you play which to pick.

I think of 433 as what the Dutch used to play until the last euros with 3 mfs across the pitch. I think your 'other' version isn't just very close to 4231 - it is 4231. I also think that 433 is likely to be played with more conventional wingers than 4231 (though Barc don't advertise that theory) who push higher up the pitch and are less likely to cut in.

 

[clockwork orange]

it's either or. 4-3-3 can be played with midfield pointing forwards, i.e. with central midfielder more attacking & 2 DMFs behind him (this variant gives more support to the CF & less -attacking support- to the wingers; this is very close to 4-2-3-1, just a bit more attacking) or with midfield pointing backwards, i.e. the central midfielder is the most defensive (this variant has the risk of leaving your CF on an island, but has 2 midfielders providing more attacking support to the wingers).

Both are widely used. depends on your squad & who you play which to pick.

I think of 433 as what the Dutch used to play until the last euros with 3 mfs across the pitch. I think your 'other' version isn't just very close to 4231 - it is 4231. I also think that 433 is likely to be played with more conventional wingers than 4231 (though Barc don't advertise that theory) who push higher up the pitch and are less likely to cut in.

we're talking 3 distinct systems here (all top Dutch managers think exactly the same)

4-2-3-1 (intent is far more defensive):

-----X----X----
X-------X------X
--------X-------

4-3-3 (midfield pointing forwards)
---X---------X--
--------X-------
X-------X-------X

4-3-3 (midfield pointing backwards)
--------X-------
---X---------X--
X-------X-------X

The problem starts with far too many things being called 4-3-3 when they actually aren't. Of course hybrids can, are & will be played. For us 4-2-3-1 makes most sense though.

 

[hackajack]

we're talking 3 distinct systems here (all top Dutch managers think exactly the same)

I think there is a tendency in Holland to call everything 433 even when it isn't because it was the dominant set up (as the tendency here is to call everything 442 even when it isn't).

 

[clockwork orange]

Just because we love(d) 4-3-3 doesn't mean we call everything 4-3-3. We're far more stringent when it comes calling something 4-3-3. Lots of 4-1-4-1 / 4-2-3-1 teams have been and are called 4-3-3 about all over Europe apart from in Holland. Van Gaal, who used to be a real 4-3-3 man, is now winning the Dutch league hands down by making his AZ play 4-2-3-1-ish. There are MAJOR differences in AZ's current 4-2-3-1, in which they sink in absorb pressure and hit the opposition on the break & the 4-3-3 midifeld pointing forwards, which he used to play in the past & was very attacking & dominating. The players might be positioned nearly the same but the philosophy behind it is miles apart & therefore it a totally different ball game.

 

[Zico]

Clockwork, thanks for the diagrams. You've clearly shown yourself to be a student of the game in your time on the forum. Something I would like to add to your work is that beyond formations, attacking or defensive intent will be dictated by the actual players you play. For example, we could have a midfield pointing forwards that is Nasri up top and Fabregas and Diaby behind him, which would actually be more attacking the basic formation suggests. Likewise, we could have a midfield point backwards with Fabregas and Denilson up top and Song behind them. This midfield would be more attack-minded than the formation suggests.

I think people need to understand how player attributes can distort the appearance of a formation.

 

[hackajack]

Just because we love(d) 4-3-3 doesn't mean we call everything 4-3-3. We're far more stringent when it comes calling something 4-3-3. Lots of 4-1-4-1 / 4-2-3-1 teams have been and are called 4-3-3 about all over Europe apart from in Holland. Van Gaal, who used to be a real 4-3-3 man, is now winning the Dutch league hands down by making his AZ play 4-2-3-1-ish. There are MAJOR differences in AZ's current 4-2-3-1, in which they sink in absorb pressure and hit the opposition on the break & the 4-3-3 midifeld pointing forwards, which he used to play in the past & was very attacking & dominating. The players might be positioned nearly the same but the philosophy behind it is miles apart & therefore it a totally different ball game.

4231 doesn't necessarily have to be defensive nor 433 attacking dependending on the attitude and the personnel. Liverpool play 4231 with two proper DMs with a negative mindset, ManU played it last season with two passing CMs to give themselves attacking flexibility up front. (One of the reasons Ronaldo has been less effective this season aprt from sulking is that they've gone back to 4411).

 

[nazo]

and today shows why 4-2-3-1 won't work in the epl. maybe with the right players it might, but if we can't beat fulham, and they pretty much dominated us, then there's no point.

 

[Anzac]

and today shows why 4-2-3-1 won't work in the epl. maybe with the right players it might, but if we can't beat fulham, and they pretty much dominated us, then there's no point.

and we were no better when we reverted to the 442 today or at any other time in the last 4 0-0 draws.

I don't care what formation we want to play, but at least get the tactics to fit the formation, AND make sure our basic style suits them both.

For me the issue wasn't the formation, but the execution from the CMs (never played as a unit for a 2 man midfield), and that our forward players were too easily isolated as a result with the AMC having to drop deep. IMO we should be looking to play a narrow forward line anytime we don't play Ade or Bendtner.

 

[truth_hurts]

and today shows why 4-2-3-1 won't work in the epl. maybe with the right players it might, but if we can't beat fulham, and they pretty much dominated us, then there's no point.

and we were no better when we reverted to the 442 today or at any other time in the last 4 0-0 draws.

I don't care what formation we want to play, but at least get the tactics to fit the formation, AND make sure our basic style suits them both.

For me the issue wasn't the formation, but the execution from the CMs (never played as a unit for a 2 man midfield), and that our forward players were too easily isolated as a result with the AMC having to drop deep. IMO we should be looking to play a narrow forward line anytime we don't play Ade or Bendtner.

The formation didn't affect our execution in front of goal - 2 main culprits RVP and nasri. We could have won by at least 2 and nobody woud be doubting this positive formation and team selection from wenger today.

 

[Zico]

Agreed. The formation was not to blame. We could have played 4 4 2 or 4 4 1 1 and still been victim of the hapless finishing and lack of cutting edge.

Given our resources, that was the best possible line-up we could have fielded to start the game. We could have played the four attackers in any combination. Vela and van Persie could have played as two out and out strikers, or either Vela or van Persie could have played in the hole. The versatile nature of these players give us these options.

 

[nazo]

not really, you could see how fragile we were. fulham were strolling around easily and could've scored a few goals themselves.

we could've went with two upfront, bendtner and robin, with arshavin, denilson, song/diaby, and nasri behind them instead.

i thought we would be giving up some defensive stability by playing with vela, nasri and arshavin all at the same time in attacking positions, but gaining some offensive ability. turns out we lost defensive and offensive stability. vela was very poor btw.

 

[Anzac]

We lost it in the middle because the CMs didn't play to the requirements of the formation or role. Diaby was too far foward in attack & Denilson can't hold a midfield on his own, let alone track player movement or challenge. At times we looked like 4 defenders, Denilson as DM, no one in the middle, then 4 across the AM line behind RVP.

 

[nazo]

We lost it in the middle because the CMs didn't play to the requirements of the formation or role. Diaby was too far foward in attack & Denilson can't hold a midfield on his own, let alone track player movement or challenge. At times we looked like 4 defenders, Denilson as DM, no one in the middle, then 4 across the AM line behind RVP.

ya i said that with the right players this could work but with the current bunch we have right now (available on the bench/already playing) we need a different approach.

 

[Anzac]

We lost it in the middle because the CMs didn't play to the requirements of the formation or role. Diaby was too far foward in attack & Denilson can't hold a midfield on his own, let alone track player movement or challenge. At times we looked like 4 defenders, Denilson as DM, no one in the middle, then 4 across the AM line behind RVP.

ya i said that with the right players this could work but with the current bunch we have right now (available on the bench/already playing) we need a different approach.

not to worry - AW will have us back with the 451 in no time.........