The Myth of the 4-3-3 Formation

I was watching an U-14 youth side play today and they were playing a training match.Both teams were playing with a 4-4-2.

And I was thinking,what the hell is this coach doing?!Who in the hell plays a 4-4-2 formation?!Modern formations are like 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 not this piece of crap,but as I continued observing the game tactically I thought of many teams that play 4-2-3-1 and then I was thinking,'Who the hell plays 4-3-3?'And I barely thought of any.

Because the fact is,4-3-3 is a failure and a dynasty.I mean who plays 4-3-3?Barca and no one else.Hell,you could even argue that Barca don't really play a 4-3-3 and you couldn't be proven wrong.You got Puyol and Pique,with Busquets joining in as a 3rd CB without the ball and as any person who knows a good lot about tactics,formations are determined without the use of a ball.You got Alba and Alves who join in on the side of midfield with the 2 additional midfielders.You also got Messi who drops in and Joins as a 5th midfielder most of the time and when he drops back,Neymar and Sanchez go Centeal which makes it more of a 3-5-2 then a 4-3-3.

So can anyone help me think of more than a couple of more teams that use a 4-3-3 formation,because I can barely think of any.

The myth that 4-3-3 is a magical formation is completely wrong.That's why no one uses 4-3-3 and the fact is,almost every formation with 4 at the back is a variation of a 4-4-2.That's why it's the most used formation.


Then again,Formations rarely matter with most teams,it's more about the shape of the team on the field,not on paper.I'm watching Newcastle vs Cardiff and they've played with like 60 formations in the last 15 mins.Thank you and Good night.

Bump

Players and overall team approach are more important than formations.

me i wanna know what happened in that game you were watching, not sure why you changed topic after the first paragraph, focus pls

Great reply from Zeal,so sure of yourself.Dissapointing reply my From MR.Nick.

This tactic does not work as you always get swamped and overrun in the midfield if the opposition plays five across the middle you can't get the possession you need to build up the play and to try and score.

A better option would be a 4-5-1

Imo 4-3-3 allows you to have more deep lying TQ's than a 4-2-3-1

4-3-3 isnt a myth. If you have quality midfielders you play that formation.That formation is not that good for counter attacking since there is one man less forward.

Its just matter of teams not having enough quality midfielders and dont want to risk losing the ball in their own half by playing not good enough players in a midfield 3.Thats why they are going for 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2. Basically formation and tactics depends on players you have and vice versa.

As Nick said it depends on the players used, regardless what you call it on paper, for example; it baffles me how Juve dare and call their formation 3-5-2 when they use 5 defenders, just say you play a 5-3-2 and thats nothing to be ashamed of, if it getting u the results u want.

Well yeah No one uses 4-3-3.Hell,it's a failure with France.

vivabarca38 wrote:Bump

how sad is it to bump your own thread?

4-4-2 is not dead, it simply evolved as wingers became more athletic and quality full backs became something of the past. Take the example a classic winger like Figo or Beckham, back in the days these players would mainly cross the ball and occasionally drift inside when the full backs can offer width. Today the wingers are more capable of drifting inside the box and the (less athletic) classic wingers have evolved into deep laying playmakers. Having athletic wingers who can stretch the field and play in the box forced the classic second strikers to adapt into the modern AM, a player who contributes offensively and defensively. So if you think of it 433 is just 442 with more adventurous wingers and a more reserved second striker.

vanDEEZ wrote:

vivabarca38 wrote:Bump

how sad is it to bump your own thread?

quality discussion thread deserves it
what is really sad is your comment. here, i gave you some attention, now go.

Formations are overrated!

zizzle wrote:4-4-2 is not dead, it simply evolved as wingers became more athletic and quality full backs became something of the past. Take the example a classic winger like Figo or Beckham, back in the days these players would mainly cross the ball and occasionally drift inside when the full backs can offer width. Today the wingers are more capable of drifting inside the box and the (less athletic) classic wingers have evolved into deep laying playmakers. Having athletic wingers who can stretch the field and play in the box forced the classic second strikers to adapt into the modern AM, a player who contributes offensively and defensively. So if you think of it 433 is just 442 with more adventurous wingers and a more reserved second striker.

great post btw ,

As for the similarities of the formations , i would say the 4-3-3 is very close to the 4-1-2-1-2 , since they both have a diamond enabled. In the 4-3-3 , the central forward completes the diamond although the tactics used differ , depends on the kind of player each time . If it's a player like Messi who's not a clear 9 , you build stuff around him to make his job easier. If it's a clear 9 , he still completes the diamond but a little bit less forward whilst playing with his back most of the time and more creative responsibilities are given to the wingers imo. Everything else is totally the same , things only differ in tactics and tactics mostly depend on what your best players can do best . Imo , it's a myth that you can't play a counter attacking 4-3-3 . Hell , you can play catenaccio with a 4-3-3 .

As for the 4-4-2 , here comes your post with the only change being , the 4-4-2 is rather close to the 4-2-3-1 . Even Klopp who has said he has taken much from Arrigo Sacchi , uses the 4-2-3-1 because it's very close to the 4-4-2 Sacchi used with Milan. What you said basically , evolution of the wingers plus the 2nd striker gets more responsibilites and plays deeper. You just drop him a bit further back from the attacking line and you have the 4-2-3-1 .

For me , each formation has their theoritical benefits and flaws in comparison to each other , each and every one . It's ok to know which favours you over the other , or which one hinders you most for that matter , but it's down to the players you have and what they can do and what they't can do well. Great managers can find the balance in all this , that's all.

lol Juve with 5-3-2, funny cause its true. No wonder u get clueless with Lichsteiner and Asamoah on the sides expected to pull of magic passing and dribling

I do wonder how long Juve will go with "3-5-2" though.

well ultimately its down to players and manager to implement certain formation and even then its alternates to various other formations in defending/attacking

Every formation is a variation of everything, it's down to the managers tactics.

The formation is just the template the players follow. If one team uses a formation, it doesn't mean another team will be successful using it. However the principles of a formation always remain. For example 4-3-3 is good for retaining possession due to the 3 man midfield, so any team can take advantage of that. Obviously not everyone has Xavi or Iniesta, however having 3 in midfield does help.

So basically not every team needs the intricate detailed tactical movement like wingers coming inside, or fullbacks overlapping to benefit from using the 4-3-3 for example.