Talk:Formation (association football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Association football Portal The article on Formation (association football) is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Formation (association football) was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve association football-related articles to featured article status.

Contents 1 Comments on article 2 Teams that use formations 3 Metodo needs formation checking 4 4-2-4 5 First ever 2-3-5? 6 Side midfielder? 7 4-4-2 tight diamond? 8 Call for 4-2-4 O Cruzeirom reference 9 Article is a mess 10 More about 4-4-2... 11 Pyramid as sources of numbering 12 Flat-Back Four? 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 14 2-3-5 Formation

[edit] Comments on article

Hi. Just to point out that on both my mac and pc the formation boxes seem all out of position. Would it be just my computers, or is there another way to fix it? I also have this feeling that this article needs a bit of a clean up.

Also I'm wondering a bit about the removal of the Metodo formation. That was a classic formation which did win world cups, and is better described as a 2-3-2-3 formation.

See here [1] and here [2]

Has this been mistakenly removed by putting in the 4-2-4 formation?\

Comments? - Master Of Ninja 19:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As to formation boxes: I haven't made any change... just moved the headers around keeping them at the same positions. I hope that as the text grows they will fit better. At a later stage I was thinking of adding new images. Would you like to see my first sketches and give an opinion?

As to the metodo: 2 World Cups! Sure it is important! If you look in the text I haven't removed it but commented it out until further expanding, just to keep the pages without empty headers. I'd say it should go as a 2-3-5 variation, but as you point it is a 2-3-2-3. I think I'll put it just there, a variation on 2-3-5 as «The metodo - 2-3-2-3»

I'll keep adding on but at a moderately slow pace. Your links are very usefull, can you get info at some of the more recente formations? I don't have much on some, as 4-5-1, 5-4-1--Nabla 19:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I just finished doing some major additions when I saw your talk addition. I did put the metodo back in under 2-3-5, and just clarified some of the other points. I've only added to earlier formations, and will get round to doing some of the modern formations later. I've also put in some links which are good for getting a grounding on formations. I would like to see some of the early sketches for formations. How would I get in touch? - Master Of Ninja 20:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well... my sketches looked a lot like Threner's, so I quite happy with them.

To Threner: do you have those for the earlier formations? If not I might make some just like your's by editing one of them.--Nabla 14:32, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I am doing some more sketches for the traditional formations. I hope I get them right, if not please post here. If anyone would like to have the source to make more drawings, please leave a note on my User page. I would like to put up formations on a lot more pages, for example, for teams that won World Cups, or Champions league's, etc. Like the one I did for FC Barcelona. --Threner 06:05PM 26/05/2005 (CT)

[edit] Teams that use formations

Hi. Just to start a discussion for the 'teams that use this formation' part of each individual formation. Its listing teams which play the formation, which is OK for when the article is started, but I think we need a discussion of what goes in there. I can foresee that it becomes like the local derby section in football culture where people want to shove derbies in there, and not into the main local derby article. I think we should only put important teams who have won a major competition as each example, plus the season that they succesfully used the formation. Limiting each formation to three examples would keep the article fairly streamlined. Comments? - Master Of Ninja 05:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think it would be even better if we can find an example from the World Cup for every formation and an example from a well known team that have won the Champions league or won its local league, either from Spain, Italy, England, Germany or France, which I think are some of the most known leagues worldwide. It would also be good to add the coach, and maybe a couple of important players for the formation (ie the "Hole" player, the sweeper, etc). So the structure would be:

• Team
• Competition (World Cup, Champions League, One of the "main" leagues)
• Coach
• Important players

As some of the defensive formations are used by small teams, I think we should try to find National Sides that use that formation on World Cups. - Threner 08:51, 26.05.2005 CT

Hey! I've been away for a while and the article looks great!

I was exactly thinking that, other from some copy-editing here and there, adding some sample teams would be the best for me to do now, just as I did for the section I worked on (2-3-5).

My criteria would be: whenever possible using only the best/first World Cup team. I bet we can find it all there. If not, than we should look into the Copa America and the European Championship, considering them at the same level. I say that if we can't find any example there either, then forget it. Going "lower" than that we'd be entering some dangerous area. Trying to somehow sort other competitions by some kind of importance criteria would probably prove itself hard, tricky, a possible battle ground for fans, and most of all, as I previously said, probably unnecessary.

I would link all players already on WP, as the team makes sense as a whole and supposedly the players articles will all some info on their skills. No red links except for some key player.

I expect to do just that soon.--Nabla 14:28, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Just to add now that people have been adding teams to the point I fear that the article will become a list (like the derby article) rather than being informative. If there are no objections I will soon trim some of the teams just to include the teams that have done something notable in the season mentioned - most probably actually winning the league or an international cup (a 'big' competition at that). Otherwise this will become unmanagable - Master Of Ninja 17:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Full support. And wait a while and we'll get back to adding teams more or less using the criteria. I moved that down bellow in my priority list to give you time to check that 424 change and forgot it for a while. Nabla 02:06:27, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

IMHO you didn't apply this criteria properly or logically when you removed the Croatian WC1998 team. Rosenborg is still on the list, yet they won only their national league. France WC2006 team didn't win the tournament, but it's still there. Half the 4-4-1-1 section examples don't satisfy the above requirement. This kind of cutoff is simply arbitrary. --Joy [shallot] 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad for which I apologise for. The problem was there that I wanted at least one example, and in some sections, e.g. the 4-4-1-1, I couldn't think of another valid example so thought would keep the others until someone filled in something suitable. I'm not sure why I kept Rosenborg; I'm not that knowledgable on the team, and the 10 seasons in the Champions League, and 13 league titles seemed a bit impressive. If you think some of the teams shouldn't be there, or others should, I think you should edit it as you think. The article should eventually reach consensus or high quality. I just didn't want the article becoming a list of teams. - Master Of Ninja 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly opposed to the listing of Rosenborg or those other listings, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency. Thinking about it, it seems to me that the primary standard should be a proper description on how a formation was applied in a team. The notability of examples doesn't have to be absolute, it can be relative: if a team changed their formation (and little else) and then progressed e.g. from one level of league system to a higher one, that's a good example. Or, if they won ten consecutive cup games and then lost the next one where they reverted to another formation, that's also an indicative example. Negative examples are also a good idea - if a team changed formation and consistently performed badly until they reverted; or if a team tried to preserve a formation while a key player was missing, and this did or did not work out - those would also be interesting.

In retrospect, my initial edit was shy of this, and later I just went with the format I saw and screwed it up. I was trying to describe how Robert Jarni's contribution from the left flank was almost essential to the success of that team - together with Stanić's contribution from the right, it gave them an edge over other teams. Four years later, the Croatian team lost both games where they played something like 4-4-2 and won the one game where they played more of a 3-5-2. In the latter game, they went one goal down and then in the 73rd minute Jarni (at the time a 33-year-old) broke through the left side, "smuggled" a cross past Panucci and the ball found its way to the attacker who scored the equaliser.

This could be considered as a bit more general point - if a team has a strong player on the wing, they will profit from formations which are spread out to the sides (rather than concentrated in the middle). --Joy [shallot] 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metodo needs formation checking

I've added the 1934 Italian team but I am not sure which forwards were pulled back to help the halfbacks. I'll try to check that but maybe someone can do it faster than me.--Nabla 21:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] 4-2-4

Hi. I was wondering if someone can help me with the most recent changes to the 4-2-4 formation. Most sources (including the FIFA would cup site) reckon that it was a Hungarian influence, namely Bela Guttman, that helped spur the formation of the 4-2-4. The new text reflects the influence of Flávio Costa in the creation of this - is there a reference for this? It would be quite important, but it goes against all the reading on the topic I've done so far. Guttman did take over Sao Paolo in the mid-1950s when the 4-2-4 was starting to be used. - Master Of Ninja 23:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mostly used 4-2-4 by Walter Lutz at Fifa.com. But it may be incorrect, off course. --Nabla 21:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will see if I can add that to the article at some point. - Master Of Ninja 06:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do see a lot of sources linking Hungary from early 1950s to 4-2-4, but most also describe their formation as a 3-2-3-2 and I can't understand how does that resembles, and evolves into, a 4-2-4. I find it much easier to believe Lutz's version of a big break from the past. Probably, to avoid having too much of my POV in that section, the other version should be included.--Nabla 22:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

On the same topic, I've removed the sentence saying "It has been said that one of the aims of the formation was to score more goals than were conceded", since it's obvious and redundant, that being the aim of the entire sport. Guildenstern42

I remember 4-2-4 being used by 'route one' teams, ie, a goalkeeper and defenders who would kick long for big strikers who were strong in the air. Wimbledon played this way in the English First Division in the 1980s. It worked well for players who were strong but not as skilful as their peers. Was this tactic more widespread? If so, might be worth adding to the article. The Angel of Islington 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First ever 2-3-5?

According to my research, 2-3-5 arrived somewhat earlier than the article claims. Sheffield Wednesday were using the third half-back as early as 1880 (FA Cup match vs. Blackburn Rovers 18/12/1880 (source: Sheffield Daily Telegraph 20/12/1880). Blackburn Rovers were to stick to 2-2-6 longer than most. It was actually Rovers' rivals, Blackburn Olympic, who used 2-3-5 from November 1881 (source: Blackburn Standard 19/11/1881), and it was this team that won the FA Cup with such a formation in 1883. 1-2-7 was used by Notts Forest in October 1881. (Source: Nottingham Evening Post 17/10/1881)

That's actually quite interesting to note. The details listed in the article at the moment are consensus ones that have been seen in FIFA/UEFA documents. Knowing that the numerical systems were not put into place until later, what was the exact wording which led you to the conclusion that these systems were put into place earlier? - Master Of Ninja 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made copious notes from newspapers of the time. An example of the "exact wording" you are asking for may be found in the Accrington Times of Dec 24th 1881, thus:

Teams:- Olympic: Hacking, goal; Suter and Warburton, backs; Gibson, Brown and Astley, half-backs; Wensley, Yates, Marchbank, Matthews, and Cunliffe, forwards

This is the match Blackburn Olympic vs. Accrington played Tues 20th Dec., 1881

It's well known that Olympic used a 2-3-5 when winning the 1883 Cup Final against Old Etonians (take your pick of sources for that one). To suggest that Blackburn Rovers (or Preston North End) started 2-3-5 in 1884 is I'm afraid a nonsense.

I'll see if I can look up some more stuff and then do an addition to the article - thanks for the information, as well as the references above. - Master Of Ninja 10:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I've spent some time researching 2-3-5 around 1880, and have unearthed the following: The Sheffield Wednesday team I mention above was given in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph on Monday 20th December 1880 as:

W. H. Stacey, goal; T. Buttery and E. Buttery, backs; J. Hunter, J. Hudson, and A. Malpas, half-backs; W. Mosforth and H. Newbold, left wing; J. J. Lang and H. Winterbottom, right wing; R. gregson, centre.

So two backs, three half-backs and five attackers - looks like 2-3-5 to me. What do you think? I've also found reference to three half-backs used in a Macclesfield team in November 1879. The Macclesfield Courier, 8th November refers to the half-back trio of Harrop, Bancroft and Warren. (The team list gives two defenders and five attackers as well.) You've compiled a great article for the most part: interesting, informative and useful. I make no apologies for finding fault with the pre-1890 section. I'll keep you posted.

Since my corrections to the sections on early team formations have been deleted, I have come to the conclusion that whoever is writing this article isn't interested in historical fact, but in perpetuating inaccuracies is only doing this as an ego thing. I have supplied primary sources for my corrections, having gone to a lot of trouble to seek them out. Obviously this article isn't worth the bother. I won't disturb your cosy corner again.

Hi. I assume you would be the user who added the references above, and is listed making the changes on the 1st April (as same IP address)? The corrections as I can see have been useful, and still seem to be there when I look at the article (in the 2-3-5 section). As they are referenced they are useful, so I'm not sure what changes you are not happy about. As I haven't really had time to go over the article recently I'm not sure where the removals happened - i think sometimes reverts for vandalism throw out a lot of useful changes. The best thing to do is register for an account (as sometimes anonymous IP addresses seem to get more suspicion with resprect to vandalism), and make whatever changes again. I will support any corrections so long as they are referenced as the above discussion with the newspapers show. Take care and hope you come back to help with the article - Master Of Ninja 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's another error: it was the full-backs' job to mark the wingers, not the inside men. The half-backs had the remit to patrol the inside forwards. Having played in the system myself around 1960, I know whereof I speak!

[edit] Side midfielder?

That is all.

So is there any problem just changing side midfielder to winger? Side midfielder is not a term I seem to have come across before. - Master Of Ninja 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right/Left sided midfielders are different from wingers. Chelsea use wingers as they play almost level with the main striker. In a 4-4-2 they are not as advanced.Oscar86 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm you seem to be correct. I guess we are used to them being called left sided or right sided midfielders so side midfielder sounds odd! Cls14 12:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

its nonsense. a winger is a wide midfielder, it doesnt matter if they are playing in an advanced position or not. a "side midfielder" is a totally alien term that i have never, ever heard. unless somebody can come up with a valid rational for its continued use, the article should be changed.

[edit] 4-4-2 tight diamond?

I have to ask about this. I have never heard of "tight diamond' being used as a name for a common formation. It seems to be a variation of the diamond which falls under the main section rather than meriting a section of its own. I personally think it is suspiciouly close to original material, and am not quite sure of using wikipedia to 'spread' (for lack of a better term) new names for formation systems. Any comments? - Master Of Ninja 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In a diamond the play is through the centre. There are no side midfielders as the width comes from the fullbacks.Oscar86 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for 4-2-4 O Cruzeirom reference

Hi. The 4-2-4 section has a reference to the ideas published in O Cruzeiro - does anyone know how to find an actual cite or copy of the publication? - Master Of Ninja 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is a mess

This article is a mess and mostly because of the "teams that used" sections. It's totally arbitrary. The whole team should NOT be listed as is the case for Chelsea and Man Utd. Then for example in the "4-4-2 diamond" section there is a bit abou the Argentina team that lists Ronaldinho, Zidana etc. Last time I looked they weren't Argentine. In the "4-4-1-1" section the whole Italy team is listed, again a poor idea, but this time it's even worse because most of the links are broken! 3-4-3 AC Milan actually played with only 3 defenders?! I find that very hard to believe. Both the 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 sections seem to mistake themselves for 5-2-3 and 5-3-2, e.g. Brazil 2002 Cafu and Carlos are wingbacks at best, no way are they wingers. 3-5-2 differs from the classical 3-5-2?!! aLii 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AC Milan did win a Scudetto under Alberto Zaccheroni playing a 3-4-3, to think an Italian team would not play with 3 defenders is outdated. Learn some Serie A history before making comments.

[edit] More about 4-4-2...

There should really be some more about the 442 formation... I think maybe 50% or more of all teams use this formation, and it is only mentioned as a minor part... It is like the 4-3 formation in Amarican Football... It is the most fundamental formation in football... And there should not be so much about 4 and 5 striker formations... You never see 4 and 5 striker formations... This article looks like it's written by someone who have never seen football...

• Football did have a past you know and four or five forwards in a team was common. And I watched Match of the Day about two weeks ago and Man Utd played a fair amount of the game with four up front. It's rare but it does happen. Cls14 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid as sources of numbering

The section on the "the pyramid" (2-3-5) being the source of numbering schemes is very unclear. What does make sense is 2-3-5 as the source of somewhat old-fashioned names for positions, which otherwise don't really tally with 4-4-2 or most modern formations, that is: right back, left back; right half, centre half, left half; right wing, inside right, centre forward, inside left, left wing. But just numbering those in that order doesn't give the scheme that's in the article at present, at least without specifying the mapping between original positions and more recent ones. If anyone has ideas on how to improve this, please do, otherwise I'll try some semi-Brownian permutations in a while. Alai 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flat-Back Four?

Sorry if I seem a bit rude, but as an Englishman I have never heard the name flat-back four used to describe a 4-4-2, if at all. Zoanthrope 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its miss used in the article, a flat back four is used to donate any back four that contains 4 defenders playing in a flat line (i.e no sweeper) not the formation 4-4-2

[edit] Requested move

[edit] 2-3-5 Formation

In the 1880 Glasgow Charity Cup Final (08/05/1880) both Queen's Park and Rangers lined up in the 2-3-5 formation. The newspaper records the line up of both teams precisely, as follows,

Teams:- Queen's Park - A.Gough, goal; W.S.Somers and R.W.Neill (captain), backs; A.Watson, C.Campbell and D.Davidson, half-backs; T.C.Hignet, E.Fraser, G.Ker, J.Smith, and J.Kay, forwards. Rangers - G.Gillespie, goal; A.Vallance and T.Vallance (captain), backs; A.Kennedy, H.M'Intyre, and J.Drinnan, half-backs; D.Hill, M.M'Neil, W.Struthers, W.Pringle, and A.Steel, forwards.

The game finished in a 1-1 draw. An interesting reference is given to the five Rangers players making up the back line,

Playing well together in the front, the Queen's Park kept the opposition fully employed. Time after time Kennedy, Drinnan, M'Intyre, and the two Vallances interposed at critical moments, and repeatedly prevented the downfall of the colours.

Hugh McIntyre of Rangers would later become a star player with Blackburn Rovers while Andrew Watson, the world's first black football internationalist, would captain Scotland to a 6-1 victory over England at the Oval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.21.110 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)