| 12-Jun-08 13:23 guest 81.152.186.57 | A very attacking formation, usually used by teams looking to dominate the last third. Consists of 3 attacking midfielders, the central midfielder usually being the playmaker, and one requires one very fit defensive midfielder to protect the defence. | 24-Sep-08 02:40 guest 220.237.28.18 | an alternative method used by werder bremen for a more attacking line-up, and to accomodate both diego and ozil in the starting team. this formation was used in their 5-2 victory away against bayern munich. | 25-Mar-09 21:16 guest 92.233.183.77 | Relies heavily on having very fit, willing left and right backs to charge up and down the wings to provide the width that this formation lacks. | 09-May-09 12:04 guest 123.243.113.9 | very attacking and very narrow, no width and very easy to stifle the initial ball due to the lack of players in the midfield. Leaves the defense very open as the lack of midfield and attacking fullbacks leaves alot of space for counter attack. | 21-Oct-10 00:07 Rosendo  Nevada | Only recommended when the team has two full backs who are fast, good at crossing, and good marking up. | 21-Mar-11 10:43 Gravedigger | Two very good full back are needed here. There are no wingers, just two centre midfielders who support playmaker. Behind them you need powerfull defensive midfielder who is secure with the ball. In my opinion, you need one target man and one shadow striker who can not only score goals, but also be quick and cooperate with his colleague in front. | 12-Apr-11 15:32 guest 2.96.247.218 | This formation is very attacking and very useful if you have one pacey striker and one striker who has great finishing. You should have a very strong defense to avoid counter attacks though. | 04-Sep-11 01:26 guest 166.205.140.89 | Funny, people are saying it s necessary to have fast and fit fullbacks yet Croatia had success playing 4-1-3-2 while playing Simunic and Corluka as fullbacks(not exactly Cafu and Carlos... ). England were twice beaten by a Croatia utilizing this formation. | 03-May-12 09:20 Slayus  Selangor | this is good formation for who like to use midfielder ability to give ball at the strikers to score goal. this formation is suitable when the players play slow momentum. (like barcelona 2012) then find the space to passing the ball at attackers. This flow of ball using narrow width and need support for Midfield Center MC to play along with AMC Attacking Midfielder Center. | 28-Aug-12 23:26 FuLMiNAtO  Emilia-Romagna | i think think 4 1 3 2 would be perfect in 2012/2013 Juventus with a lichtsteiner chiellini barzagli isla, pirlo, marchisio vidal asamoah, vucinic giovinco. i d definitely use that | 30-Mar-13 07:59 ohitslovely  Zadarska | Used by Croatia back at 08 to beat England 2-0 and 3-2, this formation needs a strong holding midfield player and an fast central midfield that both advance towards the opponent s third and apply pressure when the team looses possession. Having fast wingbacks is nice - if they re slower, they shouldn t be advancing and joining in the attack. Only one defensive midfield means the formation is relatively weak against formations with advancing midfielders and/or 3 attackers. The center midfield players play fairly narrow, so flanks can be more easily exposed. Basically this formation is attacking 4-2-3-1 whereas instead of one holding midfield, an second striker was added. | 23-Sep-13 13:59 guest 78.3.33.18 | Very Croatian, the midfield allows many playmakers playing together and supporting the two strikers. The strikers usually compliment each other, one can hold the ball well and pass while the other plays higher and is a well reciever and good finisher. The defense is guarded by a single defensive-minded midfielder. The fullbacks can either press up the field, as a more attacking version, or stay behind. Wingbacks can be used instead of fullbacks for even more powerful variant of the formation, in which case, the three frontal midfielders play much narrower. The formation can be countered by heavily overloading the flanks, or pushing two mids/forwards playing in the hole forcing one of the other midfielders (in Croatia s case, their best playmaker Modric) to drop down deep and help the defensive mid and thus diminish the attacking power of the formation. | 29-Dec-13 13:53 guest 78.0.150.39 | For those that wonder, there is a difference between 4132 and 4312 in the execution, regardless that they look pretty much the same on paper. Both of these formations are also called Diamond 442, although strictly, that formation would be 41212, however in that rigid sense, none of the teams play it today. 4132 is an open attacking formation, it s also a 5-5 formation, meaning five players are tasked for defending and five players will be caught in the offense should a quick counter from the opposition happen, as such this formation is risky and not as solid as 4312. The midfield is spread in two different zones, with the somewhat large gap in between not covered by anyone. There s a single defensive midfield, that s tasked to break opposition counters, but in today s game, that usually feels insufficient against teams playing an advancing midfield plus one of the midfield from the double-pivot attacking, clearly creating 1v2. The other three midfields are playing higher up, supporting the two strikers. These are either an advancing midfielder plus two side midfielders, or three advancing midfielders playing narrow. The style of these is largely dependent on the attacking prowess and fitness of the fullbacks and obviously what the manager has at hand. Very rarely these trio is tasked to track back, instead, they are to press high up and try to win the ball and punish the opposition quickly. The attackers should be well at receiving and finishing. It s also common that one of these will drift to one of the sides, trying to create an overload with one of the offensive midfields. This formation is best played by teams that have a good ball possession abilities and can hold on the ball under pressure, since the midfield is split to two parts and one is not directly contributing to defense, it is not a good formation for defending and counter attacking. If we are to compare it versus 4312, the obvious difference is in the midfield - the trio in 4312 play more alike the 433, creating a natural triangle and covering more space, with a single advancing midfielder pushed higher up behind the strikers. This provides more stability and control in the midfield, promoting better ball possession but pushing out less support towards the strikers. Once again, usually one of the strikers will look to drag the defenders wide and out of position and to set up the goal scoring situation for the other. Both of these formations are fairly narrow, with only 4132 with side midfielders pushed out on flanks somewhat providing the width of a 442 or 4231 but risking giving away acres of unmanned space in the midfield to the opposition. A good counter-formation for 4132 is 4321 with either the two being pushed as side midfielders or playing more narrow, as an advancing midfielders. Pressing and quickly closing down is imperative since the 4132 usually have 5 players attacking, so all the midfielders should tuck to provide the two defensive banks, and attack through counters. A good counter to 4312 is a simple and narrow 4231. | 29-Sep-14 10:57 guest 78.0.129.68 | I was personally puzzled by this formation, specifically after Croatia beating a stronger side - England. And while we could say England seemed disorganized, they still played better. Most of the people here say 4-1-3-2 is a 4-4-2 variant, and while the numerics certainly prove this, in execution, imho, it is strikingly different. Eventually an opportunity came to help run an university team in my country, strictly amateur, mind you, but it was still a beautiful game, I couldn t resist. The guys were used to a flat 4-4-2 system, utilizing mostly defensive minded midfielders and wingers that were more passers then runners really. The system involved skipping the midfield area with long balls to try to use the two center forwards that played high up the pitch, on the shoulders of the defence. I didn t like it. We were uninventive, easy to read and forwards just couldn t do everything themselves, even other amateur teams eventually started dropping one of their midfielders down to help the backs and pushing their fullbacks up, overrunning us in the midfield. We were loosing pretty badly. Funny thing was that I had five fast offensive guys on the bench, mostly forwards, that were too small to play center forwards and they didn t have a slot in the midfield. One day, I talked with the university head (dean? don t exactly know the english word for it), explaining openly that I want to make a difference, switch things around, and it would either be like that, or I d just step down. He was willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, specifically since even before I came, the club was ridiculed for playing increasingly boring and obsolete football and constantly loosing or forcing draws. I finally had an excuse to try out the formation I saw my country using and beating England. I understood the good sides of it and I also understood the flip sides of it. I was also interested how does the 4-1-3-2 get along with not being overrun in the midfield... the way I saw it was the formation had just a single midfielder. I left the centre backs the way they were, and as I was unhappy with the pace and stamina of the fullbacks (that didn t really make forward runs at all, one could very well say we were playing with 4 center backs man-marking), I ve put the fastest forwards from the bench I had, I ve left a single defensive guy that was the most knowledgable and experienced with the ball protecting the two centerbacks and moved three other forwards from the bench to play front midfielders. I instructed fullbacks to play high up the pitch, practicly at the level of the defense midfielder, and moved the defensive line higher up, instructing the backs to employ an offside trap. Our first opponent came playing a variant of the 4-3-3 and we lost to it, part of the problem was the backs weren t accustomed to using offside trap, they were doing mistakes, part of the other problem was fullbacks didn t mark the wing forwards. But I was happy we actually creating goal scoring chances and lost 3-4, which didn t really say the whole story. After working with our fullbacks and midfielders some more, the midfielders were not much more fluid, interchanging one with the other, pressing high up and dropping down to cover for one another, the fullbacks were operating from the edge of the midfield literally and dropping down to mark aggressively the opponents wingers. We won the next opponent 5-1, they were playing 4-4-2, funnily we weren t overrun in the midfield, in the contrary, we technicly had six midfielders and constantly overruning their four midfielders. I was extremely surprised by the actual formation in the attacking game against an opponent with similar quality - we weren t really playing 4-4-2 or even a true 4-1-3-2, the formation looked more like 2-3-3-2, and then it stroke my why is this formation so successful. This is specially true if you can have a high ball possession, and thus high retention. The opponent simply cannot cope with practicly six midfielders broken into two banks of three. One of the forwards can just as well drop down to cover for one of the front midfielders dragged outside and yet again, you have numerical advantage in the middle. I ve finally understood if you have good players that are able to constantly press and push the opponent (I had fast and hard working forwards for that), you can overrun the opponent in the midfield, granting high ball possession and through running down the channels of your five attack minded players, find a gap in the defence and create goal scoring situations. I ve yet found only couple of weaknesses, fullbacks bear good 70% of all the running of the teams, and I m talking in full speed, the defensive midfielder must be comfortable playing a centerback, since in case of quick counter attack, he d usually drop down to create a three man defence, against some formations, your players must man-mark and lastly, you must have players capable of ball retention. Looking in retrospect, why Croatia felt comfortable running that formation against it s more modern 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 variants - and the reason is simple. If you look at how the 4-1-3-2 is implemented, you can see it bears a good resemblence to a 3-5-2, in a sense it s more possesion oriented so defensive midfielder is employed instead of a centreback, granting the other midfielders to march forward and press high. Ironically, in a deep phases of defence, the defense midfielder phases into defende completely, the fullbacks track back, the three front midfielders drop in the middle to form a second line of defense (though they do still continue to press aggressively), and one of the forwards drops back in the hole, that s precisely 5-3-1-1 a formation Croatia used extensively back in 98.  | 12-Oct-14 16:56 guest 212.140.120.45 | 4-1-3-2 I think that you need creative players to play this formation with a defensive midfielder who is prepared to play the ball forward and also cover the defense. | 04-May-16 15:34 guest 95.97.155.170 | 4-1-2-3 Is a Johan Cruyff formation. An Ajax / Holland formation. In the 70-ies called total football . Now also used by Barca. Current EU teams also play 4-3-3, but with 2 defending midfielders and one playmaker , a 10 . According to Cruyff this divides the team in two. To much space between the backs and the wingers. To play total football or it s modern variant, tickie-tacka , every player needs to be like 9 meters from each other in triangles. So Ajax and Barca prefer, the much more offensive, 4-3-3 aka 4-1-2-3 One controlling midfielder and two creative, offensive midfielders, who also have to defend when needed. (that is the hard part) In Cruyffs vision. Attacking starts with the Goalkeeper and defending with the striker. This is used to play (very) high on the pitch, the other team usually is completely on their own half and are dominated (if executed well) In defence, they put pressure (again high on the pitch) on the other team to make a mistake and regain the ball. In possession, they keep the ball in the team, and they play in triangels. (one passing, one making himself available, one receiving the ball) Usually the other team is completely on their own half. Which means there is (very)little space for he attacking team. Thus players need to be very technical inventive/creative in small areas/spaces. A lot of running and modern box to box players (having space) is a but cursing in this school of play. The ball travels, so you do not run so much. Everyone attacks and defends at the same time. | 16-Jul-16 15:54 guest 82.145.220.252 | Portugal used this formation to win the European Championships in 2016. William Carvalho as the 1 in defensive midfield. And 3 central midfielders in front in. Typically Mario, Sanches and Silva. With no decent strikers (as was always often the case with Portugal going back decades, excluding Nuno Gomez) they played two ex-Man Utd wingers up front in Nani and Ronaldo. | 18-Jul-16 15:38 guest 51.9.138.11 | Portugal used this formation as a counter attacking formation. - Though its said to be more attacking than 4-2-3-1. . Without wingers, with 2 wingers playing up front. Nani sometimes dropped back into midfield. When Ronaldo came off in the final, Quaresma came on for him and changed to 4-3-3. With Quaresma and Nani wide and Renato Sanches moving forward from midfield to up front. Renato Sanches (bought by BMunich before the tournament) now the youngest ever player to play at the final replacing Ronaldo of the 2094 final v Greece. | 19-Nov-16 10:56 guest 117.207.189.9 | 4-1-3-2 is a awesome formation because its a defensive as well as attacking strategy.AT 1 there should be an experienced mid defensive fielder to pass ahead as well as to defend also.Position at 3 is main as they have to do mid attacking and sometimes defense too. Overall 4-1-3-2 is the best strategy | 19-Jan-18 11:48 guest 188.15.231.65 | 4-1-3-2 is a great strategy. The three midfields must just stay on the middle line or a little forward, not more. So they can defend and attack, helping the defensive CM and the attackers with passes and surprise blitzes. One of the attackers must stay a little back, in the dead zone , so he can be useful for the midfields and for his offensive partner. RB and LB must defend and push forward to create numerical superiority in midfield and if the route is free go to make crosses. According to me is the best formation, I personally tested it in a lot of situations. Thanks. |
RB - Right-back