One final strength – which is significant for proponents of the 4-4-2 like Diego Simeone – is that sliding across the pitch in two units of four is easy to do while maintaining compactness. There are usually enough players behind or around the ball to regain possession in the first place, and then also enough of a presence ahead of play to initiate and sustain a counter-attack, both in central and wide areas.Īfter dropping back into a block, the front two can block off access to central midfield, making it harder for opponents to build through the centre of pitch. The 4-4-2 provides a strong base from which to launch counter-attacks, with a good balance of players both in front of and behind the ball. The presence of two centre-forwards in a 4-4-2 formation means both opposition centre-backs are constantly occupied when up against a back four. Opponents can also target wide areas on the counter-attack, particularly if a full-back has pushed up. If they don’t get across the pitch following a switch of play, the full-backs can be left exposed and isolated with no wide midfielder ahead of them, and the winger usually high up the pitch. The central midfielders can also end up with a lot of ground to cover.

The three central midfielders can end up numerically overloaded against four central players – for example, in a 4-4-2 diamond. They also need to be strong and good enough on the ball to hold off several defenders. This means you need a player in this position who is willing to do lots of work that may bring little or no reward. The main weakness of a 4-3-3 is that the single centre-forward can be left isolated, and is naturally underloaded whether playing against two or three centre-backs. It is easier to press high up the pitch, meanwhile, with three players in the front line rather than two. A staggered midfield shape – often a single pivot behind two number eights – makes it easier to defend the space between the defensive and midfield lines. This creates an overload elsewhere on the pitch and should, in theory, make it easier to progress up the pitch.ĭefensively, the 4-3-3 provides numbers and compactness in central areas. In attack, wide wingers flanking a single centre-forward can be enough to pin four defenders back.

Zinedine Zidane's Real Madrid had plenty of success in a 4-3-3, too. This, in theory at least, makes it easier to play a possession-based game – and this is one reason Johan Cruyff preferred such a shape for the positional game he liked his teams to play. The basic shape of a 4-3-3 tends to create more triangles between players, and so more passing lanes are open to the ball-carrier. This helps in build-up, playing through the lines, creating chances and overall domination of possession. The main strength of a 4-3-3 is the presence of a third player in central midfield, which creates a numerical overload when up against a team playing with two. Why would any manager prefer one over another? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? Read on to find out, and then draw your own conclusions as to which works best. So, we've decided to take a look at football's most popular formations. However, to most of us, formations provide a useful framework from which we start to build up an idea of how a certain team or manager plays. The players are so rarely in that shape that there is barely any need to name the formation. The implication is that his players move from their positions so much that the stated formation they start in does not in fact matter. Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola insists that formations “are nothing more than phone numbers”.

Soccer tactical board online