My search for the perfect formation
Is there one?
For years, I’ve prided myself on having a comprehensive knowledge of
football but tactical awareness has always been my blind spot. However, upon
recently reading Jonathan Wilson’s excellent ‘Inverting the Pyramid’, I have
become fascinated by the cyclical evolution of tactics. Trends go in and out of
fashion, such as wingers, playmakers, strike partnerships, sweepers and false
nines. Louis Van Gaal’s arrival at Old Trafford has brought back the debate of
deploying three centre backs, after it worked so successfully for his Dutch
World Cup side. Clearly I’m nowhere near Wilson’s level of expertise, but the
main lesson I learnt is that each system has a weakness – there is no flawless
formation. Yet I’m so enraptured by the idea of one that I want to find the most perfect – or as close to perfect – formation possible.
It was the great Ukrainian Valeriy Lobanovskyi who adapted a
mathematical mindset to his tactics board. Football to him was, according to
Wilson, merely: “a system of 22 elements – two sub-systems of 11 elements –
moving within a defined area and subject to a series of restrictions.” His
philosophy was that: “If the two sub-systems were equal, the outcome would be a
draw. If one were stronger, they would win.” Whilst a match is prone to other
factors – quality of opposition, strength of bench, a team’s desire and,
simply, luck – a well-drilled system can see any David beat their Goliath.
A manager needs to decide whether he should fit a system to his
players, or fit players to his system. All sorts of tactics can work. We’ve
seen beautiful ideas like tiki taka conquer the world and totaalvoetbal almost
did the same, yet Graham Taylor (Watford), Dave Bassett (Wimbledon), Egil Olsen
(Norway) and Tony Pulis (Stoke) have proved that other, non-pretty strategies
can also achieve startling success. Alf Ramsey’s victorious ‘Wingless Wonders’
put 4-4-2 at the forefront of British tactics for decades and it’s only the
last 10 years that have seen other systems stamp their dominance, rendering
4-4-2 almost extinct at the top level.
England, inspired by Liverpool, used a 4-4-2 diamond against
Switzerland two weeks ago and it worked very well, despite fears that Lichtsteiner
and Rodriguez would exploit the severe lack of width. This system has a strong
spine as it packs the middle of the pitch but it can be too narrow, often
leaving the full backs with a two-on-one disadvantage. The general rule for
defending is that there should be one more defender than opposing attackers –
unlike the flat 4-4-2; the diamond lets the defensive midfielder pick up one of
them, so there are no two-on-two situations.
The global formation of choice since Spain’s Euro 2008 win, 4-2-3-1,
has seemingly taken 4-4-2s crown. Juanma Lillo is often credited with
introducing it to modern football but the Spaniard claims that he was only
labelling what had already been happening for years. You see, flat 4-4-2s
contain one slightly withdrawn striker and lots of wing play – a bit of
tweaking and this visually becomes 4-2-3-1. It’s a very strong system and has
had variations where the ‘trequartista’ is actually positioned to negate the
threat of registas like Pirlo, Alonso and Gundogan. The double pivot stifles
opposition playmakers but is generally too defensive, whilst playing with one
striker can bring up isolation issues. Only special all-rounder forwards like
Drogba tend to play well alone.
Whether 4-2-3-1 uses wingers or inside forwards, tracking back is
essential because, with plenty of space ahead of the full backs, opposing
wingers will have a field day – Holland’s Arjen Robben used Robinho’s laziness
to overturn Brazil’s 1-0 lead at the 2010 World Cup. The best way to defeat this, apart from using your own 4-2-3-1, is a staggered 4-3-3. Here, the trequartista can be moved back into a midfield three, giving a stronger midfield
base. At Ancelotti’s Real Madrid, their 4-3-3 can be devastating on the counter attack,
unleashing Ronaldo and Bale either side of Karim Benzema. Ronaldo and Bale’s tireless
energy is ideal for pressing high up the pitch, causing defenders to panic and
eventually make a mistake. They could be pinned back by attacking full backs
but their stamina and high work rate are perfect for these roles, managing to
track back yet attack with such destruction. The key to Real’s 4-3-3 is the
wingers/inside forwards – for fitness reasons, it won’t work well at most
clubs. There just aren’t enough players in the attacking third.
A position that captivates me is wing-back. Rarely seen these days
because of its three-man defence, in theory it is wonderful
– the best of both worlds. It’s very hard to achieve in practice though,
requiring extraordinary fitness, discipline and decision making. The 5-3-2 (or
3-5-2) is ideal against two strikers, outnumbers the midfield and provides two
strikers. But width is a huge weakness, as the onus is solely on the wing-backs
to both defend and burst forward in attack to provide crosses. Opposition full-backs are free to roam and exploit weaknesses. With two
lung-busting players it could work but, if the playmaker is closed off, it's
still too predictable.
My favourite formation, seldom used but one that’s theoretically close to perfect, is Roberto Martinez’s 3-4-3 at Wigan Athletic. After 28 games, his side
were bottom of the Premier League with just 16 points. After unleashing his
brainchild against Bolton, Wigan got an incredible 27 points from their final
14 games and escaped relegation – a true ‘great escape’. The 3-4-3 beat
Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool, whilst destroying a Champions
League-chasing Newcastle 4-0.
Also used at Napoli with a Hamsik-Cavani-Lavezzi triumvirate, Martinez’s
piece of genius was using both wing-backs and wingers – sacrificing a striker
to avoid the width problem of a 5-3-2. In possession of Jean Beausejour – a
naturally energetic wing-back from his time with Bielsa’s Chile – Martinez
deployed him on the left and Emmerson Boyce on the right, with a back three of Caldwell,
Alcaraz and Figueroa. Victor Moses and Jordi Gomez played wide off Franco Di
Santo – a formation that was 5-4-1 in defence and a free-flowing 3-4-3 in
attack. Wigan could double up on the wings, stretching the field of play
without worrying about giving defensive protection.
There’s only one centre forward in name but swapping the wingers
provides inside forwards and this, combined with the attacking threat of
Beausejour, confused many teams. The final issue with this formation is the
centre backs. They’re able to cope against two forwards, as the middle centre
back covers in his role as sweeper. Against only one forward, he operates as
libero and helps the midfield cope with (probably) three opposing midfielders.
Martinez’s flexible 3-4-3 has lots of width, is comfortable in defence and can
offer extra midfield support. Am I missing a really obvious reason why this
isn’t used more? Is it the difficulty of finding true wing-backs?
Of course, an ideal squad would include the right players for controlling
a match, the players for pacy, powerful counter attacks and individuals able to
unlock defences when teams sit deep and the onus is on them to make a
breakthrough. As for perfect formations; Real Madrid’s 4-3-3 is fantastic but
how good would it be without the world’s two most expensive players at their
best? If a goldmine of natural wing-backs was suddenly discovered, would
Martinez’s 3-4-3 be the closest we’ve come to perfection? Or maybe, with
Atletico’s incredible 2013-14 season, 4-4-2 was the best system all along. That's the beauty of football: there's no right answer.
