4-2-3-1 lineup
Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by webmaster on January 7th, 2009
Can I ask why you're wondering though. Are you trying to draw some kind of theory on success of different formations?
Tracking success/scoring trends/etc. would certainly be interesting; Last season Peter Hirdt had some nice observations about the 4-4-2 vs. 3-5-2 in MLS.
Getting back to the original question, this article (in Italian) seems to suggest that Deportivo la Corun~a "traditionally" plays a 4-2-3-1.
http://it.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/FixturesResults/Round=1636/Match=1036475/Report=PR.html
Just watch all their matches, especially the knockout rounds.
I really appreciate the effort on finding the link.
I'm fascinated with player personnel, style application and relative positioning - as well as the comparative results from unique lineups.
Thanks again!
Big-time Depor fan here. I usually attend a couple of games a year in person (this year some family health problems have kept me home), and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about how Depor uses their 4-2-3-1.
Take care.
Just an FYI on earlier comments regarding the formation and scoring - I have no idea without some research on how Depor's scoring has compared with the rest of La Primera, but I do know they've used the formation to create two pichichis (European top goal-scorers) out of Tristan and Makaay. Pandiani - their latest front runner (or the "1") - was on a holy tear at the beginning of this season before he was injured. Counting Champions League, Copa del Rey, and La Liga matches, I think at one point he'd scored in 8 straight matches and 9 out of 10.
Javier Irureta almost never, ever detours from the formation. It works best when Valeron is healthy and in form, Mauro Silva is the prototypical DMid for the formation, and it helps to have two good wingers on each side.
Like I said, if you have any other questions, just drop me a PM or email.
I think that would be interesting in and of itself, apart from a purely statistical analysis.
I think a soccermetric study of formational approaches measured against goals allowed and goals scored would be very stimulating. Since, as you say, Deportivo uses this formation consistently, they seem to be an excellent candidate for this kind of study, compared to say a team that uses another formation consistently.
As you know, Bruce said earlier in the last WC cycle that he thought the international play demanded 4 in the back, given the high quality front runners you would face. Then, of course, he changed his mind facing both Mexico and Germany in the knockout rounds.
Then you have Brazil, who abandoned their traditional 4-4-2 for a twin d-mid setup.
The Netherlands even switched from the 4-3-3 which they used religiously to a 4-3-2-1. There was an article in 4-4-2 (the magazine) about it. It's called El Espaniol or something like that because so many teams in La Liga use it.
Both Argentina and USA used it today.
Formations are overrated.
Systems of play are what matter.
I stumbled across this a few days ago:
http://sserver.sourceforge.net/
Tracking success/scoring trends/etc. would certainly be interesting; Last season Peter Hirdt had some nice observations about the 4-4-2 vs. 3-5-2 in MLS.
Getting back to the original question, this article (in Italian) seems to suggest that Deportivo la Corun~a "traditionally" plays a 4-2-3-1.
http://it.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/FixturesResults/Round=1636/Match=1036475/Report=PR.html
I really appreciate the effort on finding the link.
I'm fascinated with player personnel, style application and relative positioning - as well as the comparative results from unique lineups.
Thanks again!
I really appreciate the effort on finding the link.
I'm fascinated with player personnel, style application and relative positioning - as well as the comparative results from unique lineups.
Thanks again!
Big-time Deportivo fan here. I usually attend a couple of games a year in person (this year some family health problems have kept me home), and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about how Depor uses their 4-2-3-1.
Take care.
First, let me mention that 50 percent of all starting lineups over the last four seasons have used a 4–4–2 formation, but to no significant advantage. Teams starting a 4–4–2 have posted a record just five games over the .500 mark.
As for whether the Galaxy has been disproportionately successful against those teams—well, yes and no. Los Angeles has a record of 26–15–14 (.600) against teams starting a 4–4–2 since 2000, compared to 22–17–9 (.552) vs. other formations. Again, not enough of a difference on which to base a conclusion and probably not even enough for Bill to have based an observation—unless Bill has seen mainly the Galaxy’s home games.
Over the last four seasons, the Galaxy has lost only two home games against teams that started a 4–4–2. Both were 1–0 losses to the Rapids—one this season, the other in 2002. During that time, Los Angeles has posted a home-game record of 16–2–5 (.804) against the 4–4–2, compared to 16–6–5 (.685) at home vs. other formations.
Incidentally, the Rapids had by far the most significant disparity between records against the 4–4–2 and other formations. Since 2000, Colorado has a record of 14–32–7 (.330) against the 4–4–2, compared to 23–15–12 (.580) in other matches.
Not much there, but hey.
I'm a CM fanatic. I had 3 different formations...a 4-2-3-1, a 3-5-2, and a 3-1-4-2. Of the three, I got the most goals from bringing the ball in from wide in the 4-2-3-1, and the most goals from coming down the middle in the 3-1-4-2.
Defensively, in the 3-5-2, I knew I was weak wide, so I got guys who were beasts in the air to deal with the inevitable crosses.
I mention this NOT because I think it's directly relevant, but to bring up the kinds of questions that I think it would be interesting to explore.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=24
Can I ask why you're wondering though. Are you trying to draw some kind of theory on success of different formations?
I'd be curious as to HOW goals were scored. (Understanding that there's alot of subjectivity in the categorizing.)
I'm a CM fanatic. I had 3 different formations...a 4-2-3-1, a 3-5-2, and a 3-1-4-2. Of the three, I got the most goals from bringing the ball in from wide in the 4-2-3-1, and the most goals from coming down the middle in the 3-1-4-2.
I think you touched upon the real attacking plan of a successful application of the 4-2-3-1
Wide attacks spread defenses, and the transition coming from the wide backs, or defensive mids - starts the attack. Ideally, distribution from the back comes to the A-mid, then is immediately sent wide for a run. Meanwhile, the opposite wide mid makes a diagonal to the box, and the striker is taking a defender near post. The attacking mid heads diagonal toward the ball carrier for service. The immediate options of the ball carrier are the striker at the near post, and the following A-mid. This creates an effective triangle deep in the attacking zone. If the ball carrier is forced wide and deep, he should have the option of crossing to the far post where the other wide mid is.
If one of the D-mids gets into good position at the top of the eighteen, it leaves a strong option of the A-mid gathering a pass and redirecting the attack from a more centered alignment. And the options become even more varied with most of the 'front four' already deep.
The part that really impresses me about this kind of attacking philosophy - is that the back four are not committed upfield, and one of the D-mids is not penetrating the attacking third, therefore adding all-that-much-more support defensively.
We don't generally deal with a lot of that kind of stuff around here, and as ou can maybe tell we don't get a lot of traffic through these parts regarless. Your best bet might be to ask the same question in this forum.
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=24
Can I ask why you're wondering though. Are you trying to draw some kind of theory on success of different formations?
Yeah, I'm interested in particular application of lineups and the resulting statistics relative to success ratio.
Thanks for the link!
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
