I have read on here recently that people think that the 4-2-3-1 formation isnt really working or doesnt suit the likes of Lamps and Ramie.

What formation would you play and who would you play where?

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by u no it makes sense

I think either of these are worth a try

4-4-2

Cech

Ivan - Cahill/Luiz - Terry - Cole

Moses/Mata - Mikel - Lamps/Ramires - Hazard/Mata

Sturridge - Torres

or 4-5-1 (with very attacking flanks)

Cech

Ivan - Cahill/Luiz - Terry - Cole

Moses/Mata - Ramires - Mikel - Lamps - Hazard/Mata

Torres

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Zola

How about a 4-3-2-1?

Cech

Ivan Luiz Terry Cole

Ramie Mikel Lampard

Hazard Mata

Torres

The 4231 formation does work, just not with Lampard and Mikel playing together, both of the slow the play down too much.

We could probably get away with playing 1 or the other, just not both together!

Formation is just numbers on the paper. Of course, a three man defense will have certain other strengths and weaknesses than a flat 4-4-2, but in the end the most important thing is to get the dynamics of the team correct. The balance between defense and attack, the transition between defense and attack, constant movement between our attacking players and the distances between defense and attack. And getting the players to play in their preferred and best positions. Just the basics, really.

That being said, I feel that we have bought (and have) too many "nr. 10-players" to not take advantage of this. On a general basis that rules out a 4-3-3/4-5-1 for me. I still think we could use that formation in some matches, especially when we're up against a good midfield (where the likes of Mata struggles to defend properly).

And as "Mike Carefree" said, the most important player is the mindset. If we don't want to win then we most certainly won't.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Ozztheboss

I think in the long run we'll probably see a return to 4-3-3 with Hazard and Mata in free roles behind Torres and Ramires, Lampard and Mikel in midfield.

I am against rigid formations and I think too much emphasis is placed on them.

When you have players as talented as Hazard and Mata, who can play all over the place - how can you talk about 4 3 3 or 4 2 3 1?

Sure, when you are playing Barca at the Camp Nou or Utd at OT, you have to be disciplined but I don't want to see this carried over into league games against the likes of QPR, Norwich, Southampton etc - especially when we play at The Bridge. Teams should be sh*t scared of coming to The Bridge and having to face the likes of Mata, Hazard, Moses, Sturriidge & Torres. It's games like these where it does my head in to see Mikel & Lamps in the midfield with the slow, lethargic build up.

Horses for courses and all that.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Nibs

AVB had the right formation/ideas and I think that's the direction we should be heading towards. Poorly implemented but correct nonetheless.

AVB had the right formation/ideas and I think that's the direction we should be heading towards. Poorly implemented but correct nonetheless.

AVB's problem never was the ideas and the aims. The problem is how to make the players believe in it and play according to it. Simpler tactics get you better results if everything is made simple for the players but you wont get any kind of Barca-revolution with conventional ideas.

AVB's problem never was the ideas and the aims. The problem is how to make the players believe in it and play according to it. Simpler tactics get you better results if everything is made simple for the players but you wont get any kind of Barca-revolution with conventional ideas.

That's what I meant, he tried too much too soon. With the players we had at the time it was always going to be extremely hard.

The concept of pass and move couldn't be any simpler so I'm not sure what you mean. No one was expecting anything like a Barca revolution, if anything he wanted us to play like Porto did and that was an achievable goal.

Edited September 18, 201213 yr by Remodez

Am i the only one who wants us to play 4-4-2?

Cech

Branna Cahill Terry Cole

Moses Oscar Mata Hazard

Sturridge Torres

This would be the best midfield ever, they can shift to 4-3-1-2 , they can shift to defensive 4-2-3-1 (subbing Sturridge for Mikel and Oscar or Moses for Ramires and create a defensive double pivot) this formation just has so many options.

That's what I meant, he tried too much too soon. With the players we had at the time it was always going to be extremely hard.

The concept of pass and move couldn't be any simpler so I'm not sure what you mean. No one was expecting anything like a Barca revolution, if anything he wanted us to play like Porto did and that was an achievable goal.

Thats why i worry if Pep comes in next summer. Will he expect our players to play like Barca do? One or two could but Lamps, Mikel etc surely couldnt.

I think a good manager looks at the squad and sets the team up to what the current players can do. Not come in with a style and try to force the players to play that why. Is Roman to blame for this? We hear he wants/demands attacking attractive football. Maybe in another season or two when some of the older maybe slower players are replaced it might be possible.

Thats why i worry if Pep comes in next summer. Will he expect our players to play like Barca do? One or two could but Lamps, Mikel etc surely couldnt.

I think a good manager looks at the squad and sets the team up to what the current players can do. Not come in with a style and try to force the players to play that why. Is Roman to blame for this? We hear he wants/demands attacking attractive football. Maybe in another season or two when some of the older maybe slower players are replaced it might be possible.

That's how he was taught to play the game, there's no doubt that he would try to implement the Barca style of play if he was to join us. He's known to be very stubborn in adjusting his tactics as well but his reputation should make the transition easier, in theory.

I sort of agree and disagree with that. A good manager shouldn't limit his tactics based on the players he has and nor should he limit his players by using such tactics, he should be looking at ways to constantly improve the team and players and pick tactics that allow that to happen. Obviously depends on the circumstances but I'm speaking in general there. RDM played it safe (Given his situation was the right option I guess) and it worked out well for him last season, that's great but he can't keep playing the same way. Now he has a much more creative team and he can't find the right tactics to get them to play "attractive attacking football" (RDM's and Roman's words, not mine). Very early days and all but I can only go off what's happened so far.

I think as a club we have been gearing towards nice passing attacking football for a while now. Roman probably is playing a part in it but I doubt he woke up one day and thought "I want nice passing attacking football, sack the current manager and get me a manager who can do that". It's been around for some time.

Am i the only one who wants us to play 4-4-2?

Cech

Branna Cahill Terry Cole

Moses Oscar Mata Hazard

Sturridge Torres

This would be the best midfield ever, they can shift to 4-3-1-2 , they can shift to defensive 4-2-3-1 (subbing Sturridge for Mikel and Oscar or Moses for Ramires and create a defensive double pivot) this formation just has so many options.

It would actually be a very weak midfield. You would get out numbered by a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1.

Oscar and Mata would not be able to deal with the physicality of it. Moses and Hazard will get forward making it more like a 4-2-2-2.

I don't like the 4-2-3-1 personally. I would opt for a 4-3-2-1.

Mikel, Ramires, Lampard

Hazard / Mata (Oscar / Marin / Moses)

Torres

It would actually be a very weak midfield. You would get out numbered by a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1.

Oscar and Mata would not be able to deal with the physicality of it. Moses and Hazard will get forward making it more like a 4-2-2-2.

I don't like the 4-2-3-1 personally. I would opt for a 4-3-2-1.

Mikel, Ramires, Lampard

Hazard / Mata (Oscar / Marin / Moses)

Torres

It would probably be weak physically but in another point of view it would be very strong againt stoke-esque teams that are very good built physically , imagine all these creative players passing the balls up and down till they will get disoriented. Hazard is the best example, he makes such players look like woods with legs, he just outrun them or play with the ball till they lose the sight of the ball. (bad english i know)

I think it's easy to talk about 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1 and whatever else, but they're all quite unclear without defined roles, imo.

For example, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-3-3 with an inverted midfield triangle? The most striking difference is the defensive responsibility of the wingers, but then what formation did we play last season under AVB when he would push Mata into the middle? The wingers were still as high up as before.

Similarly, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1? Especially Utd's one last year where Shrek would practically drop into midfield and the wingers were never really level with the 2 CMs.

The most important thing, in my mind, is what role each player is allocated and fulfils, and how these fit together. In our system, we want Mata or Hazard to be in the middle, but because they play high up the pitch, we need the two behind them to be a little more reserved – similar to Arsenal’s 4-3-3 with Wilshere and Song sat behind Fabregas (who is more of a CM than Mata or Hazard).

In many 4-3-3s, the midfield 3 works together as a unit – Porto’s one was known for “turningâ€. In our system, we don’t want this because Mata and Hazard are undoubtedly better going forward than the two behind them, and don’t offer enough defensively, so turning the triangle is quite pointless. It’s better to have Hazard and Mata, with one on the wing and one in the centre, interchanging. This, imo, is what we have implemented very well in our system. It doesn’t matter if we call it a 4-3-3 with Mata at the tip of the midfield triangle and Hazard on the wing, or a 4-2-3-1 with them both in the line of 3, imo.

Since Mata doesn’t function as part of a midfield trio (despite still being in midfield), the other two must form a functioning unit; think Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, Alonso-Khedira, Toure-Barry (now Garcia). There are two main ways this is implemented, imo:

You can have a classic holder next to a playmaker with relatively few defensive responsibilities – the danger here is that this makes us predictable and the holder can be left alone whilst the playmaker is doubled up on. Barca, whilst employing a midfield 3, avoid the more destructive player being left alone by having a very technically gifted one who does contribute to play when needed but still provides solidity. The playmaker still has to get back and muck in defensively, but the holder has more defensive responsibility.

Or you can have a true double pivot – Bayern used Kroos-Schwein against us in the CL final to great effect, and Germany did it well with Schwein-Khedira at the Euros. In both these teams Schweinsteiger acts as a playmaker, but also takes turns with his partner to get forward/defend. Similarly with Song-Wilshere.

By pairing Lampard and Mikel, we’re essentially trying to replicate Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, except Lampard just can’t pass the ball well enough to pull the strings like Schweinsteiger, and is too slow in getting back, whilst Mikel isn’t an Essien-level DM who can rush around and hold the fort on his own. If we put Oscar next to Mikel, I think this could work – Oscar isn’t defensively minded, but he’s quick and reads the game well, so would be able to get back and give Mikel a bit of help.

I think that if we were to pair Mikel and Ramires, we’d have something in between the two, and it would be fairly interesting – Mikel’s a holder who can pass the ball and doesn’t get forward, whilst Ramires is a box-to-box like Khedira who can’t pull the strings but offers a lot both going forward and defending. I fear we’d have problems getting the ball to Mata/Hazard with these two being the ones who pick the ball up from the defenders, though.

I don't know if this makes any sense, it's been buzzing around my head recently confusing me and that's what I make of our midfield problems.

It would actually be a very weak midfield. You would get out numbered by a 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1.

Oscar and Mata would not be able to deal with the physicality of it. Moses and Hazard will get forward making it more like a 4-2-2-2.

Spot on, I don't think people realise just how dead the 4-4-2 is these days, especially for a team looking to impose itself on the opposition. Everyone plays with 3 in midfield, so playing 2 in there you get outnumbered and concede possession. Doesn't matter if you want to sit back and play on the break, but we don't want to do that.

Spot on, I don't think people realise just how dead the 4-4-2 is these days, especially for a team looking to impose itself on the opposition. Everyone plays with 3 in midfield, so playing 2 in there you get outnumbered and concede possession. Doesn't matter if you want to sit back and play on the break, but we don't want to do that.

Only way around it is if your wingers tuck in which would then allow their full backs freedom, or of course if one of your strikers drops deep to pick up their holding midfielder.

Or you can have two Essiens in the middle...

I think it's easy to talk about 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1 and whatever else, but they're all quite unclear without defined roles, imo.

For example, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-3-3 with an inverted midfield triangle? The most striking difference is the defensive responsibility of the wingers, but then what formation did we play last season under AVB when he would push Mata into the middle? The wingers were still as high up as before.

Similarly, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1? Especially Utd's one last year where Shrek would practically drop into midfield and the wingers were never really level with the 2 CMs.

The most important thing, in my mind, is what role each player is allocated and fulfils, and how these fit together. In our system, we want Mata or Hazard to be in the middle, but because they play high up the pitch, we need the two behind them to be a little more reserved – similar to Arsenal’s 4-3-3 with Wilshere and Song sat behind Fabregas (who is more of a CM than Mata or Hazard).

In many 4-3-3s, the midfield 3 works together as a unit – Porto’s one was known for “turningâ€. In our system, we don’t want this because Mata and Hazard are undoubtedly better going forward than the two behind them, and don’t offer enough defensively, so turning the triangle is quite pointless. It’s better to have Hazard and Mata, with one on the wing and one in the centre, interchanging. This, imo, is what we have implemented very well in our system. It doesn’t matter if we call it a 4-3-3 with Mata at the tip of the midfield triangle and Hazard on the wing, or a 4-2-3-1 with them both in the line of 3, imo.

Since Mata doesn’t function as part of a midfield trio (despite still being in midfield), the other two must form a functioning unit; think Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, Alonso-Khedira, Toure-Barry (now Garcia). There are two main ways this is implemented, imo:

You can have a classic holder next to a playmaker with relatively few defensive responsibilities – the danger here is that this makes us predictable and the holder can be left alone whilst the playmaker is doubled up on. Barca, whilst employing a midfield 3, avoid the more destructive player being left alone by having a very technically gifted one who does contribute to play when needed but still provides solidity. The playmaker still has to get back and muck in defensively, but the holder has more defensive responsibility.

Or you can have a true double pivot – Bayern used Kroos-Schwein against us in the CL final to great effect, and Germany did it well with Schwein-Khedira at the Euros. In both these teams Schweinsteiger acts as a playmaker, but also takes turns with his partner to get forward/defend. Similarly with Song-Wilshere.

By pairing Lampard and Mikel, we’re essentially trying to replicate Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, except Lampard just can’t pass the ball well enough to pull the strings like Schweinsteiger, and is too slow in getting back, whilst Mikel isn’t an Essien-level DM who can rush around and hold the fort on his own. If we put Oscar next to Mikel, I think this could work – Oscar isn’t defensively minded, but he’s quick and reads the game well, so would be able to get back and give Mikel a bit of help.

I think that if we were to pair Mikel and Ramires, we’d have something in between the two, and it would be fairly interesting – Mikel’s a holder who can pass the ball and doesn’t get forward, whilst Ramires is a box-to-box like Khedira who can’t pull the strings but offers a lot both going forward and defending. I fear we’d have problems getting the ball to Mata/Hazard with these two being the ones who pick the ball up from the defenders, though.

I don't know if this makes any sense, it's been buzzing around my head recently confusing me and that's what I make of our midfield problems.

And who said football was a simple game?!!

What happens if your only striker puts his hands on his hips and sulks

Whatever the formation, it has to have a number 10 as it's focal point... considering we have 3 of the best number 10's in the world, it would be ridiculous not to use atleast one of them there.

It's a complicated issue, because although 4-2-3-1 is perfect for the 3 and the 1, the 2 aren't working. Lamps and Mikel don't have the burst of pace that Rami has to change defence into attack within a few seconds, then again, it's obvious that Rami is far more suited to a 3 man midfield.

Mikel, Romeu or Essien have to play to shield the defence and at the moment that is Mikel, so it really comes down to who is his best partner in midfield... Lampard, Oscar or Rami.

IMO Oscar HAS to play, he's pure class. Lamps should only be used sparingly now, the days of him being the best player on the pitch week in week out are over.

Not a massive fan of Mikel's but he's the best defensive mid we've got.

Whatever the formation, it has to have a number 10 as it's focal point... considering we have 3 of the best number 10's in the world, it would be ridiculous not to use atleast one of them there.

It's a complicated issue, because although 4-2-3-1 is perfect for the 3 and the 1, the 2 aren't working. Lamps and Mikel don't have the burst of pace that Rami has to change defence into attack within a few seconds, then again, it's obvious that Rami is far more suited to a 3 man midfield.

Mikel, Romeu or Essien have to play to shield the defence and at the moment that is Mikel, so it really comes down to who is his best partner in midfield... Lampard, Oscar or Rami.

IMO Oscar HAS to play, he's pure class. Lamps should only be used sparingly now, the days of him being the best player on the pitch week in week out are over.

Not a massive fan of Mikel's but he's the best defensive mid we've got.

Whoops, forgot he's at Madrid.

Essien starting hope he plays well, but if he does il be seriously disappointed he's not at the bridge.

I think it's easy to talk about 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1 and whatever else, but they're all quite unclear without defined roles, imo.

For example, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-3-3 with an inverted midfield triangle? The most striking difference is the defensive responsibility of the wingers, but then what formation did we play last season under AVB when he would push Mata into the middle? The wingers were still as high up as before.

Similarly, what is the difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1? Especially Utd's one last year where Shrek would practically drop into midfield and the wingers were never really level with the 2 CMs.

The most important thing, in my mind, is what role each player is allocated and fulfils, and how these fit together. In our system, we want Mata or Hazard to be in the middle, but because they play high up the pitch, we need the two behind them to be a little more reserved – similar to Arsenal’s 4-3-3 with Wilshere and Song sat behind Fabregas (who is more of a CM than Mata or Hazard).

In many 4-3-3s, the midfield 3 works together as a unit – Porto’s one was known for “turningâ€. In our system, we don’t want this because Mata and Hazard are undoubtedly better going forward than the two behind them, and don’t offer enough defensively, so turning the triangle is quite pointless. It’s better to have Hazard and Mata, with one on the wing and one in the centre, interchanging. This, imo, is what we have implemented very well in our system. It doesn’t matter if we call it a 4-3-3 with Mata at the tip of the midfield triangle and Hazard on the wing, or a 4-2-3-1 with them both in the line of 3, imo.

Since Mata doesn’t function as part of a midfield trio (despite still being in midfield), the other two must form a functioning unit; think Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, Alonso-Khedira, Toure-Barry (now Garcia). There are two main ways this is implemented, imo:

You can have a classic holder next to a playmaker with relatively few defensive responsibilities – the danger here is that this makes us predictable and the holder can be left alone whilst the playmaker is doubled up on. Barca, whilst employing a midfield 3, avoid the more destructive player being left alone by having a very technically gifted one who does contribute to play when needed but still provides solidity. The playmaker still has to get back and muck in defensively, but the holder has more defensive responsibility.

Or you can have a true double pivot – Bayern used Kroos-Schwein against us in the CL final to great effect, and Germany did it well with Schwein-Khedira at the Euros. In both these teams Schweinsteiger acts as a playmaker, but also takes turns with his partner to get forward/defend. Similarly with Song-Wilshere.

By pairing Lampard and Mikel, we’re essentially trying to replicate Schweinsteiger-Gustavo, except Lampard just can’t pass the ball well enough to pull the strings like Schweinsteiger, and is too slow in getting back, whilst Mikel isn’t an Essien-level DM who can rush around and hold the fort on his own. If we put Oscar next to Mikel, I think this could work – Oscar isn’t defensively minded, but he’s quick and reads the game well, so would be able to get back and give Mikel a bit of help.

I think that if we were to pair Mikel and Ramires, we’d have something in between the two, and it would be fairly interesting – Mikel’s a holder who can pass the ball and doesn’t get forward, whilst Ramires is a box-to-box like Khedira who can’t pull the strings but offers a lot both going forward and defending. I fear we’d have problems getting the ball to Mata/Hazard with these two being the ones who pick the ball up from the defenders, though.

I don't know if this makes any sense, it's been buzzing around my head recently confusing me and that's what I make of our midfield problems.

Good post and I (think) get what you are saying, Romeu seems to be overlooked in the midfield, but in his good spell last year, he was looking to move the ball forwards quickly as well as protecting the back four, so could the answer be Romeu/Oscar for the double pivot?

I think everyone agrees that the 3 and the 1 is working well, if we could get the 2 working IMO we would be a very very good side!

Yeah I forgot about Romeu. I'd like to see the different combinations of Romeu/Ramires/Oscar/Mikel in that midfield tbh, to see how they work together.

One of the points I was trying to make, but failed to make really, is that we do essentially have 3 in midfield with our formation anyway, so why do people keep saying that Ramires can only be played in a 4-3-3? The furthest midfielder forward in a 4-3-3 is typically expected to provide just as much defensive cover as a number 10 in a 4-2-3-1, so in both situations Ramires' cover has to come from the deepest midfielder.