Formations

Evidently some people don't know what their roles are during the game. In my opinion, we haven't ran a formation properly since the inception of our team. If you watch all these teams in D4, they just zone mark. Ever wonder why we're usually tired as hell and they move the ball around? It's because we ball chase, constantly leave our zones, and create gobs of space for the other teams to pass the ball. We also all run up as a line in midfield, creating instant space in the middle for the other team to counter attack - which they do in great numbers. I also think we need to push the ball out to the line more.

Here's some simple definitions of formations.

4-4-2
This is a very popular and versatile formation whose variations permit the use of a sweeper or wingers. Many teams today use their own version of this system. The main strength of 4-4-2 is the defense-midfield interaction. The weakness is the two lone forwards who have to be constantly supported by the midfield. (Personally speaking, I think we should run a proper 4-4-2 with a defense midfielder that doesn't leave that circle. The open space we leave in midfield is bad. The picture below is a good example of a proper 4-4-2 with a central defensive midfielder)



4-4-2 is a bit more complicated in terms of off-the-ball movement compared to systems with three forwards such as 4-3-3 or 3-4-3. As mentioned above, one of the main offensive issues with 4-4-2 is that there are only two attackers playing upfront. In most cases, that is not enough to stretch apart an enemy defensive line of usually 4 opponents or more. To accommodate, you need to get your outside midfielders running up to the forward line. Whenever your team is building up an attack on one wing, the midfielder on the opposite side has to run up towards the enemy's far post (their blind spot)

4-3-3
This formation is commonly used by Dutch and youth squads. It allows the use of a sweeper and designates one player as a striker.
4-3-3 is easier for younger players to follow as opposed to 4-4-2. With 4-3-3, you need to have your outside forwards dropping back and helping with the build-up. It's very important to keep these guys near the sideline. Younger players tend to force the ball through the middle of the field. They need to learn to build up attacks by playing the ball outside and forward (not directly through the middle of the pitch)

3-4-3
3-4-3 is a classic formation, considered offensive by today's standards. In this system, one striker must consistently stay on the tip of the attack. He therefore should be able to hold his ground. In defense, the three fullbacks must work together as a unit. At least one midfielder needs to drop back and play in front of the defensive line. His job is to constantly pressure the ball so that the defense is never caught in a compromising position.



4-5-1
This formation crowds nearly all parts of midfield slowing down enemy attacks. From an offensive point of view, the system relies on wing attacks supported by the midfield. The downside is that the lone striker is left on his own up front and may become isolated.

3-5-2
Relatively modern formation that developed in response to the popular 4-4-2. It utilizes more efficiently the fourth fullback who frequently has little to do when defending against only two attackers.

We started playing a 3 - 2 - 3 -2 (Defenders, Stoppers, Midfield, Forwards) formation last week. It started off really well but as we got tired we went back to a 4 - 4- 2 that we're getting killed by due to lack of endurance. Here's what I mean. We tend to get trapped either too far forward or too far back in Midfield. With the 3 - 2 - 3 - 2 formation, the stoppers did not go up with midfield and forced more of the runs from opponants to the outside. In the 4 - 4 - 2, once the midfield gets trapped too far up, Then John and I look up and all of a sudden it's 6 of thier players running on 4 of us and Frank. I know I do not attack a midfielder carrying the ball as fast as some would like, but basically once they have numbers, I'm just trying to slow them down, and not bite, so that Midfield can catchup. Sometimes it looks like I'm not doing anything, sometimes they blow by me and score, but most of the time I can successfully slow them down or they will try to juke me and mess up and I'll get the ball.

Also, just a devils advocate here, but I personally do not believe a Zone defense works on defense. Here's why, Let's say balls coming down the right, Kevin's got a forward running for the corner, John and I are in the middle but looking right and moving to cover, Whoever's playing left defense follows the forward making a run to the middle until they assume it's "out" of his zone, and stops. Now at this particular time, you've got someone in the middle who may not be covered at all. because the movement may be so fast, John and I do not have time to grab the guy running into the middle and "Cover" him.

I personally think the best defensive line available is a Man + 1 defense. 3 defenders Plus a free Sweeper. The 3 defenders Mark offense, not zone, Get the man that enters your zone and stay with him until you tell the center defender/stopper to Mark your guy coming in. The sweeper should be free to run to either side and help out but should not mark a man until there is a freekick or a coner kick. Basically, with a Man + 1 defense, if they ever get numbers, we know without a shadow of a doubt that the midfield got trapped up. We can not cover 2 men a peice when the midfield gets beat, so with a Man + 1, we realize what midfielders need to come back and mark someone.

Just my .02 cents.

jwillams77 wrote:We started playing a 3 - 2 - 3 -2 (Defenders, Stoppers, Midfield, Forwards) formation last week. It started off really well but as we got tired we went back to a 4 - 4- 2 that we're getting killed by due to lack of endurance. Here's what I mean. We tend to get trapped either too far forward or too far back in Midfield. With the 3 - 2 - 3 - 2 formation, the stoppers did not go up with midfield and forced more of the runs from opponants to the outside. In the 4 - 4 - 2, once the midfield gets trapped too far up, Then John and I look up and all of a sudden it's 6 of thier players running on 4 of us and Frank. I know I do not attack a midfielder carrying the ball as fast as some would like, but basically once they have numbers, I'm just trying to slow them down, and not bite, so that Midfield can catchup. Sometimes it looks like I'm not doing anything, sometimes they blow by me and score, but most of the time I can successfully slow them down or they will try to juke me and mess up and I'll get the ball.

Also, just a devils advocate here, but I personally do not believe a Zone defense works on defense. Here's why, Let's say balls coming down the right, Kevin's got a forward running for the corner, John and I are in the middle but looking right and moving to cover, Whoever's playing left defense follows the forward making a run to the middle until they assume it's "out" of his zone, and stops. Now at this particular time, you've got someone in the middle who may not be covered at all. because the movement may be so fast, John and I do not have time to grab the guy running into the middle and "Cover" him.

I personally think the best defensive line available is a Man + 1 defense. 3 defenders Plus a free Sweeper. The 3 defenders Mark offense, not zone, Get the man that enters your zone and stay with him until you tell the center defender/stopper to Mark your guy coming in. The sweeper should be free to run to either side and help out but should not mark a man until there is a freekick or a coner kick. Basically, with a Man + 1 defense, if they ever get numbers, we know without a shadow of a doubt that the midfield got trapped up. We can not cover 2 men a peice when the midfield gets beat, so with a Man + 1, we realize what midfielders need to come back and mark someone.

Just my .02 cents.

I would never advocate our defenders to zone mark, but midfield on the other hand. I wont call out anyones name but I've seen a few of our midfielders chase after the ball across the entire pitch. When they don't win the ball and it gets reversed to where their supposed to be then we're in trouble. If we can get our midfield to give up their goal scoring dreams and stay in their positions we wouldn't have 6 vs 4! I don't care if we have 5 or 4 midfielders or 2 or 3 forwards whatever we can do to keep ourselves in games will be helpful. We're not going to score more than 10 goals this season or any other season with our team. If we put in our absolute best players we're still a bit slower or a bit more unskilled than most of the other teams in our league, it is unfortunate but it is a fact. We will win games with a strong defensive effort and making the most of our few chances on offense.

I think we should zone mark in the mid. Personally speaking, I think that's where the bulk of the problem lies. Every team we've ever gotten killed by just marches right up the center on their counters because no one is there. I should have clarified, but that's where I'm really talking about where no one is marking up. I think our d-line talks well enough to know what works on the back line. I do know one thing, the reason the ball gets kicked out so much in the back is because once we do actually gain possession there's no one on the line to dish the ball. The opposing team not only is coming at us so fast on the counter because of all the space, but a majority of our midfield hasn't even ran back past the 50 yard line.

Also, if you're at left or right mid we have possession but the ball is on the opposite side of the field - don't make a run. In other words, if the left mid is bringing it up on his line and your on the opposite side of the field - don't waste your energy. I've NEVER seen us switch fields. It doesn't happen. Just go a little past the halfway mark because you're going to be coming right back.

I also want to clarify I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in specific. I just think it's a combination of people not understanding and not having defined clear roles.

I think we should definitely go over this before the game tomorrow, If we have time.

yramirez wrote:I think we should definitely go over this before the game tomorrow, If we have time.

coed is a different problem! I think in coed we need to have some speed on our back line and maybe run a 3-5-2 with Boyd being a midfielder but playing more of a defensive midfield role. maybe a lineup that looks like this




I'd like to have Angie, John and Corey play that back line with Boyd in front of them
then in mid i'd like to put Tim, Tabitha, Javier and Jennifer
with Jessica and Ryan at forward

Dont worry, I'm not feeling like your pointing fingers at the D
good luck on the coed game tomorrow.

I do point fingers at the d-line, but it's just to myself in the mirror whenever I play a full game on d.

mwass wrote:

yramirez wrote:I think we should definitely go over this before the game tomorrow, If we have time.

coed is a different problem! I think in coed we need to have some speed on our back line and maybe run a 3-5-2 with Boyd being a midfielder but playing more of a defensive midfield role. maybe a lineup that looks like this




I'd like to have Angie, John and Corey play that back line with Boyd in front of them
then in mid i'd like to put Tim, Tabitha, Javier and Jennifer
with Jessica and Ryan at forward

I would have to disagree with you. I think we have some what of the same problem with zone marking and formation. We sould at least experiment with the suggestions that we have posted, tonight. Since the co-ed division moves at a slower pace, we would be able to actual concentrate on what we are doing. Then we could move that skill over to the mens division.

Obviously what we have been doing for the last couple of years has not been working, as you can tell with our 3-41-6 record.

I think the formation wass used could work out fine for us.

We have to start sending the ball down to the corners on offense and stop trying to dribble it up the whole way. Sending the ball down with our forwards pushing out that way really helps spread the defense out and gives the mids time to sweep in and help out. We have the right tools to get it done just need to work on our application. Head On Head On Head On!

I would be content with have a 3-4-3. When me and Corey are in we have enough speed to mark pretty much anyone(except that guy for the warriors I smelt like burnt toast for a couple of days after that game) so if we wanted to give this lineup a shot and have a stronger cast upfront then I am all for it.

jcard wrote:I think the formation wass used could work out fine for us.

It's basically what Mark had us run last game. Forget the attacking lines of the midfielders for a second and take a look at it. Having the sweeper in front of the center back where the center back can pretty much direct traffic (John) obviously worked better for us in the last game than anything else this season. With someone in front of John to fill in the gap that the midfield leaves behind when everyone hero attacks broke down the counterattack enough to where some midfield could get back and close space. Just look at where a majority of their shots came from? Outside the box because someone (sweeper) was actually out there to stop them from dribbling it into our faces. It's not rocket science. We still wouldn't have to run it like this if we had a defensive minded person in the middle, but baby steps right?

Do you mean stopper?

Anyway It was working out so so just everyone was jammed up trying to play defense the whole time. If we can maintain some spacing between us we would be way better off. It should help out with those aren't as in super good shape also by not exerting so much wasted energy. I know both Matts watch a lot of pro soccer and while we aren't even in the same book as those guys the one thing you have to notice when they play is how well they stay spaced out from one another.

I think we may be on to something here with some discussion about it. I think everyone is willing to give whatever formation a shot just to change our fortunes in the win loss columns.

jcard wrote:Do you mean stopper?

If there is only one, which in this case there would be, yes a stopper. When you and Corey aren't both on the pitch, no matter what we say we're running it usually ends up with two center backs, a left back, and a right back. When both of you are on, one of you will typically play stop while the other plays sweep.

Dude.... are spacing is so off. Anyone playing in front of the defensive line needs to just take our word for it. We have a whole view of the pitch, and the ball chasing is horrendous. I'll still stick with my opinion that the formation we ran last game worked well for us for the most part and would have run even better if we had subs. The only other suggestion I could even think of is having a proper central defensive midfielder that isn't running to the 18 every time we move the ball forward.

Honestly Ysaac our record would be the same if not worse no matter the formation! For all of you that think a change of formation is the key go back over these few threads and look at what people have said we ran last game. I've got about 5 different answers so far, which is it did we run a 4-5-1 or 3-5-2? Communication is a problem, when you come on the pitch for someone ask them where they were playing, everyone needs to pay attention to what formation we're running and what their role is in it. If you don't know ask!!!

Which is basically what we've been saying for... uhhhh... the past year and a half. It doesn't matter what formation we're *pretending* to run because unless everyone knows their job, it ain't happenin. Case and point as to why we always play better with little to no subs - everyone knows their job on the pitch.

This next men's game everyone needs to know their job before they come on. Meaning that when you're coming on for someone, you need to know what position they're playing before you get on the field.

mwass wrote:Honestly Ysaac our record would be the same if not worse no matter the formation! For all of you that think a change of formation is the key go back over these few threads and look at what people have said we ran last game. I've got about 5 different answers so far, which is it did we run a 4-5-1 or 3-5-2? Communication is a problem, when you come on the pitch for someone ask them where they were playing, everyone needs to pay attention to what formation we're running and what their role is in it. If you don't know ask!!!

I don't think that if we just changed our formation, like magic, our problems would be fixed. I think it's a combination of things.... and like you said, Communication is also a big problem.

mwass wrote: I've got about 5 different answers so far, which is it did we run a 4-5-1 or 3-5-2?

I'm telling you it was a 3- 2 - 3 - 2.


Jamie Justin - Forwards
Isaac Marco Eric - Midfield
JohnW Corey - Stoppers
Bashum John C Kevin. - Defense.

But then we got tired and it became plain ole 4-4-2.