Talk:Formation (association football)

Comments on article
Hi. Just to point out that on both my mac and pc the formation boxes seem all out of position. Would it be just my computers, or is there another way to fix it? I also have this feeling that this article needs a bit of a clean up.

Also I'm wondering a bit about the removal of the Metodo formation. That was a classic formation which did win world cups, and is better described as a 2-3-2-3 formation.

See here and here

Has this been mistakenly removed by putting in the 4-2-4 formation?\

Comments? - Master Of Ninja 19:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As to formation boxes: I haven't made any change... just moved the headers around keeping them at the same positions. I hope that as the text grows they will fit better. At a later stage I was thinking of adding new images. Would you like to see my first sketches and give an opinion?


 * As to the metodo: 2 World Cups! Sure it is important! If you look in the text I haven't removed it but commented it out until further expanding, just to keep the pages without empty headers. I'd say it should go as a 2-3-5 variation, but as you point it is a 2-3-2-3. I think I'll put it just there, a variation on 2-3-5 as «The metodo - 2-3-2-3»


 * I'll keep adding on but at a moderately slow pace. Your links are very usefull, can you get info at some of the more recente formations? I don't have much on some, as 4-5-1, 5-4-1--Nabla 19:27, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


 * I just finished doing some major additions when I saw your talk addition. I did put the metodo back in under 2-3-5, and just clarified some of the other points. I've only added to earlier formations, and will get round to doing some of the modern formations later. I've also put in some links which are good for getting a grounding on formations. I would like to see some of the early sketches for formations. How would I get in touch? - Master Of Ninja 20:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well... my sketches looked a lot like Threner's, so I quite happy with them.
 * To Threner: do you have those for the earlier formations? If not I might make some just like your's by editing one of them.--Nabla 14:32, 2005 May 26 (UTC)


 * I am doing some more sketches for the traditional formations. I hope I get them right, if not please post here.  If anyone would like to have the source to make more drawings, please leave a note on my User page.  I would like to put up formations on a lot more pages, for example, for teams that won World Cups, or Champions league's, etc.   Like the one I did for FC Barcelona. --Threner 06:05PM 26/05/2005 (CT)

The parts about formations being 'attacking' or 'defensive' should be removed as the formations themselves do not decide this, rather how they are deployed in terms of tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.184.50 (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, formations can be classed as "attacking" or "defensive". Surely you wouldn't describe a 5–4–1 formation as more attacking than a 4–2–4? – PeeJay 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Teams that use formations
Hi. Just to start a discussion for the 'teams that use this formation' part of each individual formation. Its listing teams which play the formation, which is OK for when the article is started, but I think we need a discussion of what goes in there. I can foresee that it becomes like the local derby section in football culture where people want to shove derbies in there, and not into the main local derby article. I think we should only put important teams who have won a major competition as each example, plus the season that they succesfully used the formation. Limiting each formation to three examples would keep the article fairly streamlined. Comments? - Master Of Ninja 05:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I think it would be even better if we can find an example from the World Cup for every formation and an example from a well known team that have won the Champions league or won its local league, either from Spain, Italy, England, Germany or France, which I think are some of the most known leagues worldwide.  It would also be good to add the coach, and maybe a couple of important players for the formation (ie the "Hole" player, the sweeper, etc).  So the structure would be:
 * Team
 * Competition (World Cup, Champions League, One of the "main" leagues)
 * Coach
 * Important players
 * As some of the defensive formations are used by small teams, I think we should try to find National Sides that use that formation on World Cups. - Threner 08:51, 26.05.2005 CT


 * Hey! I've been away for a while and the article looks great!
 * I was exactly thinking that, other from some copy-editing here and there, adding some sample teams would be the best for me to do now, just as I did for the section I worked on (2-3-5).
 * My criteria would be: whenever possible using only the best/first World Cup team. I bet we can find it all there. If not, than we should look into the Copa America and the European Championship, considering them at the same level. I say that if we can't find any example there either, then forget it. Going "lower" than that we'd be entering some dangerous area. Trying to somehow sort other competitions by some kind of importance criteria would probably prove itself hard, tricky, a possible battle ground for fans, and most of all, as I previously said, probably unnecessary.
 * I would link all players already on WP, as the team makes sense as a whole and supposedly the players articles will all some info on their skills. No red links except for some key player.
 * I expect to do just that soon.--Nabla 14:28, 2005 May 26 (UTC)


 * Just to add now that people have been adding teams to the point I fear that the article will become a list (like the derby article) rather than being informative. If there are no objections I will soon trim some of the teams just to include the teams that have done something notable in the season mentioned - most probably actually winning the league or an international cup (a 'big' competition at that). Otherwise this will become unmanagable - Master Of Ninja 17:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Full support. And wait a while and we'll get back to adding teams more or less using the criteria. I moved that down bellow in my priority list to give you time to check that 424 change and forgot it for a while. Nabla 02:06:27, 2005-09-07 (UTC)


 * IMHO you didn't apply this criteria properly or logically when you removed the Croatian WC1998 team. Rosenborg is still on the list, yet they won only their national league. France WC2006 team didn't win the tournament, but it's still there. Half the 4-4-1-1 section examples don't satisfy the above requirement. This kind of cutoff is simply arbitrary. --Joy &#91;shallot] 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad for which I apologise for. The problem was there that I wanted at least one example, and in some sections, e.g. the 4-4-1-1, I couldn't think of another valid example so thought would keep the others until someone filled in something suitable. I'm not sure why I kept Rosenborg; I'm not that knowledgable on the team, and the 10 seasons in the Champions League, and 13 league titles seemed a bit impressive. If you think some of the teams shouldn't be there, or others should, I think you should edit it as you think. The article should eventually reach consensus or high quality. I just didn't want the article becoming a list of teams. - Master Of Ninja 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly opposed to the listing of Rosenborg or those other listings, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency. Thinking about it, it seems to me that the primary standard should be a proper description on how a formation was applied in a team. The notability of examples doesn't have to be absolute, it can be relative: if a team changed their formation (and little else) and then progressed e.g. from one level of league system to a higher one, that's a good example. Or, if they won ten consecutive cup games and then lost the next one where they reverted to another formation, that's also an indicative example. Negative examples are also a good idea - if a team changed formation and consistently performed badly until they reverted; or if a team tried to preserve a formation while a key player was missing, and this did or did not work out - those would also be interesting.
 * In retrospect, my initial edit was shy of this, and later I just went with the format I saw and screwed it up. I was trying to describe how Robert Jarni's contribution from the left flank was almost essential to the success of that team - together with Stanić's contribution from the right, it gave them an edge over other teams. Four years later, the Croatian team lost both games where they played something like 4-4-2 and won the one game where they played more of a 3-5-2. In the latter game, they went one goal down and then in the 73rd minute Jarni (at the time a 33-year-old) broke through the left side, "smuggled" a cross past Panucci and the ball found its way to the attacker who scored the equaliser.
 * This could be considered as a bit more general point - if a team has a strong player on the wing, they will profit from formations which are spread out to the sides (rather than concentrated in the middle). --Joy &#91;shallot] 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Metodo needs formation checking
I've added the 1934 Italian team but I am not sure which forwards were pulled back to help the halfbacks. I'll try to check that but maybe someone can do it faster than me.--Nabla 21:49, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

4-2-4
Hi. I was wondering if someone can help me with the most recent changes to the 4-2-4 formation. Most sources (including the FIFA would cup site) reckon that it was a Hungarian influence, namely Bela Guttman, that helped spur the formation of the 4-2-4. The new text reflects the influence of Flávio Costa in the creation of this - is there a reference for this? It would be quite important, but it goes against all the reading on the topic I've done so far. Guttman did take over Sao Paolo in the mid-1950s when the 4-2-4 was starting to be used. - Master Of Ninja 23:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I mostly used 4-2-4 by Walter Lutz at Fifa.com. But it may be incorrect, off course. --Nabla 21:15, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Will see if I can add that to the article at some point. - Master Of Ninja 06:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I do see a lot of sources linking Hungary from early 1950s to 4-2-4, but most also describe their formation as a 3-2-3-2 and I can't understand how does that resembles, and evolves into, a 4-2-4. I find it much easier to believe Lutz's version of a big break from the past. Probably, to avoid having too much of my POV in that section, the other version should be included.--Nabla 22:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

On the same topic, I've removed the sentence saying "It has been said that one of the aims of the formation was to score more goals than were conceded", since it's obvious and redundant, that being the aim of the entire sport. Guildenstern42

I remember 4-2-4 being used by 'route one' teams, ie, a goalkeeper and defenders who would kick long for big strikers who were strong in the air. Wimbledon played this way in the English First Division in the 1980s. It worked well for players who were strong but not as skilful as their peers. Was this tactic more widespread? If so, might be worth adding to the article. The Angel of Islington 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First ever 2-3-5?
According to my research, 2-3-5 arrived somewhat earlier than the article claims. Sheffield Wednesday were using the third half-back as early as 1880 (FA Cup match vs. Blackburn Rovers 18/12/1880 (source: Sheffield Daily Telegraph 20/12/1880). Blackburn Rovers were to stick to 2-2-6 longer than most. It was actually Rovers' rivals, Blackburn Olympic, who used 2-3-5 from November 1881 (source: Blackburn Standard 19/11/1881), and it was this team that won the FA Cup with such a formation in 1883. 1-2-7 was used by Notts Forest in October 1881. (Source: Nottingham Evening Post 17/10/1881)


 * That's actually quite interesting to note. The details listed in the article at the moment are consensus ones that have been seen in FIFA/UEFA documents. Knowing that the numerical systems were not put into place until later, what was the exact wording which led you to the conclusion that these systems were put into place earlier? - Master Of Ninja 15:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made copious notes from newspapers of the time. An example of the "exact wording" you are asking for may be found in the Accrington Times of Dec 24th 1881, thus:

Teams:- Olympic: Hacking, goal; Suter and Warburton, backs; Gibson, Brown and Astley, half-backs; Wensley, Yates, Marchbank, Matthews, and Cunliffe, forwards

This is the match Blackburn Olympic vs. Accrington played Tues 20th Dec., 1881

It's well known that Olympic used a 2-3-5 when winning the 1883 Cup Final against Old Etonians (take your pick of sources for that one). To suggest that Blackburn Rovers (or Preston North End) started 2-3-5 in 1884 is I'm afraid a nonsense.


 * I'll see if I can look up some more stuff and then do an addition to the article - thanks for the information, as well as the references above. - Master Of Ninja 10:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I've spent some time researching 2-3-5 around 1880, and have unearthed the following: The Sheffield Wednesday team I mention above was given in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph on Monday 20th December 1880 as:

W. H. Stacey, goal; T. Buttery and E. Buttery, backs; J. Hunter, J. Hudson, and A. Malpas, half-backs; W. Mosforth and H. Newbold, left wing; J. J. Lang and H. Winterbottom, right wing; R. gregson, centre.

So two backs, three half-backs and five attackers - looks like 2-3-5 to me. What do you think? I've also found reference to three half-backs used in a Macclesfield team in November 1879. The Macclesfield Courier, 8th November refers to the half-back trio of Harrop, Bancroft and Warren. (The team list gives two defenders and five attackers as well.) You've compiled a great article for the most part: interesting, informative and useful. I make no apologies for finding fault with the pre-1890 section. I'll keep you posted.

Since my corrections to the sections on early team formations have been deleted, I have come to the conclusion that whoever is writing this article isn't interested in historical fact, but in perpetuating inaccuracies is only doing this as an ego thing. I have supplied primary sources for my corrections, having gone to a lot of trouble to seek them out. Obviously this article isn't worth the bother. I won't disturb your cosy corner again.
 * Hi. I assume you would be the user who added the references above, and is listed making the changes on the 1st April (as same IP address)? The corrections as I can see have been useful, and still seem to be there when I look at the article (in the 2-3-5 section). As they are referenced they are useful, so I'm not sure what changes you are not happy about. As I haven't really had time to go over the article recently I'm not sure where the removals happened - i think sometimes reverts for vandalism throw out a lot of useful changes. The best thing to do is register for an account (as sometimes anonymous IP addresses seem to get more suspicion with resprect to vandalism), and make whatever changes again. I will support any corrections so long as they are referenced as the above discussion with the newspapers show. Take care and hope you come back to help with the article - Master Of Ninja 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's another error: it was the full-backs' job to mark the wingers, not the inside men. The half-backs had the remit to patrol the inside forwards. Having played in the system myself around 1960, I know whereof I speak!

Side midfielder?
That is all.


 * So is there any problem just changing side midfielder to winger? Side midfielder is not a term I seem to have come across before. - Master Of Ninja 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right/Left sided midfielders are different from wingers. Chelsea use wingers as they play almost level with the main striker. In a 4-4-2 they are not as advanced.Oscar86 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm you seem to be correct. I guess we are used to them being called left sided or right sided midfielders so side midfielder sounds odd! Cls14 12:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * its nonsense. a winger is a wide midfielder, it doesnt matter if they are playing in an advanced position or not. a "side midfielder" is a totally alien term that i have never, ever heard. unless somebody can come up with a valid rational for its continued use, the article should be changed.

4-4-2 tight diamond?
I have to ask about this. I have never heard of "tight diamond' being used as a name for a common formation. It seems to be a variation of the diamond which falls under the main section rather than meriting a section of its own. I personally think it is suspiciouly close to original material, and am not quite sure of using wikipedia to 'spread' (for lack of a better term) new names for formation systems. Any comments? - Master Of Ninja 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In a diamond the play is through the centre. There are no side midfielders as the width comes from the fullbacks.Oscar86 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Call for 4-2-4 O Cruzeirom reference
Hi. The 4-2-4 section has a reference to the ideas published in O Cruzeiro - does anyone know how to find an actual cite or copy of the publication? - Master Of Ninja 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is a mess
This article is a mess and mostly because of the "teams that used" sections. It's totally arbitrary. The whole team should NOT be listed as is the case for Chelsea and Man Utd. Then for example in the "4-4-2 diamond" section there is a bit abou the Argentina team that lists Ronaldinho, Zidana etc. Last time I looked they weren't Argentine. In the "4-4-1-1" section the whole Italy team is listed, again a poor idea, but this time it's even worse because most of the links are broken! 3-4-3 AC Milan actually played with only 3 defenders?! I find that very hard to believe. Both the 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 sections seem to mistake themselves for 5-2-3 and 5-3-2, e.g. Brazil 2002 Cafu and Carlos are wingbacks at best, no way are they wingers. 3-5-2 differs from the classical 3-5-2?!! aLii 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AC Milan did win a Scudetto under Alberto Zaccheroni playing a 3-4-3, to think an Italian team would not play with 3 defenders is outdated. Learn some Serie A history before making comments.

More about 4-4-2...
There should really be some more about the 442 formation... I think maybe 50% or more of all teams use this formation, and it is only mentioned as a minor part... It is like the 4-3 formation in Amarican Football... It is the most fundamental formation in football... And there should not be so much about 4 and 5 striker formations... You never see 4 and 5 striker formations... This article looks like it's written by someone who have never seen football...
 * Football did have a past you know and four or five forwards in a team was common. And I watched Match of the Day about two weeks ago and Man Utd played a fair amount of the game with four up front. It's rare but it does happen. Cls14 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly much more to talk about in reference to 4-4-2. How about the 4-4-2 with libero? Not a single scheme shows a libero present. I know that today very few teams even have a quality central defender, which might serve as a defender. But, in the past, libero in a 4-4-2 formation was commonplace. Examples: Dynamo Kyiv, 1975 UEFA Cup Winners Cup, 1975 UEFA SuperCup, 1986 UEFA Cup Winners Cup winners, USSR 1988 UEFA European Championships runner-ups, etc. Not a single word about the "with libero" variations? Goliath74 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pyramid as sources of numbering
The section on the "the pyramid" (2-3-5) being the source of numbering schemes is very unclear. What does make sense is 2-3-5 as the source of somewhat old-fashioned names for positions, which otherwise don't really tally with 4-4-2 or most modern formations, that is: right back, left back;  right half, centre half, left half;  right wing, inside right, centre forward, inside left, left wing. But just numbering those in that order doesn't give the scheme that's in the article at present, at least without specifying the mapping between original positions and more recent ones. If anyone has ideas on how to improve this, please do, otherwise I'll try some semi-Brownian permutations in a while. Alai 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Flat-Back Four?
Sorry if I seem a bit rude, but as an Englishman I have never heard the name flat-back four used to describe a 4-4-2, if at all. Zoanthrope 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its miss used in the article, a flat back four is used to donate any back four that contains 4 defenders playing in a flat line (i.e no sweeper) not the formation 4-4-2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Formation (association football)--Lox (t,c) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Formation (football) → Formation (Association Football)- The move would be in-line with the recent moving of the page Football (soccer) to Association Football.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support for Formation (association football) (Note: lower case 'a' & 'f'). Needs further disambiguation from the American version of football.  Using the official name of the sport is the best way to solve this problem. – Axman (☏) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Formation (association football) seems less ambiguous than "football" considering our international audience --Lox (t,c) 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2-3-5 Formation
In the 1880 Glasgow Charity Cup Final (08/05/1880) both Queen's Park and Rangers lined up in the 2-3-5 formation. The newspaper records the line up of both teams precisely, as follows,

''Teams:- Queen's Park - A.Gough, goal; W.S.Somers and R.W.Neill (captain), backs; A.Watson, C.Campbell and D.Davidson, half-backs; T.C.Hignet, E.Fraser, G.Ker, J.Smith, and J.Kay, forwards. Rangers - G.Gillespie, goal; A.Vallance and T.Vallance (captain), backs; A.Kennedy, H.M'Intyre, and J.Drinnan, half-backs; D.Hill, M.M'Neil, W.Struthers, W.Pringle, and A.Steel, forwards.''

The game finished in a 1-1 draw. An interesting reference is given to the five Rangers players making up the back line,

''Playing well together in the front, the Queen's Park kept the opposition fully employed. Time after time Kennedy, Drinnan, M'Intyre, and the two Vallances interposed at critical moments, and repeatedly prevented the downfall of the colours.''

Hugh McIntyre of Rangers would later become a star player with Blackburn Rovers while Andrew Watson, the world's first black football internationalist, would captain Scotland to a 6-1 victory over England at the Oval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.21.110 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

4-6-0
This was actually originally used by Palmeiras against Man United in the 1999 Intercontinental Cup match. There was an article in World Soccer magazine c.2005-06 where Alex Ferguson is asked about the formation, but it doesn't seem to be up online anywhere. It certainly pre-dates the Roma match, but Ferguson did say how he could see more and more teams using it. Obviously Roma did, and then he himself did. If anyone can find the source please put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.213.36 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

4-2-2-2
Where is it? This is the most common formation in Brazilian football but it is completely absent from this article. What makes this worse is that I am sure it used to be here and some ignorant person must have removed it. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

3-6-1 revival in South Africa 2010 :) (Round of 16)
Yes!!! I know you Yanks are a bit annoyed that you have to fly back homeward now, but well ... the formation of your opponents was VERY interesting in the round of sixteen on Saturday 26, 2010! The Ghana team used a 3-6-1 (in detail:3-2-2-2-1)! So it's not - as the article denotes - a rare formation with practically no importance, but rather some sort of "winning ticket" as seen by a number of coaches! Since - as apparently correct - hardly anyone uses this formation. -andy 92.229.181.68 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The return of the half back, 2-4-4 (or 2-4-3-1 or metodo)
Is it just me or are we mis-naming formations of the last two years in attempt to keep the "modern" names? the Spain side that won Euro 2008 and WC 2010 played with two "full backs" (Pique and Puyol), four "half backs" (Ramos, Busquets, (Alonso), Capdevilla) - Alonso may be a little more advanced, four "forwards" (Iniesta, Xavi, Torres and Villa). The Dutch, Germany, and Brazil all played a similar formations.

Looking at the last three Champions league finals I would say that the following formations were used: 2010 - Inter 2-4-1-3, Bayern 2-6-2 (2-4-4 depending on where we put wingers) 2009 - Barca 2-5-3 (Puyol didn't do a lot of defending so I'm counting him as a "half back"), Man Utd 4-3-3 (debate Evra) 2008 - Man Utd 2-5-3, Chelsea 2-5-3.

Essentially what I am suggesting is that Modern football teams defend with two centre-backs and one or two deep midfielders. Left and right backs are currently more attacking that in the 90s. I am suggesting that we should start to call the wide-defenders and the defensive midfielders Half-backs as the old use of this term (in 235 or metodo) includes both defensive duties and co-ordinating attacks. Especially watching Man Utd in the pas few years They defend with Rio, Vidic and one midfielder, while the rest are all essentially attachers.

Bring back "Half"-Backs!

--PsybertronJr (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking exactly the same thing the other day, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually redefine the formations myself. We have to wait until a reliable source also makes a similar assessment. – PeeJay 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems like original research at the moment. PsybertronJr (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)--PsybertronJr (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WW Formation
Most football "historians" would refer to the formation Márton Bukovi as the MM. He never really turned the WM formation upside down just the top half of it (2 wingers, 1 central forward, two inside forwards), the effect being that there were two center forwards at the top instead of one "classic 9", who were scarce in Hungary at that time. This meant that, like the article says, the players would maintain a 3-2-3-2 when out of possession and form a sort-of 3-2-1-4 when in possession, with the wingers pushing up to create a front four with the two center forwards. I'm kind of confused about how this article can even characterize Bukovi's formation as having two Ws in it, since he didn't change the positions of the back 3-2 players (Back 3: 2 fullbacks and 1 center back, Top 2:  Two center halfs), which would be an evident M.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronaldinho (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The WW formation that this article ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/oct/26/the-question-barcelona-reinventing-w-w ) is referring to is the Metodo, which is MM by the convention that this article in Wikipedia currently uses, although many historians prefer to use WW to describe the same formation. It seems there are two different “school of thought”s for naming these formations. I edited this Wiki article, so that Pep Guardiola's formation is now under Metodo and not under Hungary's WW. (76.174.12.131 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC))


 * No the Metodo and the M-M are two separate formations. Oddly enough, the guy who wrote that article you referenced (Jonathan Wilson) wrote the great tactical book "Inverting the Pyramid", from which I learned about the M-M formation in depth.  I thought it was pretty obvious that Hungary's formation wasn't a W-W because their back line is made up of 3 defenders so there is no way that it could have two W's.  You really must be reading the formation upside down or something, I hope you don't call a 4-4-2 a 2-4-4.  - Bronaldinho (talk  —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Bronaldinho, I see where you are coming from, and looking at it for the first time my first impression was yeah, should be M-M, but after a little research and digging around, i think perhap it maybe should be W-W and it is you (and me!) who are looking at it upside down. I think this stems from the way the images are presented on this article, showing goalkeeper at the bottom, strikers at the top. This page,, refers to the W-W system, but has the images inverted, with goalkeeper (generally not shown) at the top. If you look at it from that perspective, "our pyramid" would actually look like a pyramid, while the W-M inverted would still look like a W-M, and what you see as M-M would appear as W-W. In short, I think all our images are upside down, and should be represented up the other way - the same as they generally show when showing graphical line-ups on TV broadcasts.-- Club Oranje T 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A nice picture of what I mean by W-M looking the same inverted is here, which also supports your assertion the metodo is different from the 3-2-3-2 formation of 1953 Hungary, as the metodo has 2-3-5. If you move players 7, 9 and 11 up, and players 8 and 10 down, you are left with W-W (3-2-3-2)-- Club Oranje T 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You usually will never find formations displayed the way that your reference sites have them though. I'm still green on here so I don't know how to link anything yet so I recommend watching a soccer match.  Any soccer match.  When they show the lineups they ALWAYS use show it from bottom (goalie) to top (strikers).  Visualize a 4-4-2 lineup in your mind for a second and you'll probably see what i'm talking about.  Jonathan Wilson, who was ironically referenced in a link to contend my point, says several times in his book "Inverting the Pyramid", which one football book of the year, that Hungary played an M-M (3-2-3-2).  I don't think the book would have incurred such acclaim if he would've mistaken Hungary's (one of the most significantly tactical teams ever) formation. Bronaldinho (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, just watched the ESPN coverage of Tottenham Hotspur v Real Madrid and they showed formation with goalkeeper at top, strikers across the bottom. So "ALWAYS" is definitely not accurate. Also, every reference I have found has specifically called it W-W. Non I find call it M-M.-- Club Oranje T 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Settling the real formation
First, the name, despite being important, IS NOT the most important thing to settle this issue. I know for sure that:

1. Every time numbers are used to describe a formation, it starts with the defense. And the diagram has the goalkeeper at the bottom.

2. When letters are used to describe a formation, we should follow the convention followed by Chapman's W-M: with the goalkeeper at the top of the diagram. The W describes the defense and midfield; and, the M, the attack. Hint: This is more evident when we remember the initial squad numbering. English is a left-to-right top-to-bottom language and that is why the goalkeeper was 1, left and right full-backs were 2 and 3, left wide half-back was 4, etc.

3. The INITIAL "contribution" of Bukovi was a 3-2-3-2 formation. This old FIFA blog post reads that "Club coach Marton Bukovi is credited often with turning the traditional 3-2-5 attack (known as the "W-M") upside down, withdrawing the centre-forward and pushing the inside-forwards all the way into attack." What he inverted was THE ATTACK AND NOT THE WHOLE FORMATION. Nonetheless, there is something in that sentence that is not accurate: Traditional 3-2-5 was not a W-M formation, it was called the "pyramid" (another hint about how diagrams were developed). Traditional 3-2-5 had a slightly "curved" attack with 5 forwards. The center-forward was the most advanced player. So, the word "traditional" should be omitted in that sentence or, it should simply say "W-M formation attack" (or, Chapman's W-M attack, if you wish).

So, we need to agree that Bukovi fielded THREE defenders and TWO half-backs (the W) and that it was the attack (the M) what was "inverted" (not the whole formation). If we do so, we get the "W-W" formation. Additionally, we have to tell that "Il Metodo" is an M-M formation but when the convention is not followed, writers describe it as a W-W formation.

In short, letters to describe line-ups have proved to be confusing as authors do not stick to a convention. I guess numbers separated with dashes became prominent because it must be hard to find suitable letters that "match" every single formation.

Note 1: In Jonathan Wilson's book, "Inverting the Pyramid", top-goalkeeper diagrams are used and he correctly calls Chapman's formation W-M (which implies what I explained above about formations described with letters) but, when referring to Bukovi's formation he says that, when Bukovi's number 9 was sold to Lazio in 1948, he decided to do away with that position and "he inverted the W of the W-M, creating what was effectively an M-M". He also adds "Gradually, as the centre-forward droppped deeper and deeper to become an auxiliary midfielder, the two wingers pushed on, to create a fluid front four". So, he does not stick to the initial convention laid by the "pyramid" and the "W-M" formations!!! So many problems would be avoided if he had written "he inverted the M of the W-M, creating what was effectively a W-W".

Note 2: Bukovi also introduced the 3-3-4 described in Note 1 which might have looked as a 3-2-5 (W - inverted V) when the wingers crossed the ball from near the end of the pitch.

Note 3:Finally, 4-2-4 was sketched for the first time by Gusztáv Sebes, according to Wilson. But, he also say that coach Béla Guttman claimed that he took 4-2-4 to Brazil but "the truth is rather more complex". Flávio Costa is regarded as an independent developer of 4-2-4 by means of the "diagonal system".

Diagrams and other references:

https://www.facebook.com/Lasenyera.en/photos/a.503481793108418/1489243001198954/?type=1&theater

http://www.thehardtackle.com/2012/socialism-in-football-gustav-sebes-bela-guttmann-and-the-evolution-of-4-2-4/

http://www.thehardtackle.com/2012/jimmy-hogan-marton-bukovi-the-evolution-of-4-2-4/

https://www.football-lineups.com/tactic/3-2-3-2

http://educatedleftfoot.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-men-who-made-modern-football-14.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20060109164350/http://www.fifa.com/en/development/index/0%2C1219%2C16310%2C00.html%3Farticleid%3D16310

https://web.archive.org/web/20031123110551/http://www.uefa.com/magazine/news/Kind%3D128/newsId%3D127467.html

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

6-3-1
Under Tony Pulis, Stoke City played with a flat back 6 in a 6-3-1 formation on a few rare occasions. If I can find a source, would it be worth a mention? Ezza1995 (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

1-6-3
Is the 1-6-3 a modern formation anymore? Thunder4231Rush (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * it's not real now and never once. the given citation does not include anything about a 1-6-3.  furthermore, japanese language sources on the match have japan playing a W-M.  thing is completely made up. 2603:7000:9300:77:F090:D1D3:3855:EC78 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey 2603, thanks for pointing this out. I've removed that section again. Here's the Japanese article on the game if anyone wants to look. Alyo  (chat·edits) 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Formation (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704224815/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/06/05/sfnche105.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/06/05/sfnche105.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What's the point?
Players run around all the time and it's not like they don't move to help out in dangerous situations, thinking they have stay on their positions. --2.245.90.251 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but they always reset to those positions when the ball goes out for a throw-in or goal kick. – PeeJay 20:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

4-1-4-1 and 5-5
At the current Olympics Germany has been playing a 4-1-4-1 formation at least twice. A year or two ago coach Lucien Favre speculated about future formations tending towards an ideal 5-5. So I think that the article should also have a section on 5-5 or similar formations like 4-1-4-1. 85.182.15.201 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 4-1-4-1 is a very common formation, so I'm surprised there isn't a section on it here already. 5-5, however, is utterly bizarre. – PeeJay 23:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Favre interview, 5-5 was just hypothetical and probably meant as an idealized system of balanced defensive and offensive. Lots of teams are rather set up in the 6-4 way, e.g. with two CDMs. Maybe the article (because it's pretty chaotic) could be restructered into defensive setups (6-4, 7-3 etc.), balanced setups (5-5), and offensive setups (4-6 etc.), and then for each setup go into the actual formations. Currently it's structured as classic and modern formations, which is not really good, because modern teams do actually play (modern variants of) formations like the Metodo, like sometimes Bayern Munich did under Guardiola (only one CDM etc.). As for a true 5-5 formation, I personally doubt that we'll ever see one. You sometimes see a 5-5 on the pitch in situations where a team has to defend heavily, but that's really a 5-5-0 or 5-4-1, e.g. with one of the CDMs joining as a third CB or part-time sweeper, and it was not their starting formation. 92.228.98.77 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Formation (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/en/development/index/0%2C1219%2C16310%2C00.html?articleid=16310
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/magazine/news/Kind%3D128/newsId%3D127467.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421045849/http://www.acmilan.com/NewsDetail.aspx?idNews=83677 to http://www.acmilan.com/NewsDetail.aspx?idNews=83677
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fsport%2F2008%2F06%2F05%2Fsfnche105.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103211102/http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/championsleague/archive/2009/02/20/curses-wallies-amp-the-return-of-the-russian-linesman.aspx to http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/championsleague/archive/2009/02/20/curses-wallies-amp-the-return-of-the-russian-linesman.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701033011/http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sports/football/br-fr.html to http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sports/football/br-fr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Formation (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006051451/http://www.futbolgol.es/futbol-gol/sistemas-de-juego-capitulo-i-4-4-2.html to http://www.futbolgol.es/futbol-gol/sistemas-de-juego-capitulo-i-4-4-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Formation (association football). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618013335/http://www.espnstar.com/editorial/news/detail/item813761/Spain-too-smart-for-their-own-good-/ to http://www.espnstar.com/editorial/news/detail/item813761/Spain-too-smart-for-their-own-good-/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

3-4-2-1
Hi, there isn't a section that explains 3-4-2-1 formation: it's a little more different from 3-4-3. I think that it must be added, also because today a lot of teams used it. 2.37.167.130 (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)