Form or Formation

You Go Here. You Go There. We Score (Hopefully)

Last season a lot was made of Arsene Wenger’s decision to change the squad from using the 4-4-2 as its primary formation and go to the more attack minded 4-3-3. In some way it was cleare that Wenger was trying to emulate the success that Barcelona had with the 4-3-3. Wenger while he does not have one for one comparable talent to the Catalan club, has players that are better suited for a fluid attacking style than the grind of the EPL. Which is his validation for the change.

Early on in the season before we became crocked central, the formation change looked to be genius. The attack was solid and the goals went in. Of course there were hiccups, Chelsea for instance has had some success against the 4-3-3. They did quiet well against Barca but in the end lost. Since Arsenal do not have the wealth of talent a Barca does, when  pressed by the physical Chelsea the deficencies in the formation came to light.

So what is the best formation for Arsenal in 2010? Is it the 4-3-3, the 4-3-1-2. 4-5-1 or back to the old 4-4-2. Or does the formation really matter and does it really come down to the forma and fitness of our squad?

Let’s discuss.

First let’s consider two conditions that could dictate which formation we use. Should we go narrow (4-1-2-1-2, 4-3-2-1 for example). These types of formations allow the team to use up to four or five central midfielders. However the skill of the fullbacks comes into play and provide the width and advance upfield to supplement the attack. The other consideration is obviously do we have the talent to play wide. Teams with the talent in midfield and on the wing may adopt these formations (4-4-2, 3-5-2 or 4-3-3) .

4-4-2

Perhaps the most commonly used and recognized formation in football today. Typically this formation uses its midfielders to do a lot of extra work supporting the attack and defence.  Usually you will see an attack minded midfielder go up front to support the two strikers while the another will act as a shield to the defence (the holding midfielder). The two remaining midfielders are used to move up the flanks in the attack but move back to protect the fullbacks out playing wide.

The two clubs who have had a lot of success with this formation are the United and Arsenal squads of the late 90’s and early 2000s. United, to deadly effect used Backham and Neville to bring crosses into the center of the box, where Arsenal relied on the contributions of Freddie on the right and Pires ont he left. The difference was in the two remaining midfielders. United used Scholes and Keane as gritty and prolific a holding and attacking duo as there were. Arsenal (unlike today) relied on size and power in using Viera and the strict holding nature of Gilberto Silva.

Other clubs that have had a hge success with the 4-4-2 are Sacchi and Capello’s Milan unit which won 3 European Cups, two intercontinental cups and 3 UEFA Super Cups between 1988 and 1995.

However, the 4-4-2 could be a thing of the past and be replaced by the 4-2-3-1. In 2010 none of the winners of the Spanish, English, and Italian (as well as Champion’s League) relied on the 4-4-2.

A variation on the 4-4-2 is the diamond 4-4-2 or now known as the 4-1-2-1. addresses the weakness in the gaps of the 4-4-2 and staggers the midfield. In this variation, the defencive midfielder is sometimes used as a deep lying playmaker. Ancelotti used this very well at Milan.

4-3-3

The 4-3-3 was an adaption of the original 4-2-4 and was first used by the Brazillian national team in ’62 World Cup.  In the original 4-2-4 the midfield is horribly exposed. The extra midfielder in the 4-3-3 allowed for the midfield to be staggered for different effects.  In terms of club football it became famous in the 70’s when Ajax began to use it winning 3 European Cups with Johan Cruyff.

In the 4-3-3, the attack is a lone striker and two wingers and it the formation focuses in on attack rather than defence.  The 4-3-3 has been used quite well recently with Barcelona as we all know. But it wasn’t Pep Guardiola who used it first. Franck Rijkaard, trying to accomodate a squad of Ronaldinho, Eto’o and Messi as well as a plethora of midfieldersm forced Rijkaard to adopt this style.  The attack worked in a triangle  was supported by a creative backbone of Xavi, the defencive mind of Edmilson, and either Iniesta or Motta as a an all-around midfielder.

4-5-1

Sometimes the 4-3-3 can also be morphed into a 4-5-1. Based on its midfield size it can be more defencive. But it takes on the characteristics of the 4-3-3 if the two midfield wingers take on more of an attacking role. This a formation that many lesser teams used with success against Arsenal and what Arsenal should’ve used against Barca in last season’s Champion’s League. By congesting the midfield with players, a technically strong passing side should become unstuck and provide opportunities for counter-attacking football.

The best example? Jose Mourhino’s sides. The special one built his sides with a strong defencive mindset. His personality were strong in the back four and the holding midfield roles.  Chelsea relied on Terry in the back, Makelele in the midfield with Lampard providing the goals. The counter was supported by Joe Cole and Robben on the wings and the Arsenal killer Didier Drogba up front.

We all know how well that worked.

Arsenal’s Formation

Last season, like was mentioned earlier the squad used to some effect the 4-3-3. Goals were plenty and for a while we looked really strong with the new formation. It freed Cesc up to be more creative, Alex Song blossomed in the midfield role and more times than not, and Diaby actually did the hybrid midfielder role quite well. Even Robin Van Persie (after a slow start to the season) was benefitting from the service on the wings from Arshavin and Nicky B (and Cesc). Fabregas and RvP were the clear benefactors of this formation as they were on course for career best years.

Then injuries added up and while we didn’t really do poorly. The talent didn’t seem capable to work in the 4-3-3. Denilson who began to see more time, is not a holding midfielder or even a hybrid between holding and defence. He was victimized repeatedly and lost ball too many times. Nasri tried to fit into the Cesc role for a while but wasn’t consistent. I think he might be better on the wing or even in the hybrid midfield role.

Our wingers were in and out and even with Theo on the field we couldn’t take advantage of the speed we had because the crossing ability of the team was suspect. It should be noted that even when we had good crosses there were very few “big” men to take advantage of it. Hopefully with the addition of Marouane Chamakh and some taller defenders our crosses and set-pieces may actually find the back of the net. But that’s a different story.

Looking at our talent we are blessed with a ton of midfielders. Our strikers/forwards are good but only two or three are real threats. Picking out the right formation is difficult for this squad. Sure a 4-3-3 that has a midfield of Song, Cesc, Rosicky/Diaby/Nasri and an attack of Arshavin, Van Persie and Chamakh/Theo would be solid. But a 4-4-2 that had a midfield of Song, Cesc, Arshvin, Rosicky/Diaby/Nasri and an attack of Van Persie and Chamakh would also likely be successful.

Either way, whatever formation we have what’s more important this season, is our form and health. If those aren’t sustained and the big injuries can’t be minimized then formation will matter not one iota. And frankly, I am beginning to think that formation matters less and less, its more about fluidity and understanding what to do with the ball when you have it and what to do when you don’t have the ball. Call it on the field awareness. The more you can adapt to the situation and correctly address it the formation shouldn’t matter just that you can bring the ball in attack and get the ball back in defence. 

Sometimes I think we over complicate the game. It’s kind of like the great line from Bull Durham – “This. . . is a simple game. You throw the ball. You hit the ball. You catch the ball.” Well football is a simple game, you pass the ball, you get the ball, you kick the ball (scoring is involved in all of this of course).  We figure that out we’ll be fine.