Formation (association football)

In the early days of football, most team members would play in attacking roles, whereas modern formations are generally split more evenly between defenders, midfielders, and forwards.

[1] In Association Football, however, published by Caxton in 1960, the following appears in Vol II, page 432: "Wrexham ... the first winner of the Welsh Cup in 1877 ... for the first time certainly in Wales and probably in Britain, a team played three half-backs and five forwards ..." The 2–3–5 was originally known as the "Pyramid",[2] with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively.

This school relied on short passing and individual skills, heavily influenced by the likes of Hugo Meisl and Jimmy Hogan, an English coach who visited Austria at the time.

[5] This formation is also similar to the standard in table football, featuring two defenders, five midfielders and three strikers (which cannot be altered as the "players" are mounted on axles).

The WM formation, named after the letters resembled by the positions of the players on its diagram, was created in the mid-1920s by Herbert Chapman of Arsenal to counter a change in the offside law in 1925.

The gap in the centre of the formation between the two wing halves ( Half backs ) and the two inside forwards allowed Arsenal to counter-attack effectively.

This formation has been described by some as somewhat of a genetic link between the WM and 4–2–4 and was also successfully used by Bukovi's compatriot Gusztáv Sebes for the Hungarian Golden Team in the early 1950s.

One of the best exponents of the system was Tottenham Hotspur's double-winning side of 1961, which deployed a midfield of Danny Blanchflower, John White and Dave Mackay.

While the initial developments leading to the 4–2–4 were devised by Márton Bukovi, the credit for creating the 4–2–4 lies with two people: Flávio Costa, the Brazilian national coach in the early 1950s, as well as another Hungarian, Béla Guttman.

The 4–2–4 formation made use of the players' increasing levels of skill and fitness, aiming to effectively use six defenders and six forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks.

The Italian variety of 4–3–3 was simply a modification of WM, by converting one of the two wing-halves to a libero (sweeper), whereas the Argentine and Uruguayan formations were derived from 2–3–5 and retained the notional attacking centre-half.

[24] It is, however, most known for being the formation Carlo Ancelotti used on-and-off during his time as a coach with Milan to lead his team to win the 2007 UEFA Champions League title.

[25] At international level, this formation is used by the Belgian, French, Dutch and German national teams in an asymmetric shape, and often with strikers as wide midfielders or inverted wingers.

A high point of the 4–2–3–1 was in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, where Raymond Domenech's France and Luiz Felipe Scolari's Portugal used it to great success, with Marcello Lippi's victorious Italy squad also using a loose variation in a 4–4–1–1.

Often referred to as the "magic rectangle" or "magic square",[27] this formation was used by France under Michel Hidalgo at the 1982 World Cup and Euro 1984, and later by Henri Michel at the 1986 World Cup[28] and a whole generation, for Brazil with Telê Santana, Carlos Alberto Parreira and Vanderlei Luxemburgo, by Arturo Salah and Francisco Maturana in Colombia.

The formation is closely related to a 4–2–4 previously used by Fernando Riera, Pellegrini's mentor,[31] and that can be traced back to Chile in 1962 who (may have) adopted it from the Frenchman Albert Batteux at the Stade de Reims of 50s.

The 4–2–2–2 with a box midfield was deployed by the North Carolina Courage of the NWSL from 2017 to 2021, using a front four with freedom to fluidly switch sides and move wide while served by high-playing fullbacks.

[41] In another sense, the Colombian 4–2–2–2 is closely related to the 4–4–2 diamond of Brazil, with a style different from the French-Chilean trend and is based on the complementation of a box-to box with 10 classic.

[1] As the system becomes more developed and flexible, small groups can be identified to work together in more efficient ways by giving them more specific and different roles within the same lines, and numbers like 4–2–1–3, 4–1–2–3 and even 4–2–2–2 occur.

The formation can be used to grind out 0–0 draws or preserve a lead, as the packing of the centre midfield makes it difficult for the opposition to build up play.

In order to properly counteract the additional forward pressure from the wing-backs in the system, other sides, including Ronald Koeman's Everton and Mauricio Pochettino's Tottenham, also used the formation against Chelsea.

This minimised the Dutch weaknesses (inexperience in defence) and maximising their strengths (world-class forwards in Robin van Persie and Arjen Robben).

Martin O'Neill used this formation during the early years of his reign as Celtic manager, noticeably taking them to the 2003 UEFA Cup Final.

Portland Thorns used a 3–4–1–2 formation to win the 2017 NWSL championship, withdrawing forward Christine Sinclair into the playmaker role rather than moving a midfielder up.

Coaches like Louis van Gaal and Johan Cruyff brought it to even further attacking extremes and the system eventually found its way to Barcelona, where players such as Andrés Iniesta and Xavi were reared into 3–3–1–3's philosophy.

One of the main strengths of this formation is its defensive stability combined with the ability to launch quick counter-attacks through the wing-backs and attacking midfielders.

This system merges the winger and full-back positions into the wing-back, whose job it is to work their flank along the full length of the pitch, supporting both the defence and the attack.

[75] The Brazil team which won the 2002 FIFA World Cups also employed this formation with their wing-backs Cafu and Roberto Carlos two of the best known proponents of this position.

The 1990 world champion West German team was known for employing this tactic under Franz Beckenbauer, with his successor Berti Vogts retaining the scheme with some variations during his tenure.

When a player is sent off (i.e. after being shown a red card) or leaves the field due to an injury or other reason with no ability to be replaced with a substitute, teams generally fall back to defensive formations such as 4–4–1 or 5–3–1.