Talk:Formation (association football)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  First ever 2-3-5?

message: 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)
thread_title:  4-4-2 tight diamond? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Call for 4-2-4 O Cruzeirom reference 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is a mess

message: 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)
thread_title:  More about 4-4-2... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pyramid as sources of numbering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flat-Back Four? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2-3-5 Formation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  4-6-0 

message: 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)
thread_title: 4-2-2-2

message: 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)
thread_title: 3-6-1 revival in South Africa 2010 :) (Round of 16) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yeah, it seems like original research at the moment. PsybertronJr (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The return of the half back, 2-4-4 (or 2-4-3-1 or metodo) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--ClubOranjeT 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)--ClubOranjeT 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--ClubOranjeT 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WW Formation

message: 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)
thread_title: Settling the real formation

message: 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)
thread_title:  6-3-1 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  4-1-4-1 and 5-5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3-4-2-1