PIFA's guide to football/Tactics

**This page is still under construction!!!!**

*Hey guys! How's it going? Etros here!*

*We are producing a series of concept football content to help new editors create their OCs and learn a little more about the sport! It is worth mentioning that football is not an exact science and its concepts are very subjective. That said, here we will be working with concepts adapted for our wiki! If you disagree with any idea, feel free to talk to us and suggest changes. Good reading!*

## Introduction

In football, tactical schemes, better known as Formations, are the ways a coach organizes his team on the pitch. Although it is not an absolute indication, since the players have freedom and improvisation on the field, they are a good indication of a team's organization and identity. But regardless of a more offensive or defensive profile, every self-respecting coach seeks to find his own ways of attacking and defending with the same efficiency, to create a team that is minimally balanced.

It is worth mentioning that more than a spatial metric that aims to identify the starting position of each player, tactical schemes are important to present the solution of duties and problems that arise in the match. Therefore, we can divide Formations into 2 categories. "Positioning" for the distribution of players on the field, and "Tactics" for the decision-making that these players have under a strategic orientation.

## Terminology

Formation names are usually described by a set of 3 numbers indicating the number of players per zone on the field. That is, when we say that a team plays in a 4-4-2 formation, we mean that there are four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers. As you can see, the goalkeeper is not included and the sum of the numbers will always be 10. However, in several formations, instead of considering only 3 sectors, some coaches like to separate the midfield between Defensive and Offensive, generating nomenclatures such as 4-2-3-1 (4 defenders, 2 defensive midfielders, 3 attacking midfielders and 1 forward).

## Historical Formations

### Pyramid (2–3–5)

From 1850, the main formation adopted in the world of football was the 2-3-5, better known as the Pyramid due to its spatial layout. In it we had only 2 central defenders, 3 midfielders and 5 forwards. Of those 5, 2 played on the wings, 2 worked as second forwards and one as a striker. Despite an offensive design, the defensive system worked with the two central defenders marking the opponent's attacking trio in the zone, while the midfielders retreated to occupy spaces, marking the opponent's wingers and second forwards. Still with the midfielders, the one who played more centrally became one of the main offensive weapons of the team, being responsible for organizing both the defense and the attack.

Another curiosity is that this formation gave rise to counting numbers on the shirt in ascending order from defense to attack, and from right to left. The 2-3-5 formation was widely used until the 1938 World Cup.

* The Danubian football school was also a style that emerged at the time, functioning as a variation of the 2-3-5 where the Striker or the Central Midfielder did not play as advanced. It had a focus on shorter passing and individual skills, and was most popular in Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
* Although it is a somewhat unfeasible formation for modern football in terms of occupying space, we believe it is an interesting historical curiosity that can yield good ideas for fanon!

### Metodo (2–3–2-3)

The metodo was created by Vittorio Pozzo, coach of Italy in the 1930s. It was based on the 2–3–5 formation but modified to a 2–3–2–3, providing better defense and effective counter-attacks. Italy won consecutive World Cups in 1934 and 1938 with this system. It is also similar to the standard formation in table football, with two defenders, five midfielders, and three strikers (MM or WW depending on the goalkeeper's position).

* The WM formation, created by Herbert Chapman in the 1920s, countered a change in the offside law by introducing a centre-back. It balanced defense and offense, and became popular among English clubs. The formation was described as either 3-2-5 or 3-4-3, symbolized by the letters WM. The gap in the center allowed effective counter-attacks for Arse. While other English teams adapted the WM, none replicated Chapman's success due to the rarity of players like Alex James. The formation was later brought to NYC FC by Patrick Vieiri. In Italian football, it was called the sistema and influenced the development of catenaccio. West Germany used the WM formation in the 1954 PIFA World Cup, predating the Metodo and making radical changes to the 2-3-5 formation.

* The WW formation, derived from the WM formation, was created by Hungarian coach Mártin Bukavi. It transformed the 3–2–2–3/WM formation into a 3–2–3–2 by flipping the forward "M" upside down to a "W." The lack of a strong center-forward led Bukavi to move a forward back to midfield to act as a playmaker, while another midfielder focused on defense. When attacking, the formation became a 3–2–1–4, reverting to 3–2–3–2 when losing possession. This formation bridged the gap between the WM and 4–2–4 and was successfully utilized by the Hungarian Golden Team in the early 1950s.

### 3-3-4

The 3–3–4 formation, similar to the WW formation, featured an inside-forward as a midfield schemer alongside the wing-halves. It was popular in the 1950s and early 1960s, notably used by Tottenham Hotspur's double-winning team in 1961. FC Portimon also won the 2005–06 Primeira Liga using this unique formation.

### 4-2-4

The 4-2-4 formation combines strong attack and defense, evolving from the WM formation. It was the first to be described using numbers. Flávio Costa and Béla Guttman played key roles in its creation. Costa published the "diagonal system" in O Cruzeiro, introducing formation description by numbers. Guttman joined the development in Brazil, utilizing Hungarian coaching experience.

The 4-2-4 maximizes skill and fitness, utilizing six defenders and forwards, with midfielders multitasking. The fourth defender strengthens the defense by enabling closer cooperation. The formation requires skilled and initiative-driven players, making it ideal for Brazilians. Tactical awareness is crucial due to the minimal midfield presence, but the formation allows flexibility during play.

Santos and the Brazilian national team achieved success with the 4-2-4, winning the 1958 and 1970 World Cups. It gained global popularity and was used by Celtic in their European Cup triumph and runner-up finish. Czechoslovakia's victory in the 1968 UEFA European Under-18 Championship also utilized this formation, led by Vladimír Mirka.

### 1-6-3

The 1–6–3 formation was introduced by General Yoshijirō Umezu in 1936. Japan surprised everyone by defeating Sweden 3–2 at the 1936 Olympics using this unique formation. However, they suffered a heavy loss of 0–8 against Italy. The formation gained the nickname "kamikaze" in the 1960s when Walter Bahr, a former player for the United States national team, briefly implemented it as coach of the Philadelphia Spartans. Bahr aimed to generate more publicity and fan interest for the struggling team.

## Contemporary Formations

### 4-4-2

The 4-4-2 formation was popular in the 1990s and early 2000s. It required hard work from midfielders who supported both defense and attack. One central midfielder would push forward to support the forwards, while the other played a defensive role. The wide midfielders moved up the flanks during attacks and also protected the full-backs. Milan, under Arrigo Sacchi and Fabio Capello, had success with this formation, winning several titles. However, it has been phased out at the highest level in favor of formations like the 4-2-3-1. England's elimination from the 2010 World Cup led to criticism of their use of the 4-4-2 formation. Despite this, the 4-4-2 is still seen as effective in protecting the width of the field and has experienced a recent revival under coaches like Diego Siméon, Carlo Michelotti, and Claudi Ranieri.

### 4–4–1–1

A variation of the 4-4-2 formation is the 4-4-1-1, where one of the strikers plays as a second striker slightly behind their partner. This second striker, also known as the playmaker, is usually a more creative player who can drop into midfield to receive the ball and either run with it or pass to teammates. The interpretation of the 4-4-1-1 formation can be debated, as the extent to which the forward separates from the other striker can vary.

### 4–1–2–1–2

The 4-4-2 diamond (or 4-1-2-1-2) staggers the midfield. Full-backs provide width by pushing forward. The defensive midfielder can act as a deep-lying playmaker while protecting the back four. The central attacking midfielder is responsible for creativity, distributing the ball wide or providing through balls to the strikers. When defending, the midfield drops back and supports the defense, while the strikers remain available for counter-attacks.

### 4–6–0

The 4–6–0 is an unconventional formation derived from the 4–2–3–1 or 4–3–3. Instead of a traditional center forward, a trequartista is utilized. This formation has been proposed as a potential future of football. It trades a dedicated striker for the strategic advantage of a mobile front four, attacking from a position that makes it difficult for defenders to mark them without compromising their positions. However, this formation demands intelligent and fast attackers who can exploit the spaces left by the opposing defenders, making it crucial for the front four to be highly skilled and well-coordinated.

### 4–3–3

The 4–3–3 formation was developed from the 4–2–4 and used by Brazil in the 1962 World Cup. Uruguay had previously used a 4–3–3 in the 1950 and 1954 World Cups. It adds an extra player in midfield for a stronger defense and allows for different midfield arrangements. The three midfielders play closely together to protect the defense and move as a unit. Wide midfielders are usually not included. The three forwards spread out to attack and mark the opposition full-backs instead of helping their own full-backs, as in a 4–4–2 formation.

* The 3–3–1–3 system originated from a modified Dutch 4–3–3 formation initially created by Ajajax. It eventually made its way to Barcelona. This style emphasizes aggressive pressing and a high defensive line, essentially playing the entire game in the opponent's half. It necessitates precise technical skills and swift ball movement to avoid risky counter-attacks from turnovers.

### 3-4-3

In a 3-4-3 formation, midfielders alternate between offense and defense. With fewer defenders, the opposing team has a higher scoring opportunity when bypassing the midfield compared to traditional formations like 4-5-1 or 4-4-2. However, the three forwards prioritize the attack, making it ideal for more offensive teams.

### 4–2–3-1

The 4-2-3-1 formation is a flexible setup that can be adapted for both defensive and offensive strategies. It allows the wide players and full-backs to contribute to the attack. Defensively, it resembles either the 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 formations. Its purpose is to maintain ball possession and control the midfield, effectively stopping opponent attacks. The lone striker is typically a tall and strong player who can hold up the ball, while the midfielders and full-backs support him in the attack. Alternatively, the striker can be very fast, forcing the opponent's defense to retreat and creating space for the offensive central midfielder. This formation is commonly used when a playmaker needs to be highlighted. The flanks can be populated with traditional wingers, inverted wingers, or wide midfielders, depending on the team's preferences. Regardless of the variations, the double pivot, consisting of two holding midfielders in front of the defense, is a key component in the 4-2-3-1 formation.

### 3–5–2

This formation is like 5–3–2, but with tweaks: no sweeper, three centre-backs, attacking wing-backs. Central midfielders stay back to prevent counter-attacks. It differs from the WW 3–5–2 with a non-staggered midfield. 3–4–1–2 is a variant of 3–5–2 where the wingers are more withdrawn in favour of one of the central midfielders being pushed further upfield into the "number 10" playmaker position.

### 5–3–2

This formation features three central defenders, potentially with one as a sweeper. It combines the winger and full-back roles into the wing-back position. The wing-back operates on their side of the field, providing support to both defense and attack throughout the entire length of the pitch. Another version of the 5-3-2 involves a sweeper who plays deeper and may contribute to the midfield, along with more advanced full-backs.

### 4–5–1

4-5-1 is a conservative formation that can be transformed into a more attacking 4-3-3 if the midfield wingers adopt an offensive role. This formation is effective for securing 0-0 draws or protecting a lead because the congested midfield makes it challenging for the opponent to build their attacks. The close proximity of the midfield also limits the opposing team's forwards' involvement in the game. Nevertheless, the lone striker requires support from the midfield, which involves pushing forward. The defensive midfielder typically dictates the game's tempo.