Winston SmithDaddyKuhlWinston Smith I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.
Every formation is adaptable and changeable depending on such a vast amount of factors - the passage of play, the opponent as a team, the opponent as individuals, how the game has gone so far with success or failure on certain moves etc. Formations are little more than a way telly programmes can try to guess who is playing where. They see a team sheet and guess at who will roughly be where, which is in itself misleading but also completely misses the point of how the natural ebb and flow of a game means the trained instructions that players have practiced all week/month come into play and demand that they react in a certain way which a fixed formation doesn't support.
Could not disagree more! I think formations are fundamentally part of the game. It gives the team structure and helps build passages of play and helps counter the opposition. I totally understand the game is fluid but these things are worked but you do try and have a game plan and implement it. Just watch how the team settles back into the formation when there is a lull in the play eg if playing 4-4-2 you will see the two banks of four when, say, a goal kick is being taken.
not disagreeing that when nothing at all is happening that may be roughly where you fall back to. But the modern day game is made up of fairly short passages of play (down to less than 25 seconds was the last I heard) and for each one depending on what is happening, where ball is, where other players are, what has gone before etc each player will have in individual instruction to carry out and that is very often completely at odds with his position in the world of TV fixed formations.
It's got to be viewed as short hand for a basic structure and approach. Obviously player's don't stick to specific areas of the pitch like automatons. But you'd have to be crazy (I don't think this really applies to you) to deny that managers set up specific shapes for the team to structure itself defensively and offensively, with certain patterns of play aimed for. There is obviously scope within that to interchange and adapt to what the opposition are doing, but fundamentally teams stick to their game plan, of which 'formation' is a big part.
The problem comes when people put too much emphasis on a specific shape ahead of the overall interaction and flexibility within the team. Like just saying someone should play 4-4-2. There's a host of variants within that basic shape and the instructions for how to play within it are more important than that base 'formation'
