Why do teams still play 4 (or 5) at the back?

[BasilRathbon 10]

Most away teams these days play either a "lone striker" (ie 4-5-1) or, if they're feeling adventurous, 4-4-2. So why do you need 4 defenders, or sometimes 5, to mark them? Surely if you're at home and your opponents are playing 4-5-1, you could afford to go 2-5-3 to both combat and attack them?

[Guderian 10]

But that would mean you have 8 players going forward, with only 4 to stop them...

 

Hang on!

[Code13 10]

Danny Blanchflower played 3-4-3 when he was in charge of Northern Ireland, with mixed results.

 

The Romanians in the 1994 World Cup played 3-6-1, again with mixed results.

 

Of course the defenders have to stop surging runs from midfield or from "wingbacks" etc, but I do agree that sometimes they are just hanging around.

[ReginaldD 10]

I think to say whether having 3 or more at teh back always is going to depend who those three are. If you had for example Richards, Ferdinand, Lahm it would work Ferdinand as main central defender but other two can slot in if needed. But they'd have to have a pretty good attack too.

 

I think the bigger teams can do this these days as they seem to stock pile the best attacking players eg Liverpool not even giving Pennant, Benayoun, Crouch, Babel a starting place .

[scottishdude 10]

IMO 4-1-2-1-2 is a good formation, 4 across the back which include 2 wingbacks, 1 central defensive midfielder, a left and right midfielder who can go on wings as required, 1 central attacking midfielder and 2 strikers. that way you have your strength in defence, a flexible diamond in the middle and 2 strikers free to pick way at the opposition.

[Spruce 10]

The Hungarians (Magyars) played 3-2-5 and 4-2-4 when they hammered us 6-3 in `53. and during the `54 world cup where they reached the final. Best team never to have won it for me.

[Code13 10]

What formation would England have played in 1953 (genuine question)?

 

Brazil played 4-2-4 in the 1962 World Cup and while it was often reported that England played 4-3-3 in 1966, I think they actually played 4-4-2 if you watch the game.

[Spruce 10]

What formation would England have played in 1953 (genuine question)?

 

Brazil played 4-2-4 in the 1962 World Cup and while it was often reported that England played 4-3-3 in 1966, I think they actually played 4-4-2 if you watch the game.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_v_Hungary_%281953%29

[Heyesey 11]

The Hungarians (Magyars) played 3-2-5 and 4-2-4 when they hammered us 6-3 in `53. and during the `54 world cup where they reached the final. Best team never to have won it for me.

 

That's hardly open to debate. Between .. '50 and '57, I think .. they went a full seven years unbeaten except for one game. That one game was the World Cup final. Talk about bad timing.

[Code13 10]

The 1970s Dutch team was a pretty good team that never won it either. But the Hungarians were fabulous. I remember a hilarious anecdote involving a couple of the England reserves standing watching the Hungarians come out at Wembley and saying "I feel sorry for this lot, look at that little fat guy at number 10, this is going to be embarrassing", or words to that effect. Think Malcolm Allison told the story on a "Big Match" in the 1970s.

[CHAIRBOY 10]

Under Cotterill, Burnley played 4-5-1 at home!

[steveb2007 11]

4-5-1 is ok,if you've got a good target man up front and your midfielders get forward to support him.Not like the blades,where the midfielders don't hardly get over the half way line.