Old School Formation.

[Darthter 542]

lol Thanks for the input people I'm enjoying this thread.

 

I don't really see why It wouldn't be possible to play a vintage formation, the key would be having the right players and understanding how the formation moved and performed in action.

 

 

 

^ This is looks very......

 

Exciting....

 

How well would this time of formation work against a 4-5-1 for example when the opposition has a number of players in the midfield. I have always believe that players are required to "sit" in the midfield in order to facilitate a smooth transition from defence to attack. In the above formation would you rely on the wingers or the inside forwards to drop back slightly in order to receive the ball from the half-backs???

 

How effective would this formation be with our current players & who would you play???

[Bluedell 5,679]

I was thinking about the 2-3-5 formation the other day and was wondering how it worked in practice. When I was a boy (and I'm much younger than BH) 2-3-5 seemed to be the standard formation according to books and mags that I read around then.

 

I'm sure I used it as my subutteo formation and it worked fine for that.

 

So did the 3 play as central defenders or midfielders, or a mixture of both?

[54andcounting 0]

When Lazio played Mallorca in the 39th and last CWC final in 1999, this is how the teams lined up according to Wiki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UEFA_Cup_Winners%27_Cup_Final

 

 

 

4-4-2

vs

4-1-2-1-2, or 4-3-3?

[Bluedell 5,679]

I'd say 4-4-2 v 4-4-2.

[Guest Night Owl]

How well would this time of formation work against a 4-5-1 for example when the opposition has a number of players in the midfield. I have always believe that players are required to "sit" in the midfield in order to facilitate a smooth transition from defence to attack. In the above formation would you rely on the wingers or the inside forwards to drop back slightly in order to receive the ball from the half-backs???

 

How effective would this formation be with our current players & who would you play???

 

From what I can see, such a formation is hyper attack in the sense that the ball has to stay out of your own half as much as possible, ie, Long ball. Common sense would tell you to play a 4-5-1 against the 1-2-7 but it's not that simple when you have 7 players baring down on your own goal. I think the tactic is to keep them on the back foot constantly. It looks like the middle of the park isn't all that important as the goals aren't there.

 

It looks Primitive for sure, but with the right philosophy and players it could be effective. Although two things would be needed, excellent ball retention and awesome stamina.

 

Remember this is for Rangers, and as half of our games are on small tight pitches, the gaps would be far less.

[Guest Night Owl]

When Lazio played Mallorca in the 39th and last CWC final in 1999, this is how the teams lined up according to Wiki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UEFA_Cup_Winners%27_Cup_Final

 

 

 

4-4-2

vs

4-1-2-1-2, or 4-3-3?

 

the 4-1-2-1-2 is basically a 4-4-2 Diamond.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I was thinking about the 2-3-5 formation the other day and was wondering how it worked in practice. When I was a boy (and I'm much younger than BH) 2-3-5 seemed to be the standard formation according to books and mags that I read around then.

 

I'm sure I used it as my subutteo formation and it worked fine for that.

 

So did the 3 play as central defenders or midfielders, or a mixture of both?

 

If 2-3-5 was the formation when you were a boy then you must be a lot older than you look and seriously decrepit in comparison with me.

 

The "3" played as a back 3 with the two full backs wide to cover the opposition wingers. As I said players like Woodburn and Young didn't think they needed help to deal with the opposition centre forwards. However the half backs, as the name suggests, were auxiliary defenders when required and auxiliary attackers but perhaps to a lesser extent (except players like Baxter) who was probably told just to go out and enjoy himself.

 

The centre half was originally the centre half BACK but as I say moved back leaving the right and left half BACK.

 

I definitely played 3 at the back in subbuteo at first but moved to 4 and then adopted catenaccio a la Inter Milan.. "Catenaccio was not restricted to one single formation, and although the 1-3-3-3 was popular, 1-4-4-1 and 1-4-3-2 systems were also employed". http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/skillsandtactics/a/Catenaccio.htm I played then 1-4-3-2 latterly in subbuteo, with great success.

Edited October 22, 2013 by BrahimHemdani
. & ,!

[compo 7,216]

if you have the right players then it has to be 4 2 4 for me the true formation of the great game .

[54andcounting 0]

For the first 100 years or so of football’s history, there were very few tactics, and most of these revolved around the 2-3-5 formation.

 

In the 1950s, the success of the Marvellous Magyars from Hungary, followed by the 1960s success of Alf Ramsay’s wingless wonders at club and country level saw a revolution in tactical formations. Since then we have had 4-4-2, 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-1-2-1-2, 3-5-2, 5-3-2, Christmas Tree formations, sweeper systems, men in ‘the hole’ behind the forward(s) or ahead of the defence.

 

In Prague, a game between the Czech Rep and Scotland 2010 we saw the unveiling of what was the world’s first strikeless formation, as Scotland manager Craig Levein unleashed his 5-5-0 strategy on the world.

 

Fletcher was playing so deep, it could have been a 6-4-0 tho'.

[Gribz 919]

 

In Prague, a game between the Czech Rep and Scotland 2010 we saw the unveiling of what was the world’s first strikeless formation, as Scotland manager Craig Levein unleashed his 5-5-0 strategy on the world.

 

Fletcher was playing so deep, it could have been a 6-4-0 tho'.

 

Didn't Spain play it just before Scotland when Villa and Torres were both injured so the played 4-6-0 with Fabregas being the furthest forward. Obviously it worked a treat for them. Levein trying it was a joke.

 

West Ham shocked Spurs with 4-6-0 against Spurs and winning 3-0 but it was a one-off and Allardyce should have realised that, but he tried it against Man City and it back fired.

 

If you have 2 or 3 pacey wide players then it can work especially on the counter.