Formation vs Tactics

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Are they completely interchangeable, i.e. can any tactic can be used with any formation?

I'm a bit hesitant to agree with that as thematically a high line 5-3-2 sounds like a paradox.
If a team is playing on the counter, then it stands to reason they play a deep line or something similar.
You can't combine possession and counter-attack based tactics in same team etc etc

Thoughts?

 

[Himannv]

Atalanta’s 3-4-1-2 was a high-line and it’s pretty close to 3-5-2. Also, RBL have sometimes played a high-line, high-press with a back 3. I think most formations would work with that tactic and player suitability is the main concern.

The thing with counter-attacking teams is that the counter isn’t always on, which means they’d have to have another way to play as well when they have the ball. So it can be “either or” in terms of tactics or Plan A Plan B if you will.

 

[P-Nut]

Are they completely interchangeable, i.e. can any tactic can be used with any formation?

I'm a bit hesitant to agree with that as thematically a high line 5-3-2 sounds like a paradox.
If a team is playing on the counter, then it stands to reason they play a deep line or something similar.
You can't combine possession and counter-attack based tactics in same team etc etc

Thoughts?

Don't Liverpool play possession and counter attack football at the same time? They averaged 63.3% of the possession last season, and are undoubtedly a counter attacking side.

 

[Gio]

I think shape/formation and tactics/principles of play are related. For example, I don't think 3-5-2 allows you the same goalscoring opportunities over the course of a season compared to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. To put that in the real world, I think there's a lower ceiling on Chelsea's potential points total compared to Liverpool and City, mainly because their structure doesn't allow the same overloading of attacking areas to turn sticky draws against deep-lying opposition into wins.

That doesn't necessarily apply for all back 3 formations, as 3-4-3 and flexible back 3s who can seamlessly throw a player forward, can be more attack-minded.

 

[Physiocrat]

I think shape/formation and tactics/principles of play are related. For example, I don't think 3-5-2 allows you the same goalscoring opportunities over the course of a season compared to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. To put that in the real world, I think there's a lower ceiling on Chelsea's potential points total compared to Liverpool and City, mainly because their structure doesn't allow the same overloading of attacking areas to turn sticky draws against deep-lying opposition into wins.

That doesn't necessarily apply for all back 3 formations, as 3-4-3 and flexible back 3s who can seamlessly throw a player forward, can be more attack-minded.

What's your view on the diamond vs 352 on the amount of goalscoring opportunities? Structurally they seem very similar especially if you go for the 3412 variety. Is it that having a DM rather than a third CB allows the other CMs to play that bit higher?

 

[Gio]

What's your view on the diamond vs 352 on the amount of goalscoring opportunities? Structurally they seem very similar especially if you go for the 3412 variety. Is it that having a DM rather than a third CB allows the other CMs to play that bit higher?

Yeah my hunch is you’re right in that it has the same structural challenge - it doesn’t stretch and overload in the attacking third as well as the 433. Best example of the diamond would be 2000s Milan who did not score that many goals, typically 3rd-5th in Serie A. Internationally perhaps France 98’s 4-3-2-1 which was similarly stodgy and relied heavily on defenders for goals.

I suppose all of this depends on game dynamics. Liverpool, City and others have perfected steamrollering lesser sides. And that’s the best model for maximising points in the league. But in knockout ties against similarly stacked teams, it’s quite feasible a diamond or 352 outcreates a 433, all other things being equal.