A staggered midfield shape – often a single pivot behind two number eights – makes it easier to defend the space between the defensive and midfield lines. This creates an overload elsewhere on the pitch and should, in theory, make it easier to progress up the pitch.ĭefensively, the 4-3-3 provides numbers and compactness in central areas. In attack, wide wingers flanking a single centre-forward can be enough to pin four defenders back. Zinedine Zidane's Real Madrid had plenty of success in a 4-3-3, too.

This, in theory at least, makes it easier to play a possession-based game – and this is one reason Johan Cruyff preferred such a shape for the positional game he liked his teams to play. The basic shape of a 4-3-3 tends to create more triangles between players, and so more passing lanes are open to the ball-carrier. This helps in build-up, playing through the lines, creating chances and overall domination of possession. The main strength of a 4-3-3 is the presence of a third player in central midfield, which creates a numerical overload when up against a team playing with two. Why would any manager prefer one over another? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? Read on to find out, and then draw your own conclusions as to which works best. So, we've decided to take a look at football's most popular formations. However, to most of us, formations provide a useful framework from which we start to build up an idea of how a certain team or manager plays. The players are so rarely in that shape that there is barely any need to name the formation.

The implication is that his players move from their positions so much that the stated formation they start in does not in fact matter. Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola insists that formations “are nothing more than phone numbers”.

Online soccer tactics board