Debate: Are You Committing Formation Fraud?

Editor’s note: Today on TSG, Kyle Martino and I discuss the merits of formation talk in broadcasting and soccer commentary. When is it okay to label someone an advanced defensive midfielder sitting in a 4-2-3-1 and when is it not? To Kyle….

Kyle Martino:

Well, the team was prepared today in a 3-2-4-1 with a 2nd cousin once removed.

Soccer is a simple game that we try to complicate all too often. The foundation of the game is a very basic concept: a team’s formation.

All sports have formations in varying designs and applications. In some sports, the formation is a rule; A rule that, when broken, brings the game to a screeching halt.

The beauty of soccer is that it is free-flowing.  It defies these complex positional rules that can disrupt the flow of most other sports.   Because soccer is, at its essence, such a simple game, many people attempt to attach a greater, broader meaning on to its mechanics.  This tendency to over analyze the beautiful game has recently led to the acceptance of a glaring inaccuracy. In the game of soccer, a formation is a simple tactical blueprint designed to create balance and structure.  The magic of the game is in a team’s ability to take this mundane blueprint and give it its own identity through creative improvisation.  The inability to label this magic has led to the creation of “faux formations” by observers of the game.

Merry Christmas...

Call me traditional, but I am a strong believer that soccer is made up of three field positions: defenders, midfielders and forwards. (Sorry goalies, I love you guys but you have been left out of formations for a reason)  I am also a strong believer that there are only a handful of authentic formations to put these field players in: 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1. (could add a few other archaic variations but if teams still play them, they can’t be saved) Someone must have been thinking when they concocted this whole soccer thing, because formations have three separate lines denoting the three different field positions. Genius, right?

Even though there are only these few formations, there are many different ways to execute them. For instance, you can play a 4-4-2 formation with a diamond in the middle where you place one of the four midfielders closer to the two forwards and another just in front of the back four. These variations are how we came up with such terms as “defensive midfielder,” “withdrawn forward,” and “attacking midfielder.” Just because a team elects to play the traditional 4-4-2 formation a different way doesn’t mean we should now call it something absurd like a 4-1-2-1-2 or other nonsensical numerical variations of the line-up. By adding another line to the Three-Line Formation you are creating a position that doesn’t exist.

Take for instance the US National Team’s recent friendly against Argentina. I read several articles leading up to this game in which people labeled the US’s formation a 4-2-3-1. What?? What on earth is that?? Oh wait, you meant a 4-5-1.  Just because two midfielders might sit more defensively while the other three are going to be operating a little higher up the field doesn’t change the fact that you are playing with FIVE midfielders. You can get as creative as you like with your mysterious formations, but whether you’re calling it a 4-1-4-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-2-1, all I hear is you mispronouncing 4-5-1.

I’m not sure where and when it started, but ever since I retired I have been noticing it more and more. Maybe people were calling our formations something different while I was playing but we never noticed. One theory is that it originated here in America as a result of soccer writers converted from the other football. Years of exposure to a game with so many different formations and an endless supply of analytical jargon caused them to try to make sense out of soccer by turning it in to something they knew. Another theory is that it was all of us analysts and writers around the world who did it to give us more to talk about and make us sound smarter. Or maybe it was the coaches attempt to improve their job security and raise their salaries by making the game seem more complicated than it is.

The origin of the formation fraud may never be traced. I wish I were able to offer a better explanation for its existence in the modern game, but for the time being we will all have to continue translating these modern imposters in to their true form.

Matthew, TSG:

Stu Holden, just your garden variety advanced central defensive midfielder on the rocks with a twist...

Alright Kyle. Let me start by saying this. I have, in fact, on this very publication referred to Stu Holden as an advanced defensive midfielder. And some have actually recognized what I mean.

Cackle away.

While Kyle goes so far as to characterize the incessant use of 4’s, 3’s, 2’s and 1’ as a fraud, coming from strictly a media perspective I would suggest that “formation talk” boils down to two things: (1) a mental handicap and (2) misplaced discussion.

Chalk one Jay DeMerit up already in that I’ve never pulled on a kit in the big show. That said, as a general tenor I do believe that the 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1 and whatever other formation you want to label do have one important purpose, an origination point for where to be on the field if one forgets.

Again, having not played I still believe, I can witness not a 4-5-1 at times—but a band of two defenders ahead of the centerbacks, followed by a band of 3 players.

Yes, they’re all midfielders, however, and to use an example relevant to this publication, I do believe against Argentina that Jermaine Jones and Michael Bradley were tasked with being just aft of Maurice Edu, Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan.

Now, where I think formation talks goes south is when it’s used for much more than this.  My mind cringes when I hear reporters or read commenters’ exclaim, “the US should have played ‘x’ formation against ‘y’ opponent.”

At the end of the day and this is where I dovetail with Kyle’s commentary, soccer is all game about players moving in time and space with a relationship to the ball—either the player and his team are possessing it or they’re not.

Everything else is in relationship to this.

So a steadfast assessment that team ‘z’ should exclusively adhere to a certain format for its players is blasphemous. To use the Holden example, my label of Stu was to suggest that, for Bolton, Stu had the responsibility within Owen’s Coyle’s system to mark the first attacker in his zone. The label “advanced defensive midfielder” descriptive but also less about positioning.

Likewise, last week, when Chelsea succumbed to Manchester United in the Champion’s League there was a consistent commentary about how Carlo Ancellotti magnanimously deployed a 4-3-2-1 formation, a formation reminiscent of some of his battles with Alex Ferguson when he was at Milan.

No matter how you cut it, Frank Lampard isnt a wide player.....you know what we mean by wide!

What was really more interesting was why Ancelotti decided to sacrifice width and have Frank Lampard—he of the lack of post-up play and run-at skills—as a left forward nonetheless.

It wasn’t necessarily “the formation” that failed—though that’s what got a lot of play—it was the players deployed incorrectly (in our opinion.)

Too often—and I think this is what Kyle is getting at—formations are used as a crutch or an “ah-ha moment” of commentary when in fact, the premium placed on them as a discussion point is too high.

Case in point, this legacy scouting report of Jose Mourinho on Newcastle when he was at Porto. Formation discussion, yes, but used as an addendum to what is in fact happening.