From what I saw from the socceroos I think we are more suited to a 433 formation with Bresc playing as the No. 10 we do look alot more fluent that way, especially from what I saw in the second half

Decentric,

You cannot compare players from Germany, Spain etc to the socceroos. Completely different level.

You have to use the best system which suits your teams abilities. 4-3-3 system does not suit our style.

Recently MAN U (4-4-2) disposed of the top dutch side Ajax (4-3-3). A month ago Barcelona won the world club cup using the 4-4-2 system.

As I've said previously the 4-3-3 system has serious flaws in that when playing against a 4-4-2 formation the team playing 4-4-2 will pour through the middle of the opposition causing havoc in front goals and also owns the midfield. How did Australia score all their goals? They poured numbers through the midfield. The midfield is where games are won and lost. Simple 3 in the middle is not enough against 4 in the middle. If a defender pushes into the middle in a 4-3-3 scenario this morphs to a 3-4-3 which in turn by a 4-4-2 side can push a defender into the middle morphing into a 3-5-2. This equates to total control of the middle in every situation. At no stage does 4-3-3 outnumber a 4-4-2 formation in defence or midfield. And realistically 3-5-2 is not a sensible morph for a side playing 4-3-3 so should not be considered a formation thereof.

4-3-3 is ridiculous for Aussie football. Even Harry Kewell complained it caused too much field to be covered by the midfielders which in turn burns them out.

If your doing the statistics then I recommend you look at time in posession + effectiveness whilst in posession. The 4-3-3 causes more loss of posession than 4-4-2. If you don't have the ball you can't score. It's not rocket science.

In my opinion 4-3-3 is handicap. Australia proved this by using 4-4-2 against the Saudi's and pawned without our strongest side.

...X................X...............X.................X.....

................X........................X

............................X

....X.......................X.........................X


Here is a 1-4-3-3 with two screeners and an attacking mid in a midfield triangle.








....X...............X...............X................X


...X...............X...............X................X


................X..........................X


Here is a 1-4-4-2 with a flat midfield.


I read Kewell's comments about the Dutch system not being suitable for Australia, but at the time I thought he was frustrated because he wasn't starting in Pim's line ups because he wasn't quite fit. If he did he was deployed on the left flank where he had to track back more than he would have done as a target striker. I didn't read the comment about having to cover more ground in a 1-4-3-3 than the
1-4-4-2.

Professional players should be fit enough to play most formations. Harry may not have been fit enough for a left wide mid position in PIm's team, but many others probably were.

When I've seen these combinations up against each other, I always think the 1-4-3-3 has more bodies in central midifled and usually has more control of the game with similar quality players. I saw GCU deploy a 1-4-3-3 with the 3:1 formation in the defensive line against Magilton's Victory a few weeks ago at Launceston.
It was very easy to see Victory's 1-4-4-2 and they held their shape well, but they had little control in midfield, with Milligan and the other central midfielder having to do too much work.

Heart, Roar and Newcastle often deploy a 1-4-3-3 in the A League with considerable success. The same with Miron, but he often used the 3:1 in the defensive line.

I've seen Holland totally dominate England, with them using the 1-4-3-3 and England using a 1-4-4-2 with a flat midifeld four.

When I've watched Barca, they usually deploy a 1-4-3-3, but tend to rotate the attacking players, rathe than have a target player at the point of the attack.

You have a point that our players are not the same as those from Germany and Spain, but I think we beat Germany in a friendly under Holger.

Initially, when Holger took over from Pim , Australia were turning the ball over more than under Pim. We were a lot harder to break down under Verbeek.
In hindsight, Pim should have used Bresciano in the attacking mid/playmaker role like he did against Uzbekistan. He is a player capable of the killer pass and the sort of player we have struggled to produce.











Edited by Decentric: 3/3/2012 06:38:29 PM

I like your stats and analysis but Culina is stuffed and he won't be playing for Australia again.

Also, depends on things like the width of the pitch and other conditions. 433 might be more suited to wider pitches while 442 better in narrow pitches. I've always thought it's better to be a little flexible depending on the pitch conditions and available players. But ofcourse alot of managers want to gel their team into positions that they know so the players know what to expect from those around them.

In the end the 442 vs 433 debate doesn't yet have an objective winner proven to be generally better and should therefore be based on what best suits the current crop of players for the period in time IMO.


If we were to play an attacking passing game in the next round of qualifiers, keeping the ball in the oppositions half (bit of Spanish influence) this is what I would love to see:


Players follow their arrows when in attack.
Fullbacks pushing hard providing the width and Brosque and Holman coming inside where they are most effective.
Williams dropping back into more of a back three sweeper type where he has shown to be absolutely outstanding when doing this for Middlesbrough. Completely dictates the play when he's utilised like this and provides excellent cover for the centre backs (Many MOM awards when he plays like this).

If Culina makes an unexpected return to peak form then he should steal back the Mill/Jedi/Herd role.
Would require alot of ground covered by the fullbacks, which is why I put McKay as an option at LB.
On second thoughts, would need a more pacey centreback like Spira instead of Og.

Edited by neanderthal: 5/3/2012 04:23:15 PM

The 3:1 formation at the back is okay for narrower pitches with the 1-4-3-3.

One good thing about the 1-4-4-2 with the flat midfield it is about the easiest formation to coach players when they first play 11 v11. It is easy to hold this shape, but I think it relies to heavily on the two central midfielders.

Great diagram!

This is a pretty decent line up in suitable positions.






Edited by Decentric: 5/3/2012 04:38:06 PM

I'm just looking at the game for the third time.


In the first half Saudi played a midfield triangle with a back four. In the back four often one of the full backs pushed up to add an extra player in midfield.

It worked pretty effectively for Saudi in the first part of the game. It looked like a 1-4-3-3, morphing into a 1-3-4-3 in attack.

With the midfield triangles I've seen the 1-4-3-3 dominate possession against a 1-4-4-2 with a flat midfield at professional level. The 1-4-4-2 always has only two players doing the bulk of the work against three.

The narrow diamond shaped midfield in the 1-4-4-2 creates more problems for the 1-4-3-3, but then if one changes the 1-4-3-3 to a 3:1 defensive line, it creates more problems for the 1-4-4-2 diamond. Van 't Schip has been doing this in the A League and Miron's GCU created problems for Victory in Launceston by doing this.

Also, a 1-4-3-3 in attack withe the defensive midfield diamond can become a 1-4-2-3-1 in defence by pushing the two wingers further back in a line with the attacking mid..

Furthermore, a 1-4-3-3 in attack with the attacking midfield triangle, can easily become a 1-4-5-1 in defence in a 1-4-1-4-1 formation. The two wingers make a line of four by lining up with the two attacking mids in defence. Both defensive permutations of the two midfield triangles put a lot of bodies in compact shape in midfield.

Fair point.

Man U these days have so much of a bigger budget than Ajax the difference in calibre of players is often too great. Man U would probably beat the likes of Ajax with any formation. I doubt whether any Ajax players would be good enough to play in the Man U starting eleven ATM.

Mmm, the fact you have to dig that deep (such different quality squads) to find a 442 disposing of a 433 recently actually gives MORE credence to the 433. :oops:


Also Rooney plays quite deep nowadays, so much so that some people refer to him as an attacking mid now rather than a centre forward. The wingers also play further forward than the centre mids so it's somewhere on the blurry line between 442 and 4231.

Edited by neanderthal: 5/3/2012 11:00:32 PM

I've had a good look at this.

In the first half Bresc played a lot of deft and well -weighted passes, but I don't think it was deliberate to make it easier for other players to make a good first touch.

I've just been looking at Barca and they often hammer the ball straight at each other on the ground, but they still have a very soft first touch, often turning slightly away from their opponent.

While Barca pass with force they are taught to keep the pass on the ground so the reciever can control it better, if the ball is just 10cm off the ground this makes controlling the ball more difficult and less likely that the reciever can perform a lateral touch into space or to avoid a defender.

I think that Bresc's passing style is more due to his development in Italy and their requirements of him.