Is anyone out there able to list the formations that the different countries are likely to be using in the world cup.

I am not as up on these things as most people around here (as i only really follow and watch the socceroo games). But i am interested in looking at what different offerings are around nowadays.

Do Brazil still play a predominantly 4-4-2? Is the 4-3-3 that the New curriculum seems to prefer commonly used? Does every side play with a sole striker (it seems to be extremely common everywhere now from what i have noticed). Do any international sides employ a sweeper anymore?

Obviously Australia will likely be using a 4231 (although i think on Ange's evidence so far, he plays more of a 4-4-1-1 but is a discussion for a more specialised thread. But i am interested as to what other sides in the world cup are playing at the moment. Chille, Holland and Spain are the obvious starting point but any info others have on other countries would also be appreciated.

Replying to myself here, but i just read that Spain played a 4-6-0 at Euro 2012. Is this true? Are they likely to repeat this tactic in the world cup? If so, i think that Ange might really suit Australia, tactically, because it will allow both Davidson and Franjic to push right forward, as they do, without being caught as often.

Might also mean that we are not punished as readily or under as much pressure at the back, meaning that Milligan and Jedinak can be pushed forward a bit (which i think is important). I can also see the defensive capabilities of both of these guys meaning that Spain may not necessarilly boss us around in the centre of the park as much as could otherwise be expected, and if we have an attacking midfield who runs and works hard (perhaps a Sarota or even a Mackay who seems destined to play a role), we might just be good for the upset.

Obviously the sheer class of Spain does make this unlikely. And i personally find it hard to believe that they would take such a formation, particularly against us, but if they do, i think that we have the tactical advantage here. (obviously the class factor suggests it might not matter).

the 4-6-0 was just a 4-3-3 with a withdrawn 'striker'. but they used a midfielder as the 'striker' since they didnt really have a recognised one available (torres off the bench from memory), so it became the vogue to refer to it as a 4-6-0. id say the 4-3-3 will be in play for spain with diego costa (assuming he recovers in time) to play the striker role.

holland 4-3-3. chile probably also.

spain could field 10 defenders and still crush us.

Australia 10-0-0

I see.

As opposed to Holgers 4231 against brazil which actually was a 460 in practice.

Still, i do think that it gives Ange a glimour of hope. ONe of the big changes Ange has made is that Milligan and Jedinak play generally 5 -10 yards up the pitch than when our midfielders were playing under Holger. This means that sides are no longer given time to control the ball in the midfield and run at our two Screeners. A tactic which when they do it, (especially when combined with first class ability such as France and Brazil had) that our wings and Defence are then put under enormous pressure. Against most teams the double screener works great because they almost sweep the midfield and take advantage of poorly placed and timed passes to the oppositions central midfield. Against the top class teams, there generally are no such passes and it just results in giving class players time to orchestrate something.

With Jedinak and Milligan, their strength is defensive pressure, and i think that they need to give their opposing midfielders no time whatsoever. By them moving up the field that extra 10 yards, they do this and hopefully they might just put Spain on the back foot, which is the only way that we can win this game. We arent good enough to play defensively and beat Spain because we will make mistakes and they will capitalise on half chances. Hopefully though if we attack them, our mistakes will come in a position which allows us to recover.

If Spain do indeed go with 6 midfielders (even if intending to play 3 of them as strikers), i do think that there is a chance that with Franjic and Davidson both overlapping as they generally do and with their central midfield under pressure from Milligan and Jedinak, there is a chance that the Spanish will be dragged back for large portions of the game, which will suit us.

Obviously, it is easier said than done, and even if all this happens, Spain are still good enough to thrash us, but i think that a "4-6-0" is exactly what Australia needs and i dont think that jagging a point or even an upset win is completely out of the question (unlikely as it is).

I'm not sure which international teams play which formation, but the 1-4-3-3 an its derivatives are currently very popular in the European Champs League.

From what I've seem, many like the 1-4-2-3-1, which is pushing the two wingers further back in the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

I'm assuming Spain may play the 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle, with two attacking mids and one defensive midfielder. Holland will also play a variation of the 1-4-3-3.

The 4-4-2 with the midfield diamond is popular to try and counter the 1-4-3-3 by having more players in central midfield.

This is in turn countered by playing the 1-3-4-3 with a midfield diamond, to counter the 4-4-2 midfield diamond's overloading of the central midfield.

The 1-3-4-3 is also known as the 1-4-3-3 with the 3:1 defensive line, retaining the 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle.






Edited by Decentric: 1/5/2014 02:28:00 PM

I've just bought a WC guide, so I now have info.

According to the Cup Guide, Spain and Holland are playing 1-4-3-3 as I suggested.

Spain are playing a 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle, which I've seen them play before.

The only thing is that Holland will supposedly play the 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle. I'm not sure how well the writer knows about formations though? I've only seen Holland play a 1-4-2-3-1, or, pushing the wingers forward, play a 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

In qualifying games, against some weaker teams, Holland may have deployed the attacking midfield triangle.

Mexico 5-3-2.

Cameroon 1-4-3-3. Supposedly they deploy the attacking midfield triangle.

Croatia 1-4-2-3-1.

Brazil 1-4-2-3-1.
I'm surprised, given their ability to play circulation football, I would have thought they've play more attacking versions of
1-4-3-3?

Why are Cameroon, Croatia and Brazil playing with 12 players?

Count again.

TIL 11=12

And according to that thread in WF, 0 = 5 too...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Russia, Costa Rica, South Korea, 1-4-2-3-1.

Algeria, Nigeria, Greece, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Belgium, Ivory Coast, 1-4-3-3 ( defensive midfield triangle).

USA, Japan, England,1-4-2-3-1.

Ghana, Switzerland, Ecuador, 1-4-2-3-1.

Portugal, France, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Germany, England, 1-4-2-3-1.

Iran, 1-4-2-3-1.

Bosnia, Honduras 4-4-2 (the diagram looks like a bowl shaped midfield, but I suspect a flat midfield line).

Argentina, Chile, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Italy, 4-3-1-2.

Uruguay, 4-4-2, (South American box shaped midfield).

Columbia , 4-2-2-2, (striker less, or false nine version of 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle).



Apart from Australia, who have I missed?














Edited by Decentric: 3/5/2014 10:54:17 PM

Based on their last friendlies

Brazil: 4-3-3 , 4-2-2-2

Spain: 4-2-3-1

Netherlands: 4-2-1-3

Mexico: 4-3-3

Croatia: 4-2-3-1

Australia: 4-4-2 ?

Cameroon: 4-3-3, experimented in game against Portgual (1-5)

Don't you mean 1-5-3-2? :oops: :lol:

People that believe they are real football coaching brains always insist on including the goalkeeper when they write formations like the above. Similar to how vegans will always find a way to let you know they're vegans ;)

I want to know more from Decentric about these teams that are seemingly playing without a goalkeeper :lol:

wonder if Ange would implement a 4-5-1 purely counter attacking.

-------------Leckie-----------------
Troisi/Oar-------------Halloran
----Rogic----------Sarota-------
---------------Jedi------------------
Davidson-Spira-Good-Franjic
----------------Ryan----------------

Edited by jas88: 6/5/2014 01:26:09 PM

Edited by jas88: 6/5/2014 01:27:03 PM

I cant see it.

I think he will go with the same formation as he did against Ecquador, whi i think is more of a 4 4 1 1, although i suppose it could be described as an attacking 4 2 3 1.

ONe thing i wouldnt be surprised to see happen is for a sweeper to be employed in the last few minutes of a game where we are defending a lead. If this seen as a viable tactic, is Lucas the only experienced sweeper we have, or is Spiranovic or any other contenders experienced in that position.

Incidentally, when Ange took over the Aussie side, he said that he would like to play a style and formation which was a mixture of all the teams he played for. He particularly mentioned in one interview about using the old south Melbourne formation and tactics. does anyone know what this formation was?

If you talk to Han Berger, or any other of the top brass in FFA, or even any other semi and pro trained coaches by FFA , or KNVB trained coaches, there is a plausible reason for including the keeper in the formation.

You obviously don't know why. By continuing to be facetious you make yourself look like a fool to trained coaches.](*,)

Edited by decentric: 6/5/2014 09:47:44 PM

This is known as the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

Even though the two screeners and one attacking mid comprise 2 separate lines, it is known as one line within football circles and imparted in contemporary coaching methodology in coach education.

The 1-4-5-1 formation you describe is known as the midfield quintet having the 1:4 shape.

It is known as the 1-4-1-4-1 formation. It can be used as the defensive part of a 1-4-3-3 in attack, with the attacking midfield formation of one screener and two attacking midfielders assuming the midfield shape.

So we don't hurt the feelings of the goalkeepers?

It would be like me insisting on adding "0" before writing numbers. 02 + 02 = 04. The zero is ALWAYS there. It doesn't change. Just like the goalkeeper. It is unnecessary to mention, except for situations where"pro trained coaches" want to make sure everyone believes that they are a "pro trained coach" :lol:

I honestly lost all respect for people putting the "1" for the goalkeeper the day I saw Gary van Egmond write it in an article.

This isn't ice hockey, we don't pull our goalie. He'll always be there. Adding the "1" to formations just makes you seem like a pompous so-and-so IMO.

Exactly.

TBF, none of that has anything to do with the fact that Afro still can't count :lol:

Decentric, sorry if my post (when you read it) seems like an attack on you.

You have said "you obviously don't know why" and that "there is a plausible reason for including the keeper". Are you willing/keen to enlighten us as to what the plausible reason actually is? Or should we take your word that we are untrained and facetious, and dwell in our ignorant ways?

FFS why do you all care whether we put in the GK or not?

Just let people do it and stop having your period over it.