Why the sudden obsession with formations/systems?

[braineclipse]

Anymore for anymore? I'll post the answers around lunchtime.

Average positions are a bit misleading I think. Most here would be able to see the difference between various formations based on watching a game for 5-10 minutes.

But I agree with you that talking about formations in isolation is very limited.

 

[milo]

Formation 1 was Arsenal in a 4-3-2-1 away to West Brom on 13 May 2012.

Formation 2 was Chelsea playing 4-3-3 away to away to Liverpool on 8 May 2012.

Formation 3 was Saudi Sportswashing Machine playing 4-4-2 away to Villa on 17 September 2011

 

[milo]

OK. Another three and then I'll give it a rest

Formation 4

Formation 5

Formation 6

 

[Jordinho]

Top one is either 3-4-3 or 3-5-2
Middle one is Spurs last season.
Bottom is 4-3-3 or 4-4-2.

It's very dependant on how disciplined the players are or if they run about like headless chicken.

 

[Cochise]

4) 352
5&6) Both look like variations of 433. Just goes to show what all this formation malarkey really means lol

 

[elltrev]

Formations represent one element of a team's tactics, which represent one factor in the outcome of a match. There are other important elements to a team's tactics, and other important factors in the outcome of a match.

I pretty much immediately discount the opinion of anyone who says something as black and white as 'formations don't matter' or 'it's all about players' ability' on the one hand, or '4-4-2 is inferior to 4-3-3' on the other.

Still, I think formations are useful because they're a clear and concise starting point for any discussion on a team's tactics.