How the 2000s changed tactics #5: Back to four ‘bands’ in formations
Michael Ballack, able to play in either band
Outfield football positions are still generally broken down into three types: defenders, midfielders and forwards. Go to any fantasy football website, or look at a UEFA squad list, and you’ll see players broken down into these three categories. Of course, this ignores the progression of football tactics in recent years, where the pitch is often broken into four ‘bands’.
To put it basically, the midfield has been separated into two bands – midfielders are either defensive, or attacking (with some forwards able to drop deeper and play in the attacking band). Strangely, this is essentially a return to the system used fifty years ago, when the W-M formation (effectively a 3-2-2-3) dominated the game.
The shift back to four probably started with the success of the deep-lying forward, who played between the lines of opposition defence and midfield, creating what often became a 4-4-1-1 shape. If the deep-lying forward was supported by wingers, the shape suddenly became a 4-2-3-1, perhaps summed up best by Arsene Wenger’s Arsenal side, which although was a fairly classic 4-2-3-1, was essentially a natural conversion of a 4-4-2.
With the deep-lying forward drawing either a central midfielder or a central defender out of position in a three-band system, the obvious response was to ‘match’ the four bands – whether it be through replicating the 4-2-3-1, or a Chelsea-style 4-3-3 (which was effectively a 4-1-2-3) and then both sides are playing in four bands.
This has caused problems for two types of players who naturally fall into neither band. Firstly, the box-to-box midfielder has effectively ceased to exist, as outlined by Jonathan Wilson. Defensive midfielders defend, attacking midfielders attack. There are players who can defend and attack, and can play in either midfield band (Michael Ballack or Anderson, for example) but they rarely fill both tasks at once. This can also partially be attributed to the increasing importance of pace in the modern game – with more teams playing on the counter-attack and those attacks happening at breakneck speed, it simply is less possible for midfielders to constantly sprint between opposing areas for 90 minutes to support both defence and attack. Twenty years ago, when the game was slower, it was achieveable.
Roberticus makes the point in the comments section below that the role of box-to-box midfielders has been outsourced to attacking full-backs. The point is spot on, because full-backs often cover the most distances in games, and probably have a dual role in both attacking and defending as much as any other players on the pitch.
David Beckham, able to play in neither?
The other type of player affected is the wide midfielder who lacks pace. Speedy wide players can easily become a winger in a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1. But it’s difficult to function on the wing in that attacking band if you’re not quick. The classic example is David Beckham. In a 4-2-3-1 does he become a holding midfielder, or an attacking winger? He doesn’t have the defensive skills to play the former, nor the pace to play the latter. When he arrived this season at Milan, who play an attacking 4-3-3, no-one really knew where he was going to play, and he doesn’t really seem comfortable at wide right, nor in central midfield. Although he retains his place in the England squad, it’s difficult to see him starting on the right-hand side (in a system which has been described as a 4-4-2 but is really a loose 4-2-3-1) because of his lack of pace – hence why Aaron Lennon, Theo Walcott and even Shaun Wright-Phillips appear to be ahead in the pecking order for a starting place.
How will this progress in the future? With the advent of strikerless formations, we may see systems such as 4-3-3-0 that effectively ‘ignore’ the traditional striking band. Or we may simply see more systems like Brazil’s, which is hard to categorize and therefore hard for opposing defenders and midfielders to understand who they should be picking up.
How the 2000s changed tactics #5: Back to four ‘bands’ in formations
Beckham’s role at Milan is an interesting one, as throughout his career there has been a nagging thought that he should excel at the deep playmaker role, the “quarterback” role as some described it a few years ago. For England, just imagine Beckham taking Lampard’s place next to Barry (or Hargreaves in an ideal world) and playing his glorious long passes, either for Lennon/Walcott to chase past the full-back or to the head/chest of Heskey/Crouch. It’s hard to see why this never works as well in practice as it does conceptually. Lack of defensive skills might be an excuse, but his work rate has never been less than stellar and he would obviously be expected to be the creator of the midfield pair, not the destroyer. Perhaps Beckham just isn’t used to the pressure on the ball, having spent the majority of his career launching crosses from the flank. Perhaps he should get some pointers from his old mate Paul Scholes.
I think there’s two problems with Beckham playing in that role. Firstly, because Milan have the ‘definitive’ player in that position, Andrea Pirlo. Playing two of them in the centre doesn’t seem to work. But also because I’m not sure Beckham has the vision to play that role. Yes, he’s a great passer/crosser of the ball, but his game has always been about playing accurate balls, rather than ‘clever’ balls, which I think you need to be able to do in that deep role. He whips in superb balls but rarely are they ‘defence-splitting’, just the expected ball played in very very well.
Of course, Beckham does play that deep-lying playmaker role in MLS quite often. Granted, it’s a lower caliber of competition than Serie A or international play, but he’s done pretty well in that role.
Regarding the box to box role, I see that as a continuation of the Arrigo Sacchi methodology. On one hand, I see the potential threats of having such a player in certain situations but for the most part they compound to inefficiency. Sacchi was not the first to think of football as controlling zones but he did popularise it in many coaches school of thought such as Rafa Benitez, whose 4-2-3-1/4-4-2 tactic many fail to understand.
The loss of Xabi Alonso, loses that balance although as Sacchi will say it matters also about the individual skill of players that make such a methodolgy work and Alonso is a much better controller of zones that Aquilani. But what is most interesting is that Aquiliani plays, not deeper alongside Mascherano and not quite behind the main forward, so essentially he is playing in his own band between Gerrard and Mascherano.
A very enjoyable read. I have only just discovered this blog but am already a massive fan, it’s the kind of thing I have been looking for for a couple of years now!
Are there any other good sources for tactical discussion??
There’s a few listed in the ‘links’ section at the top of the page. Brain’s ArsenalColumn and TomWFootball are my personal favourites, I think they’re closest to what this site tries to do.
I think the box-to-box role has effectively been displaced and transferred…out to the attacking full-backs. After all, they are the hyperactive players whose impulsiveness can be harnessed out wide and without destabilising the structure of the team through the middle. You now even see the likes of Maicon, Ashley Cole, Evra, Alves et al storming diagonally through the centre.. all the advantages of a box-to-box midfielder but without the tactical chaos.
This is actually an excellent point, I think you’re spot on. Will edit the article.
But the advantage is they are usually unmarked and the best space to utilise is out wide nowadays. Like wing-backs, box-to-box compounds to inefficiency while requiring galactic levels of stamina which the ful-back can use more appropriately.
you could say essien and lass diarra are the closest thing to box to box these days, both have countless amounts of stamina and can attack and defend pretty well, they are primarily a defensive support player though. Its no coincidence that both have played as RB due to this. essien especially did surprisingly well as a RB and i think if he had been put into that position earlier in his career it would have stuck.
Yeah, Brain.
I mean, could you imagine someone like Bryan Robson or Ray Parlour being entrusted with stewardship of a central midfield nowadays, even in English football? Their playing style could still be a great asset to the team, but in a more peripheral position, full-back/wing-back, wide in a diamond or a three-man midfield.
Precisely why no one uses Steven Gerrard as a central midfielder anymore. I always laugh when I see him in midfield in the FIFPro World XIs.
FIFPro, of course, always gets it wrong. In successive years, they picked three-man midfields, comprising, respectively, Pirlo-Kaka-Zidane and Ronaldo-Kaka-Gerrard.
Gerrard has been picked in the midfields of the purported ‘official’ World XI for the last three years. Considering that FIFPro is made up of professional footballers, you wonder how aware the majority are of the game they play.
Oh, and I only discovered this site today, and love it to bits already.
Not the right place for this, I know, but had to add to the love-in – just the site I’ve been searching for! Proper football.
Surely the Gerrard thing’s been known for some time now, at least as far back as 2005?
Though I remember that this was used more in jest and to highlight what some saw as his personal strengths and limitations rather than those of his role. With runners now more common up front in a 433 or equivalent, the midfield needs to show composure and control the space. Hence late runs now come more from full backs or midfielders who know when to stick or twist. In the UK, I’d put this down to the continental masterclass handed to all UK teams on their return to Europe in the 1990s and into this decade.
comment6, cytotec, buy buspar, meridia diet pills, bactrim, buspar, lexapro,
that’s the case in brazil since… well, ever
and attacking full-backs and “makelele-role” also