Attacking Football

[Observer]

We all love to see teams that play attacking football, but in Tournament play is attacking football paying off?

The four most attacking teams this WC. That is teams that made the most chances per game.

Germany, Spain, Ivory Coast, Ghana. In that order

Now only one of those teams made it to the final 4

Not surprising France and Italy both "counter teams" based on defending and launching quick attacks, ended up playing in the final. Now people calling this tournament football but is this not how Chelsea plays???

Right or Wrong I looking to get some talk going.

[Tongue]

allyuh kyah tork allyuh tork witout metioning Chelsea eh! Attacking could be relevant tuh what yuh have to work with.

[daryn]

I wouldn't say that Chelsea plays that way.  the times I see them this season gone they dominated, both in terms of possession and creating chances, for the most part.  Of course that have something to do with the huge gap in quality between chelsea's players and those of the teams that they meet on a weekly basis.

the more guarded approach will tend to work more often once tournaments get to the knockout rounds.  If you don't concede a goal, the worst case scenario is that the game go to penalties, which is 50-50

[Pompey]

number one reason why this has been such a poor world cup. most games going to extra time, a lot of penalty shoot outs. a lot of 1-0 or 0-0.

everyone is too scared to concede a goal, so they worry about that more then scoring. It's a european style of football and now everyone has adopted it (Maybe because of the number of european coaches around the world).

Defend, play deep, then try and nip into the opposing teams penalty area and throw yourself on the ground in the hope of getting a penalty.

boring unimaginative football and I include a very poor very boring England team in that as well.

[ribbit]

observer, what about argentina as an attacking side? ah read a comment in the press that only germany and argentina consistently used 2 forwards for the tournament. the rest of the sides played 1 man up.

mostly, ah found the group play games this world cup more interesting than the knockout games with some notable exceptions (italy/germany and france/brazil).

the worst game had to be the switzerland/ukraine game. it seems that attacking football is a real scarce commodity at the highest levels.   

[palos]

number one reason why this has been such a poor world cup. most games going to extra time, a lot of penalty shoot outs. a lot of 1-0 or 0-0.

everyone is too scared to concede a goal, so they worry about that more then scoring. It's a european style of football and now everyone has adopted it (Maybe because of the number of european coaches around the world).

Defend, play deep, then try and nip into the opposing teams penalty area and throw yourself on the ground in the hope of getting a penalty.

boring unimaginative football and I include a very poor very boring England team in that as well.

I'm curious to learn what you would deem to be an example of a "good" world cup that you have seen.

[kicker]

I'm curious to learn what you would deem to be an example of a "good" world cup that you have seen.

The last good world cup that Pompey saw was in 1966.......

[Pompey]

I'm curious to learn what you would deem to be an example of a "good" world cup that you have seen.

The last good world cup that Pompey saw was in 1966.......

Except I wasn't actually born in 1966....

good point actually. I remember the Italian World cup in 1990 being good, as was the French one, but not for any other reason than I seemed a lot more excited about thoses world cups than any other.

at the risk of getting shouted at, I actually think that this was a wasted opportunty for England, becasue there were no teams there that we could not beat. I'm sure a lot of other countries will be thinking the same, but there have been no teams and no players that have set this tournament alight.

[kicker]

I'm curious to learn what you would deem to be an example of a "good" world cup that you have seen.

The last good world cup that Pompey saw was in 1966.......

Except I wasn't actually born in 1966....

good point actually. I remember the Italian World cup in 1990 being good, as was the French one, but not for any other reason than I seemed a lot more excited about thoses world cups than any other.

at the risk of getting shouted at, I actually think that this was a wasted opportunty for England, becasue there were no teams there that we could not beat. I'm sure a lot of other countries will be thinking the same, but there have been no teams and no players that have set this tournament alight.

except for Portgual 

but seriously I know what you mean. On paper this was probably the strongest English side in some time. I thought this World Cup was good though. The final was anti-climatic in my opinion.... I thought the cup in '02 was exciting, but the games were not of as great quality....The '94 cup was good to me too.....the pace of the games was bit slower, but I thought alotta teams played really neat attractive football....sadly the final was 0-0 and that is what most people remember......

To me the '90 WC was actually the most defensive in recent history from what I remember- both semis were won on pks......the final was decided by a pk.......Argentina's football was poor, Brazil was not a free-flowing side by their standards...Holland was a disappointment, Germany (the eventual champs) shut down after the first round in my opinion......etc....

Alotta people judge the world Cup by their memory of the final, and by how many games were won by pk's etc...a PK shootout is often a signal of very evenly matched teams, and not necessarily negative football (unless the game is one-sided with one of the teams just trying to hold on til the whistle)..

...there weren't many or any one-sided games that went to a shoot out this year, so I wouldn't chalk it up to negative football. I think teams were just very evenly matched.

[mr.talented]

doh worry pompey..we winning euros...

[palos]

but there have been no teams and no players that have set this tournament alight.

I guess Italian, French, German, Portugese, Ghanaian, even Argentinian supporters may have a "slightly" different opinion.

Just making an observation, but your perception of the tournament and it's quality or lack thereof, seems to be corelated to England's performance or lack thereof.

[JDB]

but there have been no teams and no players that have set this tournament alight.

I guess Italian, French, German, Portugese, Ghanaian, even Argentinian supporters may have a "slightly" different opinion.

Just making an observation, but your perception of the tournament and it's quality or lack thereof, seems to be corelated to England's performance or lack thereof.

Very true.

90 was not a good World Cup, but of course it was England's best in the last 40 years and there 2nd best ever.

Of World Cups that I have seen live, 86 and 82 stand out. 94 was a good tournament despite the final. I also have fonder memories of 98 than 2002.

90 and this WC end up being the pits. The enduring memory of both is a poor final involving diving fouling and sending offs and not much else.

[Coach]

That is why we can't get the US and new fans to fall in love with our game, people need to see more action. We all want more goals, but even getting more shots on goal can still help, but it's not happening. The real soccer fan will appreciate the game no matter how much possession is played in midfield we just love the game. As a youth, the first system I was introduce to was the 4-2-4, then 4-4-3, then 4-4-2, now the in thing is the 1 striker, so what's next. FIFA needs to make some kind of rule chage to keep this game on the offensive.

[Pompey]

but there have been no teams and no players that have set this tournament alight.

I guess Italian, French, German, Portugese, Ghanaian, even Argentinian supporters may have a "slightly" different opinion.

Just making an observation, but your perception of the tournament and it's quality or lack thereof, seems to be corelated to England's performance or lack thereof.

Argentina and Ghana were probably the highlights of the cup, but Argentina's eventual exit was an anti climax. I thought they looked really exciting, then they kind of fizzled out. They didn;t exactly look like champions against Mexico either.

My observations probably linked to England's performances, but that is why I said my memory probably had something to do with how excited I was about those tournaments.

Even though the England v Germany semi final was decided on penalties, it was a cracking game which neither team deserved to lose.

[pass(10trini)]

Actually de bes of World Cups for me waz up to 90, after dat everything was jes flat. Of the more recent I enjoyed france 98 but the worst of Cups is 02 ah think. Too many burnt oout players. It was jes poor.

[Observer]

It is generally argued that "Attacking football and exciting games do not always mean more goals scored."  I am always amused when people say to me in the old days had more goals in football. What exactly are they talking about? When were the old days? For most experts on football 1958 was the best ever WC in history. Check this

WC Goals Games
58   126   35  Dam!
62   89     32
66   89     32
70   95     32
74   97     38
78  102    38
82  146    52
86  132    52
90  115    52
94  141    52
98  171    64
02  161    64
06  147    64   

just from memory the WC that I thought were exciting, with lots of attacking football were

1970, 78, 82, 86, 98

[Touches]

Coach if as yuh name implies yuh cyar be making these kinda mistakes breds

As a youth, the first system I was introduce to was the 4-2-4, then 4-4-3, then 4-4-2

4-4-3 Yuh have 12 men on d field or no keeper?

Yuh mean 4-3-3.

ALright watch something

as a continuation of Observers post look at the formations and the attacking football produced.

Classic formations
2-3-5 (The Pyramid)



 
The Pyramid FormationIt was around 1880 that two full backs, three half backs, and five forwards (the 2-3-5) began to make its appearance; this was originally known as the Pyramid with the numerical formation being referenced retrospectively. There is some debate as to which team originated this system, but Sheffield Wednesday definitely deployed a 2-3-5 in their FA Cup match with Blackburn Rovers in December 1880. (Source: Sheffield Daily Telegraph 20/12/1880). Blackburn Olympic used the third half back in winning the FA Cup in 1883, and the new system gradually gained popularity. By the 1890s it was the standard formation in Britain and had spread all over the world. With some variations it was used by most top level teams up to the 1940s.

For the first time a balance between attacking and defending was reached. When defending, the two defenders (fullbacks) would watch out for the opponents' wingers (the first and fifth men in the attacking line); while the midfielders (halfbacks) would watch for the other three forwards.

The centre halfback had a key role; he should both help organising the teams attack and mark the opponent's centre forward, supposedly one of their most dangerous players.

Teams that used this formation
Uruguay, 1930 World Cup winner:
Team: Ballestero; Mascheroni and Nasazzi; Andrade, Fernández and Gestido; Dorado, Scarone, Castro, Cea and Iriarte. Coach: Alberto Suppici.
Argentina, 1930 World Cup runner up:
Team: Botasso; Della Torre and Paternoster; J.Evaristo, Monti and Arico Suárez; Peucelle, Varallo, Stábile, Ferreira and M.Evaristo. Coach: Juan José Tramutola.
The Danubian school
The Danubian School of football is a modification of the 2-3-5 formation as played by the Austrians, Czechs and Hungarians in the 1920s, and taken to its peak by the Austrians in the 1930s. It relied on short-passing and individual skills, and was a derivation of carpet football which emphasised keeping the ball on the ground.

A team that used this formation
Austria, 4th at the 1934 World Cup:
Team: Platzer; Cisar and Sesta; Wagner, Smistik and Urbanek; Zischek, Bican, Sindelar, Schall and Viertl. Coaches: Hugo Meisl and Franz Hansl.
Metodo
The Metodo was devised by Vittorio Pozzo, coach of the Italian national team in the 1930s [1]. It was a derivation of the Danubian School. The system was based on the 2-3-5 formation, Pozzo realised that his halfbacks would need some more support in order to be superior to the opponents' midfield, so he pulled 2 of the forwards to just in-front of midfield, creating a 2-3-2-3 formation. This created a stronger defence than previous systems, as well as allowing effective counterattacks. The Italian national team won back-to-back World Cups in 1934 and 1938 using this system.

A team that used this formation
Italy, 1934 World Cup winner:
Team: Combi; Monzeglio and Allemandi; Ferraris IV, Monti and Bertolini; Schiavio and Ferrari; Guaita, Meazza and Orsi. Coach: Vittorio Pozzo.




The WM
The WM system was created in the mid-1920s by Herbert Chapman of Arsenal to counter a change in the offside law in 1925. The change had reduced the number of opposition players that an attacker needed between himself and the goal-line from three to two. This led to the introduction of a centre-back to stop the opposing centre-forward, and tried to balance defensive and offensive playing. The formation became so successful that by the late-1930s most English clubs had adopted the WM. Retrospectively the WM has either been described as a 3-2-5 or as a 3-4-3.
 
WM Formation

The WW
The WW was a development of the WM created by the Hungarian coach Marton Bukovi who turned the 3-2-5 WM "upside down" [2]. The lack of an effective centre-forward in his team necessitated moving this player back to midfield to create a playmaker, with a midfielder instructed to focus on defence. This created a 3-5-2 (also described as a 3-3-4), and was described by some as an early version of the 4-2-4. This formation was successfully used by fellow countryman Gusztáv Sebes in the Hungarian national team of the early 1950s.

3-3-4
The 3-3-4 formation was similar to the WW with the notable exception of having an inside-forward (as opposed to centre-forward) deployed as a midfield schemer alongside the two wing-halves. This formation would be commonplace during the 50s and early 60s. One of the best exponents of the system was the Tottenham Hotspur double-winning side of 1961, which deployed a midfield of Danny Blanchflower, John White and Dave Mackay.

4-2-4



4-2-4
 
The 4-2-4 FormationThe 4-2-4 formation attempts to combine strong offence with strong defence, and was conceived as a reaction to WM's stiffness. It could also be considered a further development of the WW. The 4-2-4 was the first formation to be described using numbers.

While the initial developments leading to the 4-2-4 were devised by Márton Bukovi, the credit for creating the 4-2-4 lies with two different people: Flávio Costa, the Brazilian national coach in the early 1950s, as well as another Hungarian Béla Guttman. These tactics seemed to be developed independently, with the Brazilians discussing these ideas while the Hungarians seemed to be putting them into motion [3] [4] [5]. However the fully developed 4-2-4 was only 'perfected' in Brazil in the late 1950s.

Costa published his ideas, the "diagonal system", in the Brazilian newspaper O Cruzeiro, using schematics as the ones used here and, for the first time ever, the formation description by numbers as used in this article. The "diagonal system" was another precursor of the 4-2-4 and was created to spur improvisation in players.

Guttman himself moved to Brazil later in the 1950s to help develop these tactical ideas using the experience of Hungarian coaches.

The 4-2-4 formation made use of the increasing players skills and fitness, aiming to effectively use 6 defenders and 6 forwards, with the midfielders performing both tasks. The 4th defender increased the number of defensive players but mostly allowed them to be closer together, thus enabling effective cooperation among them, the point being that a stronger defence would allow an even stronger attack.

The relatively empty midfield relied on defenders that should now be able not only to steal the ball, but also hold it, pass it or even run with it and start an attack. So this formation required that all players, including defenders, are somehow skillful and with initiative, making it a perfect fit for the Brazilian players mind. The 4-2-4 needed a high level of tactical awareness as having only 2 midfielders could lead to defensive problems. The system was also fluid enough to allow the formation to change throughout play. It has been said that one of the aims of the formation was to score more goals than were conceded.

4-2-4 was first used with success at club level in Brazil by São Paulo and Santos, and was used by Brazil in their wins at 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup, both featuring Pelé, and Zagallo who played in the first and coached the second. The formation was quickly adopted throughout the world after the Brazilian success.

Teams that used this formation
Brazil, 1958 World Cup winner:
Team: Gilmar; Bellini, Djalma Santos, Nílton Santos, Orlando; Zito, Didi; Garrincha, Vává, Pelé, Zagallo. Coach: Vicente Feola.
Brazil, 1970 World Cup winner:
Team: Félix; Carlos Alberto, Brito, Piazza, Everaldo; Clodoaldo, Gérson; Jairzinho, Pelé, Tostão, Rivelino. Coach: Mário Zagallo.
Common modern formations
The following formations are used in modern football. The formations are flexible allowing tailoring to the needs of a team, as well as to the players available. Variations of any given formation include changes in positioning of players, as well as replacement of a traditional defender by a sweeper.



-3-3
The 4-3-3 was a development of the 4-2-4, and was played globally by the Brazilian national team in the 1962 World Cup. The extra player in midfield allowed a stronger defence, and the midfield could be staggered for different effects. The three midfielders normally play closely together to protect the defence, and move laterally across the field as a coordinated unit. The three forwards split across the field to spread the attack, and are expected to "tackle back". Few teams often start a game in this formation, but may change to it late in a game if a goal is needed.

A staggered 4-3-3 involving a defensive midfielder (usually numbered 4, 5 or 6) and two attacking midfielders (numbered 8 and 10) was commonplace in Italy, Argentina and Uruguay during the 1960s and 1970s. The Italian variety of 4-3-3 was simply a modification of WM, by converting one of the two wing-halves to a libero (sweeper), whereas the Argentine and Uruguayan formations were derived from 2-3-5 and retained the notional attacking centre-half.

Teams that used this formation

Ajax is the traditional 4-3-3 football team.
Brazil national team during 1962 World Cup
Every Zdeněk Zeman's team
Rosenborg B.K. of Norway, during most of their 13-in-a-row league wins, and 10 seasons in the UEFA Champions League
Chelsea F.C., managed by Jose Mourinho (July 2004-)
Present-day FC Barcelona under Frank Rijkaard, with Ronaldinho and Ludovic Giuly/Lionel Messi providing the wide support to centre-forward Samuel Eto'o


Alright it taking meh too long to cut and paste the rest but it goes into each formation watch the link here

Football Formations

Enjoy

[fishs]

Nice work Touches .

  Ah used to play inside right in the old 4-2-4 formation.
  The midfielders really used to have to work when play broke down in front.

[ANC2]

Man on dis site attention span real limited we. Look how people gone away from the subject. So wha no discussion.
this WC I really enjoy them teams mentioned and I would add Argentina. germany though I have never been a fan of them get my  They real entertain and though they were criticized for still attacking vs Italy instead of locking up the game and going to penalties, I again  them. Brazil disappoint me 100% Germany was the best team on view. Overall performance must go to Italy, but them play cowardly in the final " Italy! No soup for you." 

[ON DE BLOCK]

the 'replacement killers' for the 2006 WC were a no show, nothing resembling Pele Maradona Rossi Kempes etc... graced the fields in germany, therefore attacking football without attackers of a certain caliber will have that result  of so called unexciting football.......