A few years ago I read that most top teams play 4-2-3-1 now. There seem to be a lot of teams that don’t play that formation though. And do sweepers still exist? You don’t hear of them these days. I looked at the magazine World Soccer’s web-site
and read what they had to say about the tactics used by each of the teams that have qualified for this year’s World Cup, and there was no mention at all of whether anybody played with a sweeper or not. (3-5-2 without a sweeper would be unusual though
wouldn’t it?)

It depends to some extent what players you’ve got, but if you had a perfect choice of players, what do you think is the best team formation?

Here’s what World Soccer seem to think the teams at this year’s World Cup normally play or are likely to play at the World Cup:

GROUP A

Qatar 5-3-2
Ecuador 4-3-3
Senegal 4-3-2-1
Netherlands 5-3-2

GROUP B

England 3-4-3
Iran 4-3-3
USA 4-1-2-3
Wales 3-4-2-1

GROUP C

Argentina 4-3-3
Saudi Arabia 4-2-3-1
Mexico 4-3-3
Poland 4-2-3-1

GROUP D

France 3-4-1-2
Australia 4-2-3-1
Denmark 4-3-3
Tunisia 4-3-2-1

GROUP E

Spain 4-3-3
Costa Rica 5-4-1
Germany 4-2-3-1
Japan 4-2-3-1

GROUP F

Belgium 3-4-3
Canada 4-4-2
Morocco 5-1-2-2
Croatia 4-4-2

GROUP G

Brazil 4-2-3-1
Serbia 3-5-2
Switzerland 4-2-3-1
Cameroon 4-3-3

GROUP H

Portugal 4-3-3
Ghana 3-4-3
Uruguay 4-3-3
South Korea 4-2-3-1

And a related question: these 4 number formations. Is the middle 2 numbers always the number of defensive midfielders and the number of attacking midfielders or what? And why do they do it like that? They never put the 1 seperately from the other
defenders for a sweeper or anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:50:23 -0700, Mark wrote:

Subject: Tactics: What's the best team formation?


according to Oronzo, the best is 5-5-5


Oronzo Canà - Wikipedia
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oronzo_Can%C3%A0

«Voi sapete che le norme generali di tutti gli allenatori del mondo più o meno usano le stesse formazioni, c'è 4-5-1 o 4-4-2, io invece uso una cosa diversa: il 5-5-5.»




--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:02:26 AM UTC+1, Ammammata wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:50:23 -0700, Mark wrote:

Subject: Tactics: What's the best team formation?

according to Oronzo, the best is 5-5-5

Oronzo Canà - Wikipedia
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oronzo_Can%C3%A0

«Voi sapete che le norme generali di tutti gli allenatori del mondo più o meno usano le stesse formazioni, c'è 4-5-1 o 4-4-2, io invece uso una cosa diversa: il 5-5-5.»

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

Is this the only response I'm going to get to this post? I though this was rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football. Is nobody interested in tactics?

Anyway I might as well add a couple of comments/questions myself.

In 1990, World Soccer said that 4-3-3 was obsolete. What happened to that? Were World Soccer wrong? Or did it make a comeback, perhaps in response to teams playing the 3-5-2 formation?

And howcome even Spain don't play a 4-2-3-1 formation anymore? Wasn't it Spain that invented 4-2-3-1?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 3:58:17 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:02:26 AM UTC+1, Ammammata wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:50:23 -0700, Mark wrote:

Subject: Tactics: What's the best team formation?

according to Oronzo, the best is 5-5-5

Oronzo Canà - Wikipedia
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oronzo_Can%C3%A0

«Voi sapete che le norme generali di tutti gli allenatori del mondo più o
meno usano le stesse formazioni, c'è 4-5-1 o 4-4-2, io invece uso una cosa
diversa: il 5-5-5.»

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

Is this the only response I'm going to get to this post? I though this was rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football. Is nobody interested in tactics?

Anyway I might as well add a couple of comments/questions myself.

In 1990, World Soccer said that 4-3-3 was obsolete. What happened to that? Were World Soccer wrong?

Tactics, or more specifically tactical trends, are always in a state of evolution.

Around the turn of the 20th century, 2-3-5 was the dominant formation, which eventually settled to more of a 4-2-4 around mid-century. As more conservatism set in, the 4-4-2 took hold and was pretty dominant up until the 80s and 90s. This millennium saw
a shift to a single striker, with 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 becoming more prevalent. The last decade has seen 4-3-3 become the trendy formation, inspired in large part with Spain's tiki-taka masters of the early 10s.

Other notable micro-trends:
1. The midfielder destroyer has made a comeback
2. As has the big #9
3. Fullbacks have more attacking responsibilities
4. Keepers need to be good with their feet
5. As do centerbacks

I should mention though that 3, 4, and 5 are more prevalent in bigger clubs, because the advanced technical skills required to fill those roles aren't a dime a dozen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-09-25 10:13, Al Kamista wrote:

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 3:58:17 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:02:26 AM UTC+1, Ammammata wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:50:23 -0700, Mark wrote:

Subject: Tactics: What's the best team formation?


according to Oronzo, the best is 5-5-5


Oronzo Canà - Wikipedia
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oronzo_Can%C3%A0

«Voi sapete che le norme generali di tutti gli allenatori del mondo più o >>> meno usano le stesse formazioni, c'è 4-5-1 o 4-4-2, io invece uso una cosa >>> diversa: il 5-5-5.»




--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

Is this the only response I'm going to get to this post? I though this was rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football. Is nobody interested in tactics?

Well the way the question was stated was weird. Obviously the best
tactic (and this includes more than just formation, as formations are
not rigid and unchanging during a match) is going to depend on what
players you have, who the opponent is, and what the goals are in the
match (if you need a draw away from home, or to lose by only a small
number of goals, the approach will be different from if you desperately
need a goal late in a game, or are trying to make up a 3-0 deficit from
a first leg.

With the right players and played well 3-4-3 can be the most exciting
one. But it can backfire so easily.

I was always kind of fond of 4-4-2 which not too many teams are doing
any more. It will make a comeback.

As for Sweepers, if heavy man (as opposed to zonal) marking becomes a
major thing again, then sweepers/liberos will come back into fashion.

Anyway I might as well add a couple of comments/questions myself.

In 1990, World Soccer said that 4-3-3 was obsolete. What happened to that? Were World Soccer wrong?

Tactics, or more specifically tactical trends, are always in a state of evolution.

Around the turn of the 20th century, 2-3-5 was the dominant formation, which eventually settled to more of a 4-2-4 around mid-century. As more conservatism set in, the 4-4-2

4-3-3 tended to come before 4-4-2 in a lot of teams and in a lot of
countries. Or that's how I remember it. Around 1990 (probably already
1980 - certainly that early in most of England) not many teams were
still playing 4-3-3, but lots were playing 4-4-2, with a fair number by
then going with 3 (or 5 when defending) at the back, like Germany in
1990, and lots of Italian teams.

took hold and was pretty dominant up until the 80s and 90s. This
millennium saw a shift to a single striker, with 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1
becoming more prevalent. The last decade has seen 4-3-3 become the
trendy formation,

Which was a reinvention of what lots of teams were playing in the 60s
and 70s, including your Liverpool in their UEFA cup finals in the 70s. (Heighway, Toshak, Keegan and so on. Both the NL and Germany are
generally considered to have been playing 4-3-3 in the 1974 final.

inspired in large part with Spain's tiki-taka masters of the early 10s.


I think there was also a Dutch influence. Ajax liked to play that way,
and Cruyff brought it to Barca.

Other notable micro-trends:
1. The midfielder destroyer has made a comeback

Was he ever completely gone? In the better teams he usually has pretty
good other qualities, admittedly.

2. As has the big #9
3. Fullbacks have more attacking responsibilities

Nothing new about that. Watch Celtic in 1967 for instance, or England
1966, and so on. Brazil has always been keen on attacking fullbacks
like Cafu and Roberto Carlos, among others.

4. Keepers need to be good with their feet

yes, that has changed immensely since 1990.

5. As do centerbacks

I should mention though that 3, 4, and 5 are more prevalent in bigger clubs, because the advanced technical skills required to fill those roles aren't a dime a dozen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 8:42:31 PM UTC-4, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-25 10:13, Al Kamista wrote:

Around the turn of the 20th century, 2-3-5 was the dominant formation, which eventually settled to more of a 4-2-4 around mid-century. As more conservatism set in, the 4-4-2

4-3-3 tended to come before 4-4-2 in a lot of teams and in a lot of countries. Or that's how I remember it. Around 1990 (probably already
1980 - certainly that early in most of England) not many teams were
still playing 4-3-3, but lots were playing 4-4-2, with a fair number by
then going with 3 (or 5 when defending) at the back, like Germany in
1990, and lots of Italian teams.

Probably a function of my age. When I started watching in the 80s it appeared that almost everyone played with 2 strikers up front.

Other notable micro-trends:
1. The midfielder destroyer has made a comeback

Was he ever completely gone? In the better teams he usually has pretty
good other qualities, admittedly.

That's right. The 00s seemed to be the golden age of the destroyer (Gattuso, Makelele, Keane, Masherano), who was mainly tasked with breaking up opposition attacks. Nowadays they are much more (e.g. Rodri, Fabinho, Kimmich). Busquets is probably the
poster child of the modern #6.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Il /25 Sep 2022/, *Mark* ha scritto:

rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football

fixed:

rss, folks who don't have a fucking better thing to do

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 9:15:18 AM UTC+3, Ammammata wrote:

Il /25 Sep 2022/, *Mark* ha scritto:

rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football

fixed:

rss, folks who don't have a fucking better thing to do
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

The “1” is the only one allowed to play the ball with the hands, but only in his own big box. But he can score, without using his hands, in the opponents’ boxes.

The “10” can be permuted in a huge variety of configurations. Theoretically:

Permutations (10) = 10! = 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800 possibilities.

Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.”

I sez: “God plays permutations with the Universe.”

“Permutation, permutation,
Why’s so crooked your nation?
Well, it’s all random overall,
Beit straight, crooked, or small.”

https://saliu.com/bbs/messages/636.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:42:31 AM UTC+1, MH wrote:
Obviously the best

tactic (and this includes more than just formation, as formations are
not rigid and unchanging during a match)

How often does it change? Other than occasionally changing something, usually late in the match, like substituting a defender for a forward when you're defending a lead, I thought it usually stayed the same.

I was always kind of fond of 4-4-2 which not too many teams are doing
any more. It will make a comeback.

I read, again in World Soccer, that everyone knows how to play against 4-4-2, so maybe that's why not many teams play it anymore. Actually it's not literally true though; I don't know how to play against 4-4-2.

The last decade has seen 4-3-3 become the

trendy formation,
Which was a reinvention of what lots of teams were playing in the 60s
and 70s,

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation and first played it at the 1962 World Cup. Is there any difference between that and the way teams play 4-3-3 now?

3. Fullbacks have more attacking responsibilities

Nothing new about that. Watch Celtic in 1967 for instance, or England
1966, and so on. Brazil has always been keen on attacking fullbacks
like Cafu and Roberto Carlos, among others.

What's the difference between a full-back and a wing-back? According to what I've read on Wikipedia, they are different positions. Do wing-backs just attack even more or what?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:42:31 AM UTC+1, MH wrote:
Obviously the best

tactic (and this includes more than just formation, as formations are
not rigid and unchanging during a match)

How often does it change?

Depends on the coach and team. Under Herdman, Canada is often
constantly shifting between 4 and 3 at the back, and 2 and 3 up front.

Guardiola's teams when in possession quite often (especially true for
Bayern) shift to 2-3-2-3 with the centre backs the only defenders, the
full backs quite tight to a playmaking Central Defensive Midfielder
(like Xabi Alonso). So what is happening on the pitch often has little
to do with the idealized formation shown ahead of the game on TV.
Plus there is the whole "total football" concept

Other than occasionally changing something, usually late in the match,
like substituting a defender for a forward when you're defending a lead,
I thought it usually stayed the same.

I was always kind of fond of 4-4-2 which not too many teams are doing
any more. It will make a comeback.

I read, again in World Soccer, that everyone knows how to play against 4-4-2, so maybe that's why not many teams play it anymore. Actually it's not literally true though; I don't know how to play against 4-4-2.

Teams are still playing it. Spurs have done so a fair bit, though not
sure they do under Conte.

The last decade has seen 4-3-3 become the

trendy formation,
Which was a reinvention of what lots of teams were playing in the 60s
and 70s,

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for
4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and
62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4
when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of Brazil's formations.

and first played it at the 1962 World Cup. Is there any difference
between that and the way teams play 4-3-3 now?

My impression is that the wide front players back in the day were real traditional wingers, and hugged the touch line more. Did not do a lot of defending. And were mostly on their natural wing (left footers on the
left, right footers on the right). Wide players in a 4-3-3 nowadays
tend not to stay strictly on their assigned wing as much and are often
(like Salah, Mané, Robben) on their "wrong" wing. They also are more conscientious in defending

3. Fullbacks have more attacking responsibilities

Nothing new about that. Watch Celtic in 1967 for instance, or England
1966, and so on. Brazil has always been keen on attacking fullbacks
like Cafu and Roberto Carlos, among others.

What's the difference between a full-back and a wing-back?

Not a huge amount. Same players can often play both roles. USually
wing backs play wider and further up the pitch, and are part of a 3-5-2
or 3-4-3 formation, which collapses, respectively, into 5-3-2 and 5-4-1
when defending.

If it is 4 at the back we usually still call them fullbacks even if they
are attacking non-stop.

Brazil player 4 at the back in 1998, and Cafu and Roberto Carlos would
have been considered fullbacks. 4 years later they player 3 centre
backs, so the wide backs in the back 5 (also Cafu and Roberto Carlos)
would be called wingbacks.



According to what I've read on Wikipedia, they are different positions.
Do wing-backs just attack even more or what?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 02:54:17 -0700, Ion Saliu wrote:

The “1” is the only one allowed to play the ball with the hands, but
only in his own big box. But he can score, without using his hands, in
the opponents’ boxes.

not 100% true, I think
he can shoot with his hands from his area and score, with the help of wind
of course, i.e. Milinkovic-Savic



--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:50 PM UTC+1, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for
4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and
62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4
when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of Brazil's formations.

My understanding was that Brazil invented 4-2-4 and played it at the 1958 World Cup; and then invented 4-3-3 and played that in 1962 and 1970, and stuck with that formation until changing to 5-3-2 at the 1990 World Cup.

Maybe Lleo or Jesus can give us some clarification?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC+3, Mark wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:50 PM UTC+1, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for
4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and
62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4 when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of Brazil's formations.

My understanding was that Brazil invented 4-2-4 and played it at the 1958 World Cup; and then invented 4-3-3 and played that in 1962 and 1970, and stuck with that formation until changing to 5-3-2 at the 1990 World Cup.

Maybe Lleo or Jesus can give us some clarification?

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Classical system creators:

Hungary (1950s) 3 – 2 – 3 – 2
Brazil (1950s) 4 – 2 – 4
Ajax (1970s) 4 – 3 – 3

But there is a high degree of relativity. There are NO perfect lines on Earth or in Heaven. The central defenders become central forwards, while the central forwards turn into central defenders on corner kicks; etc. Usually, the weaker teams (underdogs)
play 5 – 5 – 0; the big dogs play 0 – 5 – 5.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mark escreveu:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:50 PM UTC+1, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for
4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and
62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4 when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of Brazil's formations.

My understanding was that Brazil invented 4-2-4 and played it at the 1958 World Cup; and then invented 4-3-3 and played that in 1962 and 1970, and stuck with that formation until changing to 5-3-2 at the 1990 World Cup.

Maybe Lleo or Jesus can give us some clarification?

As far as I know, 1958 and 1962 formations were reported as 4-2-4. The lineups were (with a couple adjustments here and there):

Gylmar; Djalma Santos, Orlando/Zózimo, Bellini/Mauro and Nilton Santos; Zito and
Didi; Garrincha, Vavá, Pelé/Amarildo and Zagallo

Zagallo was said to usually fall back to cover in midfield, so that's probably where 4-3-3 comes from (at least in Brasil).

Though in 1970 you had a 4-2-4...

Felix; Carlos Alberto, Britto, Piazza and Everaldo; Clodoaldo and Gerson; Jairzinho, Tostão, Pelé and Rivelino

...I seem to remember seeing some formations dropping Rivelino or Tostão to midfield, or describing Pelé as a "support striker".

As far as I know, in the 1970's it was mostly 4-3-3. By 1982 and 1986 it was two
men upfront (Serginho/Eder, then Careca/Muller), though IIRC Brazilian clubs stuck
to 4-3-3.

The 1990 formation, like the 2002 one, used to be reported as 3-5-2, rather than
5-3-2. I guess it depends on whether you count the side-backs in the first or second number. But regardless of formation, in Brasil they are always expected to give support upfront.


--
Lléo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:37:11 AM UTC+2, Lléo wrote:

Mark escreveu:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:50 PM UTC+1, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for 4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and 62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4 when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of Brazil's formations.

My understanding was that Brazil invented 4-2-4 and played it at the 1958 World Cup; and then invented 4-3-3 and played that in 1962 and 1970, and stuck with that formation until changing to 5-3-2 at the 1990 World Cup.

Maybe Lleo or Jesus can give us some clarification?

As far as I know, 1958 and 1962 formations were reported as 4-2-4.

Is there any traction in the idea that there was a significant
Hungarian (Bukovi -> Sebes -> Guttmann -> Brazil) influence in this?

Ciao,
Werner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:50:23 -0700, Mark wrote:

A few years ago I read that most top teams play 4-2-3-1 now. There seem
to be a lot of teams that don’t play that formation though.

http://oeis.org/wiki/10#Partitions_of_10

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC+3, Ion Saliu wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 9:15:18 AM UTC+3, Ammammata wrote:

Il /25 Sep 2022/, *Mark* ha scritto:

rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football

fixed:

rss, folks who don't have a fucking better thing to do
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

The “1” is the only one allowed to play the ball with the hands, but only in his own big box. But he can score, without using his hands, in the opponents’ boxes.

The “10” can be permuted in a huge variety of configurations. Theoretically:

Permutations (10) = 10! = 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800 possibilities.

Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.”

I sez: “God plays permutations with the Universe.”

“Permutation, permutation,
Why’s so crooked your nation?
Well, it’s all random overall,
Beit straight, crooked, or small.”

https://saliu.com/bbs/messages/636.html

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Lest we forget. Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

It started that way. Watch again that Netflix documentary: “The English Game”. Watch how they started the game back then. Ten field players facing ten field players at the center line. Looked a lot like rugby, a later incarnation of football.

A Scot footballer made the first alteration to the system. He placed two field players: one to the far left and one to the far right. The system struck like a bolt from the blue! The “working class” shocked the Etonians!

Many alterations have come and gone. There are two systems, however, that dominated international football.

First, Brazil’s ‘4 – 2 – 4’ introduced in the 1950s. Everybody in the world listed the line-ups in that format. It was the “Bible” until the 1970s.

Second, Ajax ‘4 – 3 – 3’ introduced in the 1950s. Johan Cruyff gets a lot of credit for the system he touted as ‘total football’. The ‘4 – 3 – 3’ became the “New Testament” especially after Cruyff took over Barcelona. This is the
dominant system in today’s football. Some get fancy and plot all kinds of variations on paper. Of course, there is NO fixed system during any football match. There are all kinds of chaotic variations and movements during a game. Still, everybody thinks
they play ‘4 – 3 – 3’!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBOlhdSYhv8

https://www.netflix.com/title/80244928

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:16:03 PM UTC+3, Ion Saliu wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC+3, Ion Saliu wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 9:15:18 AM UTC+3, Ammammata wrote:

Il /25 Sep 2022/, *Mark* ha scritto:

rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football

fixed:

rss, folks who don't have a fucking better thing to do
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

The “1” is the only one allowed to play the ball with the hands, but only in his own big box. But he can score, without using his hands, in the opponents’ boxes.

The “10” can be permuted in a huge variety of configurations. Theoretically:

Permutations (10) = 10! = 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800 possibilities.

Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.”

I sez: “God plays permutations with the Universe.”

“Permutation, permutation,
Why’s so crooked your nation?
Well, it’s all random overall,
Beit straight, crooked, or small.”

https://saliu.com/bbs/messages/636.html

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:
Lest we forget. Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

It started that way. Watch again that Netflix documentary: “The English Game”. Watch how they started the game back then. Ten field players facing ten field players at the center line. Looked a lot like rugby, a later incarnation of football.

A Scot footballer made the first alteration to the system. He placed two field players: one to the far left and one to the far right. The system struck like a bolt from the blue! The “working class” shocked the Etonians!

Many alterations have come and gone. There are two systems, however, that dominated international football.

First, Brazil’s ‘4 – 2 – 4’ introduced in the 1950s. Everybody in the world listed the line-ups in that format. It was the “Bible” until the 1970s.

Second, Ajax ‘4 – 3 – 3’ introduced in the 1970s. Johan Cruyff gets a lot of credit for the system he touted as ‘total football’. The ‘4 – 3 – 3’ became the “New Testament” especially after Cruyff took over Barcelona. This is

the dominant system in today’s football. Some get fancy and plot all kinds of variations on paper. Of course, there is NO fixed system during any football match. There are all kinds of chaotic variations and movements during a game. Still, everybody
thinks they play ‘4 – 3 – 3’!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBOlhdSYhv8

https://www.netflix.com/title/80244928

Speaking of the “devil is in the details” department –
Who can explain to me why only the Christians have won the World Cup titles? All 21 of them? Is God Himself a soccer fan? Or is He an ultra, as He is so biased in favour of one credo?

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.soccer/c/PDvXIrB1zFk/m/_fVy9_xOBgAJ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:54:18 PM UTC+3, Ion Saliu wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 9:15:18 AM UTC+3, Ammammata wrote:

Il /25 Sep 2022/, *Mark* ha scritto:

rss, where intelligent people want to discuss football

fixed:

rss, folks who don't have a fucking better thing to do
--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

The “1” is the only one allowed to play the ball with the hands, but only in his own big box. But he can score, without using his hands, in the opponents’ boxes.

The “10” can be permuted in a huge variety of configurations. Theoretically:

Permutations (10) = 10! = 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 = 3,628,800 possibilities.

Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.”

I sez: “God plays permutations with the Universe.”

“Permutation, permutation,
Why’s so crooked your nation?
Well, it’s all random overall,
Beit straight, crooked, or small.”

https://saliu.com/bbs/messages/636.html

Ultra Axiomatics, Axiomatiques, Axiomatischen, Axiomáticos, Assiomatici, Axiomatici et al.:

Lest we forget. Everybody plays one and the same system:
1–10

It started that way. Watch again that Netflix documentary: “The English Game”. Watch how they started the game back then. Ten field players facing ten field players at the center line. Looked a lot like rugby, a later incarnation of football.

A Scot footballer made the first alteration to the system. He placed two field players: one to the far left and one to the far right. The system struck like a bolt from the blue! The “working class” shocked the Etonians!

Many alterations have come and gone. There are two systems, however, that dominated international football.

First, Brazil’s ‘4 – 2 – 4’ introduced in the 1950s. Everybody in the world listed the line-ups in that format. It was the “Bible” until the 1970s.

Second, Ajax ‘4 – 3 – 3’ introduced in the 1970s. Johan Cruyff gets a lot of credit for the system he touted as ‘total football’. The ‘4 – 3 – 3’ became the “New Testament” especially after Cruyff took over Barcelona. This is the
dominant system in today’s football. Some get fancy and plot all kinds of variations on paper. Of course, there is NO fixed system during any football match. There are all kinds of chaotic variations and movements during a game. Still, everybody thinks
they play ‘4 – 3 – 3’!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBOlhdSYhv8

https://www.netflix.com/title/80244928

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Werner Pichler escreveu:

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:37:11 AM UTC+2, Lléo wrote:

Mark escreveu:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:50 PM UTC+1, MH wrote:

On 2022-09-27 10:16, Mark wrote:

Yes I think Brazil invented the 4-3-3 formation

Brazil may have played 4-3-3 sometimes but are much more famous for 4-2-4 with two out and out wingers (Zagallo and Garrincha in 1958 and 62, Rivelino and Jairzinho in 1970). Celtic were still playing a 4-2-4 when they won the European cup in 1967.
Lleo and Jesus would know a lot more than I do about the progression of
Brazil's formations.

My understanding was that Brazil invented 4-2-4 and played it at the 1958
World Cup; and then invented 4-3-3 and played that in 1962 and 1970, and stuck with that formation until changing to 5-3-2 at the 1990 World Cup.

Maybe Lleo or Jesus can give us some clarification?

As far as I know, 1958 and 1962 formations were reported as 4-2-4.

Is there any traction in the idea that there was a significant
Hungarian (Bukovi -> Sebes -> Guttmann -> Brazil) influence in this?

I would say there is. Bela Guttmann is known for helping popularising the 4-2-4 formation in Brasil, first during a tour with Honved in 1956 and then, one year later, as coach of São Paulo. He won Campeonato Paulista that season and his assistant was Vicente Feola, who would go on to coach Brasil in WC'1958.

But though Guttmann's contribution was important, Brasil was already moving towards
this direction by the time he arrived. This too had been due to Hungarian influence.
Imre "Dori" Kürschner, in the late 1930's, came to Rio de Janeiro to coach Flamengo
and brought with him the WM system. He didn't last long at the club - crucially, he
lost the local league to Fluminense and the inaugural match of their then brand new
Estádio da Gávea, to Vasco - but his assistant Flavio Costa (himself Brasil's coach
in WC'1950) started tweaking with his system, turning the square in the middle of
that formation in something like a diamond and getting closer to what became 4-2-4.
These changes were refined and tweaked upon by other coaches in the early 50's, such
as Martim Francisco and Manuel Fleitas Solich, so Guttmann's São Paulo team was not
exactly the formation's "Ground Zero" in Brasil. There's no denying, though, that
Guttmann did play an important role in this whole process.


--
Lléo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:33:29 PM UTC+1, ions...@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking of the “devil is in the details” department –
Who can explain to me why only the Christians have won the World Cup titles? All 21 of them? Is God Himself a soccer fan? Or is He an ultra, as He is so biased in favour of one credo?

God isn't a football fan. If he was, Israel would have won the World Cup by now!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mark wrote:

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:33:29 PM UTC+1,
ions...@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking of the “devil is in the details” department –
Who can explain to me why only the Christians have won the World
Cup titles? All 21 of them? Is God Himself a soccer fan? Or is He
an ultra, as He is so biased in favour of one credo?

God isn't a football fan. If he was, Israel would have won the World
Cup by now!

I'm not sure I've ever thought about God [if such a person exists]
being a football fan... but Israel winning the World Cup would be fun!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 1:05:15 PM UTC+3, Mark wrote:

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:33:29 PM UTC+1, ions...@gmail.com wrote:

Speaking of the “devil is in the details” department –
Who can explain to me why only the Christians have won the World Cup titles? All 21 of them? Is God Himself a soccer fan? Or is He an ultra, as He is so biased in favour of one credo?

God isn't a football fan. If he was, Israel would have won the World Cup by now!

“God isn't a football fan. If he was, Israel would have won the World Cup by now!”

Good point, axiomático! This leads to the conclusion that God, the Ultra, is strongly biased in favor of Judeo-Christianity. Any Muslims here? Brothers, there are a few of them Salahs out there…


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)