The W-W formation: the future?!
It is hard to envisage how formations will evolve in response to the current formational hegemony 4-2-3-1. It is an adaptable format which matches up well against other approaches. Two defensive midfielders provide a shield for the back four, which allows the full-backs to advance. The attacking midfielder has the freedom in behind the centre-forward to influence forward play without being mired in the opposition’s central defence – and they also prevent the team from being outnumbered in midfield. Up against 4-4-2, the 4-2-3-1 has an extra central-midfielder so can enable a side to overrun the opposition. The 4-2-3-1 is also fairly immune to sides switching to a 3-5-2 or one of its variants. The two wide-midfielders can force the wing-backs to retreat preventing the opposition from generating any attacking width – whilst a three-man central-defence would also be over-resourced against one orthodox centre-forward. This contrasts with England’s 4-4-2, which was unable to overcome Algeria’s 3-4-2-1 in the group stage.
It’s therefore 4-2-3-1 which is the most robust contemporary on-pitch arrangement. The key variation to this configuration is perhaps lateral rather than longitudinal. For example, champions Spain play quite a narrow formation with Iniesta and Pedro taking up quite central roles next to Xavi. This allows Spain to control central-midfield and much of the attacking width is provided by the full-backs. The narrow 4-2-3-1 (also deployed by Brazil) is just a tweak away from 4-2-2-2. The potential difficulty with this approach is that the full-backs could be held back by opposition wingers and therefore width is lost. But the 4-2-3-1 should have sufficient flexibility for the wider midfielders to take up positions closer to the touchline. Spain actually addressed this matter in the final by bringing on Jesus Navas and deploying him at right-wing. Up until this point Holland left-back Giovanni van Bronckhorst (without a wide-midfielder to mark) was able to push up more into a defensive midfield position to limit Spain’s attacking space.
Formational oscillations in future will continue to be based upon a team trying to use the space of the pitch to best effect, in particular controlling central areas whilst retaining attacking width. Could the narrow 4-2-3-1 see the full-back role changing in response? Without a wide-midfielder to mark, the full-back could take up a more central role, akin to a holding midfielder. As WCC has noted, full-backs tend to be more advanced than their central-defensive counterparts, and in terms of average positioning over a game could be considered wide-defensive-midfielders. The step inside to a more central-defensive-midfield role is thus not particularly radical.
Under the 2-3-2-3 or W-W formation [white shirts, pictured] two central-defenders would still be in place to marshall one centre-forward, and the two (former) full-backs would join a central defensive-midfielder. (This shape is reminiscent of the metodo created in the 1930s by then Italian coach Vittorio Pozzo.) One possible shortcoming of the 4-2-3-1 is that the attacking midfielder can be shut-out by two defensive midfielders (Germany’s Mesut Ozil experienced this difficulty against Spain in the semi-final). The W-W circumnavigates this problem by placing two attacking midfielders in behind the centre-forward (without the loss of either a secure central-midfield or width). If the opposition switch to a formation with wingers, then the full-backs can return to more orthodox defensive positions. Therefore, as the Spain/Brazil model of 4-2-3-1 gains more adherents over forthcoming years, perhaps the W-W could become a viable response.
7 Responses to “The W-W formation: the future?!”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
[...] create triangles, which are necessary to maintaining possession. But can anything beat the 4-2-3-1? A W-W (or 2-3-2-3) might be the reactive wave, says Dr. Ted at World Cup College, in which “the attacking midfielder can be shut-out by two [...]
Definitely a valid point and an interesting idea, but I think rather than teams actually really playing a WW, we’d just see teams in their own formation with the fullbacks getting a bit narrower. Thing is, if a team is playing a true WW (theoretically, no fullbacks on the pitch, though they could be in one of the 3 DM spots) they are very vulnerable on the wide wing, so the opposing team just has to push a winger high and wide, and the defending team would counter by pushing players into the fullback spot, going to essentially a 4-3-3. I think we’ll maybe see glimpses of teams playing WW, but don’t expect any high profile sides to roll out in a true WW.
Isn’t the Barcelona 4-3-3 pretty much a 2-3-2-3?
Pique-Puyol
Dani Alves-Busquets-Maxwell/Abidal
Xavi-Iniesta
Messi-Ibrahimovic-Pedro
The 2-3-2-3, also referred to as the Metodo, is actually not the W-W formation.
The WW formation is the one used by Hungary in the 50’s. (3-2-3-2)
Historically, the naming convention of these formations is derived from how they look with the defenders placed on the top of the drawing. (as with your formation image in the article). Therefore, the Metodo is in fact a M-M, not a W-W.
For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)#Metodo
In his book ‘Inverting the Pyramid’, Jonathan Wilson also refers to the 2-3-2-3, or metodo, as WW. So there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on which way up the pitch goes!
However, looking at the wikipedia link, the ‘M’ of WM incorporates the three defenders and two deeper midfielders. Therefore, the inversion of this (the two-man defence, and three-man defensive midfield) makes a W – as described in both the article above and Wilson’s text.
This page also suggests that the shape of 2-3-2-3 is WW.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metodo_(calcio)
The ‘M’ of WM is actually referring to the 2 inside forwards and 3 strikers in the wiki article, as well as here:
http://library.thinkquest.org/27353/english/formations/form1.html
It seems there are two different “school of thought”s for naming formations.
The important thing is that we both agree that the 2-3-2-3 could be an good response to the current hegemony of 4-2-3-1. I would love to see teams using this formation in our modern football.