In this piece I will be looking to compare the advantages and the disadvantages of both of these very popular

formations. These formations are the two most used formations in the world. I will also be talking about the
fluidity and the attitudes of teams.
4-2-3-1

In this formation the central attacking midfielder is restricted from dropping deep because there are two holding
midfielders occupying the space so a player like Xavi doesnt have the freedom he does at Barcelona to drop

deep and help build attacks from the back. The midfielder can drift wide to overload the flanks, acting as a
central winger.
When the central attacking play maker drifts wide (and the holding midfielder isnt man marking him) he can
create a 2 v 1 situation down the flanks with the central midfielder and the winger vs. the one fullback. The
midfielder can also drift wide to overload the flanks, still acting as a central winger, but while being man
marked. With and intelligent central play maker realizing this, they will drift out wide and drag the holding
midfielder with them, leaving space to be exploited in the middle of the field. That is the space that the holding
midfielder vacated. In the scenario the winger (Ronaldo) cuts inside into that space unchallenged and can either
shoot and score or pass for an assist.
4-3-3

In this formation there is more freedom for the two central midfielders to drop deeper to build attacks or to
make forward runs from deep, so the side is more connected, it isnt separated into just defensive midfielders
and attacking midfielders, here you have one defensive midfielder and two central midfielders who attack and
defend, so the team is more connected throughout and dont seem a broken team, the link from defense to
midfield and then to attack is a lot smoother. The team is a lot more flexible in their movement with one pivot
man holding in the midfield. The wing backs have more room to run into because there are two wingers now
and not two wide midfielders. The pivot man can drop between the two center backs to push the wing backs
forward and stretch the play and create space in the middle, and also makes it seem like you have
two wingers on each side, so it can cause an overload on the flanks, or it cause the opposing wingers to track all
the way back which makes it a lot harder to counter attack because they are farther away from the opponents
goal. With good movement and intelligence from players it is a very flexible formation where players can
switch from a 4-3-3 to a 3-4-3 or something similar very fluidly while still remaining solid and structured
defensively.
Since this formation has one less defensive player it can be exposed if the opposing team is quick on the break
and transition quickly before the two central midfielders can transition back to defense. The opposing team can
also expose space behind the attacking fullbacks on the break. In this formation there are more attacking players

so it is better for pressing the opposing team and playing a high line to keep the opponents in their own half, but
you need good ball possession so that the high line and pressing isnt exposed when the ball is lost. With more
attacking players on the field there are more skilled ball players so the circulation of possession is quicker than
if there was two holding midfielders, it is harder to defend against more creative attacking players.
Cruyff
Cruyff on the differences between a 4-3-3 and a 4-2-3-1 and Holland.
The problem with two holding midfielders is quite simple, but somehow many coaches dont see it. The build
up happens to slow. Holding midfielders always need that extra touch. Always need to have a look when they
have the ball already. That takes time away. The opponent can position themselves to stop the killer pass and
the forwards are all marked. Plus, having two holding midfielders means there is one less creative play maker.
Its a double edged sword.
We need one good controller in midfield and two creative players on the wide midfield spots, like Barcelona
does. Or Man United and Man City for that matter. This way, if the wide players have the ability to run as well,
its much easier to control the opponent, to put pressure on the ball early and to play with forward pressure,
I believe this was done because our defensive line was not that strong. We didnt have Strootman nor Nigel de
Jong in those days and Sneijder, Van Persie and Robben were not yet as good and confident as they are now.
We need to play our strongest defenders and that could mean Douglas. But, as I always say: the best way to
keep pressure off your back four is by attacking!
Coaches use the 4-2-3-1 system to avoid risk, but with two defensive midfielders you lack a creative player
and your team will fall apart in two sides. You cant make triangles and its essential to have triangles to play
good positioning play.
If our build up is slow, the effectiveness of our creative forwards will decrease significantly. Van Persie got a
lot of criticism last World Cup, and I believe it was because we played to defensively and passively. We
became a counter team. Our best players are up front though. They need the ball and they need it quick. I love
that fact. All nations would love to have our problem, even Germany, Italy, Spain and England. Spain has
sensational midfielders but could use a Huntelaar or Van Persie. I believe we need to play our strongest team,
with the best players. We need to field one holding midfielder and we can field one who can play football too!
And take the game to the opponent. Relentlessly.
Fluidity
As Cruyff says, it is a double edged sword to play with two holding midfielders. Most problems with
formations can be solved with fluidity of the team. When teams are too static then they really are limited to their
positions within that formation. Say a 4-2-3-1 had a double pivot holding midfield, with that fluidity in midfield
your 4-2-3-1 can turn into a 4-3-3 in attack and maybe even a 3-4-3 if the now single holding midfielder decides
to drop between the two center backs. It is a lot of transitioning in the teams positioning and needs to be done
quickly and intelligently to work, but it could solve the problems any formation has by being more fluid. If you
lose the ball you can press cause you are in a sort of 4-3-3 formation now anyway. If you cant win the ball
back immediately by pressing then your holding midfielder that moved forward can now drop back next to your
second holding midfielder and your team can defend in a 4-2-3-1. Most problems can be solved with intelligent
movement and fluidity, it is when teams become too static that they start having these sort of positional
problems that Holland was having. Being too static can slow down ball circulation and make your team become
very predictable.
Attacking or Defensive formations?
One thing everyone should remember is that no formation is more attacking or defensive than the other. In
the end what decides that is the attitude of the players you have. Barcelona play a 4-6-0 and everyone agrees
that they are a very aggressive and offensive team. Scotland played a 4-6-0 and sat very deep and defended.
Roma played a 4-6-0 with Totti as a False 9 and played counter attacking football! Ultimately it is you and
your players attitude on and off the ball that decides whether or not you have an attacking team or a defensive
team, not just their positioning in a formation on the field, even though some formations may have more players
positioned defensively than others.