What will be pros cons of the 4-1-3-2 formation?

So, here we are! back to formation analysis.

The 4-1-3-2 formation is much like the 4-2-3-1 formation but more offensive, having only one defensive midfielder and one extra centre forward.

or for better view!

It’s technically similar to 4–4–2 (The diamond), or 4–3–1–2 or 4–1–2–1–2. But there is a slight difference and that is, it’s a more attacking formation compared to either one of em.

How? How this formation actually works practically?

It gives sides a greater presence in the middle third, allowing opportunities to be created a little deeper. It still offers two strikers who can make runs into the channels for a delivery into the box or to play more centrally and combine. The holding midfield player gives support to the back 4 if the ball does change hands.

When losing possession we can now see how the system changes into a much more defensive style. The formation may revert into a 4-4-1-1 with the three attacking players dropping deeper making a flat midfield 4. One of the strikers also drops off stopping any passing lanes into midfield and sweeping across the higher-middle third.

Well this is one of way it can be used!

Most remarkably! This formation was the key in England’s defeat against Croatia in Euro 2008 Qualifiers by 2–0 and 3–2 scorelines.

Used by Croatia under Manager Slaven Bilic to beat England 2-0 and 3-2, as they used this formation with a strong holding midfield player Djario Srna and an fast central midfielders Luka Modric and Niko Kovac that, both advance towards the opponent s third and apply pressure when the team loses possession. Having fast wingbacks is nice - if they re slower, they shouldn’t be advancing and joining in the attack.

Only one defensive midfield means the formation is relatively weak against formations with advancing midfielders and/or 3 attackers.

The center midfield players play fairly narrow, so flanks can be more easily exposed.

Basically this formation is attacking 4-2-3-1 whereas instead of one holding midfield, an second striker was added.

For those that wonder, there is a difference between 4-1-3-2 and 4-3-1-2 in the execution, regardless that they look pretty much the same on paper. Both of these formations are also called Diamond 4-4-2, although strictly, that formation would be 4-1-2-1-2, however in that rigid sense, none of the teams play it today.

Deep Analysis:

4-1-3-2 is an open attacking formation, it’s also a 5-5 formation, meaning five players are tasked for defending and five players will be caught in the offense and can often fall against a quick counter from the opposition happen, as such this formation is risky and not as solid as 4-3-1-2.

The midfield here is spread in two different zones, with the somewhat large gap in between not covered by anyone.

See the two very large wide gaps!

There’s a single defensive midfield, that is tasked to break opposition counters, but in today’s game, that usually feels insufficient against teams playing an advancing midfield plus one of the midfield from the double-pivot attacking, clearly creating 1vs2 in that position. The other three midfields are playing higher up, supporting the two strikers. These are either an advancing midfielder plus two side midfielders, or three advancing midfielders playing narrow.

The style of these is largely dependent on the attacking prowess and fitness of the fullbacks and obviously what the manager has at hand.

Very rarely these trio is tasked to track back, instead, they are to press high up and try to win the ball and punish the opposition quickly.

The attackers should be well at receiving and finishing. It’s also common that one of these will drift to one of the sides, trying to create an overload with one of the offensive midfielders.

This formation is best played by teams that have a good ball possession abilities and can hold on the ball under pressure, since the midfield is split to two parts and one is not directly contributing to defense, it is not a good formation for defending and counter attacking.

If we are to compare it versus 4-3-1-2, the obvious difference is in the midfield - the trio in 4312 play more alike the 4-3-3, creating a natural triangle and covering more space, with a single advancing midfielder pushed higher up behind the strikers. This provides more stability and control in the midfield, promoting better ball possession but pushing out less support towards the strikers. Once again, usually one of the strikers will look to drag the defenders wide and out of position and to set up the goal scoring situation for the other.

Both of these formations are fairly narrow, with only 4-1-3-2 with side midfielders pushed out on flanks somewhat providing the width of a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 but risking giving away acres of unmanned space in the midfield to the opposition.

A good counter-formation for 4-1-3-2 is 4-3-2-1 with either the two being pushed as side midfielders or playing more narrow, as an advancing midfielders. Pressing and quickly closing down is imperative since the 4-1-3-2 usually have 5 players attacking, so all the midfielders should tuck to provide the two defensive banks, and attack through counters.

A good counter to 4-3-1-2 is a simple and narrow 4-2-3-1.

In this formation the midfield allows many playmakers playing together and supporting the two strikers. The strikers usually compliment each other, one can hold the ball well and pass while the other plays higher and is a well reciever and good finisher.

The defense is guarded by a single defensive-minded midfielder. The fullbacks can either press up the field, as a more attacking version, or stay behind. Wingbacks can be used instead of fullbacks for even more powerful variant of the formation, in which case, the three frontal midfielders play much narrower.

The formation can be countered by heavily overloading the flanks, or pushing two mids/forwards playing in the hole forcing one of the other midfielders (in Croatia s case, their best playmaker Modric) to drop down deep and help the defensive mid and thus diminish the attacking power of the formation.

Other examples of use of 4–1–3–2 formation:

Manchester City’s 4-1-3-2:

Under Roberto Mancini in 2011–12 season then Manchester City line-up was used to play under the similar setup, as many successful Italian sides at that time used, more a 4-1-3-2 or a 4-4-2.

The existence of so many play making midfielders has forced his hand in much of the decision for a 4-1-3-2. Gareth Barry will play the holding role in support of Yaya Toure, Samir Nasri and David Silva. Their attack is typically a two striker package of Sergio Aguero and Edin Dzeko or Mario Balotelli that has torn most English Premier League defenses to shreds in that particular season.

Despite an early exit from the UEFA Champions League, City managed to win the Barclays Premier League on goal difference from Manchester United.

Sporting Benfica’s 4-1-3-2:

Sporting Benfica of the Portuguese Liga went to the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12 season using the similar setup against Zenit St Petersburg.

A strong 4-1-3-2 has helped Benfica attack their way to success both domestically and in Europe. Their veteran three attackers Javier Saviola, Oscar Cordozo and central attacking midfielder Pablo Aimar are supported by the skillful contingent of Axel Witsel, Javi Garcia and Nolito who were in top form. As they finished 2nd in Portuguese Premiera Liga next to the winners FC Porto winning a domestic title.

Conclusion:

To make this formation work, one needs skilled and versatile midfielders as they need to switch the formation when they aren’t having the possession of the ball. Or some other tactical approach the large gap in the mid-field gives a great opportunity to dominate by nullifying the defensive mid player either by man marking or a quick counter attack by creating 2 vs 1 in that position.

But in attack, this formation is great as it provides a large number of options to win the ball up-front make decent plays and lot of movement and passing options in the final 3.

That’s all for now!

Thanks for reading.

Cheers!