Formation - definitely 4-3-3/4-5-1

[pauld]

This quote from Matt Ritchie's interview in today's Adver

The formation helps me. It’s a 4-3-3, but a 4-5-1 when we are defending, so there is a bit of a licence to get forward when we’ve got the ball.

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/8468458.Striking_it_Ritch_/?ref=rss

Can we put that one to bed now?

[Benzel]

People were still arguing? Everyone knows that's what 4-3-3 does... surely?

[Arriba]

People were still arguing? Everyone knows that's what 4-3-3 does... surely?

exactly.2 will drop back leaving 1 up when defending.a 4,4,2 formation often becomes this too.

[pauld]

People were still arguing? Everyone knows that's what 4-3-3 does... surely?

Apparently not.

[A Gent Orange]

It does, unless your foward line is Robinho, Ronaldinho and Ibramhovic as it is at AC Milan and not one of them will drop back/defend/run.

But is playas they have Super Pippo Inzaghi to come off the bench.

[OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR]

I'm no good with formations - the fuckers keep running around.

A front three of Ball, Austin and Ritchie could cause a few problems I would think

[DV]

So, its a 4-5-1 giving the wingers license to go forward due to the extra man in midfield.

[herthab]

So, its a 4-5-1 giving the wingers license to go forward due to the extra man in midfield.

Let it go for fuck sake!

[RobertT]

So, its a 4-5-1 giving the wingers license to go forward due to the extra man in midfield.

It's a 4-3-3 if the starting position is that your focus is on being involved in the attack but mindful of backing up when necessary.  4-5-1 would suggest your first thought is to be held back in midfield.  Personally I think we should call it a 4-3-2-1 in true FM fashion, everyone understand's their formations this way now.

[pauld]

Can we not call it a Christmas tree formation? I like to think of Ritchie and Ball as baubles with tinselly bits