For an American high school soccer team, what do you think would work better, a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3...

For an American high school soccer team, what do you think would work better, a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3? Me and the other captain of our team think a 4-3-3 would work better but our coach has had a boner for 4-4-2 since the 1760s.

Attached: 02665ABB-715B-4C53-B4B4-118D3FF2DD5B.png (2000x2749, 55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

worldsoccer.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

kys

If you have pacy wingers willing to come back and defend, go for 433

>playing any other formation than 442

Attached: Sam-Allardyce-Blackburn-R-001.jpg (460x276, 21K)

It depends of the quality of the midfield and the wingers...

4-3-3 you use as said... good wingers willing to come back all the time (aim for 4-1-2-3 if one of them is kinda shitty and doesn't want to come back so one of the midfielders can cover for him).

4-4-2 is pretty solid if your wingers can't do shit but you have to have an excelent nigger on the front 2 and a non-retard midfield.

4 4 2 Big man little man

we tried 3-4-3 once and it didn't work too well

My team played 5-3-2

WB CB CB CB WB
DM DM
AM
ST ST

We just crowded our box when we lost the ball and 2 DMs helped us win possession back quick.

Everyone in our inital group sucked but we got dabbed on when we progressed further in the tournament.

I think 4-5-1 is best for low standard of football. Less chance of fucking things up. Extra man in midfield makes it much easier to defend.

Do what the coach decides to do and do your best.

>Me and the other captain of our team

someone should ban this underage cunt

3142 with overlapping centerbacks

4-2-3-1

This is probably the limit for high school boys.

How good are the central midfielders? the 2 would have to be really good to occupy all that space by themselves.

Your coach must know the team's position affinities and then build a setup around it.
Also
>soccer
This is why you'll never be a Football country

>not playing the Plum Pudding

>not playing the 5-3-2

>not playing a 4-1-4-1 that morphs into a 3-3-1-3 when attacking, using the rotations in midfield to help create overloads and provide passing options

1-1-8

If you've got talented wingers, play 4-3-3
Good creative centre midfielders, play 4-2-3-1, but try and make sure you're lone striker has a bit of pace or physicality to him, otherwise he'll just be marked out the game.
If you're team is overall lacking 4-4-2 is the easiest to get right, it's also the best if you play simple crossing football which is perticulary effecting at a low level.
Don't go near a 3 back at a amateurs level, you're defense won't have a clue what it's doing

More english speaking countries say soccer than those that say football because we all have our own domestic football codes

The whole world is an English speaking country and nearly everyone says football

>asking tactical advise on Yea Forums
Yikes... Poor players..

We played a 3-5-2. Two very hard working DMs covering and the left wingback being more attack minded.

4-4-2 diamond best formation to dab on shitters, just need a good latch

Just use the 5-3-2 and counter, get the most technical and fast players upfront, the players with most stamina in midfield to press constantly, and wingbacks just be good at crossing then counter and do early crosses and through balls to the pacy forwards

Quit playing, you are american

442 diamond is the goat formation

The only english speaking people that call it and solely it football are mouth breathing gutter scum plebian chav mongs.

you call it soccer too when you talk to the world
worldsoccer.com/

4-1-2-1-2 BAYOL, op

how the fuck are we supposed to know if we don't know what the players are good at?
4-4-2 is probably your best bet, it's not exactly going to be rigid anyway if it's an amerifat school team since they're all going to spend the game shooting

>5 man backline
>2 DMs on top of that
cringe desu

You have been visited by Vixen Dyatlov.

This thread is currently reading 32 replies (not great, not terrible).

Attached: Laura.jpg (1275x637, 107K)