There are teams that have tried a 4-6-0 formation?

[JJohns]

I was reading up on Wikipedia on team formations (not always the most trusted site of course, but found this one interesting).

Quote from Wikipedia on 4-6-0 formation:

A highly unconventional formation, the 4–6–0 is an evolution of the 4–2–3–1 in which the centre forward is exchanged for a player who normally plays as a trequartista (that is, in the 'hole'). Suggested as a possible formation for the future of football,[19] the formation sacrifices an out-and-out striker for the tactical advantage of a mobile front four attacking from a position that the opposition defenders cannot mark without being pulled out of position.[20] Owing to the intelligence and pace required by the front four attackers to create and attack any space left by the opposition defenders, however, the formation requires a very skillful and well-drilled front four. Due to these high requirements from the attackers, and the novelty of playing without a proper goalscorer, the formation has been adopted by very few teams, and rarely consistently. As with the development of many formations, the origins and originators are uncertain, but arguably the first reference to a professional team adopting a similar formation is Anghel Iordănescu's Romania in the 1994 World Cup Round of 16, when Romania won 3–2 against Argentina.[21][22] The first team to adopt the formation systematically was Luciano Spalletti's Roma side during the 2005–06 Serie A season, mostly out of necessity as his "strikerless" formation,[23] and then notably by Alex Ferguson's Manchester United side in the 2007–08 Premier League season (who won the Premier League and Champions League that season).[24] the formation was unsuccessfully used by Craig Levein's Scotland vs Czech Republic to wide spread condemnation.[25] Recently, South Korea has rigorously tried the strikerless-4-6-0-formation since their new head coach, Cho Kwang-Rae arrived in Autumn, 2010.

Could you even imagine Spurs playing a 4-6-0?

[rossdfc]

Yeah, Scotland did against Czech Republic recently, still lost

Stupid formation, it doesn't give you any opportunity to hold the ball up so you end up defending in your own box for 90 minutes and against any decent team you'll be punished for that.

The best defensive formation is 4-5-1 because you can still play with 10 men behind the ball, but with someone to clear it to upfield when you do win the ball.

[deejbah]

4-6-0 is not necessarily a defensive formation though. You can argue that successful teams have used it, eg. Barcelona have no real out and out striker and prefer to sit three or four across the defensive line and play through balls or triangles through a disjointed line as the forwards pull their player out of position. The reasons for not adopting it as an attacking formation are outlined in the wikipedia post - it takes a lot of coordination, skill and interchangeability between players, which many teams don't have.

[Iconic Drei]

Yeah, Scotland did against Czech Republic recently, still lost

Is this where Scotland's manager provided a terrible post match interview by getting angry and not answering any of the questions?

[Robbie_B]

Well Australia used this formation against Germany in their first world cup match, failed miserably, lost 4-0 as well.

[rudi]

Sctland played a 5-5-0 though, didn't they? Now that IS a defensive formation...

[T.K. Massive]

im prettyu sure i read somehwhere that some of the original line ups were 5-6-0, and that the systems was still being used before they brought in the offside (and updated) offside rule.

[Rev John Ripsher]

Spurs played a 4-4 defence last season sometimes it would change into 5-4 , the midfield were VERY mobile though but it WAS so good to see so many players behind the ball against the better teams , the key to our 4TH place methinks ?

[rudi]

im prettyu sure i read somehwhere that some of the original line ups were 5-6-0, and that the systems was still being used before they brought in the offside (and updated) offside rule.

Nah, the early line-ups were very heavy in the forward line; the most popular was the 2-3-5, I kid you not.

[rossdfc]

Is this where Scotland's manager provided a terrible post match interview by getting angry and not answering any of the questions?

Yeah - he always tries to be a complete smart arse in interviews, embarrassing really.

Sctland played a 5-5-0 though, didn't they? Now that IS a defensive formation...

Nah it was 4-6-0...either way though, still shocking.

[stroud_jm]

Nah, the early line-ups were very heavy in the forward line; the most popular was the 2-3-5, I kid you not.

Yep, according to Jonathan Wilson, when England played Scotland in the first ever international in 1872, England played a 1-2-7 against Scotland's cynical, stodgy 2-2-6.

We think of the 4-4-2 as a time-honored formation, but those old inverted pyramid formations survived much longer.

RE: United's strikerless formation: as mentioned above, it was by no means defensive- it was conceived as the only way to accommodate Rooney, Ronaldo, and Tevez, none of whom are pure number 9s, in the same XI.

[edmonds44]

im prettyu sure i read somehwhere that some of the original line ups were 5-6-0, and that the systems was still being used before they brought in the offside (and updated) offside rule.

playing without a goal keeper is pretty brave if you ask me

[Rev John Ripsher]

Within the history of football , anything other than 2-3-5 is relatively new .

[luminoir]

Roma played 4-6-0 2 seasons ago. I did propose a 4-6-0 for us since our strikers were so Shi+ replacing them with krancjar vdv sandro bale Lennon & hudd as the 6

[alex3]

barca kind off play 4-6-0
with messi up top coming deep