Prove me wrong, /sp/

Is 4-6-0 a stupid way of saying a real formation, or do you really think 4 CMs between wide midfielders is a good idea?

>>74286126
I'll give you a (You) because you put effort into making OC

>>74286126
4 defenders
6 midfielders
0 attackers

What could possibly go wrong

>>74286399
CM-CM
Inside forward - Shadow Striker - Trequartista -Inside forward

File: 0324 - 2kjbD4s.jpg (3KB, 113x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 113x125px

>>74286126
>Inside forward - Shadow Striker - Trequartista -Inside forward

File: fedora.jpg (55KB, 332x396px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 332x396px

>>74286126
>false 9

>>74286126
>implying the formation determines your tactics and how you play
kek

>>74286791
This so much. All that really matters is 2 or 3 central defenders, how wide your wingers play and whether your mid fielder's hold or roam. Everything else is just fluff and more down to the player quality than any managerial nous.

>>74286791
>>74286833
You both have no understanding of tactical football.

There's a reason Chelsea only became GOAT this season after they changed formation.

>>74286399
Craig Levein did

If you dominate the midfield you dominate the game.

Prove me wrong

>>74286883
you cant dominate the midfield if there is no midfield

>>74286883
well obviously

but that doesn't mean you win games.

lmao these things are killing me

t. neuroscience major

There is literally no difference between 4-1-3-2 and 4-3-1-2.

>>74286883
>89% possesion
>0 goals

>>74286126
The single most funny thing about those threads is that they imply that you actually know shit about tactics just for choosing the most superficial and hollow part of a system. You're like journalists. ExpoPep would treat you like retarded babbies, just like he did with the media in Spain

>>74286562
Thanks, Aquafresh

>>74286622
Kek