what is the best formation 4-4-2 or 3-5-2?

Answer 1

It all is relative to the talent of the opposing team, as well as the talent level of your own. If you have three highly capable backs you can run the 3-5-2, if you are a little shaky in the back you can drop to a 4-4-2 or even a 4-5-1. If you're playing a team with a super-powerful offense you may consider dropping a central midfielder into a zone defensive scheme, thus creating a pseudo-4-4-2

If you're blessed to be playing with a good defense and against a team that is not as talented you can play in either the 3-5-2 and really pressure their defense, or if you want to go all out press into a 3-4-3. Oftentimes you'll see Barcelona switch to a 3-4-3 for short stints (whether due to Ronaldinho being winded and not recovering to the defensive end or a tactical change).

In conclusion you can't simply pick a formation and live with it. Formations should be changed often based upon personnel as well as opposing talent.
Solid backs, better midfielders than forwards? Play the 3-5-2.
Shaky defense? Drop the extra guy back and play a 4-4-2.
Got a super quick forward, shaky defense, great midfield? 4-5-1.
Great defense, good midfield, powerful forwards? 3-4-3

Answer 2

Well, it's an interesting one. The obvious answer is 4-4-2 because 3-5-2 is ATROCIOUS.

But 3-5-2 has its merits. It can NEVER work away from home because there needs to be a safe, assured back four. The most important thing away from home is staying solid and with three 'centre'backs there's always gonna be confusion. At home against mediocre opposition 3-5-2 can be clever. You play three at the back, reasonably spaced out so they don't get in each other's way but also narrow enough so the left and right sided centrebacks do not become fullbacks. That should be the job of a superfit holding defensive midfielder like Owen Hargreaves or, at a push, Michael Carrick.

What I'm getting at it that against Macedonia at home England should've played 3-1-4-2. Then the '1', Michael Carrick, can mop up if there's a Macedonia attack down either flank. He becomes a makeshift left and right back. Then that frees up the wingers to almost constantly attack. Wingbacks never work because they're splitting important duties in half. They become ineffective in both respects, poor outlets on the wings attacking and not being able to defend fully.

The other option, which was talked about, is to play 3-5-2 but have Wright-Phillips on the right and Ashley Cole on the left. Wright-Phillips is naturally attacking and Cole is a defender so it makes the team slightly lop-sided but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some of the greatest teams have often had a flying winger on one side but a more restrained one-sided midfielder (or a central midfielder played wide) on the other. Also, with this approach, and Gary Neville as the right-sided centreback, it's incredibly simple to revert back to 4-4-2 if things aren't going well. It's like you turn the defence and midfield 45° anti-clockwise and the rhombus becomes a square and 4-4-2 is restored.

Answer 3

4-4-2 is the better formation to play because it gives the team more shape and more of a solid back line. When playing 3-5-2 it is easy for the 2 wing backs to venture too far forward and get caught on the break leaving the back 3 wide open to a big attack. When playing 3-5-2 the team needs 2 quality wing back that are pacey and can defend like Ashley Cole or Pascal Chimbonda, but these palyers are very hard to find. A 4-4-2 system is used in games from a very early age and most if not all youngsters grow up playing 4-4-2 and know the system very well, so it is really difficult to try and get them to play a different system

Answer 4

3-5-2
Put very simply, you have to control the midfield.
People forget that 3-5-2 isn't what it seems on paper.
Most of the time it is 3-1-3-1-2.
Defenders are specialised and work as a unit.
Strikers are specialised.
You need 3 midfielders to control the centre.
That leaves 1 sweeper at the back who can shore up the defence or move into midfield. And one forward sweeper.
This leaves room for 2 talented players who may win the game for you, but would not fit in to a rigid 4-4-2 formation where your role is structured.
Most coaches however rabidly disagree with me, tough.

Answer 5

4-4-2

Answer 6

I'd go 4-4-2, to often 3-5-2 can lead to your full backs sitting to deep and the formation becoming 5-3-2, to defensive for me.

Answer 7

4-4-2

Answer 8

4-4-2.

Answer 9

it depends on the team your playing. but 4-4-2 is the most common formation.

Answer 10

4-2-2 ANY DOUBT, but you have to have a sufficient attack and 2 defenders that go forward to increase pressing on the other team.

Lizarazu and Thuram were crack at this Job ! And France always secured their result against big Teams (Brazil, Italy) this way....
In PREMIERSHIP, particulary appreciate L'POOL Rise or Asley Cole lateral job the goals coming mainly from the sides of the pitch.

3-5-2 can be used to increase midfield presence in matches where it's gonna the key sector (but you ned the players to paly this sheme & have them used to it, otherwise it's worth avoiding)