Determining the Best Lineup Formation for Controlling the Field
/By Sam Goldberg
From video games, to board games, to athletic competitions, having a well thought out strategy is vital to winning a game. In soccer, a major part of this pre-game strategy is deciding upon the formation, shape, and structure for a team to play. A variety of different factors would persuade a coach to structure their team into different offensive and defensive structures on a game to game basis. Some of these factors include, but are certainly not limited to: strength of squad, opposition strengths, squad availability, perceived space available, and more. Moreover, formations often are fluid and can change at half time or during the game based on a coaches instruction.
This article will analyze certain formations and shapes that are more spatially beneficial to offensive teams than defensive teams, and vice versa, and will be validated through both original metrics and metrics already used within the field.
Methodology
In order to measure advantages in space, a variation of Pitch Control was used. So what is Pitch Control? In short, Pitch Control calculates each player’s time to a given space, given their current run trajectory, and assuming the ball is already present at the location. From this, those times are put through an algorithm that calculates the probability that either team will retain possession of the ball. For an in depth analysis, check out Will Spearman’s masterclass on it.
In order to evaluate formations, however, it is impossible to analyze a player’s current run trajectory, as the players are not moving. Thus, the new algorithm assumes each player’s current run trajectory is non-existent, or in other words, they’re standing still and do not have to slow down and shift their body to change directions. This idea comes from the simplicity of a coach’s whiteboard in planning formations. Before games, most coaches will get together with their staff and plan out the formation and personnel they will use for that week. Here is a great example of one of the world’s best, Pep Guardiola running through what was just discussed.
nycfc’s number one fan, pictured here in his natural habitat.
This process aims to quantify the sentiments and planning that Pep, and many other managers go through on a week by week basis.
Because Pitch Control is on a 0-1 scale, it is possible to identify the total percent of the pitch that a team controls in a formation, playing against a different formation. Furthermore, we can identify the percent of the pitch controlled in other parts of the pitch, such as the defensive third, middle third, attacking third, the wings, the half space, or any other pertinent space that a coach decides is relevant.
Gathering Data
While it is easy to think about the main formations off the top of one’s head, actually thinking about the intricacies and variations of each different formation seemed to be much more difficult. Thankfully, the FIFA Ultimate Team Database provides a list of different formations available in the game. After analysing the list to see if it was up to snuff, it appeared that 49 different and unique formations would be useful for this analysis, as it would result in 2,352 different formational matchups that could be analyzed.
Once the formations were collected, simulated tracking data needed to be created in order to represent these formations in a concrete way. Using the images provided by the FIFA database, combined with a few hours of good old fashioned hard coding, simulated formational tracking data was born! After these steps, it became possible to actually calculate the percent of the pitch controlled for each formational matchup!
You, the reader, yes you, can find the csv of simulated tracking data here.
Results
The results process is structured in two different ways: unique matchup strengths and weaknesses and overall formation strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, these two different ways of analyzing the results will be broken down by location as well.
Matchups
The formational matchup which yielded the most overall pitch control to the attacking team was a 4-3-3 (False 9-Attacking Oriented) playing against a 5-4-1 with a diamond midfield shape. This formational matchup saw the attacking team control nearly 65% of the pitch. The formation matchup that yielded the most defensive pitch control was a generic 5-2-3 playing against a flat 4-4-2. This matchup saw the defensive team control 99.3% of the defensive third. The formational matchup that yielded the greatest attacking pitch control was a three way tie between each 4-3-3 False 9 variation against a 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield. The 4-3-3 dominated across the board.
Formations - Overall
Each variation of the 4-3-3, and specifically the false nine variations, took the overall spots in pitch control. This is due to the ability for the wingers to get in behind the back line of most three and four back formation variations. Visually, large sectors of space for players to run into are apparent in both the midfield, down the wings, and in between the two opposite center backs, represented below by green circles.
The counter argument on the space available to this formation is that the two outside backs on the defensive team do not have to play as high. This assertion is a real concern, however, in this experiment, every formation’s defense is standardized, with the outside backs always playing higher than the center backs and both position groups always maintaining the same xy coordinates, unless affected by the formation being played. The two outside backs could theoretically be marked flatter and more in line with the centerbacks, as well as more narrow to protect more of the wing space. Even if done correctly, the outside backs then give up the space to run from the midfield into the attacking third. The difference is illustrated in the images below.
The flatter, more narrow, and more defensive minded back four in a 4-4-2 actually performs spatially better against the 4-3-3 than the traditional 4-4-2 with more traditional outside back locations. The more traditional backline in the 4-4-2 controls only 42.7 % of the pitch against the 4-3-3 False 9 Formation, while the defensive oriented, flat and more narrow backline controls 45.7% of the field, an increase in pitch control of 3%.
Formations that owned the most space in the midfield included a 5-2-3, 4-4-2, 4-2-4, and 4-4-1-1, controlling a range of 56% to 58% of the midfield. Defensively, there were no real surprises, with a 5-4-1, 5-3-2, and a 5-2-1-2 making up the top 3 and controlling a range of 90% to 92% of the defensive third.
General Themes
Throughout this process, some general themes emerged that can be applied to game planning in soccer. One of these themes is that wider formations tend to control more space than narrow formations. This spatial control is due to the ability of the wide players to come inside and control the half space, while also controlling the space between them and the sidelines. In a narrow formation, players clog up the midfield more, as it is a smaller, more square shape area. This creates more 50/50 space in the midfield, and leaves the wings to the opposition to take control of.
Another theme that is present is staggered positioning within a formation is more beneficial than flat positioning. For example, a 4-4-2 with a staggered and more wide midfield performs better than a traditional 4-4-2 with a flat midfield playing along the same line. This type of staggered spacing promotes a larger area of possible space that is controllable and thus more overall pitch control.
Next Steps
There are a variety of different ways to continue to analyze formations with pitch control. One aspect that can be analyzed is identifying unique offensive and defensive specific formations. For example, if the defensive midfielder drops into the space to receive the ball which in turn pushes the outside backs further to the wings, does that increase or decrease the overall Pitch Control? This process can be used to measure a team’s strategy week in and week out to determine which offensive formations to play against the most probable defensive formation of the opposition.
Another interesting project to undertake would be to determine if controlling more space actually leads to a better chance of victory. This process would see a sample taken from every second of the game, and the Pitch Control calculated from that second. From this, the average Pitch Control can be taken from the whole game, the first fifteen minutes, or any other time interval for that matter.
Conclusion
Occupying more space on the field is a unique way to analyze a team’s formational advantages throughout a game. Pitch Control provides an objective, data-driven way to determine the percentage of space on the field that each team controls in their respective formations, allowing for data-driven planning and execution week in and week out.
Finally, more space is undoubtedly equal to more time, which is undoubtedly correlated with better decision making. Making sure that your team is set up week in and week out to make these decisions will undoubtedly help each player in the long term.