Over the last week, because of the commencement of Nigeria’s 2022 World Cup Qualifiers on the 3rd of September in Lagos against Liberia, three formations that the Super Eagles have used under the tenure of Gernot Rohr (1-4-2-3-1, 1-4-4-2, and 1-3-5-2) have been analysed.
In today’s write-up, the formations will be compared against one another and the best formation for the Super Eagles will be decided.
The comparison will be based on two factors: how well the formation fits the players and how well it fits Nigeria’s tactics.
How Well Does Each Formation Fit Each Player?
To find out how each formation (1-4-2-3-1, 1-4-4-2, and 1-3-5-2) impacts each player, a list of possible call-ups for the Super Eagle’s first international break will be observed.
For each player, there will be a description for how well each formation fits them.
The list is ordered from how well the formation gets the best out of them to how poorly it does in doing so.
Victor Osimhen: has the work-rate, physicality, and movement necessary to succeed in each of the 1-4-2-3-1, 1-4-4-2, and 1-3-5-2. He had an amazing season playing for Lille who used both a 1-4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2. He also has experience playing as a lone striker with his current club, Napoli. The only formation that he has not had massive experience with is a 1-3-5-2, but even then he has shown that he has what it takes to play in a two striker formation.
Kelechi Iheanacho: When analysing how well these three formations will fit his style, it is clear that he is comfortable with each one. In the 1-3-5-2 and 1-4-4-2 he plays as a supporting striker—a role which he can handle because of his adequate level of technique and intelligence. He has done well playing a similar role with Jamie Vardy at Leicester City. In a 1-4-2-3-1, he is also comfortable playing in the whole and providing service to the striker as well as being the creative force in the team.
Paul Onuachu: is doing well at Genk, where he plays as a lone striker in a 1-4-3-3. His strength and height make him an ideal target man. Because of this, he should have no problem in a 1-4-2-3-1. His overall ability as a player and as goal scorer will also make him an asset in the 1-4-4-2 and 1-3-5-2 formations.
Alex Iwobi: Often plays well in a 1-4-4-2. Has the creativity, passing and dribbling to excel as both a wide midfielder and a central attacking midfielder. When he plays wide he tends to drift into the middle of the pitch, so playing as an attacking midfielder in a 1-4-2-3-1 or in a 1-3-5-2 could also suit him as well as being played wide.
Wilfred Ndidi: Has proven to be a versatile player (he has played as a defensive midfielder, central midfielder and centre-back with Leicester City). He will do well in all three of these used Super Eagle’s formations. The 1-3-5-2 and 1-4-2-3-1 will allow him to show the defensive side of his game. The 1-4-4-2 will give him more of an opportunity to contribute to the attack and offer him the some shots at goal from distance.
Peter Etebo: Has the work-rate and ball retention skills to be good in all three of the formations.
Joe Aribo: A versatile and skillful player who will excel either in a double pivot position, as center midfielder, or an attacking midfielder. All three formations would suit him.
Semi Ajayi: Another versatile player who would do well in all formations. He can play either as a centre-back or as a defensive midfielder. Has good pace that would make him affective as one of the outermost center backs in a 1-3-5-2.
Leon Balogun: Good defensively and on the ball and as shown he can do well in any of the formations with the national team.
William Troost-Ekong: A strong defender who is capable of playing any of the formations. As captain, the team needs his leadership.
Ola Aina: Has shown he can play all three formations with the national team. He has also done well with the formations with both at Fulham and Torino
Ovie Ejaria (if called up): Another skillful player who can add creativity from the central midfield. He would do well in any of the three formations. Especially if given freedom to move forward.
Maduka Okoye: As a goalkeeper should be fine in these formations.
Francis Uzoho: He should also be fine in all of these formations as a goalkeeper.
Chidozie Awaziem: An imposing figure who would do well in the four-at-the back formations. He might not be at his best in 1-3-5-2 as he would most likely have to play as an outside centre- back, which does not play to his best attributes. He does not have the passing ability required.
Zaidu Sanusi: Decent in a 1-4-2-3-1 or -1-4-4-2, but his lack of direct play from the flank won’t allow him to be as effective in a 1-3-5-2.
Jamilu Collins: Can do a decent job defensively in all three formations, but is lacking offensively which is a big problem with a 1-3-5-2.
Tyronne Ebuehi: Similar to Collins in that he can do a job defensively, but would not be as effective as normal winger in a 1-3-5-2.
Samuel Chukwueze: As a pacey and tricky winger, any formation where he can play as a flank player will suit him, especially the 1-4-4-2 and 1-4-2-3-1 in the case of the Super Eagles. He is also particularly familiar with the former formation from his time at Villareal. The 1-3-5-2 is a not an option for him because the formation does not include a position for natural wingers.
Henry Onyekuru: As a winger, similarly to Chukwueze, he will be accustomed to any formation that includes a position for a flank player, so both four at the back formations used under Gernot Rohr are good for him. However, once again there is no room for him in a 1-3-5-2 as it is a formation that does not use wingers. He is not good enough defensively to compensate as a wingback.
Moses Simon: Natural and direct flank player, who would do well in the two four-at-the-back formations, but has no position in a 1-3-5-2.
Ademola Lookman (if called up): has shown lots of potential from the wing throughout his career and would do well in a 1-4-4-2 or a 1-4-2-3-1. He is not good enough defensively to play as a wingback in a 1-3-5-2.
Based on observing how well the formations fit the Super Eagles players, it can be said that they are all well-adjusted to both a 1-4-4-2 and a 1-4-2-3-1 as it accommodates everybody and because they are formations that they are familiar with both with the Super Eagles and at club level.
The major issue comes with the 1-3-5-2. It leaves no room for most of the wingers and, as a result, sees at least four players missing from the line-up completely. As for the wingbacks that can be used in the formation, most are okay enough defensively, but are lacking offensively.
When it comes to the three centre-backs, the three of Balogun, Troost-Ekong, and Ajayi can handle the formation, but some of the rotation options might find themselves slightly out of their comfort zones.
In addition, none the centre-backs are left-footed which would have been useful for the position of the left center back in the 1-3-5-2.
How Well Does Each Formation Fit the Team’s Tactics?
Nigeria’s Mixed Direct and Indirect Style of Play
All three of the 1-3-5-2, 1-4-4-2, and 1-4-2-3-1 formations are capable of handling Nigeria’s combined indirect and direct style of play.
When looking at the direct aspect of their style, the 1-3-5-2 and the 1-4-4-2 are the strongest because they are formations with two strikers who can contest for long balls and midfielders who can try to win the second ball.
The 1-4-2-3-1 often leaves the striker isolated so it will make it more difficult to contest for direct balls. Even though he has support from the player in the central attacking midfielder role, it is not the same as another striker that will naturally be closer to him.
When looking to play indirect, it is important to always have a numeric advantage. This allows the team to have more possession of the ball.
SUPER EAGLES AND 1-3-5-2 FORMATION
SUPER EAGLES AND 1-4-2-3-1 FORMATION
SUPER EAGLES AND 1-4-4-2 FORMATION
After observing each formation, it can be said that the 1-4-2-3-1 is best at this for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it allows there to be five midfielders (of which two are outside midfielders).
When compared to the 1-3-5-2, which also allows for a five players to be in midfield, the 1-4-2-3-1’s outside midfielders are usually more technical because they are wingers/midfielders as opposed to wingbacks.
This makes it easier to play indirect. In a 1-4-2-3-1 there is also the option of overlapping full backs which allows for more passing options in wide positions also helps in having a numerical advantage.
The 4-2-3-1 also allows for several passing options as it is similar to a 1-4-3-3.
The 1-4-4-2 is the least effective for possession because it only has 2 central midfielders, with no pivot players like in the 1-3-5-2 and 1-4-2-3-1.
Wing Play
When it comes to Nigeria’s reliance on wing play, the 1-4-2-3-1 formation will be the most effective because it allows for flank players to not only pick the ball up closer to their own goal, but it also allows them to receive the ball in higher and more dangerous positions. This is because of its similarity to a 1-4-3-3.
In a 1-3-5-2 wing backs are naturally positioned further back because of their defensive duties, this is then followed by a the 1-4-4-2 where the flank players are slightly forward, then the 1-4-2-3-1 where the wingers can move further ahead and are sometimes even in line with the striker. This is illustrated below.
Both the 1-4-2-3-1 and the 1-4-4-2 allow the fullbacks to overlap and combine with the wide midfielders which makes wing play more dangerous. This is not possible with the 1-3-5-2 since there is only one player on each flank (the wingbacks).
The 1-3-5-2 becomes even more ineffective because of its lack of wingers. In this formation, players like Moses Simon and Chukwueze would be left out of the team.
This would greatly affect the creative and enterprising play that the Super Eagles aims for.
It would also reduce the impact of the strikers as they won’t receive as much delivery.
Mid-Block
Defensively, all three formations have strengths that make Nigeria’s mid-block effective —with the 1-4-2-3-1 and 1-3-5-2 being standouts.
In terms of the 1-4-2-3-1, Nigeria’s mid-block tactic is aided by the fact that there are two sitting midfielders who are right in front of the backs four.
The fact that there will always be at least one holding midfielder, gives the team a good chance of winning the ball in midfield before it gets to the defenders.
The 1-3-5-2 also includes sitting midfielders.
Other strengths that it has are that there are five players in midfield, and five players on defence when the wingbacks drop.
In the 1-4-4-2, the mid-block is helped by how easy it is to remain organised. However, if the team were stretched, the vertical and horizontal channels are exposed.
Substitutions and Adjusting Formation
So far, the 1-3-5-2 has proven to be effective in terms of Nigeria’s direct play, and their mid- block tactic.
The 1-4-4-2 has proven to also be effective in terms of Nigeria’s direct play. It is also decent, but not the best in terms of wing play, and decent, but not the best when it comes to playing a mid-block. This makes it a bit of jack of all trades, but master of none.
The 1-4-2-3-1 has proven to be the most effective in terms of Nigeria’s indirect play, the most effective when it comes to their wing play and joint most effective when it comes to the mid- block. All of this makes it seem like the best tactical choice so far.
However, what really sets it apart is its fluidity when it comes to making changes on the fly.
As mentioned in one of the previous articles, the 1-4-2-3-1 is similar to both a 1-4-4-2 and a 1-4-3-3.
This makes it possible to change the dynamics of team by having wingers that stay higher up the field or by subbing on a striker for the central attacking midfielder to make it a two striker formation.
It also allows a lot of interchanging and movement. The flank players can come into the half spaces and they can interchange with the striker or central attacking midfielders.
The 1-3-5-2 does not allow for this level of fluidity. Since the flank players are the wingbacks, their defensive responsibility and the amount of players that are already central makes it difficult for them to come into the middle of the pitch.
The 1-4-4-2 is also very rigid as there is a reduced amount of horizontal movement. The strikers can’t easily move across the width of the pitch. And the central midfielders are less likely to move out wide.
Conclusion
Based on analysis from this series of four articles, it can be said that the 1-4-2-3-1 is the best formation for the Super Eagles.
It allows for the accommodation of the best players, so it is a formation that will allow the players to be at their best.
And tactically, it is effective offensively. It is effective in terms of the indirect aspect of their mixed indirect and direct style of play and their wing play.
It is also effective defensively as it allows them to have a solid mid-block tactic.
Its fluidity also makes it the best option because it will allow Gernot Rohr to be more dynamic with his tactics during a match.
The 1-4-4-2 is second best because it is decent at most aspects (formation fitting the players and also how well it accommodates tactics). However, it is not consistently the best in these aspects.
The 1-3-5-2 is the most flawed because while good defensively and for a direct style, it does not allow Nigeria’s best players to play on the wings, therefore reducing their wing play tactics.
It also does not allow most of the fullbacks/wingbacks to be at their most comfortable because they have to do more offensive tasks than their ability allows.