This is something that has cropped up in many a misguided tactical discussion since Guardiola's now-legendary Barcelona side beat Manchester United 2-0 in the Champions League 2009, and intensified in some quarters since Manchester City appointed Txiki Begiristain as director of football. The basic idea is that if a team plays 4-3-3 'like Barcelona' (they only kind of do themselves) then the quality of attacking football would improve. Of course, these tacticians would also posit the limitations of a 4-4-2, the overly-defensive 4-2-3-1 and such, maybe even throwing around words like 'catenaccio' to sound more credible but without actually understanding what it means. In reality, the formation depends entirely on the players that the manager has at his disposal. For instance, a midfield trio of Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta is perfectly balanced and more capable of out-passing opposition teams than, say, Carrick (as seriously good as he is), Cleverley and Anderson of my beloved Manchester United. Former Real boss Jose Mourinho is often criticised for being anti-football because of the ostensibly defensive 4-2-3-1 he likes to employ. In fairness to those detractors, their claims are occasionally vindicated, as in some of the Clásicos of recent seasons. However, such criticism also fails to take into account that in most games, Real had their two centre-halves sitting on the half-way line, while everyone else bar the 'keeper would be in and around the opposition box, with Xabi Alonso and Sami Khedira on hand to mop up blocked shots and clearances and send them back into the fray. So, before you suggest a formation change to your mates, or post that comment on your favourite football forum or site, remember: are these players really capable of adapting to a new system, or would the team need a new player (or players) to accommodate this formation?