The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That looks really good, I'll read all that. thanks.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Man City, when they played 4-4-2 with Roberto Mancini? Or United playing 4-4-2 under Sir Alex? They were attacking, dominant teams, not counter-attacking teams.
4-4-2 or variations of it, (4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 diamond) came back in a big in La Liga and Serie A, Real won CL's playing a 4-4-2 diamond, Barca won the league playing 4-4-2, Simeone has regularly played it with Atleti, again, winning a title and getting to two CL finals.
It's possible to be successful with it but it can't be rigid when attacking and the two wide players have to come inside and be quite narrow when defending because it'd just be three v two the entire time, plus the number 10 has to drop in to help out.
We don't have enough good wide options or a proper number 10 type player at the moment, James Maddison would be perfect for that role IMO, and of course, we'd need a proper right-winger.
I always thought United should go back to the 4-4-2. Now they've sold Lukaku, neither Martial or Rashford are lone strikers. They should play them together in a two, James on the left side, Pogba and Matic in midfield with Dalot on the right. Could work.
comment by (U22236)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Man City, when they played 4-4-2 with Roberto Mancini? Or United playing 4-4-2 under Sir Alex? They were attacking, dominant teams, not counter-attacking teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think if you have two outstanding central midfielders and wide players it can work. Fergie had to change it when teams began playing with a three. When your lover went to Chelsea for example.
Depends how you want to play really. Some teams who are defensive can get away with two banks of four but when Fergie was doing it, that's not how they played.
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
Formations are just graphics on a board tbh.
It changes with and without the ball, what area of the pitch you press and how, whether your winning or losing and so on.
There is no reason you cant go to 4-4-2 when you have the ball. Liverpool did it a few times last season with Salah coming very central and in the final third it was pretty much an orthodox 442. Without the ball a deep 433.
What's more important is players.
All comes down to what players are at your disposal and what club you are at. The Top 6 all have expectations to play attractive football these days, so it's almost mandatory to have a midfield 3 nowadays for them sides as that is what suits that system best.
4-4-2 does still work I think in a lot of games. I think because so many teams only play with 1 out-and-out striker these days, defenders are used to setting up against that. So you will always have 1 man marker (the best of the usual 2 CB's) and one covering who maybe isn't as good a man marker or is better at covering. So having that extra striker against the defender who is used to covering can work as an advantage as it can be a weakness in a sense. But you've got to have the right players to do it.
Burnley are a prime example. Front 2 cause problems for opposition defenders because of their movement and physicality and ability to stretch both CB's, 2 hard working midfielders in behind them with wide players who work up and down tirelessly and are capable of putting good balls into the box. The full backs work similarly to the wingers, up and down constantly with a complementary CB partnership of Tarkowski and Mee who do the basics correctly.
As said then, I'd say 4-4-2 is very basic, but football is a simple game really. But obviously playing the way Burnley do, it just wouldn't work at a Top 6 club because it doesn't suit the players or meet the expectation of fans nowadays.
comment by (U22236)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes he did. In fact the last title he won he played 4-2-3-1. RVP as the main striker with Rooney, Valencia and Nani/Young in behind him and Carrick and Cleverley/Anderson behind them. But as Robbing said, it could easily change to 4-4-2 during the game depending on possession. Still does for many teams, including City and Liverpool.
If you know how to attack, and have a strong midfield pairing, then yes.
The problem is players seem to be coached into specific roles these days. Wingers aren't required to defend in their own third, you have holding, attacking or playmaking midfielders etc
Im sure 442 can be successful, formations are not as important as tactical instruction and the players on the pitch.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by (U22236)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? He absolutely changed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he didn't. Sir Alex always played a 4-4-2. It was always Rooney and either Welbeck, Hernandez or Berbatov up front with him.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Not at all. I deleted the post that was rude and disrespectful and told me I should stick to playing football manager on Xbox. Why should I have to tolerate disrespect like that?
Incidentally, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Man Utd played 4-4-2 almost every season apart from one year where they played 4-3-3 after losing Ronaldo and Tevez.
comment by (U22236)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by (U22236)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? He absolutely changed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he didn't. Sir Alex always played a 4-4-2. It was always Rooney and either Welbeck, Hernandez or Berbatov up front with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez team was.a classic 4-4-2. Ronaldo came wide a lot but was top scorer and definitely a forward at that point.
It was a 4-4-2. Classic, dunno, but it was a 4-4-2.
comment by (U22236)
posted 1 day ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is plain wrong.
From 2006 to 2010 for example, Fergie used 4-3-3/4-5-1 frequently, with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo all interchanging up top.
Park was sometimes used out wide as a defensive winger.
That was one of the most successful periods in the club’s history. We won three titles and reached two CL finals.
He also used 4-5-1 frequently after we signed Veron in 2001 (I think), particularly to try a different approach in Europe.
Wahl demonstrating he doesn't have a clue again. What's funny is in 2011 he was about 10. What would you know about it? And if you don't know, Google it. It's all there.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is 4-4-2 still viable?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 7/9/19
The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
posted on 7/9/19
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
posted on 7/9/19
comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That looks really good, I'll read all that. thanks.
posted on 7/9/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Man City, when they played 4-4-2 with Roberto Mancini? Or United playing 4-4-2 under Sir Alex? They were attacking, dominant teams, not counter-attacking teams.
posted on 7/9/19
4-4-2 or variations of it, (4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 diamond) came back in a big in La Liga and Serie A, Real won CL's playing a 4-4-2 diamond, Barca won the league playing 4-4-2, Simeone has regularly played it with Atleti, again, winning a title and getting to two CL finals.
It's possible to be successful with it but it can't be rigid when attacking and the two wide players have to come inside and be quite narrow when defending because it'd just be three v two the entire time, plus the number 10 has to drop in to help out.
We don't have enough good wide options or a proper number 10 type player at the moment, James Maddison would be perfect for that role IMO, and of course, we'd need a proper right-winger.
posted on 7/9/19
I always thought United should go back to the 4-4-2. Now they've sold Lukaku, neither Martial or Rashford are lone strikers. They should play them together in a two, James on the left side, Pogba and Matic in midfield with Dalot on the right. Could work.
posted on 7/9/19
comment by (U22236)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
The reason is simple. Teams get overrun in midfield and can't get on the ball when it's two against three. Midfield has the most touches, followed by defence, so if you're two against three, you're not going to see much of the ball. This is fine for counter attacking teams but when up against teams who sit back with three in the middle, you're gonna struggle to get the ball and enough chances for the strikers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about Man City, when they played 4-4-2 with Roberto Mancini? Or United playing 4-4-2 under Sir Alex? They were attacking, dominant teams, not counter-attacking teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think if you have two outstanding central midfielders and wide players it can work. Fergie had to change it when teams began playing with a three. When your lover went to Chelsea for example.
Depends how you want to play really. Some teams who are defensive can get away with two banks of four but when Fergie was doing it, that's not how they played.
posted on 7/9/19
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
posted on 7/9/19
Formations are just graphics on a board tbh.
It changes with and without the ball, what area of the pitch you press and how, whether your winning or losing and so on.
There is no reason you cant go to 4-4-2 when you have the ball. Liverpool did it a few times last season with Salah coming very central and in the final third it was pretty much an orthodox 442. Without the ball a deep 433.
What's more important is players.
posted on 7/9/19
You're*
posted on 7/9/19
All comes down to what players are at your disposal and what club you are at. The Top 6 all have expectations to play attractive football these days, so it's almost mandatory to have a midfield 3 nowadays for them sides as that is what suits that system best.
4-4-2 does still work I think in a lot of games. I think because so many teams only play with 1 out-and-out striker these days, defenders are used to setting up against that. So you will always have 1 man marker (the best of the usual 2 CB's) and one covering who maybe isn't as good a man marker or is better at covering. So having that extra striker against the defender who is used to covering can work as an advantage as it can be a weakness in a sense. But you've got to have the right players to do it.
Burnley are a prime example. Front 2 cause problems for opposition defenders because of their movement and physicality and ability to stretch both CB's, 2 hard working midfielders in behind them with wide players who work up and down tirelessly and are capable of putting good balls into the box. The full backs work similarly to the wingers, up and down constantly with a complementary CB partnership of Tarkowski and Mee who do the basics correctly.
As said then, I'd say 4-4-2 is very basic, but football is a simple game really. But obviously playing the way Burnley do, it just wouldn't work at a Top 6 club because it doesn't suit the players or meet the expectation of fans nowadays.
posted on 7/9/19
comment by (U22236)
posted 3 hours, 30 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes he did. In fact the last title he won he played 4-2-3-1. RVP as the main striker with Rooney, Valencia and Nani/Young in behind him and Carrick and Cleverley/Anderson behind them. But as Robbing said, it could easily change to 4-4-2 during the game depending on possession. Still does for many teams, including City and Liverpool.
posted on 7/9/19
If you know how to attack, and have a strong midfield pairing, then yes.
The problem is players seem to be coached into specific roles these days. Wingers aren't required to defend in their own third, you have holding, attacking or playmaking midfielders etc
Im sure 442 can be successful, formations are not as important as tactical instruction and the players on the pitch.
posted on 8/9/19
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/9/19
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 8/9/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/9/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/9/19
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by (U22236)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? He absolutely changed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he didn't. Sir Alex always played a 4-4-2. It was always Rooney and either Welbeck, Hernandez or Berbatov up front with him.
posted on 8/9/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/9/19
Not at all. I deleted the post that was rude and disrespectful and told me I should stick to playing football manager on Xbox. Why should I have to tolerate disrespect like that?
posted on 8/9/19
Incidentally, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Man Utd played 4-4-2 almost every season apart from one year where they played 4-3-3 after losing Ronaldo and Tevez.
posted on 8/9/19
comment by (U22236)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by (U22236)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? He absolutely changed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he didn't. Sir Alex always played a 4-4-2. It was always Rooney and either Welbeck, Hernandez or Berbatov up front with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez team was.a classic 4-4-2. Ronaldo came wide a lot but was top scorer and definitely a forward at that point.
posted on 8/9/19
It was a 4-4-2. Classic, dunno, but it was a 4-4-2.
posted on 8/9/19
comment by (U22236)
posted 1 day ago
Sir Alex never changed it. He played 4-4-2 right up to his final year. I guess the difference is he used Rooney in the two who didn't always stay as a striker? And he reached 3 CL finals with a 4-4-2 when most teams were using 4-3-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is plain wrong.
From 2006 to 2010 for example, Fergie used 4-3-3/4-5-1 frequently, with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo all interchanging up top.
Park was sometimes used out wide as a defensive winger.
That was one of the most successful periods in the club’s history. We won three titles and reached two CL finals.
He also used 4-5-1 frequently after we signed Veron in 2001 (I think), particularly to try a different approach in Europe.
posted on 8/9/19
Wahl demonstrating he doesn't have a clue again. What's funny is in 2011 he was about 10. What would you know about it? And if you don't know, Google it. It's all there.
Page 1 of 3