Is 4-3-3 the new 4-4-2.

4-3-3 or 3-4-3 needs top fitness as with more attacking players you have to immediattely press from the front. With 4-4-2 you can drop in a lot. You can as well with a 4-5-1 but I am not Hodgson and can't stand dropping THAT many players back behind the ball unless it is must win, back against the wall stuff. Defend from the front better withe 4-3-3 3-4-3

 

Charcoal.

I prefer the old Subbuteo formation:

............................................Keeper
......................Right Back..........................Left Back
.........Right Half....................Centre Half..................Left Half
Right Wing.....Inside Right.....Centre Forward.....Inside Left.....Left Wing

We saw that demonstrated last season, as Hodgson's rigid 4-4-2 wasn't as effective as Kenny's. Our best performances were probably against Utd, Birmingham and Fulham, all 4-4-2. These were without Carrroll, though, so his availability will obviously affect what Kenny does, if not determine it.

And we all know Kenny's history with 4-3-3.

 

Also nowt wrong with the foosball 2-5-3. Especially if your centre forward can score goals with a backflip...

 

Americanisms

 

Hey!

 

? he did say centre, while americanism would be Center Forward! You seen pciks of our net minder Reina?

 

to play 4-4-2 you need fullbacks who stay put defending like Manu used to when they had Giggs and Beckham.

if you've got attacking fullbacks then you're better off with a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3

I really hate 4-4-2. It encourages kick and rush down the flanks and cross, cross, cross, cross, cross, cross, and then cross some more.
That can be effective but it really is just glorified sideways hoofball. Bad football.

 

To the OP,

The answer is no.

Many thanks.

SW6

 

a 433 can become a 442 very easily, and can even loook similar:

---------GK--------
--RB--CB--CB--LB--
---CM---CM---CM--
---RS---CF---LS---

---------GK--------
--RB--CB--CB--LB--
-----CM---CM-----
--------AM--------
--RW---------LW--
--------ST--------


---------GK--------
--RB--CB--CB--LB--
-----CM---CM------
--RM----AM---LM--
--------ST---------

---------GK--------
--RB--CB--CB--LB--
-RM--CM--CM--LM-
--------SS--------
--------ST--------

---------GK--------
--RB--CB--CB--LB--
-RM--CM--CM--LM-
------RS--LS------

Easy

 

Drudeboy.
Good points.
Do you reckon the formation should be chosen to counteract the oppositions formation.
Ie if the opposition goes with a 4-3-3 then go with a 4-5-1.
Or if they go with a 4-4-2,go with a 4-3-3,with a defensive midfielder that just sits in front of the back four,but tightens into a 4-5-1 when on the defensive.

 

foosball was what I was getting at.

 

[video=youtube;VNaxJPYqhM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNaxJPYqhM4[/video]

 

4-1-4-1 used to be popular as a 'defensive' formation. You almost never see it anymore. 2 proper banks of 4 but with a dedicated DM protecting the centrebacks.

 

I think you mean the W M formation as pioneered by the great Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman

 

You'll remember his tenure well I'd imagine, weren't you in the same year at school

 

I remember being in school with you mother
Yo Yo knickers Rita

 

She never wore knickers

 

She did have some modesty i recall.

 

With most Teams playing 4-5-1 (dressed up as a 4-3-3) I wonder how long it will be before we see a return of the old WM formation, with two at the back a DM, two wing backs three attacking midfielders and two strikers