One of the most widely used formations in the history of football but has its time been and gone? I know United like to use it still for some games, effectively I may add but its usually weaker teams and at Old Trafford but does it really have a place in the football world anymore. We saw England use it and look seriously outdated and far behind other teams at the Euros, I would suggest you would need to search very hard for evidence of any top european club using it in the recent past except for English clubs and I cant think of many national teams of real quality who do. Is it time for 4-4-2 to retire and let more fluid formations take over or is it still the staple of many a football club? Going on the United and Liverpool board btw.
In my opinion the two banks of four with two up front is outdated and shouldn't really be used. Kenny Dalglish at Liverpool last season used it, Kenny is a traditionalist, and it was the main reason why we scored so few goals. There was a huge gap between the forwards and the midfield. The system Brendan Rodgers uses is far better, and suits the players he has at its disposal. Brendan Rodgers with the exception of Fabio Borini is using the same players Kenny had. The way the 4-4-2 was set up meant that there was really only one player in the box due to Luis Suarez wanting to drop deep and go left and right due to the so called wider players tucking in, as they were uncomfortable with the system, and Jordan Henderson who is not naturally a wide-man went missing. The man at the top was Andy Carroll, and he was left isolated due to the amount of time it took the others to arrive in the box due to the massive gap between midfield and attack. 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 for me is the way to go forward, as it means there is more than just one player in the box, more often than not two, but there could be even 3 or 4.
Sports science has shown that formations where the players are more spread out means less running and saves players fitness backwards long term.
It depends on the players and the tactics within the formation. 442 works just fine as long as the manager gets the technical details right and has the right players at his disposal. IMO 442 works best with full backs and doesn't work with wing backs, 2 fast direct wingers who play wide and don't come inside from deep. Midfield needs a ball winner and a distributor, the front line then either needs either a clever play maker or a strong forward to win the ball in the air and hold up the ball, and of course a finisher. A center back partnership is needed as in all formations. So not dead imo.
So does that mean you think the formation that Brendan Rodgers is using is better than the one Kenny used?
I think it still has life in it but its taken a hefty beating in recent years. Its just so easily contained now and teams know it. However it can still produce fantastic football at times, often far more entertaining than some of the other formations which allow for little space and open play. 4-4-2 often depends on stamina and strength over ability aswell, one of the reasons its used very little outside of England.
I think it can work. Problem with it is that the wingers often spend far too much time tracking back, defending and helping out their fulback. I think for it to be successful they have to have more freedom and less defensive responsibilty (spurs under redknapp for example) other wise it becomes a very negative formation ala England. If you take England as an example, the problems not the formation, the problem is they dont close high up the pitch. As soon as they lose the ball they dont try to win it back they retreat to the edge of their area straight away and then when they do win it they try and play it very direct rather than the defence playing the ball out resulting in them being under alot of pressure, not much possession and very tired players. The formation gets alot of stick for Englands problems but really its the tactics. United have mostly played 4-4-2 over the years and have been more successful than the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal and us under Benitez who play the so called modern systems because they still play the ball out of the back and try to win the ball back early and give their wingers plenty of freedom.
Very good point about giving wingers the freedom to do what they do best. I think United are the worlds number 1 4-4-2 side and even we are moving away from it now. All signs point to 433/4231 for us in the future but rest assured the old 4-4-2 will be on show now and again.
What happens though as what happened to us last season when a side puts an extra man in midfield and you've got a 3 vs 2 scenario. The 4-3-3 formation has its flaws too, as going in there without a recognised ''presser'' as I can only describe it against a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-1-1 side means that you can be again over-run. The Rodgers system wasn't necessarily a 4-3-3 either, it looked like that, but at times it wasn't. It was more of a 4-1-2-2-1 formation.
For the players we have yes. But that is for different reasons than what I stated before. Kenny is more old school so his methods are different. Rafa has a doctorate in sports science and he played a more spread out formation.
I can see it ****ing us up this year when teams park the bus. 4-4-2 easily becomes 9-0-1. I do like a good 4-3-3 or 4-2-1-3 or 3-5-2-1
What I didn't like about the 3-5-2 against Stoke at Anfield last season was that we had 3 players (defenders) by the halfway line constantly, not really contributing to the attack. We spent most of that game in their half, which meant we had one less man in attack. If we just played the 4 at the back, we could have utilized an extra man up front and just have 2 CBs covering whilst the fullbacks went forward. Which is enough against a team like Stoke. 3 at the back works well against the better teams...like when we played Chelsea. Never really notice it on the TV.
