I think too much fuss is made over formations, false 9 and all that tripe. Would like us to play 4-4-2. Back four picks itself. Jonno, agger, skittle, Enrique. Then Lucas, gerrard, sterling, suso. And rotate Suarez, borini, sturridge. We have Henderson, downing, who can also cover midfield. But too often we had Suarez up there in his own.
4-4-2 is getting outdated now, the 2 in the middle just gets countered. 4-3-3 is only 4-3-3 on paper, in truth it's more of a 4-5-1 when you're off the ball, and a 4-2-3-1 when you're on it
There's a lot you have to take into account, for example... the opponents formation, your own playing style, the players you have, natural positions, pitch quality. All of those play a factor. 4-4-2 is outdated now.
I still think if the players are good, they can settle and play anywhere. Look at man utd, (scum) always play with pacy wingers, ball winning midfielder and midfielder who can pass. It might be outdated but I would like to see us play two up front. Suarez, sturridge and borini. Rotate these three to keep them. Fit and fresh
442 is almost history. You need 3 central midfielders these days with the team spread out more, instead of all in rows.
4-4-2 is so outdated the mancs have been using variations of it to win titles for two decades It's never been a strict 4-4-2 of course but the principles always been the same. Call it 4-4-1-1 or 4-1-3-2 but it's still 4 at the back, one sitting midfielder and a central midfielder, two wide players, a centre forward and a goal scorer. Nothing complicated just players perfectly suited to each role and the ability to inter-change when necessary.
Pretty much this. 4-4-2 works fine, no formation is outdated if you have the right players and flexibility to move around. No reason why 2 central midfielders should lose a midfield battle when one of the forwards can drop deeper to pick up the ball and make up numbers. Alternatively, you can push up your centre backs if they're better on the ball and push a midfielder higher behind the front two. 4-4-2 means you - on paper - lose that central strength, but force players out wide and stretch their team instead meaning they have to adapt to you. All about the players, not about the formation. Too much pointless theory crap for my liking, just sign good players -.-
Formations are just a way of organizing your team sheet! There's so much versatility in all formations that they never stay how they are on paper
Agree with all that's been said. It's the players not the formation. Hopefully we will kick on and beat Oldham. Would still like to see two recognised forwards.
Which leads nicely onto a separate issue. I wish managers would play people in their natural positions.
Correct, all this shyte about 442 being outdated is just nonsense talk by pundits etc trying to make themselves sound clever. It then gets regurgitated by all and sundry until somebody point out the obvious.
If I recall we played 4-4-2 under Rafa often. He would usually go for a 4-4-1-1 but when he did throw Babel or N'gog on it would revert to a 4-4-2. We almost won the league with it so it isn't outdated.
4-2-3-1 is pretty much a 4-4-2, but with 2 central midfielders who prefer to stay deep, meaning the full backs can push on more to provide the width. Your then normal wingers cut inside the the box rather than stay out wide and the second forward in a 4-4-2 drops deep (like Rooney, Suarez, Messi, etc). Under Rafa, we had two deep players (alonso and masch), gerrard playing behind torres as the deep forward, kuyt and maxi (or whoever else started) cutting inside and the fullbacks providing the width. Flexible 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1. Same thing. Most football formations are the same and overlap, just depends which players you have.
spot on! Was about to post pretty much what you wrote. In my opinion it's all media driven in an effort to give the perception of a 'shiny new era' or 'modern football', when in reality no formation is outdated. Utd and Spurs under Arry have shown the 442 can still work incredibly well. The people spouting this crap are the same ones who stand to gain, keep the shiny, modern perception going and the fans will continue to put up with being shafted by ever increasing prices for tickets, merchandise, and sports tv packages!
Its just numbers really. One person could say 451, the next 433, another 4231 and then a 442 but you could in theory argue that they are all the same with a slight tweak. 442 to a 433 is basically one of the CF's becoming the AM but they are still part of a front pair (suarez would be that body for us, put him in a 442 and he will roam anyway). 433 with an AM is effectively a 4231 anyway which in reality is another way of saying 451. 451/4411 are very similar too. Formations numbers are for the simpleton
Not necessarily... my interpretation of a traditional 4-4-2 is a back 4, 2 CMs, 2 wide midfielders and 2 strikers. In todays game, with a generally faster pace (could be argued) it is necessary to have less gaps inbetween the lines e.g. Defensive midfield and Attacking midfield. A traditional 4-4-2 doesn't give this type of fluidity. This also adds to the fact that there are very few effective wide midfielders around nowadays, Giggs being perhaps the most famous. Whereas there is an ambundance of wingers, who I might add are completely different to wide midfielders. Shanks, you refer to Spurs and Man Utd but I'd argue that they haven't used 4-4-2 in a long time. For example: In the game against Fulham, Utd used 1 striker in Hernandez, and 1 CAM in Rooney (which he is considered now instead of being a striker). Against Spurs they put 3 central defenders, 2 centre mids, 1 attacking mid and 2 strikers on. That's far from a 4-4-2. I understand where you're coming from when you say they're all variations of a 4-4-2 but I beg to differ that they should be classed in the same category. The formations dictate where a play starts from and where they return to, even a slight change such as 4-4-1-1 can lead to an isolated forward (see: Fernando Torres, for an example of what this can do) or 4-1-4-1 can lead to a slow down of play. Whilst a 4-4-2 can be used in some teams that have the players for it, nowadays its far too rigid a structure for an attacking game.
I didn't say they're all a variance of 442, I said they are all similar. Since you mention Man Utd and Rooney, it is a 442 but Shrek roams and defends. Tell the wingers to concentrate on attacking and some would say its a 4231. Fomations are just for defending anyway, players should be free to roam and interchange when attacking
I was more talking about Spearing's Mannschaft when I said that. A good formation will allow players to free roam and interchange when attacking, but in a 4-4-2 who do you decide who attacks? Atleast in a 4-2-3-1 it's clear what the roles of the 4 up top are.
