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

Ive a question.
Is 4-3-3 the new 4-4-2.
I'm not suggesting that the 4-3-3 system isn't flawed,but there is flaws with the 4-4-2,because if a team plays with a flat 3 in midfield the team that plays with two central midfielders can be over-run thus making the wide players useless.
However the 4-3-3 can at times have flaws due to the fact that it can be narrow,if the full-backs aren't good enough to get beyond the central midfield.
However the advantage though of the 4-3-3 it can change into a 4-5-1 whilst defending.
It does allow the forwards to move about causing confusion to the opposition.
I believe Chelsea in 2010 used the 4-3-3 to perfection.They however had the personel to do so.When they reverted to 4-4-2 with Drogba partnering Torres it didn't seem to work as both wanted to lead the line thus causing confusion in the front-line.However when they reverted back to type ie the 4-3-3 with two players flanking a sole striker,they were successful.
Barcelona are probably the most successful using a 4-3-3 with the players they have ie Messi and Pedro flanking David Villa with Xavi Iniesta and Busquets in a flat midfield 3,they also have top full-backs that techncally play as wingers ie Alves and Abidal.However they have the personel to change with Affeley.
I wonder what you think.

 

We have the players for the system and I think it will be used.

Gerrard Lucas Adam

Kuyt Carroll Suarez

And lots of players can interchange.

 

What is the colour when black is burned?

 

Blue?

 

Originally Posted by Ginger Marks
What is the colour when black is burned?
--------------------------------
What has that got to do with this thread?

 

A 4-3-3 and a 4-5-1 are effectively the same thing nowadays.

 

Let's all go back to the good old W formation all this number thing does my head-in

 

Whats a W formation.

 

Bloody Hell KPR it's the basis of classic british football

GOALKEEPER


RIGHT BACK CENTRE HALF LEFT BACK


INSIDE RIGHT INSIDE LEFT


WINGER CENTRE FORWARD WINGER


If you look closely the shape of the forward line is a W

 

Dave,its also only 9 players.

 

oooooooPS
FORGOT THE MIDFIELD:



Add Right Half and Left Half in a central position in front of the Centre Half but behind the Inside Forwards

 

Dave
back to the topic in question,
Albeit both have flaws,which long term is more viable,the 4-3-3 or the 4-4-2?

 

if 433 involves 3 strikers, and is NOT a 451, it is much better at attacking the weaker teams. a good 442 played well can however counter this very well defensively. what would make most sense to me is a 433 against weak PL and cup teams, 442 against the stronger ones, maybe even a 451, and 451 in europe.

 

What if you use players like Luis Suarez and Dirk Kuyt that can play as inverted wingers or inside forwards and only one natural forward that unlike the other two doesn't drop off?

 

KPR, if I had to chose it would by 442 because it has the ability to change more easily than 433. The real trick is to use the strength of a 442 system but to adapt it to meet the challenge of the opposition or the situation that develops during the game. Rigidity in any system is death.

 

Same as is 4-3-3 the new 4-4-2

If it was it would be called simply 4-4-2?

Hence, What is the colour when black is burned?

 

I think 4-3-3 is only as good as you make it. By that I mean you can have 3 classic forwards, but your midfield and outside backs have to be engines, ball winners, get up and back, etc. You can invert the wingers thus creating numbers in the center to link up with and provide width with the outside backs ( similar to what we do really especially towards the end of last season). It is important that the gap between the outside back and outside mid/for is not big enough to get exploited.

I have to disagree that Barca play a 4-3-3. The play more of a 3-4-3 as Puyol and Pique stretch wide, the DM (Mascher or Busquets) drops into that gap between the two CB's, outside backs push up as wingers.

What I am getting at is the 4-3-3 has a lot more adaptation, very free adaptation at that than the 4-4-2. But then again, I am huge fan of the diamond or box midfield 4-4-2, outright domination in the middle.

 

I'm sure you know what KPR means, if not, you need help. I'll explain, just in case.

4-4-2 used to be the most used formation, the standard formation if you will. The way things seem to be progressing, 4-3-3 is now being used more and more. Hence, the question.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a 3-4-3.

----------------------Reina----------------------
--------Kelly---------Carra---------Agger------
---Gerrard-----Lucas----Spearing---Adam---
------Downing------Carroll------Suarez-------

2 defensive midfielders (Lucas and Spearing) add to the central defence.

 

Surely it depends on your players? If you have attacking fullbacks and wingers and much of your threat comes from pace down the flanks like Utd then it's 442. If you have a stronger midfield that can either overpower an opponent like Chelsea or outpass them like Barca and Arsenal then you go 433. Recognising, of course, the need to switch formation to counter your opponent in some games.