O/T How long will it be until a team wins the Premier League playing 4-4-2

[milo]

4-4-1-1. Which isn't too disimilar to what we played with vdV; though that became 4-2-3-1 depending how deep into midfield he dropped (and Rooney has been doing similar).

What I really dislike is proper 4-4-2, when you have 2 strikers stood with their hands on their hips at the halfway line watching our midfield being overrun, like happened in the final third of last season with two of Defoe, Saha and Ade.

I could cope with 4-4-1-1 if one of Dempsey or Sig were playing in the hole behind Ade.

Ade and Defoe is a big no-no for me though - receipe for disaster.

Do you agree that it is also about passages of play too? I think that the 4-4-1-1 we played in the first half of last season was frequently 4-2-3-1 in attack and 4-5-1 in defence.

Also, playing a withdrawn forward is hardly new. It was very popular in the 80s (Beardsley and Dalglish spring immediately to mind) but most teams playing it would have been classed as playing 4-4-2 at the time.

 

[Swifty]

I think the key to the United team is that they've got versatile attacking players so they can switch things round during the game without making a sub if they want to.

For example if they're playing:

----Carrick----Cleverley
Valencia---Rooney--Young
--------------RVP

That formation can easily be changed to 4-4-2 with Rooney moving up top and Valencia and Young moving deeper.

I'm inclined to say we have the personnel to do that - with Dempsey being able to move into a striking position rather than playing as an AM. He's obviously not as good as Rooney though.

I think in a game like yesterday AVB's just not going to do that though because a midfield duo of Hudd and Sigg misses any bite, so having that extra man deeper was required for us to not be completely overrun (I appreciate that Hudd and Modric was a similarly soft partnership that did work, but Sigg is notwhere near Modric's quality and hasn't shown me anything defensively yet).

 

[Modric THFC]

Because at the moment our personnel suits 442.

Why are so many people hell bent on a formation that at present, with the current crop of players we have at our disposal, is brick?

I reckon our personnel suits a 433.
The likes of Huddlestone and Siggurdsson cant play in a 2 man midfield.

 

[DHSF]

I reckon our personnel suits a 433.
The likes of Huddlestone and Siggurdsson cant play in a 2 man midfield.

Hudd has proven he can do it and did it with another less defense minded midfielder in Modric. I guess im discounting Sig as I dont rate him. I think a midfield of Dembele and Sandro/Parker is effective enough.

433 would also be effective I think but that means Lennon and Bale HAVE to contribute to goals or you play Defoe on the right of the three with Ade in the middle. I wouldnt play Sig in this formation either - I would play Dembele Hudd/Parker and Sandro

 

[indianspur]

I reckon our personnel suits a 433.
The likes of Huddlestone and Siggurdsson cant play in a 2 man midfield.

we can play 4-3-1-2 with Bale floating in behind and around the two strikers. Full backs can supply the width just like they do now in AVB's preferred system.

worth a try at least

 

[Spursalot]

we can play 4-3-1-2 with Bale floating in behind and around the two strikers. Full backs can supply the width just like they do now in AVB's preferred system.

worth a try at least

We don't have the strikers to consistently play this. We only have Ade and Defoe. There is no point in attempting to learn a system that we are going to be unable to use whenever either of them takes a knock or needs to be rested.

 

[indianspur]

We don't have the strikers to consistently play this. We only have Ade and Defoe. There is no point in attempting to learn a system that we are going to be unable to use whenever either of them takes a knock or needs to be rested.

if thats the case then we dont have the players to play the current system on a consistent basis. If Dembele is out we are completely fcuked. We dont have a like for like replacement for him whatsoever. The same would have applied last season with Modric.

whats more important is to have a manager who is flexible when it comes to formations. I sincerely hope AVB is not fixated upon 4-2-3-1

 

[Baleforce]

how are we defining 442?

do we simply mean 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 strikers, or is it 2 orthodox wide midfielders (like Beckham) or 2 wingers (like Giggs), or any combination of either?

likewise how about the central pairing, jacks of all trades, deep lying, trequartista's?

when does a 442 become 4132 or 4222?

 

[milo]

how are we defining 442?

do we simply mean 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 strikers, or is it 2 orthodox wide midfielders (like Beckham) or 2 wingers (like Giggs), or any combination of either?

likewise how about the central pairing, jacks of all trades, deep lying, trequartista's?

when does a 442 become 4132 or 4222?

We're not defining 4-4-2, any combination

 

[indianspur]

the good thing about playing 2 strikers is that its rare that both would be off form at the same time, so if one is not scoring at least there is another providing a goal threat.

 

[DHSF]

442 is just a formation how a Manager applies the tactics is a totally different aspect.

AVB or any Manager can play a 442 but it could be defensive or not that's upto the Manager. You can have two defensive central midfielders or one defensive midfielder and one attacking.

 

[NaijaSpurs]

Our formation is flexible, because we should be attacking as 4-3-3.

I really don't think the formation is the issue. Having no #9 and no ballplayers in midfield are the issue. Play any formation and that doesn't change.

Your 433 would include Ade which is fine but he spends more time running down the flanks than playing through the middle where he should be

 

[Golfball]

Which is exactly what happened 10 times in a row last spring when we tried it. When Redknapp reactivated his 4-4-2 habit after we beat Saudi Sportswashing Machine, we pulled our pants down for teams week after week by going a man short in midfield. It cost us CL and it cost Redknapp his job.

But again, this never actually happened. We were dominating teams but not scoring, there may have been occasions where we were struggling in midfield but it definitely wasnt a general problem. Most games we dropped points in we heavily dominated the midfield battle, but some awful finishing from Ade and giving the ball too much to VDV who was trying to play it through the middle (rather than get Bale and Lennon on the ball out to stretch things) meant we didnt finish off teams.

As for formations, I heard something about this on the radio the other night. Talking about 1 club would try something and have a bit of success and then suddenly everyone would try it... but normally things went back to normal (442). They were saying this latest 451/433 (whatever you want to call it) was beginning to show signs of fading out and gave examples of big clubs around the world not using it as much.

 

[Spursalot]

if thats the case then we dont have the players to play the current system on a consistent basis. If Dembele is out we are completely fcuked. We dont have a like for like replacement for him whatsoever. The same would have applied last season with Modric.

whats more important is to have a manager who is flexible when it comes to formations. I sincerely hope AVB is not fixated upon 4-2-3-1

We at least have a like for like positional player to replace him with.


A manager who is flexible is good, but if he doesn't have the personnel to change to the formation you want then you're going to have to live with it.

 

[jts1882]

We're not defining 4-4-2, any combination

Then count Dempsey as a second striker and we are playing a type of 4-4-2. Problem solved.

Galeforce's question about type of 4-4-2 and type of player is essential for any useful discussion. Many people considered our formation with RvdV as a 4-4-1-1 (a type of 4-4-2) whereas others considered it a 4-2-3-1. I favour the latter because I consider RvdV as more an attacking midfielder than a striker. But essentially the same nominal system (4-2-3-1) takes on different character depending on the player in that hole position. It varies from strong 4-4-2 character with a player like Sheringham, intermediate with a Rooney or RvdV, to a more 4-5-1 (or even 4-3-3) character if you have someone like Modric there.

P.S. What nominal formation we play is unimportant, its how the players play within it. It is useful to define the formation as a starting point for discussion, as a shorthand to describe a particular setup. The problem is that different people have different ideas on what a particular formation is.

 

[milo]

Then count Dempsey as a second striker and we are playing a type of 4-4-2. Problem solved.

Galeforce's question about type of 4-4-2 and type of player is essential for any useful discussion. Many people considered our formation with RvdV as a 4-4-1-1 (a type of 4-4-2) whereas others considered it a 4-2-3-1. I favour the latter because I consider RvdV as more an attacking midfielder than a striker. But essentially the same nominal system (4-2-3-1) takes on different character depending on the player in that hole position. It varies from strong 4-4-2 character with a player like Sheringham, intermediate with a Rooney or RvdV, to a more 4-5-1 (or even 4-3-3) character if you have someone like Modric there.

P.S. What nominal formation we play is unimportant, its how the players play within it. It is useful to define the formation as a starting point for discussion, as a shorthand to describe a particular setup. The problem is that different people have different ideas on what a particular formation is.

I agree and made the same point about 4-4-1-1 in response to GB earlier.

The reason for starting this thread was because I frequently see people say on here that one or two formations are the future and 4-4-2 is dead as a formation for tip teams. I'm not particularly wedded to any formation and think that the players you have at your disposal and how you instruct them to approach three game is more important than where you get them to stand on the pitch.

 

[ArcspacE]

How long will it be until a team wins the Premier League playing predominantly 4-4-2 or are its days permanently over for top teams?

Manchester Utd did it 2 seasons ago ( and again in 2008 )

 

[Jordinho]

I agree and made the same point about 4-4-1-1 in response to GB earlier.

The reason for starting this thread was because I frequently see people say on here that one or two formations are the future and 4-4-2 is dead as a formation for tip teams. I'm not particularly wedded to any formation and think that the players you have at your disposal and how you instruct them to approach three game is more important than where you get them to stand on the pitch.

Exactly this. And having a striker drop off to help defend can be essential if you're struggling in central midfield, especially if playing two wingers. Having attacking FBs is compensated for by having a DM that drop back. What I think won't win the PL is a team that are very rigid in their setup, unless you've got the very best players in the world.

 

[braineclipse]

I agree and made the same point about 4-4-1-1 in response to GB earlier.

The reason for starting this thread was because I frequently see people say on here that one or two formations are the future and 4-4-2 is dead as a formation for tip teams. I'm not particularly wedded to any formation and think that the players you have at your disposal and how you instruct them to approach three game is more important than where you get them to stand on the pitch.

It's an interesting question, but it does boil down to how you define 4-4-2. If the current Manu setup with Rooney and Van Persie isn't a 4-4-2 then I think the answer might be that it's going to be a while.

I think another point is what kind of formation do these top teams play against each other, it's one thing to say that a team plays two strikers against mid table of bottom half teams, but something quite different playing 4-4-2 against the top sides in the league or in the world.

We played 4-4-2 with Crouch and Defoe, but Crouch was a very hard working player who did a lot of work defensively too when asked to. So when defending it was far from always a 4-4-2 with two strikers left up front, especially against good teams, but very few people would say that we played a 4-4-1-1 at the time.

 

[milo]

Exactly this. And having a striker drop off to help defend can be essential if you're struggling in central midfield, especially if playing two wingers. Having attacking FBs is compensated for by having a DM that drop back. What I think won't win the PL is a team that are very rigid in their setup, unless you've got the very best players in the world.

I agree, any team nominally lining up with a variant of 4-4-2 (or any other formation) needs to be fluid which is where the quality of the players is important.