|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 26, 2017 13:03:39 GMT
Obviously Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2, but I just wonder, when did 4-4-2 become this thing of the past? Nobody will consider it these days, so it seems. It's 4-5-1 or 5-4-1 etc. Usually, the idea is having wingers and one out and out frontman.
Although our squad probably doesn't have the right players for 4-4-2, I feel as though attack would benefit from 2 rather than 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by leoncort on Jul 26, 2017 14:57:07 GMT
442 is great if youve got the pace to break out and play the 2 strikers in behind. Leicester had okozaki who dropped in and helped out the midfield, i feel most managers are scared to play 442 for fear of being overrun by a midfield 5.
Kante was basically 1.5 midfielders for leicester wasnt he, on another level. Allen, Fletcher and co would be overrun in a 2. If we got an athletic and strong CM in like a kante, wanyama, Romeu i think we could play this no problem. Maybe with Josulu as our okazaki to help the midfield when off the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jul 26, 2017 15:09:49 GMT
About the same time the concept of a proper midfielder died.
We now have all sorts of positions to hide why midfielders are no longer midfielders.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladyinred on Jul 26, 2017 15:56:13 GMT
IMHO - as footballers have become more like athletes (nutrition/sports science advances), it is possible for one player to be both a full-back and an attacking threat.
Full-backs or Wing-backs are fast becoming the key men in Premier League football, just look at the fees for Walker and Mendy.
Having great wide players, allows for extra bodies in the middle of the pitch.
Look at Spurs - they had Walker/Trippier and Davies/Rose covering the entire length of the pitch. Chelsea - their success was largely due to the form of Moses/Alonso.
In short; one player can now do the job that 2 players used to in a traditional 442.
|
|
|
|
Post by neilb987 on Jul 26, 2017 15:59:06 GMT
About the same time the concept of a proper midfielder died. We now have all sorts of positions to hide why midfielders are no longer midfielders. Intriguing! Are we talking aboout the old general-purpose midfielder who could run, tackle, pass accurately long and short, head the ball well and contribute a fair number of goals a season? Such players were always fairly rare and were highly prized. Most had special strengths and maybe particular weaknesses. Some - the old wing-halves - were tough-tackling ball winners. Inside-forwards (now renamed 'the No. 10') could pass well and score goals. Others were 'fetchers and carriers' who did the running for less mobile players. Successful teams had midfields containing a balance of all these skills. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Jul 26, 2017 17:49:43 GMT
I think we need to play 4-4-2 or 3-5-2 ,currently we don't have players for either but forwards who can play up front on their own and are decent are very hard to find and we need two up front
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 26, 2017 18:07:03 GMT
IMHO - as footballers have become more like athletes (nutrition/sports science advances), it is possible for one player to be both a full-back and an attacking threat. Full-backs or Wing-backs are fast becoming the key men in Premier League football, just look at the fees for Walker and Mendy. Having great wide players, allows for extra bodies in the middle of the pitch. Look at Spurs - they had Walker/Trippier and Davies/Rose covering the entire length of the pitch. Chelsea - their success was largely due to the form of Moses/Alonso. In short; one player can now do the job that 2 players used to in a traditional 442. There have always been athletic full backs, even Marsh and Pejic weren't averse to 'overlapping' back in the day. The great Liverpool team of the late 70's early 80's had Neal and Kennedy. Attacking full backs are nothing new. It's a bit like 'who blinks first'. If a side start with a 4-4-2 and the 2 strikers are pacey with good movement then the opposing side who may start with wing backs will soon settle into a more orthodox 4 man defence unit. I'm old fashioned but I always think a 4-4-2 set up is the most effective format. Every player understands their role and as long as you have that strong spine in the centre of the park, i.e 2-2-2 then you have the flexibility to include creative players either side, likewise in certain games you want more solid players either side. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 18:18:37 GMT
Whilst sometimes we get a bit too caught up in formations and the limitations that each one provides, 4-4-2 generally died at the top level in this country because world football moved on and we had to move with it. The best players in the world, the best teams in the world (at international level at least), just weren't playing to, or in, that system. Traditional wingers were becoming more inside forwards, 5 across the midfield were becoming the norm, and the trend was set for 4-4-2 being marginalised. That's not to say it won't come again or that it's not useful on occasion to have it as an option, but the game at the top level seems to be all about 'flooding the midfield' and overwhelming the opposition en masse. I think that 3-4-3 will be the next evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 26, 2017 19:02:53 GMT
The problem with "traditional" 442 as played in the UK was that it was too rigid - players were drilled to "keep their position" in the system. On the continent they started playing a much more fluid system with players continually swapping positions - and started (literally) to run rings around British opposition.
The point about 4231, 343 or whatever is that the starting positions aren't that important - it provides a basic shape but becomes more fluid in open play. It may well be possible to play a fluid 442 (and Leicester did when they won the league recently) but it won't look anything like a "traditional" 442 from the 80s, 70s and earlier. Anyone who tries playing a traditional 442 in the Premier League will get torn apart - the opposition will exploit the gaps and expose the lack of flexibility in the system.
At a lower level a rigid 442 can be pretty effective. If you're working with players who aren't so quick, fit and intelligent (in the footballing sense) a solid well drilled formation can paper over the deficiencies - and the opposition aren't going to have the nous to pull you apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 26, 2017 19:44:38 GMT
The problem with "traditional" 442 as played in the UK was that it was too rigid - players were drilled to "keep their position" in the system. On the continent they started playing a much more fluid system with players continually swapping positions - and started (literally) to run rings around British opposition. The point about 4231, 343 or whatever is that the starting positions aren't that important - it provides a basic shape but becomes more fluid in open play. It may well be possible to play a fluid 442 (and Leicester did when they won the league recently) but it won't look anything like a "traditional" 442 from the 80s, 70s and earlier. Anyone who tries playing a traditional 442 in the Premier League will get torn apart - the opposition will exploit the gaps and expose the lack of flexibility in the system. At a lower level a rigid 442 can be pretty effective. If you're working with players who aren't so quick, fit and intelligent (in the footballing sense) a solid well drilled formation can paper over the deficiencies - and the opposition aren't going to have the nous to pull you apart. I don't think it was anything to do with fluid systems it was more to do with the continent producing better footballers. The last team to play a 4-4-2 won the league the season before last. As I said earlier, if you get the spine of the side strong you then add the Riyad's. |
|
|
|
Post by RichJonesy on Jul 26, 2017 19:55:40 GMT
I can't hear 4-4-2 without thinking of this
|
|
|
|
Post by fulagoals on Jul 26, 2017 20:11:55 GMT
IMHO - as footballers have become more like athletes (nutrition/sports science advances), it is possible for one player to be both a full-back and an attacking threat. Full-backs or Wing-backs are fast becoming the key men in Premier League football, just look at the fees for Walker and Mendy. Having great wide players, allows for extra bodies in the middle of the pitch. Look at Spurs - they had Walker/Trippier and Davies/Rose covering the entire length of the pitch. Chelsea - their success was largely due to the form of Moses/Alonso. In short; one player can now do the job that 2 players used to in a traditional 442. Oh good god. I'm reading this and just thinking we've got to rely on Glen Johnson. Fast, dynamic, quick touch, quick release pass and move fullback. NOT!! |
|
moz
Academy Starlet
Posts: 169 
|
Post by moz on Jul 26, 2017 21:05:35 GMT
It became a thing of the past when football tactics started to be a trend not a coach who see what is more efficient and suitable for the player's he manages.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Jul 26, 2017 21:19:34 GMT
Iceland did pretty well with a 442 recently didnt they?
|
|
|
|
Post by slicko on Jul 27, 2017 7:31:31 GMT
4-4-2 died with mullets and Golden Nuggets for breakfast. Read "inverting the pyramid". There are many other extinct formations. While you are at it read "Universality" by my friend Matt Whitehouse. He suggests a future formation and player model. Blog whitehouseaddress.blogspot.co.uk |
|
|
|
Post by pottarius on Jul 27, 2017 7:52:39 GMT
4-4-2 died with mullets and Golden Nuggets for breakfast. Read "inverting the pyramid". There are many other extinct formations. While you are at it read "Universality" by my friend Matt Whitehouse. He suggests a future formation and player model. Blog whitehouseaddress.blogspot.co.ukWhatever floats your boat, preferred milk on my cereal... Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 27, 2017 8:21:36 GMT
The problem with "traditional" 442 as played in the UK was that it was too rigid - players were drilled to "keep their position" in the system. On the continent they started playing a much more fluid system with players continually swapping positions - and started (literally) to run rings around British opposition. The point about 4231, 343 or whatever is that the starting positions aren't that important - it provides a basic shape but becomes more fluid in open play. It may well be possible to play a fluid 442 (and Leicester did when they won the league recently) but it won't look anything like a "traditional" 442 from the 80s, 70s and earlier. Anyone who tries playing a traditional 442 in the Premier League will get torn apart - the opposition will exploit the gaps and expose the lack of flexibility in the system. At a lower level a rigid 442 can be pretty effective. If you're working with players who aren't so quick, fit and intelligent (in the footballing sense) a solid well drilled formation can paper over the deficiencies - and the opposition aren't going to have the nous to pull you apart. I don't think it was anything to do with fluid systems it was more to do with the continent producing better footballers. The last team to play a 4-4-2 won the league the season before last. As I said earlier, if you get the spine of the side strong you then add the Riyad's. Better footballers and adopting a more fluid system go hand in hand - you have to have good players to have the flexibility to play a more fluid system. Average players do better in a more a rigid system - but ultimately that's limiting and the more fluid and flexible teams will win out. Leicester's 442 wasn't particularly rigid or "traditional". As another poster pointed out Okazaki played quite deep and when they did go forward Mahrez turned the formation into a front 3. The last successful team playing a more traditional 442 I can think of is Blackburn with Shearer and Sutton up front. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 27, 2017 9:14:59 GMT
I've never understood this 'rigid' 4-4-2. Years ago, England did adopt a fluid 4-4-2 formation and would give free reign to one of the midfielders to double up as a 'second' striker (Gazza, Scholes et al), while the wide men were always expected to get forward. The two centre forwards however tended to complement each other and that's why it worked.
1998 World Cup, Argentina played '3-3-2-2', but in actuality, that was in itself just a glorified 3-5-2 with the two wide players doubling up with wing backs (Zanetti and Simeone) and the two midfield centres dropping deep (Veron, Almeyda). We played a traditional 4-4-2. We were arguably the better team in that game, despite their fancy continental formation.
Greece beat Portugal in Euro 2004 playing 4-4-2.... while Portugal played 4-5-1 in perhaps one of the early adopters of the more modern style (with Deco playing the number 10 role).
I just don't see why people think that 4-4-2 has to be rigid and is open to be exposed by 4-5-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jul 27, 2017 10:31:25 GMT
Has anyone read this yet? I've got a copy on order.  |
|
|
|
Post by superheroantonius on Jul 27, 2017 10:41:56 GMT
If we actually had the bottle to play it now with say crouchy and diouf up top and two ethers pennant type wingers getting loads of crosses in it would be interesting to see.
Would be interesting to see how up for it players like david luiz ( Chelsea) daley blind ( man utd) john stones ( man city) really are
|
|
|
|
Post by superheroantonius on Jul 27, 2017 10:48:48 GMT
Often overlooked is 442 is the perfect antidote to the arsenal spurs tactics of full backs playing high and wide.
Sir alex knew if you have two ace wingers like giggs and ronaldo nobody is going to push there full backs high up the pitch and leave those two in loads of space behind them.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 27, 2017 13:16:47 GMT
Often overlooked is 442 is the perfect antidote to the arsenal spurs tactics of full backs playing high and wide. Sir alex knew if you have two ace wingers like giggs and ronaldo nobody is going to push there full backs high up the pitch and leave those two in loads of space behind them. I suppose our issue is that do we have two ace wingers? |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jul 27, 2017 13:27:47 GMT
Often overlooked is 442 is the perfect antidote to the arsenal spurs tactics of full backs playing high and wide. Sir alex knew if you have two ace wingers like giggs and ronaldo nobody is going to push there full backs high up the pitch and leave those two in loads of space behind them. I suppose our issue is that do we have two ace wingers? We do but for 442 to be really effective you tend to need two absolutely rapid - get to the line and whip a cross in types. I think Ramadan has that but not sure that's Shaq's game or that either is whippet-fast (though they're not slow). |
|
|
|
Post by parsonage1955 on Jul 27, 2017 19:34:41 GMT
I blame Chris Waddle who goes into meltdown at any suggestion of the national team playing 4 4 2!!
|
|
