4-3-3 will improve us

[Howaythelads]

433 (aka 451 in stealth mode) is kak! Crap formation, kak ideology behind it, and has no history of success in the game of football, and probably never will have!

 

Aye that Ajax team have been garbage over the years like.

 

Oh f*** wait, Johan Cruijff says f*** you.

 

 

 

The examples you give are always the exception to the domination of 442. How many international tournaments, champions league tournaments, premierships have been won by 433? About 6? How many have been won by 442? about 1,069,991 and counting. Funny thing is, if someone tried telling Johan Cruijff his team were successful because of the formation and that in a different formation the personnel wouldn't have been as successful, he'd probably tell you to f*** yourself, an rightly so!

 

Is this a wind-up? The last three Premierships have been won with 4-3-3. The current leaders play 4-5-1.

 

No wind-up. I said history. Football has been played for some 120 years. 433 has been prominent at most in the last 25 years. 3 premiership titles is nothing against a backdrop of 90+ years of non-existence and non-success

 

What a ridiculous comment. Wasn't 4-2-4 the formation of choice before 4-4-2? And what about 2-3-5, is that the classic football formation? The point it, which one's going to work now, not which one worked best in the past.

 

What is so ridiculous? I was responding to comments earlier on in this thread along the lines of '433 is the greatest formation ever, it's so brilliant blah blah blah'. I am merely pointing out that before i would label a formation the best 'ever', i would wait till it has some substantial success behind it. I am not saying 442 is the best formation ever, but it's had more success in the history of the game than 433, and so has a much better shout of being labelled the best formation ever. 433 is kak. that was my intial point, and i stand by it.

 

for all those people that because they can remember 1 successful football team that got success with a formation that is not 442, please don't feel you have to throw that at me as some riposte to my overall point.

 

[Yorkie]

433 (aka 451 in stealth mode) is kak! Crap formation, kak ideology behind it, and has no history of success in the game of football, and probably never will have!

 

Aye that Ajax team have been garbage over the years like.

 

Oh f*** wait, Johan Cruijff says f*** you.

 

 

 

The examples you give are always the exception to the domination of 442. How many international tournaments, champions league tournaments, premierships have been won by 433? About 6? How many have been won by 442? about 1,069,991 and counting. Funny thing is, if someone tried telling Johan Cruijff his team were successful because of the formation and that in a different formation the personnel wouldn't have been as successful, he'd probably tell you to f*** yourself, an rightly so!

 

Is this a wind-up? The last three Premierships have been won with 4-3-3. The current leaders play 4-5-1.

 

No wind-up. I said history. Football has been played for some 120 years. 433 has been prominent at most in the last 25 years. 3 premiership titles is nothing against a backdrop of 90+ years of non-existence and non-success

 

What a ridiculous comment. Wasn't 4-2-4 the formation of choice before 4-4-2? And what about 2-3-5, is that the classic football formation? The point it, which one's going to work now, not which one worked best in the past.

 

What is so ridiculous? I was responding to comments earlier on in this thread along the lines of '433 is the greatest formation ever no one's said that, it's so brilliant blah blah blah'. I am merely pointing out that before i would label a formation the best 'ever', i would wait till it has some substantial success behind it. I am not saying 442 is the best formation ever and you're clearly saying that, but it's had more success in the history of the game than 433 so? three premier league's on the trot won with 4-3-3, and so has a much better shout of being labelled the best formation ever. 433 is kak. that was my intial point, and i stand by it.

 

for all those people that because they can remember 1 successful football team that got success with a formation that is not 442, please don't feel you have to throw that at me as some riposte to my overall point.

[greydos]

433 (aka 451 in stealth mode) is kak! Crap formation, kak ideology behind it, and has no history of success in the game of football, and probably never will have!

 

Aye that Ajax team have been garbage over the years like.

 

Oh f*** wait, Johan Cruijff says f*** you.

 

 

 

The examples you give are always the exception to the domination of 442. How many international tournaments, champions league tournaments, premierships have been won by 433? About 6? How many have been won by 442? about 1,069,991 and counting. Funny thing is, if someone tried telling Johan Cruijff his team were successful because of the formation and that in a different formation the personnel wouldn't have been as successful, he'd probably tell you to f*** yourself, an rightly so!

 

Is this a wind-up? The last three Premierships have been won with 4-3-3. The current leaders play 4-5-1.

 

No wind-up. I said history. Football has been played for some 120 years. 433 has been prominent at most in the last 25 years. 3 premiership titles is nothing against a backdrop of 90+ years of non-existence and non-success

 

What a ridiculous comment. Wasn't 4-2-4 the formation of choice before 4-4-2? And what about 2-3-5, is that the classic football formation? The point it, which one's going to work now, not which one worked best in the past.

 

What is so ridiculous? I was responding to comments earlier on in this thread along the lines of '433 is the greatest formation ever no one's said that, it's so brilliant blah blah blah'. I am merely pointing out that before i would label a formation the best 'ever', i would wait till it has some substantial success behind it. I am not saying 442 is the best formation ever and you're clearly saying that, but it's had more success in the history of the game than 433 so? three premier league's on the trot won with 4-3-3, and so has a much better shout of being labelled the best formation ever. 433 is kak. that was my intial point, and i stand by it.

 

for all those people that because they can remember 1 successful football team that got success with a formation that is not 442, please don't feel you have to throw that at me as some riposte to my overall point.

 

YG, i'm not quite sure what you've tried to do there, but if the emboldened text is supposed to say that nobody in this thread has said that 433 is the best ever formation (i'm guessing that's what you mean?) then i would point to HTT's post at the top of page 3:

 

'4-3-3 is the ultimate and most flexible formation ever concepted in football and will be a huge success for us, once we have the players for it...'

 

I know it's slightly tongue in cheek the way he has worded it, but the sentiment behind it i have heard him say before (in particular in mammoth posts about how it's the best for 'transitional play' and how mourinho goes to bed with 433 written all over his favourite pyjamas etc etc.

 

The point i was making is that if any formation is going to have a chance of being labelled 'the ultimate', 'the best', or whatever else anyone wants to call it, then it's got to have a history of success much greater than 442, which has dominated football at every level for more years than most of the other formations.

[Dave]

Looks like you made the common mistake of falling for HTT's hyperbole.

[Keefaz]

Looks like you made the common mistake of falling for HTT's hyperbole.

 

Hyperbowl or high-per-bolly?

[Dave]

The latter.

[Keefaz]

The latter.

 

Interesting...

[Thespence]

'4-3-3 is the ultimate and most flexible formation ever concepted in football

 

It is fantastic for managers who want to play defensive but haven't got the balls to come out say  we are playing 4-5-1.

[Mowen]

<snip>

What a ridiculous comment. Wasn't 4-2-4 the formation of choice before 4-4-2? And what about 2-3-5, is that the classic football formation? The point it, which one's going to work now, not which one worked best in the past.

 

What is so ridiculous? I was responding to comments earlier on in this thread along the lines of '433 is the greatest formation ever, it's so brilliant blah blah blah'. I am merely pointing out that before i would label a formation the best 'ever', i would wait till it has some substantial success behind it. I am not saying 442 is the best formation ever, but it's had more success in the history of the game than 433, and so has a much better shout of being labelled the best formation ever. 433 is kak. that was my intial point, and i stand by it.

 

for all those people that because they can remember 1 successful football team that got success with a formation that is not 442, please don't feel you have to throw that at me as some riposte to my overall point.

 

Fair enough, just thought you were saying 442 was the formation that had won everything over the years, even though it wasn't around for a long time as well. Obviously misinterpreted your point. Wasn't actually trying to defend 433 myself, just saying that the 'best' formation at any fixed time evolves and develops.

[tgarve]

I dont think we have the squad to play 433, and i think SA has realised that, he said in his Zoo column something along those words. I think the problem with us playin 433 lies with our forward line. Simple as that.

 

I think the problem lies specifically with the wide forwards. For the 433 to be completely effective you need the forwards to be able to double up and become part of a 5 man midfield, while being able to be a sufficient threat in the box, I personally think that Smith could fit that role well, he seems like a very similar player to Diouf, but we also have Duff to return on the left, a player who is already comfortable playing on thw wide left of the fron t 3.

 

This leaves us with Owen and Martins, arguably our most dangerous players, who are completely inneffective in a 433 situation. It also poses a problem for Zog, as he isnt the enough of a threat in the box to warrant a place on the left of the 3 forwards. The same can be said of Milner.

 

This leaves us with 442, which seems like the best formation for our squad. One of the problems though that i think is hindering the 442 is the partnerships that the formation depends of to be effective, For the 442 to be completely effective it needs to be perfectly balanced with all the partnerships working well. The same dependence on partnerships isnt so important in the 433 formation.

 

If SA gets all the balance and partnerships working well then i see no reason to try and change the team around too much.

 

what?

[Guest Knightrider]

Greydos my comments were very much tongue in cheek and while I do believe that of all the formations and systems ever dreamed up that 4-3-3 in theory is the best in terms of tactics and other variables, no formation is the best or worst in reality though, because it is all down to the players played there and the manager deploying it. In short the personnel and manager make a team, not a system or formation, whether it be 4-4-2 or 4-3-3. A formation or system is just like a winter jacket in many ways. It will keep you warm to a degree but you'll still feel the cold. That's the same in football. 4-3-3 against 4-4-2 all things equal should provide you with better defensive cover and more attacking options (keeping you warm), but it won't guarantee you those three points (you may still feel the cold), only the players and manager can do that and even then the manager isn't that big of a factor once the whistle goes for kick-off. And of course players have their off days and fortune plays a big part too.

 

However in this day and age of preparation, tactics and other variables, 4-4-2 just doesn't cut it where as formations like 4-3-3 are proving to be huge successes across the board, from Bolton to Chelsea all the way to Amsterdam and Madrid. Yes 4-4-2 it is backed up with years of success as you rightly point out but that is no defence of it, the majority of teams played that way so naturally it's going to succeed as a formation, today they play all kind of ways though and new systems and formations are being dreamed up every week throughout the game. I mean even with such a limited and antique formation as 4-4-2 there are 101 ways to use 4-4-2.

 

You know it's dying on it's arse though when most of your top teams in each country rarely use it while it's biggest fan, Arsene Wenger, has ditched it in favour of 4-4-1-1 as it no longer works, even when you have top players and a top manager behind it all as Arsenal do. And why? Because it's too easy to defend against for a start and too rigid in it's structure to move away from during the game which you will have to do at some point. 4-4-2 is great for defending and to keep a certain shape is it's rows of banks, two 4s and a 2 that can move up, back, sideways or forwards. But you can't spin it like you can 4-3-3 and other formations. You can't say, twist that 4 in midfield into a diamond or an attacking 4 going forward. Do that and you lose your shape and it becomes a mess much easier for the opposition to take advantage of. This is why most teams unless they have exceptionally gifted players play in straight lines using 4-4-2, because it's so damn rigid in structure to be at all flexible in it. England are a classic example of even a good side with good players throughout coming unstuck using 4-4-2.

 

And another thing, 4-4-2 will only work best when the opposition lineup the same, then the game becomes a boxing match which was the old English game, you attack first, then we attack and so on and so on. Today football is more like a chess game, increasingly so in English football thanks to the foreign influence which I feel is a good influence. The football may not be as end to end and with it as exciting, but it's far more interesting I think.

 

Going back to Arsenal, when did they start to lose their way? When the opposition changed from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 to combat them. At the time it riled Wenger but it's been the making of him, because it forced a purist to change his ways. Now Arsenal don't play just one way, they play a number of ways, they don't just play 4-4-2 anymore. This has had a knock on effect and Big Sam was at the head of it because he started experimenting with systems and formations to combat your Arsenals and your Man Utds, with success, and others followed. Now 4-4-2 isn't the uniform and standard formation it once was. It doesn't dominate the English top-flight thankfully.

 

A formation that has held England back and English sides in Europe for years and indeed Newcastle United. We've never really moved away from it, from KK to Sir Bobby.

 

Why did we fail to win the League under Bobby (a 4-4-2 side)? There are many reasons why, not quite being good enough the biggest, but being so damn predictable and direct didn't help. We only beat teams by either being superior on the day or because of our individuals, we rarely won games due to tactics or by canceling teams out like your top sides do today though. Man Utd know they will win 70% of their games by simply being superior to their rivals (Derby et al) while another 20% will be won due to their individuals (Everton et al), your Rooneys and Ronaldos. The all important 10% though which wins or loses you leagues (against your rivals and tricky games), will be won tactically and by way of formations and systems. I.e. their 1-0 win over Liverpool at the weekend. If they had of went toe to toe, i.e. a boxing match (the old game) they would have probably lost or would have took a big gamble (the KK way?). But no, they played the new game (chess) and guaranteed almost themselves a point at worst, a win at best, with a defeat being unlikely due to the layers of tactics, the formation and the system deployed.

 

You can't quite do all that with a 4-4-2 though which is like a cardboard box compared to the rubix cubes that are other formations and systems.

 

In my opinion anyway.

[Shak]

Over-reliance on analogies somewhat tarnished what was otherwise a very nice post.

[greydos]

Coach HTT, i give you credit for the post even if i disagree with a lot of your points.

 

If you want to call a 4411 a different formation to a 442, then that's your prerogative. However, to me, that's a 442. Simple as. If one striker always tackles back in a 442 (ala heskey in the owen partnership at liverpool) that does not mean a 4411 is being played.

 

Arsenal mainly play 442, with Persie and Adebayor up front. Due to injuries they have adapted, but will revert to 442 shortly.

 

433 does not have to dominate a 442, as in response all a 442 has to do is involve the spare centre half in bringing the ball out more, matching the midfield 3 and utilising the extra man they have up front.

 

Saying that a 442 cannot convert to an attacking 4 as it will lose its shape is just plain wrong. Man utd's team recently have lined up: Ronaldo..Hargreaves..Anderson..Giggs with Tevez and Rooney up front. When they go forward, Ronaldo and Giggs often get to the byeline or box like traditional wingers, making it 4 up front if you like, with anderson and hargreaves supporting from deep. this is the same in most 442s.

 

Saying that a 442 isn't flexible as it cannot change into a 'diamond' or other shape is also wrong. It's still a 442, just one central midfielder pushes up, the other sits. So for classic man u of the 90s, where keane sat, scholes pushed on.

 

I didn't watch the liverpool man u game on the weekend, but the experts on match of the day seemed to think they lined up 442, and it looked like that in the highlights. Now, talk of them playing it like 'chess' and not 'boxing' is just silly. Firstly, boxing can be as tactical and smart-thinking as chess, if not moreso. Similarly, chess can be a game of less thinking and all out warfare (read up on Mikhael Tal, multiple world champion, his style of play was gung-ho). Besides failed analogies (that coat thing was unpleasant to read) a 442 does not mean you have to throw caution to the wind. You can request wingers not to venture as far forward, and make sure if they go that the central midfielders sit, aye. But you can do that in any formation. If the instructions are not to go forward, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden a 442 is not being played as we're playing the chess 433 or whatever. It just means the men in the 442 have been told to be cautious.

 

Anyway, that is all for now, i await your respone, and will carry on the debate with you. It's good to see some honest open discussion on a forum without petty name calling etc, and adds to my overall enjoyment of the best sport in the world!! (football, not chess   

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Coach HTT, i give you credit for the post even if i disagree with a lot of your points.

 

If you want to call a 4411 a different formation to a 442, then that's your prerogative. However, to me, that's a 442. Simple as. If one striker always tackles back in a 442 (ala heskey in the owen partnership at liverpool) that does not mean a 4411 is being played.

 

Arsenal mainly play 442, with Persie and Adebayor up front. Due to injuries they have adapted, but will revert to 442 shortly.

 

433 does not have to dominate a 442, as in response all a 442 has to do is involve the spare centre half in bringing the ball out more, matching the midfield 3 and utilising the extra man they have up front.

 

Saying that a 442 cannot convert to an attacking 4 as it will lose its shape is just plain wrong. Man utd's team recently have lined up: Ronaldo..Hargreaves..Anderson..Giggs with Tevez and Rooney up front. When they go forward, Ronaldo and Giggs often get to the byeline or box like traditional wingers, making it 4 up front if you like, with anderson and hargreaves supporting from deep. this is the same in most 442s.

 

Saying that a 442 isn't flexible as it cannot change into a 'diamond' or other shape is also wrong. It's still a 442, just one central midfielder pushes up, the other sits. So for classic man u of the 90s, where keane sat, scholes pushed on.

 

I didn't watch the liverpool man u game on the weekend, but the experts on match of the day seemed to think they lined up 442, and it looked like that in the highlights. Now, talk of them playing it like 'chess' and not 'boxing' is just silly. Firstly, boxing can be as tactical and smart-thinking as chess, if not moreso. Similarly, chess can be a game of less thinking and all out warfare (read up on Mikhael Tal, multiple world champion, his style of play was gung-ho). Besides failed analogies (that coat thing was unpleasant to read) a 442 does not mean you have to throw caution to the wind. You can request wingers not to venture as far forward, and make sure if they go that the central midfielders sit, aye. But you can do that in any formation. If the instructions are not to go forward, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden a 442 is not being played as we're playing the chess 433 or whatever. It just means the men in the 442 have been told to be cautious.

 

Anyway, that is all for now, i await your respone, and will carry on the debate with you. It's good to see some honest open discussion on a forum without petty name calling etc, and adds to my overall enjoyment of the best sport in the world!! (football, not chess   

 

 

 

Good post.

[Guest Knightrider]

I dont think we have the squad to play 433

 

If you look at our players and then try and add them to 4-4-2 in your traditional typical English way of playing 4-4-2 which many fans seem to want or consider to be the best way forward ahead of 4-3-3, you'll see we don't actually have the exact players to play 4-4-2 in such a way either, so Big Sam has rightly in my opinion went for a hybrid of the two formations which I consider to be the underbelly behind our inconsistency rather than anything more alarming, something that I'm personally hoping will be rectified once the manager can bring in and ship out players accordingly in coming transfer windows.

 

Lets look at our foreign players, take it as read that each and every one of them will have been schooled in almost all principles of play rather than one or two and for most of them, positions too, either via street football which is dead here in England but very much alive in the countries that the majority of our foreign players hail from, especially France and Africa, academy/centre of excellence life which is different to how most English academies or our CEs are run and of course their club and national team football which is mixed and more sophisticated compared to the rigid 4-4-2 culture that English footballers are brought up on at all levels up until most recently.

 

So here you have a large percentage of players who where 4-4-2 is concerned, are not experienced enough or drilled enough in that whole principle of playing to successfully operate fully within that formation and the systems of work that go hand in hand with the English way of playing 4-4-2, i.e. use of width, central channels and the longer directer ball from the back.

 

Take Emre for example, when he was at Inter he was deployed in an area of the pitch that in typical English 4-4-2 would contain the defensive midfielder, only at Inter he was the playmaker who would pick the ball up off the back four and spread it about, moving all the time forward in revolving roles. It's the same for him with Turkey.

 

And then what about Geremi? Boro under McLaren played 3-5-2 or 4-3-3. At Chelsea Geremi was coached to play 4-3-3. Nigeria don't or did not play 4-4-2 either.

 

How about Barton? Keegan went to 3-5-2 didn't he and other formations away from 4-4-2 while Pearce went 4-5-1 or another, again rarely using 4-4-2.

 

How about Smith? Leeds were one of the first teams in the Premiership to play 4-3-3 while Man Utd shifted from 4-4-2 after their treble season back i9n '99/2000. The only time Smith will have sampled 4-4-2 would have been with the national side, and how many times has he started for England?!

 

What about N'Zogbia? Again he's been schooled in a totally different culture that isn't confined to one way of playing or one kind of role, hence why he doesn't hug the touchline in 4-4-2, and why would he when as a youngster he would come infield and into central positions while for his club through the ranks he'd play in a number of formations and roles too.

 

Moving on, what about Viduka? He's more used to the lone man for Australia or Celtic, or in the hole, or 4-3-3 than 4-4-2. Martins isn't a 4-4-2 man either while Owen played in 4-5-1 for Liverpool or 4-3-3 at Madrid.

 

Duff? 4-3-3 at Chelsea.

 

Milner? He's played more 4-3-3 than 4-4-2 which is probably why he more than most is actually benefiting from the changes in formation, system and lineup.

 

Right throughout our team you will find players who are as familiar/disciplined to 4-4-2 as they are to 3-5-2, indeed a few of them are probably more familiar with that which is why in training Big Sam has experimented with it a lot I guess.

 

Is it then not understandable that the manager has jumped from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 or tried to merge the two for the time being, and that the team as a collective and the players as individuals neither look hot in 4-4-2 or indeed 4-3-3? I think so, myself.

 

As the original post highlights though, I think we are gradually improving and moving ever closer to a full on 4-3-3 which will no doubt be speeded up either this January or in the summer with incomings and outgoings.

 

Btw, I've just had a thought. Perhaps England struggle at 4-4-2 these days because most of the players don't play 4-4-2 at club level? Could be a valid theory maybe.

 

Anyway I'm fully behind anything that gets us away from that god awful 4-4-2 formation which I won't deny has it's uses but with a team likes ours, I think we are going to get more out of them both in the short term and more significantly the long term if we can join the rest of the top teams in finally ditching the old for the new, something the manager did to great success at his previous club and actually had a hand in spreading with his many battles with Wenger and his own 4-4-2. I'm sure Wenger changed his ways because of Allardyce's Bolton which everyone copied, even Man Utd a few years back and they have the players to beat them in a football match or as was top flight English football, a boxing match. Today everything is all about tactics, preparation, systems, formations, versatility. The game has changed more so in the last 4-5 years than it did between 1993 and 2000 where most English teams deployed a 4-4-2.

 

On Boxing day, make a note of all the different formations, systems and just how versatile players are becoming, or proving and be thankful we're one of them. He may be many things Big Sam, what can't be denied is that he's a progressive manager, never afraid to experiment.

 

Just a shame his footballing principles haven't caught up...

 

Yet?

[Guest Knightrider]

Coach HTT, i give you credit for the post even if i disagree with a lot of your points.

 

That's what it's all about.

 

If you want to call a 4411 a different formation to a 442, then that's your prerogative. However, to me, that's a 442. Simple as. If one striker always tackles back in a 442 (ala heskey in the owen partnership at liverpool) that does not mean a 4411 is being played.

 

I disagree, although I see where you're coming from and can agree technically at least that the two can be considered the same in a round about way, but then you could say that for most formations, no? Is 4-3-3 just 4-4-2 but with someone from midfield playing up front? Depends how you view things I suppose.

 

For me I class 4-4-1-1 as a variation of 4-4-2 and there are lots of differences that I can tell, especially within the system which to clarify, I consider to be separate to the formation in a joined at the hips kind of way. The formation is how the players lineup, the system is the game plan, i.e. how the 11 players are meant to go about their objectives. However the two go hand in hand.

 

Anyway...

 

For me 4-4-2 in standard format is very much different to 4-4-1-1. To keep things short 4-4-1-1 is the footballing version of the more direct and antiquated 4-4-2 if you like.

 

Arsenal mainly play 442, with Persie and Adebayor up front. Due to injuries they have adapted, but will revert to 442 shortly.

 

They used to, but Wenger has tinkered and while I'm in no doubt he will use 4-4-2 again, 4-4-1-1 will be his usual formation, especially now that he's seen just how successful it is with the players he has. If you add van Persie to the equation, you may get more firepower up front but when your game is built around passing and moving in midfield, you're losing that bridge that links midfield to attack in a circular fashion or that free man in midfield. If Arsenal revert back to 4-4-2, playing 4-5-1 against it will give you numerical advantage in midfield and thus weaken Arsenal's strength, their passing and movement in midfield. That's the theory anyway, easier said than done. I believe Arsenal could lineup in 3-5-2 and still beat the majority of teams outside the top 4 and more savvy below that. Again, formations and systems are great, but it's the players really that are key.

 

433 does not have to dominate a 442, as in response all a 442 has to do is involve the spare centre half in bringing the ball out more, matching the midfield 3 and utilising the extra man they have up front.

 

Spare centre-half? When you have 5 forwards on the pitch (that's the idea behind 4-3-3 which would require a mega post to go into detail and explain further) there will be no spare centre-half. And another thing, there is no midfield in 4-3-3, it's 5 defensive players and five attacking players. The whole point of 4-3-3 (depending on how you use it of course) is to do away with midfield and therefore shorten the pitch, i.e. one foot always in defence and one foot always in attack, so as to take full advantage of transitional elements in a game which is as follows: When in possession, when not in possession and when possession changes hand. It's quite scientific when it's broken down and involves a lot of theory but we've all witnessed with Chelsea just how effective 4-3-3 really is if used correctly or rather when perfected, which I believe Chelsea and Mourinho pretty much achieved hence why they were so good home and away regardless of the opposition. Indeed Mourinho said he would never change his formation accordingly, although the system would change depending on who they were playing. That's how confident he was with the 4-3-3.

 

That was Chelsea and Mourinho of course and again, how one team plays 4-3-3 will be different to how another plays it, but the general ideas or concepts are the same, with the system being what would seperate one team using 4-3-3 to another using 4-3-3.

 

Saying that a 442 cannot convert to an attacking 4 as it will lose its shape is just plain wrong. Man utd's team recently have lined up: Ronaldo..Hargreaves..Anderson..Giggs with Tevez and Rooney up front. When they go forward, Ronaldo and Giggs often get to the byeline or box like traditional wingers, making it 4 up front if you like, with anderson and hargreaves supporting from deep. this is the same in most 442s.

 

I did give allowances for those exceptional teams with exceptional players which Man Utd are. However for an average side like us to play 4-4-2 then turn a bank of 4 and 2 into a bank of 2 and 4? We'd get hammered. That's what I meant when talking about how the shape will become a mess. Why do games become stretched? Because the formation breaks down. Well, 4-4-2 is the easiest shape to break down and the easiest shape to lose and it's often lost (the shape) when the manager tinkers and instructs the winger to tuck in and the midfielder to push on for example (to go and attack) or to pull a striker back and sit deep. When you play in lines as most average 4-4-2 sides do, things can get quite messy. Why do you think the Italians aren't big fans of 4-4-2? Because late on in a game, it's not the strongest of formations, it can break, split and be got at.

 

Saying that a 442 isn't flexible as it cannot change into a 'diamond' or other shape is also wrong. It's still a 442, just one central midfielder pushes up, the other sits. So for classic man u of the 90s, where keane sat, scholes pushed on.

 

Oh, it can be changed around and tinkered with, anyone can move players about on a tactics board regardless of formation, by flexible though I'm talking about in relation to the system and players. So you're 1-0 up with 20 minutes to go, you drop the second striker into midfield or bring him off and put on a midfielder to make it 4-5-1, what happens? Your outlet goes, you sit deeper and deeper, you start to give the ball away, the opposition are coming forward more and more. 5 minutes later they score. Then what? 4-3-3 and other formations that don't require straight line tactics or rigid systems are much more flexible as you can do more things with it and because your players are conditioned to not play in such straight lines and in banks of this or that number, they can adjust to the game situation accordingly. In a 4-3-3, if you're winning 1-0 and want to shut up shop, you can pull the wide forwards back to make it 5 or pull one back and make it 4-3-1-2. But because your formation and system is designed around transitions, once you're in possession, hey presto, back to 4-3-3, or if possession changes hand, you've got one foot in attack. With 4-4-2 you can't do that because 4-4-2 is about territory and stages - defensive half, midfield, opposition half, final 3rd and so on . In theory you could probably come up with this or that but it won't work in practice because in the heat of battle, when 4-4-2 is looking to shutt up shop, the formation and rigidness of it forces the team back another 20 yards or so, to become more narrow and for the strikers or striker to be isolated from the midfield. Where as if you're chasing a game, well, it becomes a mess. 4-4-2? More like 3-4-all.

 

I didn't watch the liverpool man u game on the weekend, but the experts on match of the day seemed to think they lined up 442, and it looked like that in the highlights. Now, talk of them playing it like 'chess' and not 'boxing' is just silly. Firstly, boxing can be as tactical and smart-thinking as chess, if not moreso. Similarly, chess can be a game of less thinking and all out warfare (read up on Mikhael Tal, multiple world champion, his style of play was gung-ho). Besides failed analogies (that coat thing was unpleasant to read) a 442 does not mean you have to throw caution to the wind. You can request wingers not to venture as far forward, and make sure if they go that the central midfielders sit, aye. But you can do that in any formation. If the instructions are not to go forward, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden a 442 is not being played as we're playing the chess 433 or whatever. It just means the men in the 442 have been told to be cautious.

 

I watched it and it wasn't 4-4-2. Rooney was up front by himself, pushed right up. Liverpool lined up the same. The two systems however were very much different. Forget my boxing analogy, although I think it's not a bad one. Yes Boxing is tactical and indeed technical, but it's a knockout sport is it not? That's what I meant by the old game. I also know 4-4-2 doesn't mean throwing caution to the wind, although that would be down to the system and not the formation if a team were to go all out attack or not, regardless of formation.

 

It's quite hard for me to articulate the faults in 4-4-2. All I can try and do is to ask you to imagine those 4 in midfield, turning in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail. A flat 4-4-2 can't do that, work in circles (it can work in triangles) but not circles, a 4-3-3 can, or a 4-3-2-1 can. The left side of the 3 can join the left side of the 2 and the right side of the 2 can join the right side of the 3, revolving, in circles. Moving, changing, inter-changing. 4-4-2 moves one way - in straight lines. The left winger will move forward in a straight line, and so will the right. The two forwards will take it in turns to run backwards and forwards in a straight line and so will the midfielders and full-backs. Only the most outstanding teams with outstanding players will play fluid football in a 4-4-2, the rest it's straight up and down. Kick and rush? You bet.

 

Anyway, that is all for now, i await your respone, and will carry on the debate with you. It's good to see some honest open discussion on a forum without petty name calling etc, and adds to my overall enjoyment of the best sport in the world!! (football, not chess   

 

Aye, I enjoy these debates and while I doubt we'll ever agree on some of the things we've went over, at least we can debate them  and I do enjoy reading different views, even if they are different to my own. I might be quite opinionated and forthright in my views, but I'm not stubborn enough to actually believe I know all the answers and that I am right and you are wrong. 

[Cronky]

It's true to say that flexibility means pulling players out of those straight lines, and giving them freer roles. The advantage that I can see of 4-3-3 is that the wide players, as well as two of the three central midfield players, get freed up. Only the target man and the midfield anchor have relatively fixed positions.

 

With the traditional 4-4-2, the wide players tend more to be more stuck to the wings, and the only truly free roles go to the more withdrawn striker and the attacking central midfield player.

 

The problem that I can see with the way we're playing 4-3-3 at the moment is defensively. When the opposition double up on one of our full backs, it's not clear whether one of the central midfield players or the wide player should be helping out. We seem to have difficulty in preventing crosses from coming in. I noticed against Fulham that Martins seemed confused about whether he should be helping his full back out on a couple of occasions.

 

In my modest playing career, I never played 4-3-3, so I don't know how this is supposed to work out. In 4-4-2, the covering role clearly goes to the winger.

[Guest Knightrider]

4-4-2 was designed to gain territorial advantage in key areas like out wide (wingers), just behind a back-four (attacking midfielder) and inside the box (twin strikers). Teams could also afford to leave just 2 midfielders in the centre while the two wingers got forward with the two strikers, or sometimes just one central midfielder if the attacking midfielder also joined to make it 5 going forward as the opposition played the same way. This is how your David Batty evolved, clubs needed a specialised defensive midfielder who would just sit.

 

Look throughout the game today and where is your David Batty? A fantastic player who today would be labeled very limited and a weakness in the side from an attacking perspective just like Nicky Butt is for us especially at home, the last of your David Batty types perhaps?

 

Anyway when 4-4-2 become popular the football was more direct, where the full-back launched it long to the centre-forward who either held it up and played it wide to the winger, or flicked it on for the second striker or attacking midfielder. Or the ball winner in midfield playing it wide to the winger to attack the full-back to whip a cross in for the strikers. If they didn't win it or the ball broke loose, the attacking midfielder got on the end of things.

 

Today football is a possession game where the buildup comes from the back and right through the team, often without any real territorial advantage being gained as the ball comes backwards or sideways a lot these days.

 

4-4-2 restricts movement and possession unless the players are fantastically gifted ala Arsenal because the ball can only really go into so many areas and in so many directions (usually straight lines) where as the players themselves are conditioned by their place in the formation. The winger has to hug the touchline otherwise your width goes, the defensive midfielder has to sit to protect the back four, the centre-forward has to push up high and battle away otherwise the second striker isn't going to get a sniff and so on and so on. Of course it isn't always like that as every team is different and the game itself changes players and teams based on what is happening, but this is the general rules of 4-4-2 if you like.

 

In short it becomes very predictable at both ends. This is why Sir Bobby wanted to phase Shearer out and allowed Nobby to leave because he didn't want to deploy the two strikers and wingers routine. This is also why he bought Jenas and Viana because he wanted to keep the ball more in midfield, Jenas being the legs, Viana being the creative brain pulling the strings. He also wanted to release Dyer further forward (the runner and space creator).

 

This is why he tried 3-5-2 out too which is a formation designed to maximise possession and with it numerical advantage (you need a spare man to keep possession, to keep the ball moving, otherwise it breaks down eventually either because the opposition have won it back or you run out of ideas and men to hit).

 

In 4-3-3, only the central players, the spine of the side have fixed roles or positions and even then if you have a quick and very mobile striker and others in the team who can play centrally, you can swap things around which is what Bolton did to us last year at SJP, Anelka played the lone central striker in the first half and in the second he moved out wide, with another replacing him centrally.

 

Of course, as Bob touches on, 4-3-3 can confuse players, especially regarding marking, covering and all-round timing, but that's what the training ground is for and where managers earn their coaching badges, to get around these confusions and creases in the formation and system.

 

I honestly can't see one advantage with 4-4-2 over 4-3-3 though and fancy our chances if the manager can get in the kind of players that will make it work because as he's proved at Bolton with it, it really is a tough formation to break down regardless of the opposition.

[TRon]

4-4-2 was designed to gain territorial advantage in key areas like out wide (wingers), just behind a back-four (attacking midfielder) and inside the box (twin strikers). Teams could also afford to leave just 2 midfielders in the centre while the two wingers got forward with the two strikers, or sometimes just one central midfielder if the attacking midfielder also joined to make it 5 going forward as the opposition played the same way. This is how your David Batty evolved, clubs needed a specialised defensive midfielder who would just sit.

 

Look throughout the game today and where is your David Batty? A fantastic player who today would be labeled very limited and a weakness in the side from an attacking perspective just like Nicky Butt is for us especially at home, the last of your David Batty types perhaps?

 

Anyway when 4-4-2 become popular the football was more direct, where the full-back launched it long to the centre-forward who either held it up and played it wide to the winger, or flicked it on for the second striker or attacking midfielder. Or the ball winner in midfield playing it wide to the winger to attack the full-back to whip a cross in for the strikers. If they didn't win it or the ball broke loose, the attacking midfielder got on the end of things.

 

Today football is a possession game where the buildup comes from the back and right through the team, often without any real territorial advantage being gained as the ball comes backwards or sideways a lot these days.

 

4-4-2 restricts movement and possession unless the players are fantastically gifted ala Arsenal because the ball can only really go into so many areas and in so many directions (usually straight lines) where as the players themselves are conditioned by their place in the formation. The winger has to hug the touchline otherwise your width goes, the defensive midfielder has to sit to protect the back four, the centre-forward has to push up high and battle away otherwise the second striker isn't going to get a sniff and so on and so on. Of course it isn't always like that as every team is different and the game itself changes players and teams based on what is happening, but this is the general rules of 4-4-2 if you like.

 

In short it becomes very predictable at both ends. This is why Sir Bobby wanted to phase Shearer out and allowed Nobby to leave because he didn't want to deploy the two strikers and wingers routine. This is also why he bought Jenas and Viana because he wanted to keep the ball more in midfield, Jenas being the legs, Viana being the creative brain pulling the strings. He also wanted to release Dyer further forward (the runner and space creator).

 

This is why he tried 3-5-2 out too which is a formation designed to maximise possession and with it numerical advantage (you need a spare man to keep possession, to keep the ball moving, otherwise it breaks down eventually either because the opposition have won it back or you run out of ideas and men to hit).

 

In 4-3-3, only the central players, the spine of the side have fixed roles or positions and even then if you have a quick and very mobile striker and others in the team who can play centrally, you can swap things around which is what Bolton did to us last year at SJP, Anelka played the lone central striker in the first half and in the second he moved out wide, with another replacing him centrally.

 

Of course, as Bob touches on, 4-3-3 can confuse players, especially regarding marking, covering and all-round timing, but that's what the training ground is for and where managers earn their coaching badges, to get around these confusions and creases in the formation and system.

 

I honestly can't see one advantage with 4-4-2 over 4-3-3 though and fancy our chances if the manager can get in the kind of players that will make it work because as he's proved at Bolton with it, it really is a tough formation to break down regardless of the opposition.

 

That is a very good read and I don't disagree with much of it at all. I was a big fan of Mourinho's 4-3-3 at it's best. I know Allardyce is trying to go the same way, but I have been disappointed that he hasn't been able to use the resources available to him better when he clearly hasn't got the players to play that style. If you expect players to be adaptable to fit your formation, surely a good manager needs to show some adaptability in the short term at least?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

That is a very good read and I don't disagree with much of it at all. I was a big fan of Mourinho's 4-3-3 at it's best. I know Allardyce is trying to go the same way, but I have been disappointed that he hasn't been able to use the resources available to him better when he clearly hasn't got the players to play that style. If you expect players to be adaptable to fit your formation, surely a good manager needs to show some adaptability in the short term at least?

 

As I posted above though, does he really have the players to play 4-4-2 successfully? I'm not so sure he does, most of them have been exposed to all kinds of formations and systems before they came to us with 4-4-2 rarely being a part of their game. In fact I'm inclined to accept that our team just isn't good enough regardless of what formation or system is deployed, whether it be 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 and that won't change until the personnel changes above anything else. Our results are just as mixed playing 4-4-2 as they have been playing 4-3-3.

 

Regarding the manager, to my mind he has tried to use the tools (players) at his disposal to the best of his and their ability more often than not, with clear mixed results. Of course he has experimented and at times played the wrong team the wrong way to the detriment of performances and results but I think any manager who has an eye on the long-term can be forgiven for wanting to see what works and what doesn't and should be allowed some time to make mistakes along the way, in the hope that eventually he and his troops get things right at the end of it.

 

And I personally back him to get it right, providing he gets the time and funds very much needed to turn us around from what we are; an average team with many problems. And that's with or without Big Sam.

 

Fingers crossed anyway...

[johnnypd]

i think our front 6 are far more suited for 4-4-2 than to 4-3-3. Owen and Martins both look 10 times the player in a 4-4-2, viduka is completely unsuited to 4-3-3, it doesn't suit milner as it renders his crossing irrelevant, n'zogbia has looked at his best in a 4-4-2 and emre and butt when they played together in central midfield looked like a well balanced duo. the only players who scream out for needing 4-3-3 are Smith, who is a very average player, and duff, who is years past his peak.

[Ronaldo]

i think our front 6 are far more suited for 4-4-2 than to 4-3-3. Owen and Martins both look 10 times the player in a 4-4-2, viduka is completely unsuited to 4-3-3, it doesn't suit milner as it renders his crossing irrelevant, n'zogbia has looked at his best in a 4-4-2 and emre and butt when they played together in central midfield looked like a well balanced duo. the only players who scream out for needing 4-3-3 are Smith, who is a very average player, and duff, who is years past his peak.

 

so harsh on Duff, why can't people give him the benefit of the doubt

[tmonkey]

so harsh on Duff, why can't people give him the benefit of the doubt

 

He needs to stay fit to do that, then he needs to improve considerably on last season's form, and the form he showed for Chelsea the season before. Asking alot of him.

 

I'll be hoping he can do it, since I really want to see us playing 4-3-3 with better players, but he needs to show something this season otherwise he'll surely be shipped out, and deservedly so - hes been mediocre for us compared to his former standard.

[Guest Knightrider]

i think our front 6 are far more suited for 4-4-2 than to 4-3-3. Owen and Martins both look 10 times the player in a 4-4-2, viduka is completely unsuited to 4-3-3, it doesn't suit milner as it renders his crossing irrelevant, n'zogbia has looked at his best in a 4-4-2 and emre and butt when they played together in central midfield looked like a well balanced duo. the only players who scream out for needing 4-3-3 are Smith, who is a very average player, and duff, who is years past his peak.

 

When you put it like that then I would have to agree. But when you put all those individual players together in the same team and ask them to play 4-4-2, I think you'll find they won't work as well as you'd think or that much better than they would in 4-3-3, if at all. And I'll tell you why - for us to get success in 4-4-2 those wingers and forwards need service and we lack someone in midfield to provide the service, i.e. a playmaker. Don't mention Emre, his passing is poor as is his selection of passing, he prefers to run with the ball anyway. He's actually more suited to a 4-3-3 formation. Barton doesn't look like a playmaker to me either, he's more of an action man type midfielder, box to box. Butt is a destroyer and Geremi isn't your man either. In short we don't have the players to keep the ball and feed those wingers and strikers.

 

Up front we don't quite have the forwards either who will put away those crosses and get into the box, Viduka hasn't the legs to get in there these days or the fitness to stay in the team, Owen doesn't have the fitness either and can easily be marked by a good defender. Keep him outside the box and he's pretty much a wasted shirt. As for Martins, he doesn't have the brains to make the right runs for crosses. We can't thread them through either because we don't have a player in midfield to do it while even on the flanks, our crossing is average to say the least and in Milner, we have the wing version of Owen really. Push him back and he's a wasted shirt as he lacks the pace to pin his marker back. This isn't helped by a lack of pace and attaking flair at right-back. At least on the left with Milner and N'Zogbia we can pin the full-back deeper into his own half as we did with Sagna, an electric attacking full-back. The others? Smith isn't a penalty box striker and Ameobi, well...

 

Sorry but I just don't see how 4-4-2 will work for us with the players we have. On paper and individually speaking it could as you've highlighted, but in practice, the results have been mixed. Indeed we've done better with 4-3-3 and that's because it masks our weaknesses and actually allows us to benefit from them. 4-3-3 squeezes the opposition and can force them deep where we can exploit them from set play or by ariel bombardment, we don't have to have good heading ability in there, the idea is to force the opposition into making mistakes which our extra numbers due to the 6 attacking players will capitalise on. You don't need a playmaker or wingers in 4-3-3 to get some joy from it either. Because the opposition sits deep, their own attack therefore gets cut off so they revert long or their passes fail to reach the forwards, meaning the ball is coming back to us without us having to win it, increasing our possession despite the team not being the best with the ball which we have enjoyed the majority of in quite a few of our games, even against Arsenal. In 4-4-2 you have to scrap for the ball first and when you win it keep it and look for openings, always open to the counter or being outplayed in the middle. In 4-3-3 you don't have to be great on the ball as the opposition will give you it back if you force them deep. You don't need to be great on the wings either because that ball being flung in doesn't have to be precise and you don't need pace either as you're penning the opposition in and picking them off.

 

That's what happened against Arsenal basically and Fulham away. It's not pretty but it works. Ideally we'll get width, creativity and mobility in Jan and beyond, which will make us stronger and able to play in a number of ways going forward. For now though 4-3-3 as it is better than 4-4-2 as it is, for me anyway.

[Alberto2005]

i think our front 6 are far more suited for 4-4-2 than to 4-3-3. Owen and Martins both look 10 times the player in a 4-4-2, viduka is completely unsuited to 4-3-3, it doesn't suit milner as it renders his crossing irrelevant, n'zogbia has looked at his best in a 4-4-2 and emre and butt when they played together in central midfield looked like a well balanced duo. the only players who scream out for needing 4-3-3 are Smith, who is a very average player, and duff, who is years past his peak.

 

When you put it like that then I would have to agree. But when you put all those individual players together in the same team and ask them to play 4-4-2, I think you'll find they won't work as well as you'd think or that much better than they would in 4-3-3, if at all. And I'll tell you why - for us to get success in 4-4-2 those wingers and forwards need service and we lack someone in midfield to provide the service, i.e. a playmaker. Don't mention Emre, his passing is poor as is his selection of passing, he prefers to run with the ball anyway. He's actually more suited to a 4-3-3 formation. Barton doesn't look like a playmaker to me either, he's more of an action man type midfielder, box to box. Butt is a destroyer and Geremi isn't your man either. In short we don't have the players to keep the ball and feed those wingers and strikers.

 

Up front we don't quite have the forwards either who will put away those crosses and get into the box, Viduka hasn't the legs to get in there these days or the fitness to stay in the team, Owen doesn't have the fitness either and can easily be marked by a good defender. Keep him outside the box and he's pretty much a wasted shirt. As for Martins, he doesn't have the brains to make the right runs for crosses. We can't thread them through either because we don't have a player in midfield to do it while even on the flanks, our crossing is average to say the least and in Milner, we have the wing version of Owen really. Push him back and he's a wasted shirt as he lacks the pace to pin his marker back. This isn't helped by a lack of pace and attaking flair at right-back. At least on the left with Milner and N'Zogbia we can pin the full-back deeper into his own half as we did with Sagna, an electric attacking full-back. The others? Smith isn't a penalty box striker and Ameobi, well...

 

Sorry but I just don't see how 4-4-2 will work for us with the players we have. On paper and individually speaking it could as you've highlighted, but in practice, the results have been mixed. Indeed we've done better with 4-3-3 and that's because it masks our weaknesses and actually allows us to benefit from them. 4-3-3 squeezes the opposition and can force them deep where we can exploit them from set play or by ariel bombardment, we don't have to have good heading ability in there, the idea is to force the opposition into making mistakes which our extra numbers due to the 6 attacking players will capitalise on. You don't need a playmaker or wingers in 4-3-3 to get some joy from it either. Because the opposition sits deep, their own attack therefore gets cut off so they revert long or their passes fail to reach the forwards, meaning the ball is coming back to us without us having to win it, increasing our possession despite the team not being the best with the ball which we have enjoyed the majority of in quite a few of our games, even against Arsenal. In 4-4-2 you have to scrap for the ball first and when you win it keep it and look for openings, always open to the counter or being outplayed in the middle. In 4-3-3 you don't have to be great on the ball as the opposition will give you it back if you force them deep. You don't need to be great on the wings either because that ball being flung in doesn't have to be precise and you don't need pace either as you're penning the opposition in and picking them off.

 

That's what happened against Arsenal basically and Fulham away. It's not pretty but it works. Ideally we'll get width, creativity and mobility in Jan and beyond, which will make us stronger and able to play in a number of ways going forward. For now though 4-3-3 as it is better than 4-4-2 as it is, for me anyway.

Good post, it's clear we don't have the personal to pull a 4-4-2 off at the moment, not just that, with all the new players we have it's much easier to play as a unit playing 4-3-3 in comparison to a 4-4-2.