The Return of the Attacking Midfielders

[Cronky]

I think the option of 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 has given managers more flexibility in how they put together a midfield. It's then easier to find roles for players like Hatem. 4-4-2 can be a bit of a straitjacket.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4-4-2 is really hard work for the two in the middle, in a way it's surprising that it was the first option for so many teams for so long.

[Ronaldo]

With the right personnel 4-4-2's a very solid attacking formation, especially at home. The end of conventional wingers and lack of out and out strikers has killed it, to an extent.

[The College Dropout]

This is a great article on the demise of #10. I don't normally like his work but this series was great.

 

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/26/trequartista-engance-classic-no-10sstruggle/

 

I think they're coming back.

[The College Dropout]

For a manager that likes direct(ish) football. A 4-4-2 is always going to be a handy formation. A 4-4-1-1 can work in any era imo.

[Deuce]

With the right personnel 4-4-2's a very solid attacking formation, especially at home. The end of conventional wingers and lack of out and out strikers has killed it, to an extent.

 

Yep.

[Deuce]

I'm surprised we don't see more '4-4-2 diamond midfield' formations. 2 strikers, an AM behind them, LM, RM, and DM with fullbacks providing width up the flanks.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

I think Cisse has taken 433 with a false a little too literally.

[Tiresias]

With the right personnel 4-4-2's a very solid attacking formation, especially at home. The end of conventional wingers and lack of out and out strikers has killed it, to an extent.

 

Yep, where did all the good wide players go?

[Guest firetotheworks]

They're still there, they're just used in a different way, imo.

[Cronky]

I think the main reasoning behind the movement from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 is to avoid players in relatively static positions who are waiting for the ball, which can be an issue with two wingers and a centre forward in a traditional 4-4-2. The emphasis is towards players in more fluid roles, making runs which open up space for one another.

 

It's why I can't see any future for the idea of allowing Cisse to remain in a poacher's positiion, whilst wingers feed him with chances. It's too predictable and inflexible for the top level, these days.

[Unbelievable]

They're still there, they're just used in a different way, imo.

 

I don't think there are many wide forwards left who are capable of consistenly delivering a quality ball into the box from out wide. It's as much to do with an overall change in tactics as it is with a lack of quality wide players iyam.

[Tiresias]

I wonder if it's not so much about the evolution of forwards that means that a forward ahead of a playmaker (and the prolific use of 4-2-3-1) is the most common feature especially at european level but it is about the evolution of defenses.

 

I wonder if crosses into the box have been creating less and less goals (at least is perceived to be) due to potentially quality full backs, more solid defenses among champions league teams I guess and so teams reckon a single striker and a quality creative player will always yield more than a striking partnership.

 

It's interesting that I struggle to think of a really prolific striking partnership with a clear understanding of each other in the premier league.

 

A lot of these changes it has to be said seem based on perception as to what is successful, than evidence, Man United I guess are the closest team that tries proper wide players and strikers in the middle at the highest level, and even they tend to be  a bit more fluid in positioning than that, with someone dropping deep and wide players cutting inside

[Cronky]

I wonder if it's not so much about the evolution of forwards that means that a forward ahead of a playmaker (and the prolific use of 4-2-3-1) is the most common feature especially at european level but it is about the evolution of defenses.

 

I wonder if crosses into the box have been creating less and less goals (at least is perceived to be) due to potentially quality full backs, more solid defenses among champions league teams I guess and so teams reckon a single striker and a quality creative player will always yield more than a striking partnership.

 

It's interesting that I struggle to think of a really prolific striking partnership with a clear understanding of each other in the premier league.

 

A lot of these changes it has to be said seem based on perception as to what is successful, than evidence, Man United I guess are the closest team that tries proper wide players and strikers in the middle at the highest level, and even they tend to be  a bit more fluid in positioning than that, with someone dropping deep and wide players cutting inside

 

I'm not sure about crossing becoming less effective, but Barca (and to a lesser extent Arsenal) have had a big influence with their emphasis on keeping possession, a useful by-product of which is the opposition being starved of the ball. A cross aimed at a centre forward turns possession into a 50-50 battle, so they often seem to prefer to keep the ball on the deck even when they've got behind the defence and are pulling the ball back. The emphasis is on maintaining control.

 

The other thing that occurs to me is that whilst the striker, midfield and full back positions can be made more flexible, teams do still need to protect the centre of their defence with two centre backs. The CBs can't afford to stray too far away from that area, following a roving striker. So you're now getting a situation - again, say with Barca - where they have virtually a six man midfield, outnumbering the opposition in that area whilst the opposition centre backs have to stand, watching and waiting with no-one to mark, unable to desert their area. Used correctly, that gives them a big advantage.

 

So in other words, managers are starting to take advantage of the fact that the centre backs have to remain in place, even when they've got only one or even no strikers to mark.