death of the 4-4-2?

this applies to both the game and real life.....

i dont get it 10 years ago 95% of teams in europe used this tactic, but now days its usually 4-5-1, 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, i actually tried to use a 4-4-2 formation a while ago and it failed miserably i kept getting overun in midfield, even teams who still use 4-4-2 (arsenal, tottenham etc etc) end up reverting to 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 during macthes, what i want to know is when and why did this tactic become so unfashionable? give me your thoughts on the matter please.

Pretty much everything you need to know about this here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson

Great article, much of which is quoted from his book, Inverting the Pyramid - a must read.

C.

yeah i think 442 is outdated. as it lack flexibility up front. more suited for the traditional direct English football, with a tall man-short man striking partnership upfront, and by passing midfield with long ball straight to the front.

however, in real life football, the top sides in Europe, not many are still playing 442. mostly 4321 or 4231. one out and out striker to lead the attack, with 2 or 3 supporting forwards dropping deeper with their interchanging running to cause trouble to opposition defence. if u play 442, it's difficult to have this soft of flexiblity as the wide players tend to hugging the line in order to keep the shape of the formation.

in the game world of FM though, i still think 442 is useful, provided u got a tall, strong, pacy, powerful target man upfront. but for teams who don't have that kind of targetman (let's face it, it's rare players like that these days), playing 2 slower attackers upfront is like waste of time. as even the pass reach them, they don't have the pace to trouble the oppositon defence. or not strong enough to hold the ball up and ending up losing possession cheaply.

4-4-2 took over the WM now 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-3 will take over from 4-4-2 simple

Wasn't it Arsene Wenger who said that 4-4-2 is still the best formation for covering the largest percentage of space on a football pitch? I would wager that 4-4-2 is easily still the most popular formation in the world. 90% of English football still uses it. Perhaps it is no longer popular for the elite who are playing very fluid 4-5-1 variations involving specialist players and with certain players blurring the distinctions between midfield and attack, and so on and so forth.

Indeed, as Jonathan Wilson points out in that article, a side playing 4-4-2, with the wingers pushed high and one of the centre-forward dropping deep, is effectively playing a 4-2-3-1. Many of the top sides in the past who were playing what we were referring to as 4-4-2 at the time were actually playing split forwards (4-4-1-1). How much of a step is it to 4-2-3-1?

It does beg the question as to how useful the formation notation is these days, especially at the top level in the most fluid systems. It's not so much about formation but about fluid and ever-changing shape during different match situations.

The main issue with playing a straight-forward 4-4-2 against 4-5-1 variations is that the latter has an extra man in the most influential part of the pitch, i.e. the midfield. The 4-5-1 players are expected to blur the distinctions between different roles on the pitch.

Personally, in terms of FM, I tend to play 4-4-2 in the lower leagues, often using 4-4-1-1 at the top level.

4-4-2 still dominates the lower leagues, at least in English football. Perhaps this is a reflection of the fact that the 4-5-1 variations normally require specialists and that such players can only be found at the very highest level of the game?

C.

I've often tinkered with other formations with various degrees of success or failure, but I always tend to end up back with the 4-4-2... in formation at least. Thing is, with my mentality and positional settings, player instructions if you will, my current 4-4-2 actually plays a very different overall shape when watching matches. It's more of a system that flows between a 4-4-1-1, diamond 4-4-2, 4-1-2-1-2 or even 4-3-2-1. I confuse myself sometimes...

that article was interesting it said how after man utd's treble winning season ferguson believed the 4-4-2 wouldnt be effective in european competition anymore, i think wenger has caught onto this too as he always seems to play 4-2-3-1 in europe which is suprising considering wenger never usually changes his 4-4-1-1 or 4-4-2 formations.

Interesting discussion.

The 4-4-2 formation is the most commonly used formation in English football still, If you take into account every tier of the game, but I just think that footballing is evolving and England is just adapting to this. The are problems with 4-4-2, its rigid and certianally lacks fluidity. It relys on forwards who either are good in the middle, or work the channels very well. But this formation has it strengths, its easy to balance, its easy to matain shape and it can have lots of variations.

Can 4-4-2 still work in the current footballing culture, at the top level I don't think so.

I think teams are setting themselves up to not concede goals, eg 4-5-1, but this is flexible, It can quickly become 4-3-3.

Wasn't it Arsene Wenger who said that 4-4-2 is still the best formation for covering the largest percentage of space on a football pitch? 90% of English football still uses it.

Actually I don't think that's true. Your man Arsene Wenger was one of those who pointed out this season that the majority of English premiership sides now work with a flexible 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 formation that allows for possesion play in the midfield when the game is balanced while the wingers/attacking midfielders/forwards to come inside when an attack is on.

Personally I've never been a fan of 4-4-2 and subscribe to the school of thought that says 4-5-1 is king (which is nice, seeing as i'm a Toffee and David Moyes appears to think the same thing).

I think that the only thing 4-4-2 has over 4-5-1 is a better chance of success when playing a direct, high-tempo ariel game. At the end of the day two Centrebacks are bound to lose at least one crucial 50/50 and one of your two Strikers should get in to finish things off.

Unfortunately a 4-4-2 leaves you a man short in the central midfield and also leaves you vulnerable to runs into the box by Attacking Midfielders. Meanwhile your two Strikers can often be countered by the presence of a Defensive Midfielder (or two in Liverpool's case) who fit very neatly into a 4-5-1 formation.

So unless your team is like Arsenal, with a dazzling combination of sublime technique and great width play, there really isn't much point in employing two strikers.

I think it would be interesting to note that at times in the 07/08 season Manchester Utd often looked like they were playing a 4-6-0, with Rooney and Tevez occupying Attacking Midfield positions and Ronaldo on the rampage.

I've often tinkered with other formations with various degrees of success or failure, but I always tend to end up back with the 4-4-2... in formation at least. Thing is, with my mentality and positional settings, player instructions if you will, my current 4-4-2 actually plays a very different overall shape when watching matches. It's more of a system that flows between a 4-4-1-1, diamond 4-4-2, 4-1-2-1-2 or even 4-3-2-1. I confuse myself sometimes...

I think that is the point

Everything else in mainstream modern football is a variation, not a revelation. The straight up 4-4-2 may be limited in its usage and function, but that is only because the opponent is dropping a striker into midfield. How long did the 3-5-2 last in top level football?

Interesting article to read. I have my suspicions over whether the FM ME can accurately handle the regressed striker, but that could be my arrogance rather than my tactical intelligence.

I have my suspicions over whether the FM ME can accurately handle the regressed striker, but that could be my arrogance rather than my tactical intelligence.

I am beginning to agree with this... the distinctions in a FCd/FCa lose shape when on offense, in my experience. Even after studying the forums and playing around with different instructions, I find that the AMC/FC better replicate this relationship in the current ME. I'm not at all a tactical genius, but I'm not sold on the idea, either.

I almost always use 4-4-2 on the game and on my Luton save i've gone unbeaten in the League for 2 and a half years so it can work!

Two pacey wingers and a target man upfront helps.

4-4-2 with proper wingers like so:

FB-CB-CB-FB

---MD-MD---

WG------WG

---ST-ST---

Have been using the same tactic since CM 97-98 and it usually works, if i can get about 15 palyers who can play in the formation.

4-4-2 with proper wingers like so:

FB-CB-CB-FB

---MD-MD---

WG------WG

---ST-ST---

Have been using the same tactic since CM 97-98 and it usually works, if i can get about 15 palyers who can play in the formation.

What he said.

I don't think 4-4-2 is outdated at all. It supports the striker much more than 4-5-1. In a 4-4-2, there's no worry about the strikers being isolated. It happens very very easily in most 4-5-1.

I've used nothing but 4-4-2 on FM2009 and done well with it. It was pretty useless for me on FM2008 though.

Weird enough I can never get anything other than a 442 tactic right in game. All my attempts at 433 and 4231 have failed. Utter disasters the lot of them.

does pitch size also play a part in the formation/tactics you use???

does pitch size also play a part in the formation/tactics you use???

It does, for me.

After a few years of criticising the 4-5-1, I have at least cottoned on to how flexible it can be and how quickly turned into a 4-3-3. Not that easy to replicate in FM, though, perhaps... I end up playing with an ML & MR, rather than AML & AMR, and with an AMC.

The AMC is the crucial role, has to be someone reasonably quick for your division and who can dribble and bring players into the game and of course, shoot. Well, of course, the Striker is crucial as well and has to be someone who can hold up the ball and has some pace, too (or just pace if you can only get 1 of those qualities).

I play with 2 CMs alongside each other, but one with defensive settings and attributes, and one with attacking ones, making runs into the box.

The spacing of the midfield players is just about right on a wide and long pitch, so I have my own pitch set to the maximum dimensions to accommodate this. On a narrow pitch I play wider to try to spread the players out to compensate.

I tried 4-4-2, but as others have observed, I was just getting overrun in midfield. I think some variation on the 4-5-1 is better in FM. I've yet to try too much with other variants on it, as the one I use at the moment (which got a lot of tweaking in my first couple of seasons, watching every game in full in 3d mode) is so successful and gives me the kind of football that I like to play - and the results :-)

OP you really need to read this book, as Crouchy says :

Inverting The Pyramid

OP you really need to read this book, as Crouchy says :

Inverting The Pyramid

Yep, just read the article on the guardian website, very informative and knowledgeable, I thought.

Funny, I have a 4-6-0 saved tactic from my first season with Farsley in BSN, experimenting with FM formations... I still think as I did then that it could work, though am reluctant to try it on this save..

Could be an interesting experiment on another save, though...

Am off to buy the book later.

Some formations come and go depending on trends in world football, like the hilarious early football formations of 2-3-5 (which im still tempted to try out in a lower league in FM09 btw just for the challenge)

Indeed 442 wasnt really used that much prior to the 70s (from what I know) formations tended to be attack heavy.

Now though most formations are in fact (despite how they appear) variations of 442.

As some pointed out 442 where the striker comes deep into midfield and the wide players have attacking license to get forward isnt really a traditional flat 442 at all and plays more like 451/433 depending on the circumstances and whos needed where.

The formation im using currently is similar, I have Pandev on a free role as the second striker and he is rarely up front with my other striker, he floats around 'in the hole' and pops up wide when needed, but on my formation screen it set up exactly like a standard 442.

As with any formation where the players line up on the pitch at kick off is rarely they will be during the match, modern football demands adaptable players and formations.

Its not so much the death of 442 but the death of rigid formations in my opinion. I always remember Liverpool under Houllier who played a very rigid 442, the two banks of 4 players rarely strayed outside their 'zones' and they were really tough to beat, but found it hard going creating chances.

Some formations come and go depending on trends in world football, like the hilarious early football formations of 2-3-5 (which im still tempted to try out in a lower league in FM09 btw just for the challenge)

Interesting to remember that not so long ago, in the early- to mid-90s, a lot of top sides in England were playing 5-3-2/3-5-2 variations, for instance, Liverpool and even England at one point.

Another good article by Jonathan Wilson on the demise of 3-5-2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/19/argentina-napoli

Again, it is from Inverting the Pyramid.

C.

Interesting to remember that not so long ago, in the early- to mid-90s, a lot of top sides in England were playing 5-3-2/3-5-2 variations, for instance, Liverpool and even England at one point.

Another good article by Jonathan Wilson on the demise of 3-5-2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/19/argentina-napoli

Again, it is from Inverting the Pyramid.

C.

Yeah, I remember the old 3-5-2 experiments well. Tactics are certainly subject to trends; because England, and some higher-league sides were playing the formation, it became fairly popular in the lower leagues as well.

Mansfield used it when Steve Parkin was the manager. I always thought that it was a lot to ask of lower league players, to expect the wing-backs to be able to be both good defenders and creative and with a good cross going forward.

In reality you struggle to find good wingers in the lower leagues, never mind one that can play at wing-back. In actuality, Mansfield played with one wing-back high in the first half, and then the opposite wing-back high in the second half, with the first (Tony Ford, who was mid-late 30s at the time), being substituted on or around 60 mins.

It was ok for us, and we were not a bad side, but I don't think you could ever hope to have lower-league 'wing-backs' going up and down the pitch for 90 minutes providing quality at both ends.

I thought the system worked quite well for England during Glenn Hoddle's reign, and I thought we made advances under him and looked a better, more technical and fluid side, though I think 3 centre-backs has pretty obvious weaknesses.

Interesting to remember that not so long ago, in the early- to mid-90s, a lot of top sides in England were playing 5-3-2/3-5-2 variations, for instance, Liverpool and even England at one point.

Also interesting to note that 5-3-2/3-5-2 was based on teams with a distinct lack of wide midfield players. England, for example, struggled on the left and played Beckham in the centre so they had to rely on wing backs to provide width. The same thing happened at Liverpool, they had Redknapp and Ince, but no real wingers.

The death of 5-3-2 came when more talented foreigners started coming to England and the winger was reborn.

In a way I think the same reason accounts for the death of 4-4-2. There is a lack of quality, pacey wingers who cross well (traditional wingers) and most "wingers" theses days are Henry-esque wingers, wide strikers.

I have used a 4-4-2 throughout my twenty one career with Zenit and have found it be very successful. I detest using one striker as I feel to much pressure is mounted upon that person to get a goal, and if he is not playing up to a certain standard then your attacking options are limited. My 4-4-2 is very basic but instead of LM, RM they are more attacking present in the winger role, the most vital aspect of this formation for it to succeed is the two centre midfielder's. I have found over the years that these two player basically run the show and although it's not a diamond formation I have always bought one defensive minded player and another far more attacking. This helps the balance of the team in both defence and attack and creates stability throughout the side.

Essentially, as Wilson argues in his book, with 3-5-2 against 4-4-2, you have the advantage of the extra man in midfield and an extra player in the defensive position to cope with the two forwards. However, with 3-5-2 up against 4-5-1 variations, you lost the advantage in midfield and you now have two extra players in the defensive positions, a surplus compared to the actually requirement for dealing with a lone striker. There is also the weakness on the flanks to deal with.

Obviously, it isn't quite as simple as 3-5-2 beats 4-4-2, or whatever, as all systems are subject to player quality and circumstance and so on and so forth. However, from a logical point of view, the 3-5-2 experiment in the 90s probably worked well because most sides were playing orthodox 4-4-2. In turn, 3-5-2 has probably died out because 4-5-1 variations are (at least in a totally logical sense) superior to both 4-4-2 and 3-5-2. Wilson gives his example of this from a recent African Nations tournament.

The 4-5-1 variation is a tough system to get working well and relies upon players fulfilling varying roles and blurring the distinctions between defence and midfield, or midfield and attack. I guess, in the lower leagues, 4-4-2 still rules the way because it is solid, effective and simple to get working well. Without intelligent movement and players with the necessarily qualities, 4-5-1 variations can fail miserably. So, as Avelives says, elite modern football requires adaptable specialist players who can fulfill specific roles or undertake various functions. That is the reason for the rise of the 4-5-1 variation, and many of these are themselves 'variations' of the 4-4-2 anyway.

C.

I have used a 4-4-2 throughout my twenty one career with Zenit and have found it be very successful. I detest using one striker as I feel to much pressure is mounted upon that person to get a goal, and if he is not playing up to a certain standard then your attacking options are limited. My 4-4-2 is very basic but instead of LM, RM they are more attacking present in the winger role, the most vital aspect of this formation for it to succeed is the two centre midfielder's. I have found over the years that these two player basically run the show and although it's not a diamond formation I have always bought one defensive minded player and another far more attacking. This helps the balance of the team in both defence and attack and creates stability throughout the side.

would call that more of a 4-2-4. Where (as again using knowledge from 'Inverting the pyramid') wingers would drop off from the front line to allow them space to get a head of steam before coming in contact with a defender

However, with 3-5-2 up against 4-5-1 variations, you lost the advantage in midfield and you now have two extra players in the defensive positions, a surplus compared to the actually requirement for dealing with a lone striker. There is also the weakness on the flanks to deal with

Hence why players like Marcel Desailly, usually a centre-half would be re-positioned to defence if memory serves me well (havnt read the book in a while), somebody who could easily step out from the back

would call that more of a 4-2-4. Where (as again using knowledge from 'Inverting the pyramid') wingers would drop off from the front line to allow them space to get a head of steam before coming in contact with a defender

It does appear like a basic 4-4-2 on the tactics screen, however in today's game players like Ronaldo have transformed the LM, RM role automatically into a winger's. Also I never instruct me winger's to cross from the by-line I like them more to cut inside or cross from a deep position, so that if the ball is cleared another attack can be restarted with the RW,LW CM/DM.

I think its already been said but the main reason for changing is the vunerability your tema has when playing a 4-4-2. you have to commit at least one of your central midfielders to attack if you want to be a threat leaving you open to be countered and overrun in the middle of the park which will cause your teams plenty of problems against a well organised, quality 5 man midfield. the battle afterall is won in the midfield.

having said that, i still like the 4-4-2 and it can be utilised in the game very effectively if set up right. if you have supreme confidence in your team then maybe the 4-4-2 is the best formation, but theres too much at stake these days for the top teams, thats why they favour a balanced approach and air on the side of caution with the extra midfielder. if you dont concede you dont lose right?

With 451 you really need a superstar striker who can do it on his own like Torres - but even some superstar strikers operate better with a 2nd striker like Ibrahimovic

With 451 you really need a superstar striker who can do it on his own like Torres - but even some superstar strikers operate better with a 2nd striker like Ibrahimovic

IRL, yes. In game, no. A strong striker with good heading ability will do the job and provide plenty of assists, it isn't necessary to have a world beater.

Essentially, as Wilson argues in his book, with 3-5-2 against 4-4-2, you have the advantage of the extra man in midfield and an extra player in the defensive position to cope with the two forwards. However, with 3-5-2 up against 4-5-1 variations, you lost the advantage in midfield and you now have two extra players in the defensive positions, a surplus compared to the actually requirement for dealing with a lone striker. There is also the weakness on the flanks to deal with.

Obviously, it isn't quite as simple as 3-5-2 beats 4-4-2, or whatever, as all systems are subject to player quality and circumstance and so on and so forth. However, from a logical point of view, the 3-5-2 experiment in the 90s probably worked well because most sides were playing orthodox 4-4-2. In turn, 3-5-2 has probably died out because 4-5-1 variations are (at least in a totally logical sense) superior to both 4-4-2 and 3-5-2. Wilson gives his example of this from a recent African Nations tournament.

The 4-5-1 variation is a tough system to get working well and relies upon players fulfilling varying roles and blurring the distinctions between defence and midfield, or midfield and attack. I guess, in the lower leagues, 4-4-2 still rules the way because it is solid, effective and simple to get working well. Without intelligent movement and players with the necessarily qualities, 4-5-1 variations can fail miserably. So, as Avelives says, elite modern football requires adaptable specialist players who can fulfill specific roles or undertake various functions. That is the reason for the rise of the 4-5-1 variation, and many of these are themselves 'variations' of the 4-4-2 anyway.

C.

I think another incredibly interesting feature of the evolution of football tactics in the the last decade or so is the switching of the preferred foot of the winger and his conversion from a conventional wide man to a playmaker/striker.

To a certain extent this is demanded by the uptake of 4-5-1 variations and the loss of a conventional striker as the opponent can rarely afford to be mistmatched in midfield and play the 4-4-2 and so playing conventional wingers with a lone striker against a back four supported by 5 midfielders would be rendered an excercise in futility, unless you possess a Drogba or Janker or Toni. However wrong foot wingers playing as playmaker-strikers in an otherwise 4-5-1 varient looks deceptively weak against another 4-5-1 varient or any form of back four. It is infact incredibly potent due the space exploited and the nature of the threats provided.

Consider how a playmaker/striker "winger" cutting inside onto his stronger foot and supported by an overlapping fullback cannot be tracked by the opposition fullback. He will be directly threatening a shot on goal and the space between the fullback and centreback. If the centreback comes out to meet him the winger can play in the lone striker. If the other centreback covers the run he can play in his opposite playmaker-striker "winger" into the space left by the second centreback. If the fullback covers that run he can look to his other fullback for further width. This still leaves him one on one with a CB. Should the opponent place a DM in his path then his overlapping fullbacks will pull the opponents Fullbacks wide, creating space down either side of the CentreBacks, while his teammate winger moves inside and provides a passing triangle option that perfectly dissects the opponents triangle of 2 CB's and 1 DM.

By playing wrong foot wingers and using attacking fullbacks, the attacking options of this 5 man unit can perfectly dissect the defensive 5 man unit of a back 4 + DM.

Suppose the opponent plays 2 DM's to counter this threat. In that case we provide equal numbers and have one of our midfielders to push forward into an AMC role. This allows us to potentially cut through the heart of the opponent to our lone striker, to carry the ball forward and shoot, or to wait for the support of another attacking option from deep that must be tracked by one of the opponents remaining players, which will generally be more offensive players with less defensive capability.

In short an offensive system of 2-1-2-5 or 2-1-4-3 is incredibly adept at picking holes in a back four and midfield 5 formation when the wingers are threatening the centre rather than the flanks. It also has sufficient players in sufficient positions to defend a counter-attack. Where these 4-5-1 variations are weakest, ironicly, is when faced with intelligent constructive play from another 4-5-1 variation.

I myself have recently been experimenting with a 4-5-1 variation where the striker is withdrawn when I lack possession, effectively becoming a 4-6-0 in defence. These are tricky formations to deal with in FM09 but there is no doubt that they are structurally and theoretically immense. The key, in my opinion, to the most modern variations of the 4-5-1 which is the formation of choice of the two most impressive club sides in world football the last two years, is the wrong foot "wingers".

It will be interesting to see if the defensive systems of Mourinho's Chelsea and Ferguson's United amongst others results in the rebirth of the proper sweeper.

what i do know is i've never had a successful narrow formation on 09

In short an offensive system of 2-1-2-5 or 2-1-4-3 is incredibly adept at picking holes in a back four and midfield 5 formation when the wingers are threatening the centre rather than the flanks. It also has sufficient players in sufficient positions to defend a counter-attack. Where these 4-5-1 variations are weakest, ironicly, is when faced with intelligent constructive play from another 4-5-1 variation.

Just a minor addendum to your excellent post, but I'd say that the family of tactics to which you are referring (ie those which rely on the wingers cutting inside) are extremely vulnerable to tactically organised teams because they are overly reliant on their fullbacks to provide width. Direct balls down the flanks expose the defence consistently as shown by Liverpool using their rightwinger to exploit Manchester United's consistently advanced left fullback (Manchester United lost 4-1) while Chelsea used their left winger to take advantage of Barcelona's advanced right fullback (Chelsea may have lost the tie, but Barcelona were very fortunate to go through). In effect, the best way to play such tactics are to clog the centre of the pitch and launch direct balls down the flank which has the advanced fullback.

I'd suggest a more balanced formation using 4-5-1 in its modern style would always retain 3 defenders to cover such direct balls and a keeper who will 'sweep', with a midfielder playing deep enough to also provide cover and wingers who can both go out wide and cut inside as well as get back to cover defensively. This wouldn't apply in game as one can get away with a decent set of tactics and a decent set of players without the AI responding quickly enough, but in real world football you'll see that this is actually fairly common.

Just a minor addendum to your excellent post, but I'd say that the family of tactics to which you are referring (ie those which rely on the wingers cutting inside) are extremely vulnerable to tactically organised teams because they are overly reliant on their fullbacks to provide width. Direct balls down the flanks expose the defence consistently as shown by Liverpool using their rightwinger to exploit Manchester United's consistently advanced left fullback (Manchester United lost 4-1) while Chelsea used their left winger to take advantage of Barcelona's advanced right fullback (Chelsea may have lost the tie, but Barcelona were very fortunate to go through). In effect, the best way to play such tactics are to clog the centre of the pitch and launch direct balls down the flank which has the advanced fullback.

I'd suggest a more balanced formation using 4-5-1 in its modern style would always retain 3 defenders to cover such direct balls and a keeper who will 'sweep', with a midfielder playing deep enough to also provide cover and wingers who can both go out wide and cut inside as well as get back to cover defensively. This wouldn't apply in game as one can get away with a decent set of tactics and a decent set of players without the AI responding quickly enough, but in real world football you'll see that this is actually fairly common.

These are fair points but they ultimately restrict offensive options when faced with the very problem the risk was designed to defeat. When we reach this stage we are back to the superiority of individuals over opponents, which has indeed been a major factor in so many of the most popular games this season. Unless I am missing some major tactical point here then I think the issue of risk versus reward and the fluctuation of superior individual ability versus inferior individual ability is a discussion of its own.

I never use fullbacks. Players in the corners of the field spend too much time out of action for me. I use:

__O_O__ | ___O___

O_____O | __O_O__

__O_O__ | O__O__O

O_____O | ___O___

__O_O__ | _O_O_O_

First is fast attacking. Second is slow wasting in the opposition half.

These are fair points but they ultimately restrict offensive options when faced with the very problem the risk was designed to defeat. When we reach this stage we are back to the superiority of individuals over opponents, which has indeed been a major factor in so many of the most popular games this season. Unless I am missing some major tactical point here then I think the issue of risk versus reward and the fluctuation of superior individual ability versus inferior individual ability is a discussion of its own.

The tactical point boils down to how one-dimensional wingers cutting inside becomes as an offensive tool and the impact of having to push the fullback up to provide width has upon defensive solidity. Wrong-footed wingers cutting in have been fairly common since Hughes/Reep/Taylor decided to exploit the Position of Maximum Opportunity on the far post. While this holds true for getting on the end of crosses, it doesn't always hold true for carrying the ball back inside as a well-drilled defence will just shepherd the winger across the 18 yard line until an opportunity arises to put boot to ball and send it forward. The style of play you are advocating becomes too narrow without the fullback pushing up beyond the point of no-return and so is exceptionally vulnerable to the quick counter without a little more defensive solidity than just two at the back leaves - if you watch Manchester United play you will see that the two central defenders and the right fullback will remain very defensive, while Barcelona will keep a central defender (the right hand one), a defensive midfielder and one of a central defender or a fullback (normally the left) back to cover breaks. Even so, the space behind the advanced fullback remains open to exploitation by teams with players of equivalent quality.

Of course individual match-ups on the pitch will play a part, but the tactical weakness of Manchester United and Barcelona's style of play has been amply demonstrated this season. That it has not been exploited more fully by other teams is an interesting question and perhaps does then indicate the value of having better players than the opposition in order to carry off the tactics.

Theres no such thing as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-2-1 in real life, formations are in no way rigid anymore, My team Spurs apparently (according to the papers and tv) lined up 4-4-2 last season in actual fact it was more like 3-5-2 (even this isnt anywhere near expressing what actually happened) with the left back being a winger and our left midfielder having a free role and coming inside.

Agreed. Tactics are totally fluid these days. A team may start of with any formation. But look at the transition from midfield to attack, a 442 can become a 433, 424, etc. I believe one such article about this by this writer, Paul Gardner, an old gentleman that writes for World Soccer (if I remember correctly), he wrote an article a year back or so on team formations and how impossible it is to permanently identify it during a football match. (something along those lines).

I hope you guys get what I am trying to say.

This is riveting, yet thoroughly confusing stuff.

Is it possible to emulate that type of fluidity of positioning in the game?

This is riveting, yet thoroughly confusing stuff.

Is it possible to emulate that type of fluidity of positioning in the game?

SFraser's tactics come very close to emulating how Manchester United play. He has several threads in the tactics section which if you wish to short-cut learning how to set up such tactics would probably make very interesting reading. So I'd answer that question as 'yes, but not totally and anyways it depends on what you mean by fluidity'.

That attacking play can be so fluid, especially to the extent that is clearly possible with world class players within the game, is a huge credit to SI.

Agreed. Tactics are totally fluid these days. A team may start of with any formation. But look at the transition from midfield to attack, a 442 can become a 433, 424, etc. I believe one such article about this by this writer, Paul Gardner, an old gentleman that writes for World Soccer (if I remember correctly), he wrote an article a year back or so on team formations and how impossible it is to permanently identify it during a football match. (something along those lines).

This is your Standard 442: (X denotes player positions)

X--X--X--X

X--X--X--X

X--X

Is this 442 or 4222?

X--X--X--X

X--X

X---------X

X--X

Is this 442 diamond or 41212?

X--X--X--X

X

X---------X

X

X--X

I hope you guys get what I am trying to say.

Those examples are all 4-4-2, surely? they all contain 4 midfield players. Modern parlance might describe some of their roles more precisely, i.e. Deep-lying midfielder, Holding Midfielder, Attacking Midfielder / Deep-Lying forward.

All of those things are just modern ways of describing the modern midfield roles (or specialist roles), and 4-1-2-1-2 etc. are just modern ways of describing the modern variants on 4-4-2.

The answer is that, e.g. 4-1-2-1-2, and 4-4-2, are both correct. Ultimately they are all 4-4-2s, just the 'new' ways of notating formations are a little more descriptive and aid our understanding of modern variants on tactics.

Though whenever I see such things as "xyz fielded a 4-1-2-1-2 formation" in match report, I always think... "right, so they played a 4-4-2, then... "... it's still the simplest way to describe the fact that there are 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, and 2 strikers