Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

During England's World Cup campaign, I have heard this said a great deal by pundits, the media and also people on this forum. The idea that you can no longer get away with playing a 4-4-2 at the top level and that it is old fashioned or even outmoded seems to be a popular one. I just wanted to gauge opinion on this matter and generate some discussion.

So what is your opinion? It would be great if you could explain your choice as well as selecting your preferred option on the poll.

(Please note that I have also posted this on the Football Forum in order to get responses from those who don't tend to use this part of the SI Forums.)

Many top teams, nowadays, play with 1 striker, especially now the 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 are becoming more popular. By playing a 4-4-2 against these formations, there is always a midfielder free, unless you have a striker who is willing to do alot of defensive work, but then the formation becomes more like a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-2-3-1.

A prime example of this is Nigeria v Argentina, Nigeria surprising opted for a 4-4-2 rather than the manager's predecessor's 4-3-3. This ended with Argentina having Messi unmarked for most of the match and ultimately with some good off the ball movement, the Nigeria defense was ripped apart.

The extra man in midfield is essential to the tactics and since midfielders and wingers are now scoring more than ever a 4-5-1 allows for better control of possession and poses a great attacking threat against a 4-4-2s.

Lucatonix summed it up pretty well, the 4-4-2 becomes very difficult to use against any form of 5 man midfield, even if it is the pretty attacking 4-2-3-1, you end up with two strikers who don't really contribute defensively *cough* Rooney *cough* Defoe *cough* and then your midfield is out manned. Yesterday Oezil kept finding that gap between midfield and defense and that's largely the issue.

i went with the last option. 442 will likely remain popular because of its flxibility and practicality at lower levels. What i have taken from the world cup is that 442 can still be relatively effective with quality players, but only if 'adjusted' appropriately to compensate for its weaknesses against single striker formations. I think in particular that a 'modern' 442 needs two MC's who have great engines and are very disciplined defensively, rather than a 'classic' creator/destroyer partnership. This 'classic' set up tends to leave too big a gap between the two mc's which is usually easily exploited by the 3 man midfield of the 451/4231. Also, the more advanced striker in the classic 442 tends to become somewhat redundant as the midfield struggles to control possession and tempo, and thus the creation of quality scoring chances.

From the full games that i have watched recently (mostly champions league and world cup) it seems pretty clear that 442 requires a great deal of discipline (particularly defensively across the whole 11 players), the ability to be creative when in posession, and the ability to counter attack effectively and ruthlessly.

I think that is more of a trend than anything. The 442 option seems to be unpopular at the moment in certain countries, but remains the most balanced tactic. The 3 man midfield of the so called "modern" formations (433,451 and 4231) can be countered by dropping one striker when team isn´t in possession. One team that I particulary enjoyed watching was Germany in the Euro 96, using two towers upfront (Klinsmann and Bierhoff) with one of them constantly joining midfield when defending.

Nowaday it´s hard to find a team that enjoyed sucess using the 442, but a good example of team that impressed last year was SL Benfica. They used a 442 diamond with the big man/quick combination with Oscar Cardozo and Javier Saviola scoring almost 50% of the goals.

But what I think is really difficult these days is to find players with the tactical knowledge to employ this system. If you don´t have this kind of player (and many small teams don´t), then training is crucial and with so many changes in the staff year by year, it becomes more difficult for teams to settle. So the obvious choice for most managers is a tactic that doesn´t require such a level of teamwork.

The last option, for the same reasons others have given. The 442 is fine in leagues where everybody uses that formation (Here, or at least the majority of below prem teams, and even some of the prem..), but a 442 in europe just doesn't cut it these days.

In football you always have to try and win the midfield battle, so with 2 vs 3 in the middle, you are going to struggle.

The other teams in the WC are all using either 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a formation with 3 at the back and a decent number of bodies in the middle.

Wierd how 3 at the back is suddenly effective again

Interesting that Capello was asked about the 4-4-2 and whether it is 'outdated' in his press conference today. He said that he will always pick the system based on the players available so he doesn't seem to think that it is.

If you look back in history formations tend to go in cycles, like most other things in life. 4-4-2 was very popular for a very long time, so it was inevitable that teams would eventually find a formation that exploits its weaknesses. Currently the Barca/Mourinho's Chelsea 4-3-3/4-5-1 (or even WW given how attacking barca's fullbacks are!) is getting increasingly popular, so in 5 or 10 years a formation will be found that exploits this formation's weaknesses. There will then be another formation a few years later etc etc...

A good example of this is the demise of the 3-5-2/5-3-2 with wing-backs: this was very successful in england for a couple of years because against the 4-4-2, there's always a spare man at CB and a spare man in CM.

This quickly died off though, because opposition managers quickly adapted to play a either a 4-3-1-2, so all three CB's are occupied with one dragged out of defense and there's no longer a spare man in midfield, or a 4-3-3/4-5-1 so the two wider CB's are drawn out wide, leaving the central striker 1 vs 1 and lots of space for the wingers to attack.

I think one of the best current implementations of 4-4-2 can be seen at Spurs.

In games they normally dominate possession, they have an incredibly pacey, tricky right winger in Lennon who is protected by a solid right back in Corluka who rarely overlaps.

Centrally their midfield is a deep lying playmaker in Huddlestone who is decent (abeit not amazing) defensively and an amazing passer of the ball with a destroyer in Palacios next to him with Huddlestone generally standing outside the box in attacking phases of play and Palacios behind to clear up.

On the left wing Spurs use another playmaker but a more direct attacking threat in Modric or Kranjcaer, both are right footed so generally come into the middle of the pitch, as Hudd and Palacios are mostly defensive they find alot of space and also vacate the left wing for a very attacking left back in either BAE or the very impressive Bale.

Up front its the big man little man combo with the big man (usually Crouch) coming deeper and the little man (Defoe) playing on the last man.

For Spurs its the personnel that make the 4-4-2 work and against most teams they play as stated above however at the end of this season they went up against the bigger teams, all 3 of them played 4-3-3/4-5-1 variants and Spurs tackled it in different ways depending on where they considered the threat

In the first game against Arsenal Spurs were happy to concede possession, the midfield had a static right winger (Rose to start, Bentley in the second half) the DLP (Hudd), a fantastically composed, intelligent Modric and a incredibly effective Bale on the left wing. All attacks went through Bale because Arsenal had a weaker right side, Defoe stayed up front with Pavlyuchenko pulling to the left to stop Clichy getting involved. Spurs setup with 2 banks of 4 and didnt have any problems until Van Persie came on with the main reasoning for Spurs resolute performance being the aerial dominance they had and none of the Arsenal players able to cope with Modric or Bale on the left side of the pitch, Modric relieving pressure from Spurs by holding onto the ball and releasing Bale when he was streaking infront of him.

In the Chelsea game it was the same personnel, same tactical plan abeit a small change, Pav was the main man up top with Defoe pulling back onto Mikel so that he could not be involved with play and it made it extremely difficult for Chelsea to keep possession and Spurs absolutely pulverised them and could of been 3-4 goals up in the first half alone.

The idea of the 4-3-3/4-5-1 is to make 5 lines and in effect fill the gaps in a 4-4-2 defensively and attacking wise but it is perfectly possible to play 4-4-2 against this formation if you have intelligent players but also players in defensive positions that can play positively

I don't think 4-4-2 is outmoded, but I do think the traditional player types associated with 442 are no longer valid. A pair of big lumbering centre backs with little pace, a pair of box to box midfielders, a couple of nippy wingers, and two strikers playing right up top is not going to work at the top level.

For a 442 to be able to compete with 4231 type tactics I think you absolutley need:

- at least one of the central defenders to be comfortable on the ball, with good awareness of when it is possible and necessary to step out of defence,

- one forward who is capable of dropping into midfield when needed, without continually isolating the other forward.

- both wide midfielders need to be well rounded players, for me this is where your box-to-box type midfielder should now be playing, they have to have a good brain and know - when they need to tuck in, when they need to hold to protect the fullback, and when they have enough cover to bomb on and attack.

- At central midfield, composure on the ball, positional awareness defensive solidity. In a lot of ways the partnership needs the same qualities that you would want in the two 'holders' in a 4231.

- At fullback then probably asymmetry is going to help so attacking one flank from deep with the fullback and attacking the opposite flank primarily with the wide midfielder.

The trouble really is that when I look at what I think a 442 needs to compete at the top level it would appear it requires more from players, especially in terms of game intelligence, than a 4231 which can accomodate less rounded players.

I don't think 4-4-2 is outmoded, but I do think the traditional player types associated with 442 are no longer valid. A pair of big lumbering centre backs with little pace, a pair of box to box midfielders, a couple of nippy wingers, and two strikers playing right up top is not going to work at the top level.

For a 442 to be able to compete with 4231 type tactics I think you absolutley need:

- at least one of the central defenders to be comfortable on the ball, with good awareness of when it is possible and necessary to step out of defence,

- one forward who is capable of dropping into midfield when needed, without continually isolating the other forward.

- both wide midfielders need to be well rounded players, for me this is where your box-to-box type midfielder should now be playing, they have to have a good brain and know - when they need to tuck in, when they need to hold to protect the fullback, and when they have enough cover to bomb on and attack.

- At central midfield, composure on the ball, positional awareness defensive solidity. In a lot of ways the partnership needs the same qualities that you would want in the two 'holders' in a 4231.

- At fullback then probably asymmetry is going to help so attacking one flank from deep with the fullback and attacking the opposite flank primarily with the wide midfielder.

The trouble really is that when I look at what I think a 442 needs to compete at the top level it would appear it requires more from players, especially in terms of game intelligence, than a 4231 which can accomodate less rounded players.

Yep I think you’ve summed it up pretty well there. Indeed a big problem with the 442 now at top levels is the lack of players capable of playing naturally in that formation. Indeed if you look at the players in FM, there is particular lack of players capable of playing that wide role that you describe. There is a lack of natural ML/MR players in the game, and those that are there are usually unbalanced in that their attributes are ether too attacking or too defensive. Now I don’t know how accurate the FM database is compared to the real world, but I think its likely to be pretty close. Most of the wingers today are either ‘natural’ inside forwards or advanced playmakers, or are converted wingback/fullbacks. There are very few ‘balanced’ wingers as the above post describes.

All in all, I think that in particular the 4231 suits modern players better, is more flexible, and more difficult to exploit.

I think the US Ghana game is a perfect example of why the 4-4-2 has started to go by the wayside. The first half of that match saw Ghana with the 4-5-1 versus the US in a 4-4-2. Ghana was able to dominate the midfield and pass around the US mids with ease. There was little hope for the US to gain possession and try to equalize. In the second half the US switched to a 4-5-1 with edu in the holding role and fielhaber and bradley as the more advanced mids. this created a massive turnaround in the US' ability to gain possession and actually have an offense.

a 4-4-2 just doesnt cut it at the international level at this point.

I think the US Ghana game is a perfect example of why the 4-4-2 has started to go by the wayside. The first half of that match saw Ghana with the 4-5-1 versus the US in a 4-4-2. Ghana was able to dominate the midfield and pass around the US mids with ease. There was little hope for the US to gain possession and try to equalize. In the second half the US switched to a 4-5-1 with edu in the holding role and fielhaber and bradley as the more advanced mids. this created a massive turnaround in the US' ability to gain possession and actually have an offense.

a 4-4-2 just doesnt cut it at the international level at this point.

What this World Cup has shown is that 442 is still one of the very best systems to defend with. The 2 banks of 4 defending deep and zonally is very difficult to break down. A well drilled team playing in this manner can neutralise the best teams in the world.

The attacking side of things hasn't worked so well, with England being the most obvious example. They didn't have a ball playing centre half, their deep forward was horridly out of form, at CM their partnership wasn't good enough defensively or at retaining the ball, their left mid had no discipline. The combination on the right of Milner and Johnson was pretty solid and over the tournament was the only natural partnership in the team that worked as it should.

Interesting that the majority so far believe that the 4-4-2 is ultimately flawed against modern systems.

What this World Cup has shown is that 442 is still one of the very best systems to defend with. The 2 banks of 4 defending deep and zonally is very difficult to break down. A well drilled team playing in this manner can neutralise the best teams in the world.

The attacking side of things hasn't worked so well, with England being the most obvious example.

I would like to hold up my beloved Aston Villa as an example. Apart from the Chelsea match we've looked very solid at the back (32 conceded from 37 matches), but in the attack the only reason we were spared a very embarrassing barren run was that John Carew suddenly found some form and started scoring, but still a goal total of 52 from 38 is hardly anything to shout about for a top 6 team.

Anyway, I think for the 4-4-2 to work at the top level against some of the more modern formations there is really a need to either:

1) Make one of your strikers drop off and become a deep-lying striker instead and use more defensive wide midfielders and have your central midfielders drop deep, thus ensuring that you're still able to retain some possession in midfield.

2) Play a very deep, counter-attacking style. The 'ole kick-and-rush, which should only really be played against vastly superior teams to your own.

In the first case your formation isn't really a traditional 4-4-2 anyway, but nominally it's still one. I'd probably consider it more a 4-4-1-1 or maybe even a 4-2-2-1-1 considering how deep the central midfielders will usually have to drop, but yeah.

In the second case you can do pretty well, but will probably end up in more or less the same position as Aston Villa, it just doesn't seem like there'll ever be progress beyond the current point, with such a defensive approach.

Jonathan Wilson article on the 4-4-2, written last season:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/aug/11/football-tactics-4-4-2-making-comeback

It's a question that takes us back to the fact that Sir Alex states that he's "never used a 4-4-2", and of course the argument that formations printed in newspapers - and indeed used in FM - are generally nothing more than graphical representations of an approximate positioning of the players on the pitch.

Whereas in reality it's unlikely that players are ever simply sent out onto the pitch after being told "right lads, it's 4-4-2, get on with it". Not at the highest level anyway I wouldn't have thought.

On Football-Lineups, you can quickly find out who has been using what formation/system in a certain competition, so I thought I would check the World Cup 2010 so far.

Instances of a side using a 4-4-2 - http://www.football-lineups.com/tactic/4-4-2/?fd=&ft=381&fs=0

Examples mainly include 'smaller' nations and those who have used the formation for maybe one match during the competition. What is striking is that pretty much all of them have gone home!

Compare to the 4-2-3-1, which a great deal of the successful sides are using in this competition: http://www.football-lineups.com/tactic/4-2-3-1/?fd=&ft=381&fs=0

Looking at the quarter-finalists:

- Argentina have generally played some variation of the 4-3-1-2.

- Germany have played 4-2-3-1.

- Paraguay have generally played a 4-3-3 shape.

- Spain have generally played some variation on 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.

- Uruguay mostly variations on a 4-3-3 shape.

- Ghana 4-2-3-1.

- Netherlands 4-2-3-1.

- Brazil, a variation on 4-2-3-1 & the box midfield.

What is striking is that pretty much all of these successful sides are playing some variation on 4-5-1 or, alternatively, have packed the central midfield with three players while still using two forwards.

It's a question that takes us back to the fact that Sir Alex states that he's "never used a 4-4-2".

This comes from a Gabriele Marcotti book and is a matter of opinion really. Essentially, Ferguson makes this point suggesting that because he has always used 'split forwards', he is not using a 4-4-2. He suggests that his teams play with 'two points of attack' but that is the only argument against 4-4-2 and, of course, it's pretty clear that he uses a 4-4-2 variation (if not 4-4-2 itself) because his sides have always played with the typical two banks of four when he uses the 4-4-2 shape.

Incidentally, in the same book David Platt suggests that the 4-4-2 is the 'easiest formation to play if you are poor technically' and the 4-4-2 is described as the 'English tradition'.

The book makes the point that in order to play some other popular formations you need specialist players. For example, 3-5-2 needs wingbacks, 4-3-3 needs specialist wingers and to play 4-3-1-2 you need a no.10 who can play between the lines. You could also add the 4-2-3-1, where you need holding midfielders and attacking midfielders. It is suggested that these are some of the reasons that the English play 4-4-2, because they don't tend to have these types of players. Look at the current England squad and you could probably make the same argument. The book also mentions that the coaching system is poor, so while managers and coaches on the continent might switch between different formations and know various systems inside-out, the English managers/coaches stick with what they are familiar with and what they have used during their playing career - usually a 4-4-2.

Howard Wilkinson has passed on a report he has written for the FA which said English football needed to devote more resources to youth development, spend more time on technical skills, build a national football centre and prepare for a future when 4-4-2 will be obsolete.

This comes from a Gabriele Marcotti book and is a matter of opinion really. Essentially, Ferguson makes this point suggesting that because he has always used 'split forwards', he is not using a 4-4-2. He suggests that his teams play with 'two points of attack' but that is the only argument against 4-4-2 and, of course, it's pretty clear that he uses a 4-4-2 variation (if not 4-4-2 itself) because his sides have always played with the typical two banks of four when he uses the 4-4-2 shape.

Incidentally, in the same book David Platt suggests that the 4-4-2 is the 'easiest formation to play if you are poor technically' and the 4-4-2 is described as the 'English tradition'.

The book makes the point that in order to play some other popular formations you need specialist players. For example, 3-5-2 needs wingbacks, 4-3-3 needs specialist wingers and to play 4-3-1-2 you need a no.10 who can play between the lines. You could also add the 4-2-3-1, where you need holding midfielders and attacking midfielders. It is suggested that these are some of the reasons that the English play 4-4-2, because they don't tend to have these types of players. Look at the current England squad and you could probably make the same argument. The book also mentions that the coaching system is poor, so while managers and coaches on the continent might switch between different formations and know various systems inside-out, the English managers/coaches stick with what they are familiar with and what they have used during their playing career - usually a 4-4-2.

It is worth noting that in the same book, Arsene Wenger says the following about the 4-4-2:

'I think it is simply the most rational formation in most cases. In fact, it is the essence of reason. With a 4-4-2, sixty percent of your players are occupying sixty percent of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space'.

It is worth noting that in the same book, Arsene Wenger says the following about the 4-4-2:

'I think it is simply the most rational formation in most cases. In fact, it is the essence of reason. With a 4-4-2, sixty percent of your players are occupying sixty percent of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space'.

It probably is the most rational, I'd have to agree with that quote. And with squads without outstanding technical ability, or highly creative players that can make something great out of a moment, that's probably a wise way to play - rationally. But it seems like a 442 is hacking away with a dull blade, while at the higher levels around Europe, teams are playing with a much sharper weapon, due in large part to more specialized players and a more sophisticated tactical setups and approaches. They have the ability to not only cover for any fundamental holes in other formations, but overcome to be successful.

However I'm not trying to say that 442 is where all fundamental and basic football starts, when you even see youth or high school teams playing a 433 or a 352. Though I did see a game of 8-year olds in my neighborhood park that looked to be playing a 2-0-8 formation. Everyone on a free role.

It is worth noting that in the same book, Arsene Wenger says the following about the 4-4-2:

'I think it is simply the most rational formation in most cases. In fact, it is the essence of reason. With a 4-4-2, sixty percent of your players are occupying sixty percent of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space'.

Wenger is also just about the most famous recent exponent of the weakness of ideology being more important than practicality. He is almost the exact opposite of Rafa Benitez, thrashing league opponents on a regular basis while being torn to shreds in Europe. Both these managers display the destructive trait of hubris, that because they do well they feel that they do not have to pay attention to anyone else in football.

As for the 4-4-2 itself and it becoming obsolete, it is a difficult question. The 4-4-2 itself is without a doubt obsolete, but the 4-4-2 is also the lowest common denominator between a huge variety of shapes and formations and in that sense is the most modern of all formations as a platform to evolve and develop a contextual approach to football.

The 4-4-2 is in the unique position of having evolved out of the battle for supremacy between the 1970's Catennacio and Total Football, while being the basis for the emergence of the modern 4-5-1's. In essence the 4-4-2 bridges the gap between all concepts of modern European football. If you understand the 4-4-2 in that context, rather than rigid English late 80's and early 90's concepts of 4-4-2 quite a few of us grew up with, then the 4-4-2 at this point in time is a decisive formation, a key formation.

4-4-2 is the bridge between tactical inventions and tactical concepts. In the past football was about invention or dedication. Invention of the new system to defeat the old or mastery of the current form. Modern football is about the application of tactical knowledge, the ability to adapt and exploit and outperform the opponent on all possible levels. Football today has an amazingly rich tactical history to draw ideas from, and there is very little left to invent or so it would seem. What exists today is the continual re-invention of the old on a game-by-game basis to defeat the specific opponent. What exists today is managers that understand their tactical history and evolution and details battling with each other to find those fundamentally important spaces in each others formations.

4-4-2 is obsolete because static and unchanging formations are obsolete. 4-4-2 is the key formation because it is the bridging formation between all modern football formations, and so within the 4-4-2 is the ability to construct anything with minimal necessary drills/changes/instructions/education. Get 11 players that understand the 4-4-2 and you can give them all simple instructions to produce just about anything you can imagine. The formation itself is weak, but it's derivatives and variations are utterly vast. This makes the 4-4-2 as a tactical platform completely unrivalled.

There are very few formations you can name that the 4-4-2 cannot easily become, while at the same time having much less possible variations to it's name. This is the level football has reached, a level where a certain formation is a disaster when played, yet at the same time is the basis upon which to build a team capable of becoming anything.

I'm fascinated by the fact that the majority, so far at least, believe that the 4-4-2 is 'ultimately flawed against modern systems'. It's very interesting indeed.

Howard Wilkinson has passed on a report he has written for the FA which said English football needed to devote more resources to youth development, spend more time on technical skills, build a national football centre and prepare for a future when 4-4-2 will be obsolete.

That was in 1997. The FA did F A.

I'm fascinated by the fact that the majority, so far at least, believe that the 4-4-2 is 'ultimately flawed against modern systems'. It's very interesting indeed.

The 4-4-2 leaves gaps that can be exploited. You can see the most basic form of that problem in FM itself with 4-4-2's that don't drop a striker into midfield versus 4-4-2's that do. You get outnumbered through the middle, and the opponent can dictate the game in midfield. That's the FM example and I am pretty sure that it is an issue many of us have faced at some point over the past few incarnations of FM.

The key issue with the 4-4-2 in my opinion is that it does not defend the centrebacks effectively against "modern systems". Centrebacks are almost always your best defensive players, playing in the most crucial area of the pitch, and the 4-4-2 ultimately exposes them to attacks whereas your 4-5-1 varients tend to keep atleast one of them free through sheer virtue of shape. By conceding numbers and key space in midfield, the knock-on effect is that the centre of your defence is stretched and put under excessive strain. The job of defending is made more difficult because one of your Centrebacks will at some point in the game have to leave the Centre of defence to challenge an opponent while the other Centreback is marking an opponent.

The "modern systems" keep a Centreback free. One of the Centrebacks is always available as a sweeper without being an actual sweeper. While the traditional, technical sweeper may be obsolete as a position, his role as a "free man" at the back to defend critical areas and issues without fear of exposing his partner to overloading and overwhelming play is as important today as it was in the past.

If you look at the fundamental core issues of the Catenaccio defence, all that has happened in "modern systems" is that fundamental core has been rotated 90 degrees. This not only pushes a man further forward into midfield and deals with the whole "inefficient use of numbers in space" issue, it not only retains the "sweeper" while being more effective at engaging the off-side trap and holding lines, it not only swaps the "Libero" function from a deep defender to a more advanced defender, but much more importantly in my view it produces a vastly superior "core" shape for defending. Instead of the Catenaccio shape funneling break-through attacks towards the penalty spot, the "modern system" shape (that retains the same fundamental principles) actively funnels breakthrough play towards the flanks and away from the penalty spot.

The 4-4-2 not only lacks numbers in midfield and defence of key "between the lines" space, it is also completely devoid of all the above "core" defensive strengths.

You need to look beyond the obvious "man less in midfield" to the implications of the formation. It's not the man disadvantage in midfield that matters, it's the shape and function of the team five or ten or twenty moves/passes and half a dozen possession turnovers and counter-attacks later. The 4-4-2 has a tendency to funnel players to the heart of the pitch and the centre of the box where it is numerical and tactically weak. The modern systems tend to funnel players to the flanks while retaining numerical superiority and tactical strength.

Here is a diagram I quickly drew up the other day when discussing the 4-5-1. It's one of my favourites because of the simplicity with which it makes it's point.

The White is where you hold your shape and force the opponent to play outside you. The Black is where you force the opponent to play his football and where you press him.

The 4-4-2 is simply obsolete in defensive strength. The "modern systems" force the opponent into areas of lowest possible threat with maximum pressing angles and numbers and minimal player commitment to other vital marking/positional responsibilities. The "modern systems" have incomparable defensive strength in depth, ask the least defensively from your least defensive players. And they are freely able to attack or counter-attack with large numbers of players playing all across the pitch in terms of both width and depth from multiple angles and multiple positions and with a huge amount of options, without ever once compromising your defensive strength.

The 4-4-2 is only a single player in a single position away from a 4-5-1 but it is a completely different tactical world altogether.

However even this is "old news". We have seen this season both in England/Spain/Portugal and in the European and in the World Cup some very specific and clear lines of the evolution of the 4-5-1 itself back towards something that resembles the 4-4-2 more in terms of pure outright attacking players (the lone striker + wide striker like Robinho or Tevez etc.) but is still yet further from the basic premise of the 4-4-2.

Originally Posted by crouchaldinho

I'm fascinated by the fact that the majority, so far at least, believe that the 4-4-2 is 'ultimately flawed against modern systems'. It's very interesting indeed.

Originally Posted by sFraser

The 4-4-2 leaves gaps that can be exploited. You can see the most basic form of that problem in FM itself with 4-4-2's

Before I add my thoughts onto here, are we spekaing about FM or real life because it seems like some post are Fm and some are real life

S

What is this 'real life' you speak of? FM is real life!

On a serious note, the original question is a real life question but I'm also interested in talking about 4-4-2 on FM as well.

The poll is based on real life (because many articles here in England are talking about Capello's tactics being outdated and the 4-4-2 being obsolete) but hopefully we can relate this to FM and talk about that as well.

What is this 'real life' you speak of? FM is real life!

On a serious note, the original question is a real life question but I'm also interested in talking about 4-4-2 on FM as well.

The poll is based on real life (because many articles here in England are talking about Capello's tactics being outdated and the 4-4-2 being obsolete) but hopefully we can relate this to FM and talk about that as well.

Good boy

Before I add my thoughts onto here, are we spekaing about FM or real life because it seems like some post are Fm and some are real life

Whatever you have to add, go for it. Say what you like. If it's FM or real life or a bit of both I don't see the problem.

What is this 'real life' you speak of? FM is real life!

We wish. It's still about 10x closer to football than FML.

Good boy

:D

I'll add my views later today

I have no issue with people discussing tactics that they see used in real life. Even if it's not directly FM we are talking, it's still providing info for the people to make the cross over into FM if they should wish to.

Inverting the Pyramid!!

Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

During England's World Cup campaign, I have heard this said a great deal by pundits, the media and also people on this forum. The idea that you can no longer get away with playing a 4-4-2 at the top level and that it is old fashioned or even outmoded seems to be a popular one. I just wanted to gauge opinion on this matter and generate some discussion.

So what is your opinion? It would be great if you could explain your choice as well as selecting your preferred option on the poll.

(Please note that I have also posted this on the Football Forum in order to get responses from those who don't tend to use this part of the SI Forums.)

The thing about formations is that they are always evolving. Once one of the top teams adopts a certain approach and does well then the lesser clubs and other clubs follow suit. Once a team find something that works for them then lots of others try to emulate.

Wenger is also just about the most famous recent exponent of the weakness of ideology being more important than practicality. He is almost the exact opposite of Rafa Benitez, thrashing league opponents on a regular basis while being torn to shreds in Europe. Both these managers display the destructive trait of hubris, that because they do well they feel that they do not have to pay attention to anyone else in football.

That is an excellent way of thinking about it. You've summed it up really good with that. The same can also be applied to FM with managers who do well against top sides but struggle against the lesser clubs.

As for the 4-4-2 itself and it becoming obsolete, it is a difficult question. The 4-4-2 itself is without a doubt obsolete, but the 4-4-2 is also the lowest common denominator between a huge variety of shapes and formations and in that sense is the most modern of all formations as a platform to evolve and develop a contextual approach to football.

I also agree with this.

I think what we are beginning to see is a shift towards more offset shapes that can still be classed as 4-4-2. But they don't look how we have began to think how a 4-4-2 looks. Teams nowdays look at gaining the advantage by exploiting any little bit of space a player can find. For this teams look at playing players in slightly odd positions. This is because players who don't play in a standard position are hard to mark. So already they have a slight advantage.

The 4-4-2 is in the unique position of having evolved out of the battle for supremacy between the 1970's Catennacio and Total Football, while being the basis for the emergence of the modern 4-5-1's. In essence the 4-4-2 bridges the gap between all concepts of modern European football. If you understand the 4-4-2 in that context, rather than rigid English late 80's and early 90's concepts of 4-4-2 quite a few of us grew up with, then the 4-4-2 at this point in time is a decisive formation, a key formation.

4-4-2 is the bridge between tactical inventions and tactical concepts. In the past football was about invention or dedication. Invention of the new system to defeat the old or mastery of the current form. Modern football is about the application of tactical knowledge, the ability to adapt and exploit and outperform the opponent on all possible levels. Football today has an amazingly rich tactical history to draw ideas from, and there is very little left to invent or so it would seem. What exists today is the continual re-invention of the old on a game-by-game basis to defeat the specific opponent. What exists today is managers that understand their tactical history and evolution and details battling with each other to find those fundamentally important spaces in each others formations.

Football is a lot more reliant on the tactical side of the game nowdays imo. Teams are always looking for that slight advantage. Plus we see teams changing shape 3 or 4 times a game. A big part of this is down to managers reacting to what the opposition are doing or wanting to protect the current scoreline.

4-4-2 is obsolete because static and unchanging formations are obsolete. 4-4-2 is the key formation because it is the bridging formation between all modern football formations, and so within the 4-4-2 is the ability to construct anything with minimal necessary drills/changes/instructions/education. Get 11 players that understand the 4-4-2 and you can give them all simple instructions to produce just about anything you can imagine. The formation itself is weak, but it's derivatives and variations are utterly vast. This makes the 4-4-2 as a tactical platform completely unrivalled.

There are very few formations you can name that the 4-4-2 cannot easily become, while at the same time having much less possible variations to it's name. This is the level football has reached, a level where a certain formation is a disaster when played, yet at the same time is the basis upon which to build a team capable of becoming anything.

I think we all need to start looking at formations for how they play out in a game to determine the actual shape, rather than rely on what we grew up knowing was a particular shape/formation.

A lot of good points from everyone posting in here.

To be honest, 4-4-2 probably was the best shape for England anyway, as Capello claimed. England don't have great wingers to play 4-3-3, they don't have quality holders to play 4-2-3-1 and they don't have intelligent and creative playmakers to play between the lines in, for instance, 4-3-1-2. Apart from Rooney, England also don't have complete forwards capable of successfully playing the role of a lone striker to be honest (players like Defoe, Heskey, Crouch etc. arguably all need support in the form of another striker playing alongside them).

They don't have proper MC's to play in the middle in a 4-4-2 either. Lampard and Gerrard don't cut it as MC's in a 4-4-2. Barry? Not World cup winning material. Carrick? Good but fails to show up when it really matters so it would be a liability building a 4-4-2 with Carrick

They dont have a proper left-winger. Although alot of 4-4-2's use one cut-inside winger and one hug the touchline winger.

But the fact is that England is lacking world class players in crucial positions for any formation to work flawlessly IMO.

I think what we are seeing is the full realisation of Holland's total football legacy. By that I mean players and coaches across the world since then have grown up with the knowledge that flexibility is a key part of modern football and it has take 2 generations for it to spread and produce players that can play the system.

433 is a system that changes whenever possession does rather than using subs like you would with 442. You have 9 behind the ball in defense and 3 forwards on the counter.

For England I think Capello was torn between helping England evolve and picking a system for the players he'd selected and ended up failing on both counts. Playing 442 with Lampard and Gerrard in the same team just forced Rooney out to the left channel every time the the midfield made runs into the box.

If he'd played 433/451 he could have put Joe Cole wide left (similar to Robben) and Rooney wouldn't have been crowded out of the box by the extra striker on top of Lampard and Gerrard making their runs.

Anyway just my thoughts on the whole thing. Great topic btw Crouchaldinho

I have no issue with people discussing tactics that they see used in real life. Even if it's not directly FM we are talking, it's still providing info for the people to make the cross over into FM if they should wish to.

Talking now specifically about 4-4-2 in FM terms now, my 4-4-2 challenge in this forum seemed to indicate that the formation can and does work well at the top level. This may well be because in FM, we can use player roles and mentality to employ deep-lying forwards and so on, in order to get players to play between the lines.

On FM10, I find the 4-4-2 solid wherever there is already a 4-4-2 culture (e.g. English lower leagues). However, whenever I play at the top, I tend to stop trusting in the 4-4-2, especially as you are coming up against formations like 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1/4-3-3 shapes which have numerical superiority in the centre of the field. I find 4-4-1-1 can be a good compromise at the top level, although I'm more likely to employ a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 shape when I'm playing with a top side.

It's also a case of having players that suit a 4-4-2 more than any other formation at lower levels. The players have less outstanding qualities and are less likely to specialise. As I said above, you need great wingers to play 4-3-3, or holders to play 4-2-3-1, or intelligent and creative playmakers to play between the lines in, for instance, 4-3-1-2. Furthermore, you need more complete forwards capable of successfully playing the role of a lone striker in these 4-5-1 variations. You don't often come across these players at the lower levels, which is why 4-4-2 probably still rules all. At the top level though, it could be a waste of great attacking talent to play certain players in a flat 4-4-2 because you would have to shoe-horn them into the system.

Interesting article here - The Question: What next for 4-4-2?

Interesting article here - The Question: What next for 4-4-2?

Does Wilson have his own ism yet?

Bumping due to two recent high profile examples of 442 struggling, both were clear 442s and not 4411s or hybrid style shapes.

Tottenham played off the park whilst set up in a 442 away to Young Boys

(Gomes: Corluka, Dawson, Bassong, Assou-Ekotto: Giovani, Palacios, Modric, Bale: Pavlyuchenko, Defoe).

Liverpool away to Man City sticking with the tactic throughout

(Reina: Johnson, Skrtel, Carragher, Agger: Jovanovic, Gerrard, Lucas, Kuyt: Torres, Ngog).

Purely looking at personnel I'd pick Gio and Modric as weak 442 links for Tottenham. Palacios I have no issue with and Bale is rapidly developing into the complete left midfielder. I think had Harry picked only one of the two weak links with another solid player in there the tactic may well have worked against clearly weaker opponents. A Milner-type at MR could perhaps compensate for Modric at MC, but against stronger opposition it would probably be safer to accomodate Modric on one of the flanks.

Looking at Liverpool the selection is a shambles. Agger was destroyed by Johnson, but perhaps the back 4 picked itself and the weakness couldn't have been avoided. Liverpool had converted strikers on both flanks and it showed. That said it made liittle sense that Kuyt/Jovanovic didn't switch flanks, City's threat was predominantly right side and Jovanovic was up against one of the few fullbacks in the Prem that he couldn't burn for pace. Kuyt should have protected Agger allowing Jovanovic to drive inside onto Lescott's weaker side. Gerrard and Lucas were up against 3 CMs but they did well apart from the first goal where Barry was left untracked. I'm not sure the result would have been much different had Liverpool played their usual 4231, City were strong and aggressive throughout and it looked men against boys at times.

I'm interested to see If Hodgson will stick with 442, Liverpool's shape was decentish and there are easier fixtures to come.

The problem with a 4-4-2 opposed to as 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 is that you are outnumbered in central midfield without having an important numeric advantage elsewhere in return.

WIth the right players, especially in central midfield, you can still win obviously and there is no disadvantage in a way which renders the tactic useless but in the long run you should be a bit more succesful with a more modern formation.

That's irl though. In FM I'm playing 4-4-2 successfully

4-4-2 will always be popular but it is ultimately flawed against modern systems.

Sums up my opinion perfectly.

I don't think that a 442 has become obsolete at all. If you defend deep & narrow with 2 disciplined banks of 4 and the strikers helping out as well, it is incredibly difficult to break down. However, the keyword is disciplined, which also means that the more creative players have to work really hard. That normally is never a problem in high stake games (CL final for example), but I don't think Eto'o will run his ass off in an Inter - Chievo game.

I think that we should also consider the problem as an issue between FM and real life. Let's take the 442 vs the Mourinho 433. 2 against 3 in the middle of the park. Well, if you play narrow, which you naturally do when defending unless being stupid, you can perfectly ask one of your wingers to man-mark the dmc while the other two cover the remaining mc's. Or you play a bit riskier and have one of your cb's play more advanced and cover one of the midfielders with the other three defenders coping with the 3 attackers. This shapeshifting from 442 to 532/352 or whatever is very normal IRL, but impossible in FM as you cannot define both an on/off the ball system anymore. Same thing with width: if you play wide, in fm, your team is way too wide while defending (I am not talking about being trashed by a good counterattacking move, but in general when the other team has possession and you have to do a bit of defending). There should be an off and on the ball width setting or even a setting per line (def/mid/att).

Let's take the counter system in the TC for example: if you want to break away quickly, you have to sit deep, defend and then burst forward if possible. How many quick transition/counter goals have Chelsea scored lately? No way in hell they play a counterattacking style of football under Ancelotti. Even Barcelona and Arsenal go for quick counterattacking moves while most definitely be using attacking systems tc-wise.

So, Man Utd have just won the league playing 4-4-2 (some might call it 4-4-1-1, I guess, but still a 4-4-2 variation). Ancelotti tried it with Chelsea and then abandoned it to go back to 4-3-3. King Kenny has deployed it at Liverpool but then seems to have reverted to more of a 4-2-3-1 shape.

According to Football Line-ups, the 4-4-2 is still the most popular formation in the top flight of English football (the 4-2-3-1 runs it very close). In the European Champions League, 4-2-3-1 is most popular, but the 4-4-2 formation still runs it very close.

Just wondered what people thought now, almost a year on from when this thread was first posted.

Also, is anyone sticking with the 4-4-2 formation on Football Manager? Do you feel it is outdated on FM11 or does the classic formation still work for you?

I think Man Utd is the only major european team that has been using it regularly this season and getting good results. Even then, sometimes Rooney drops so deep it becomes yet another 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 without possession. Plus the 4-4-2 clearly crashed horribly at the last World Cup too. It might be a phase, but at the moment clearly it does not look like the most optimal formation for modern top-level football. There was a very good article on zonalmarking.net a little while ago about why the 4-4-2 isn't as competitive anymore, I've gotta find it. It's largely because the 2 vs 3 in midfield is a more crucial weakness than whatever other strengths the tactic has.

Bafflingly, a flat 4-4-2 (sort of.. 2 MCs and 2 AML/Rs) is the tactic I use on FM11 because it's the one that gives me results.

According to Football Line-ups, the 4-4-2 is still the most popular formation in the top flight of English football (the 4-2-3-1 runs it very close).

According to football line-ups Vidic plays right centreback, Giggs plays left wing and Park plays next to Carrick in a 4-4-2.

So, Man Utd have just won the league playing 4-4-2 (some might call it 4-4-1-1, I guess, but still a 4-4-2 variation).

If some call it a 4-4-1-1 then the majority are clueless. Man Utd won the league playing a large variety of systems with an equally large variety of players. 21 players in the United squad have played 10 or more games this season and qualify for a winners medal.

In the recent victory over Chelsea in the league at Old Trafford United played a system that was unique for the match. Carrick never ventured forward, the two wingers spent more time behind Giggs than ahead of Giggs, while Giggs had a free role to float forward and link up with Rooney. Rooney also dropped deep into a five man midfield when Chelsea had a lot of the ball.

The key was that Chelsea were trying to build down the flanks to supply Drogba from wide, so Park and Valencia operated as almost a second pair of fullbacks, much like the system used to beat Arsenal in the FA Cup when Ferguson played four fullbacks. With Park, Valencia sitting wide and Carrick sitting deep, with Giggs and Rooney linking up and playing behind Hernandez this United "4-4-2" was functionally far more like a Christmas Tree shape.

Playing a "traditional" 4-4-2 against a team like Chelsea would be complete suicide. You would give away the midfield and the flanks and they would destroy you. I'm not going to state that United never played something close to a "traditional" 4-4-2 but they most certainly did not "win the league playing 4-4-2". I have watched every United game this season.

Ferguson is not that naive a manager, and football is not that simple a game.

Not trolling, just pointing something out...

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/05/08/manchester-united-2-1-chelsea-united-take-huge-step-towards-19th-league-title/

Zonal marking have that system down as a 4-4-1-1. I know Crouchaldinho can fight his own battles and I'm a great fan of your work, 'meet the system' is a great read, first class..but...systems are in the eye of the beholder, to label people who do not see what you want them to see 'clueless' is being a bit harsh I would say.

Rooney seems to drop deep enough to create another band. However, the two middle bands are usually assigned to defensive and attacking midfielders, I would not go as far as calling Rooney attacking midfielder but he could have developed a new band call defensive striker or deep ball winning striker (I'll trade mark that one) as he is trying to win the ball from the midfielders.

I voted a straight "Yes" to the question "Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?" before reading the other comments and seeing the results and I feel I now need to justify my answer. The 4-4-2 is obsolete for the major teams playing for major honours. In my mind, I view the 4-4-2 as ridged counter attacking formation used by the lesser teams to beat the better teams. I expect someone will say there are good teams playing 4-4-2 against lesser teams. A good example this season would be Spurs (when not playing van der Vaart off the striker) but I would argue that they could play a different formation better. My brother-in-law is a Spurs fan and he is always screaming that Rednapp had screwed up his formations and player selection. The better players thrive in fluid formation and I feel that 4-4-2 does not provide a good base to be fluid.

Also, I didn't vote for the last option because the 4-4-2 is not flawed against modern formations, quite the opposite in fact, it still has a place for the lesser teams. Just ask Arsenal supporters who complain that they are always playing against teams that have "2 banks for 4" and occationally not archiving the expected results.

Don't get me wrong SFraser, to a certain extent, I also dislike this tendency we have to reduce football to numbers as if there is some kind of simple equation to football tactics and some kind of simple way of reading the game. What I should have made clear is that, in this thread, I'm trying to talk about real life ideas related to Football Manager terms and, in order to do that, we need some kind of thought on the playing system in numbers. It's a necessary evil.

The common consensus does seem to be that Manchester United have played a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 system for the majority of games this season, and that would match with my observation when watching games, although I'll happily conceded that the movement can be quite fluid and that other shapes and patterns of play come into it as Man Utd attack. Having included that last caveat, I would like to say that surely the majority of football fans understand that not all systems are the same and that, even in a 4-4-2 formation, some players who are playing in the same band have deeper or higher roles than some of their team-mates in the same band? Surely we all understand that football is a dynamic game where certain areas of the field can also be defended or attacked dynamically. Sometimes I feel that people are guilty of saying 'traditional 4-4-2' in the sense that it is something terrible, primitive and totally archaic with players absolutely wedded to their bands and not allowed to move in a dynamic way, but that's not what it is at all.