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

[crouchaldinho]

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 The 4-4-2 is obsolete for the major teams playing for major honours.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.

Interesting comments (the bit in bold). Second striker maybe?

It raises a question for me: do we need a 'second striker' band on Football Manager (PES has one, doesn't it?) or do you think that the existing roles, which create a kind of 'second striker' position, are adequate?

Regarding Rooney's positioning, in FM terms, I would have thought you'd play him as a striker but then give him a support role with a lot of creativity and allow him to roam from position. Even then you probably wouldn't get what you wanted out of him to make him play in the way he does in real life. No idea what PPMs he has but maybe adding to them could help with his behaviour. I guess FM is a bit limited in this sense though because I don't think you're ever going to get a 'Rooney' to work in the match engine.

Finally, your comments on Rafael van der Vaart. When I watch Spurs, sometimes I think he plays very close to the striker, so that I wouldn't even play him as a '1' by himself, but instead as a 'second striker' type forward.

[PeeKay]

The second striker band is an interesting concept that should not be neccessary in FM but I have never found existing striker roles adequate. The strikers never drop deep enough for me.

I am not sure you could replicate the Rooney role from the ST position because you need to ask him to press the midfielders and not the central defenders. You could reduce his mentally but I'm not sure that would have the desired effect. Also, at what level would set pressing? However, it would probably be easier to create his role from the AMC position.

I agree with you, van der Vaart is playing a second striker but I didn't want to cloud the issue as someone would have said "he is an Attacking Midfielder".

That has got me thinking, both van der Vaart and Rooney are playing as a second striker but in completely different ways. Rooney is asked to contribute more to the defensive phase of the game and van der Vaart contributes almost nothing

[footballmanager84]

I would also class Man utd as playing a 4-4-1-1 with Rooney and Hernandez. Of course we all know that the details of the formation vary from match to match. What roles and marking duties each player has, will be different, but it's still a 4-4-1-1.

In FM terms I'm not sure how to replicate it. Rooney often drops a lot deeper than a DLF or even an AMC would. Sometimes I wonder if, in fm terms at least, he isn't closer to a CM with Attack duty?

[SFraser]

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.

I think it is the dynamism of a football match that leads a lot of people to think that a lot of teams play 4-4-2. And also the fact that last season Rooney played as the main striker and scored a bucket load of goals.

From my point of view Man Utd have been playing a flexible system that is based on the 4-2-3-1 for a few seasons now. The basis for all United games and all variations of the United system is the control of the midfield. Towards the end of last season and the start of this season United were developing a system that turned from a three man centre in midfield in defence to a four man centre of midfield in attack, with the left winger tucking in during attacking play it was a system very much like the "Brazilian Box" aimed at overcoming opponents that defended with three through the middle.

A very noticable example of this system in action was the Charity Shield game against Chelsea at the start of this season when Park drifted in from wide and played off Essien, which gave the Chelsea centre an extra man to defend against when United had the ball and ultimately allowed Paul Scholes to be completely free and dictate the match. This was an idea that was repeated constantly early in the season, at precisely the same time as Paul Scholes was in all the newspapers because of his "Indian Summer" of dominating football performances.

Another early season idea that has taken a different shape was that when United were needing a goal Paul Scholes would swap from his deep position to a more advanced midfield position and play almost parallel with Berbatov behind Hernandez. This is an idea that has been taken further in this United team with the greater legs of Giggs and Rooney, so that this change doesn't have to be a tactical one where the manager literally plants Scholes in advanced areas and asks Berbatov to drop deeper when defending, but naturally happens due to the greater legs of Giggs and the greater hunger to win the ball back from Rooney.

The individual now that tends to be left free in midfield is Carrick and he has put in some commanding performances in midfield in crucial games in recent weeks.

Now you can argue that this is a 4-4-2, but if it was a straight up 4-4-2 there would be no way that Carrick and Giggs could possibly dominate a midfield like Chelsea. Infact the only reason that the system played against Chelsea could have possibly been called a 4-4-2 and not a 4-5-1 is because Rooney played. If Rooney hadn't played in that game then Ferguson would have gone for Anderson or Gibson and not Berbatov.

I'm sorry if I came across harsh in my first post. I know what you are saying here, but I think the most crucial part of football bar none is the midfield, and 4-4-2 gives the impression that midfields are somehow simple and straight forward. Midfields at the top level are complex beasts filled with cunning and sleight of hand.

As someone else pointed out, that is something that Harry Redknapp has learned the hard way. I'm sure a few of you will remember the Champions League qualifier between Tottenham and Young Boys Berne. Harry's 4-4-2 was nearly KO'd in the first half by Young Boys 4-5-1. In European Football a "true" 4-4-2 is an incredibly attacking formation.

[crouchaldinho]

I've read your comments with interest SFraser, as I always do, and I appreciate what you're saying. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable about Man Utd as you are and I'm not about to argue with someone who attends games and is a proper supporter of the Football Club!

I understand your more general point though, which is ultimately that you are unhappy with the labelling of 4-4-2 because you feel something more complex is going on there, which is fair enough.

We've talked about this kind of thing before and we are prone to disagree. I think that's most likely because of the different levels of football that we watch. Maybe because I'm used to more rigidity whereas you see more fluidity in terms of playing shapes at your club. And perhaps what I bring from my natural habitat of the lower leagues to watching top flight football is a sense of the need to see coherence and order in the overall playing shape, whereas perhaps you are more comfortable with fluidity and dynamism.

Moving on to a sightly different subject, something I came across in the past that was interesting was Wenger's comments on the 4-4-2. He called 4-4-2 the 'most rational' system and praised it for covering the most amount of area on the pitch out of any other playing system. Interesting that even he has moved to play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 in recent seasons. Does anyone agree with his original statement or see exactly where he was coming from?

[SFraser]

Moving on to a sightly different subject, something I came across in the past that was interesting was Wenger's comments on the 4-4-2. He called 4-4-2 the 'most rational' system and praised it for covering the most amount of area on the pitch out of any other playing system. Interesting that even he has moved to play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 in recent seasons. Does anyone agree with his original statement or see exactly where he was coming from?

I see his point, he said something along the lines that in a 4-4-2 "60% of players cover 60% of the pitch". His change of philosophy seems to indicate that he has realised that when you are defending 60% of the pitch is irrelevant! That's not entirely true but you get my point.

It's interesting because when I discuss football tactics with people whose first love is a different sport, for example discussing football tactics with Americans who know about American Football than football, their ideas seem to follow a similar pattern. They talk about distribution of coverage and concepts that don't apply to football in the exact same way. The thing about football is that goal is a pretty small region slap bang in the centre of the pitch. Getting the ball to the corner flag doesn't win you points or tries or goals. This changes the dynamic of football tactics significantly compared to a lot of other team ball sports.

Triangles are important in football. You have your passing triangles but you also have your defensive triangles, and the reason why defensive triangles are important is because of the position of the goal. And one of the other key points that Wenger's statement misses is that while covering a lot of the pitch may in some way be a measure of efficiency, outnumbering the defenders 3 to 1 on the corner of the box is a heck of a lot more efficient.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 4-4-2 is an important formation. One of the most crucial formations in the history of the game tactics wise. It's almost like there is the football era before 4-4-2, the 4-4-2 era, and then the post 4-4-2 era. And like you say the 4-4-1-1 is only a subtle change to the 4-4-2, but from the 4-4-1-1 comes modern football as we see it today, and it's a type of football that no longer sees defence as lines from side to side, but a much more Sacchi-like idea of controlling and compressing space along much more modern defensive lines, such as the shield around the DM or the steep sides of the three man triangle midfield.

When you are talking about the 4-4-2 I always think you have to stop and pause and think about the wide goalscorers that have re-emerged in football, the prolific goalscoring wingers. As you become more defensive through the middle and concede more space in wide areas, attacks are naturally funnelled down the flanks, and attacking systems evolve to place the thrust of their attack in those areas. And then people like Ferguson come along and play four fullbacks and an AMC against Arsenal in the FA Cup.

I think Wenger is an interesting character. His philosophies are admirable but unsuccessful. He has an ideology about how the game should be played, and this seems to come at the expense of an understanding of how the game is being played. Barcelona might get away with this kind of "tactics be damned, play the game our way" but Arsenal cannot. And I find it surprising too, because managing in England over the past decade Wenger has been in the prime position to learn the other side of football in great detail from the like of Benitez and Mourinho and Ferguson and marry his philosophies to a great knowledge of the tactical lines of defensive and offensive football, but it seems like his ego might have gotten in the way.

The way I see it is that if you want to get a proper handle on football, learn the tactics. Learn the lines of attack, learn the lines of defence, understand why this is being done here and why this has popped up there. You don't have to be Mourinho, but if you can keep up a year or so behind the tactics of the day then you are doing great.

[Mike_Cardinal]

Really, I think we should leave behind the idea that the 4-4-2 is a necessarily backwards formation - and more importantly - a flat formation. Teams can play wildly different shapes when they attack and when they defend, but we do not say "this team plays a 4-4-2 that morphs into a 2-1-4-3" or something like that. There also seems to be a lot of people commenting something like "The 4-4-2 is okay at lower levels". Speaking from experience of the Championship this season, there is a real mix of 4-4-2s and 4-5-1s. Almost every team playing 4-4-2 will drop a striker in on a midfielder in a 4-5-1 when defending, if they don't want to get murdered that is, but they still play with two strikers in a shifting line. There is no problem calling this 4-4-2, but it can match a 4-5-1 in the midfield. Really, I think that a rigid, straight line 4-4-2 is obsolete apart from at levels where a team doesn't have the energy to make a 4-5-1 work - it's no good having 3v2 in the midfield if no-one can support your striker and you don't have the skills when in possession to make anything of this theoretical advantage, for it's only an advantage if you are going to do something with the ball in the middle of the park. Sometimes, you're better off having more men high up the pitch to hoof it to. If you're trying to win football matches, then possession is nothing without penetration, though this might well be the best way to play if you're trying to hold onto the current score.

[Mike_Cardinal]

I think Wenger is an interesting character. His philosophies are admirable but unsuccessful. He has an ideology about how the game should be played, and this seems to come at the expense of an understanding of how the game is being played. Barcelona might get away with this kind of "tactics be damned, play the game our way" but Arsenal cannot.

Woah. Barcelona play without a concern for tactics? Seriously? I think it's important to know that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is never any perfect formation in football, the 4-2-3-1 is not the best way to play in any situation with any set of players. The 4-1-2-3 is probably a superior formation in offensive terms, though this comes with defensive weaknesses and I'm pretty sure that you've acknowledged this at some stage. Barcelona don't play a more offensive formation because they are ignoring tactics in some way, they play this way because they think it is TACTICALLY the best way for them to win - their mastery of the football means they don't need to worry about the difference in defensive shape. Sure, players like Xavi, the media and the fans romanticise this team, but Guardiola certainly does not. There is a quote somewhere where he says that he doesn't tells his teams to play football because it's pretty, he tells them to attack because he doesn't see any other/better way to win. If you've got Barcelona's players, the defensive shape is really not as important as the offensive - they are that excellent at winning the ball back and keeping possession, that they can really just be content with the fact that the opponent is always going to be more worried about stopping them than they will be about stopping their opponent, and their ability to keep the ball means that, when ahead, they are the best side defensively in the world at holding onto a result.

They are also finding a great tactical way to beat the opposition's 3 man midfield without being a mess defensively (they have an excellent defensive record, in fact) - they do not need to tuck in a wide man to do this, meaning they don't have to worry about opposition full backs having far too much space like you would in a narrow 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 variant. Messi drops deep, Xavi and Iniesta come forward, and Busquets holds the fort at the back, whilst Villa and Pedro can move inside and essentially become strikers, and the full backs take up wide positions. This creates a 4 man midfield that still has width and penetration, and a seriously fearsome creative trident in front of the opposition's defence that is very, very difficult to stop. It may even be the best 'offensive shape' out there at the moment. As much as they are a brilliant footballing side, it's important to note that Messi's role means that they are also defeating sides tactically - there still has not been a definitive answer to how you can beat Barcelona's wildly offensive, strikerless formation, for how can you match them in midfield with their four men AND down the flanks unless you too drop your striker in the 4-5-1 in the defensive stage? I spoke of how teams have been fit enough and good enough in possession to make a 4-5-1 work over a 4-4-2, and now Barcelona have shown us that a 4-6-0 can work. They are the best team in the world, tactically playing the style that best suits them, and so I really am not sure how they can be criticised tactically, for tactics are entirely dependent on the players that you have available to you.

[SFraser]

The 4-1-2-3 is probably a superior formation in offensive terms

I thought that too up until last season when Barca, Inter, Man United, Germany and Spain showed that offensive symmetry is a tactical weakness and offensive asymmetry is a tactical strength.

The 4-2-3-1 has a greater capability to overload a single flank with players while still retaining a solid shape to defend against the counter-attack. The 4-1-2-3 does not have this same natural tendency to overload one flank while retaining a solid shape to defend counter-attacks.

Spain played Barcelona style "tiki taka" but they most certainly did not play 4-1-2-3. In my opinion the best way to understand the reason why Spain opted for the 4-2-3-1 and not the Barcelona system despite playing a similar style is to look at how the Germans played a similar a similar formation in a different style.

The Germans quite clearly tore apart one flank while they positioned a goalscorer on the other flank. Spain did something very similar with their "tiki taka" tending to gravitate towards the right while Villa was making runs from the left.

One of the major points from last season what how Inter prevented Barcelona from playing football by giving them oceans of space down the flanks and packing the centre. Messi played through the middle and it was the first time I have ever seen Messi actually neutralised completely. If Barcelona had played their intricate football at an angle to the Inter defence attacking the fullbacks and centreback, while on the other side of the pitch they had a goalscorer making runs behind the opposite fullback, they could have turned Inters formation against itself.

I think the 4-2-3-1 is evolving far beyond the 4-4-1-1 and even the 4-3-3. These formations seem consigned to an era of football that demands symmetry of all threats, whereas the 4-2-3-1 offers asymmetry of threats but threats on both flanks of a different type, and is far more effective that way because you CAN overload one flank and if the defence shuffles over to deal with the numbers then you CAN find the "Striker" one-on-one at the back post.

I think tactically speaking Barcelona are not the best team in the world, but technically and in terms of overall ability then yes, they are a very, very potent team.

[Mike_Cardinal]

It all depends on how you look at a formation. I take your points, but still can't help but prefer the 4-3-3 to the 4-2-3-1. Let me try to explain. I agree that Barcelona's application of the 4-3-3 means that they aren't AS good down the flanks in the respect you mention, but they mainly focus on playing through the middle - something that, actually, is very difficult to stop unless you defend as well as Inter - generally speaking, a team with two holding midfielders will struggle against someone who can play three players 'in the hole', so to speak. However, I still think that Barcelona COULD overload a flank just as well as Germany, for example, but they just don't have any interest in crossing a football, and so somewhat naively ignore the flanks. That is a criticism you can level at the team, but the system they play has got the potential. The way to do this is to look at Barcelona's 4-3-3 as a 4-2-3-1 where the central striker has been swapped for a holding midfielder. This then allows the two other central midfielders further forwards, and BOTH wide players to become a striker should the opportunity arise. The AMC/Striker/False Nine in the Messi role can drift to support flank attacks ('Move into Channels'), the full back advances, and the wide man/central midfielder of that flank can all attack this area in the same way that Germany did, for example, whilst your inside forward sits on the back post, and, potentially, the midfielder from the other side can bust a gut to get in the box and on the end of a cross. I take your point on the power of asymmetry, and yet I still think that symmetrical asymmetry is stronger - a system with the ability to overload either flank, requiring wide men who can be both creator and scorer.

[jcafcwbb]

A 4-4-2 works best with a Hernandez type striker. Someone who has movement and the ability to get behind the defence. This leaves the defence with a choice of cutting down space and risking the ball past them or sitting deeper and giving space the midfield.

England failed in the World Cup because the starting choice of Heskey and Rooney, neither player comfortable making runs into space, allowed teams to cut down on the space the midfield confident in the knowledge that they would not be caught out doing this.

Against Chelsea, Valencia was used to keep Cole quiet and Park and Rooney dropped back to give Utd a 4 v 3 man advantage in the midfield. They wisely allowed Ivanovic to be the player they gave time and space to.

Playing the right players for each game, something Sir Alex is master of, is more important than whether it is 442, 4231 or anything else.

No modern system will ever be out-dated. It is just chosing the correct players for your shape.

[SFraser]

yet I still think that symmetrical asymmetry is stronger

That's where our differences end.

The question is how feasible in reality are these grand tactical ideas from the armchair football fan? Reality is a very real issue.

Andres Villas Boas we are not. But I think our discussion makes all the points about the inferiority of the 4-4-2 pretty well.

[Los_Culés]

The question is, what can be called 4-4-2. If we perceive 4-4-2 in a typical british approach (flat formation, quick and strong striker combo etc.), then I think this formation is really outmoded. The reason is simple. It has many inherent flaws which can be easily exploited. But 4-4-2 as a whole isn't dead at all. There are many variants of this formation. Eg. diamond, box midfield .... formations very often used in South America or Italy. Then we can also look at Pellegrini. His favourite formation is something between 4-4-2 and 4-2-2-2. IMO the main advantage of 4-4-2 formation and its variants is that you can play with two pure strikers. Just look at Rossi, Nilmar partnership. It's joy to watch.

[noikeee]

Villarreal's 4-4-2 is quite unorthodox - both wingers tend to cut inside and their forwards to drift wide, leading to all sorts of movement in the pitch. It's a wonderful team to watch in possession, as their passing is very Barcelona-like, but it's probably telling that they are a lot weaker defensively than offensively.

[Los_Culés]

Villarreal's 4-4-2 is quite unorthodox - both wingers tend to cut inside and their forwards to drift wide, leading to all sorts of movement in the pitch. It's a wonderful team to watch in possession, as their passing is very Barcelona-like, but it's probably telling that they are a lot weaker defensively than offensively.

Yes, I'm amazed by their football. Also when their wingers cut inside, fullbacks go up. With strikers wide it then creates beautiful passing triangles. Actually I think they are also very good in defensive phase. The problem is, that their squad is quite short and there aren't replacements for their important defensive players like Angel or Senna. Anyway Villarreal are one of the examples, that 4-4-2 is not dead, although it's an unorthodox 4-4-2.

[Sussex Hammer]

Haven't read all of this but I still think 4-4-2 has a place in the game as long as you have the players for it. The reason why it didn't suit England in the World Cup is mainly because it's difficult to fit Frank Lampard into it because he likes to bomb forward thus making it defensively deficient. Man United however get away with it at the top level because they have hard working wide men rather than flying wingers.

I manage two sides at the weekend. On Saturdays I play 4-4-2 because I don't have much flair but I do have workhorses. On a Sunday I play a 4-5-1 because I have a flair central midfielder who doesn't do much donkey work but he is quality on the ball so I have two hard workers in the middle with him. Both work pretty well. If however I played 4-5-1 on a Saturday and 4-4-2 on a Sunday it probably wouldn't work.

[dz47]

Just been reading Jonathan Wilson's article in World Soccer in which he describes 442 as the formation that keeps coming back. He also describes man u as playing mainly 442, but one that resembles 4231when rooney drops deep. He goes on to suggest that 442 is still a very viable formation in league competitions as its attacking potency outweighs its defensive weaknesses over the course of a full season. However he also suggests that it is less useful in European competition as the away goals rule makes it too high risk

[crouchaldinho]

JW in 4-4-2 isn't dead shocker!

I want to read that article!

Does he actually say positive things about the 4-4-2 or is it all thinly-veiled hatred really?

[dz47]

Amusingly he equates it with a the bad guy in a horror movie...it just won't die! His basic argument as above is that it remains a viable attacking formation over the course of a domestic season but is too high risk defensively in euro competition where goals against can be so costly.

[crouchaldinho]

Amusingly he equates it with a the bad guy in a horror movie...it just won't die! His basic argument as above is that it remains a viable attacking formation over the course of a domestic season but is too high risk defensively in euro competition where goals against can be so costly.

That sounds more like JW!

He's desperate for it to 'die' so that he can be right about his prediction/theory of a 'super evolved' football where everyone plays 4-2-3-1!

[aderow]

When I first started playing FM, I went with the 4-4-2 (I call it that even though I used an AML and an AMR) because thats all I knew; thats the only formation I had ever played in growing up. As I played with my 4-4-2, the teams I struggled against the most were the ones that employed the 4-5-1/4-3-3. The team I struggled against the most was mourinho's chelsea. I used to dread the day that I would play against his side because, home or away, they would pretty much dominate the match.

A few years have passed and I find myself using a 4-3-3 (I had to do a lot of research before I really knew what to do and how to do it.....many thanks to the likes of crouchie and SFraser). And somewhat ironically, I feel most confident against teams that use the 4-4-2 (and this is something that I just realised the other day).

I also want to say that I feel that football is so flowing and dynamic that calling something a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1 is just not enough anymore. Like many have said before, a lot of managers employ the same formation but have their players play in vastly different ways. I would never expect Villarreal to play the same way as Stoke City.

I look at the forums and I have seen so many versions of 4-3-3 tactics and 4-4-2 tactics and tactics that use other formations.

[hugo_rune]

I agree with aderow - the numbers don't describe it well enough.

I play a 4-4-2 in my save, and have overachieved more often than not. Crucially one of my forwards will always be a deep-lying forward who will drop deep, and contribute to the midfield. The other player will be an advanced forward, moves into channels, picks up passes, and delivers crosses for any of the midfielders and forwards to run onto. So one of my strikers is half a central midfielder, the other one is half a winger. (Going off on a tangent - to me the job of a forward is not to score goals, the job of the forward is to contribute to the structure, and help the team get it into the opposition net - whichever player does this is irrelevant. I've never used a player as a simple poacher, and never will).

These are the standard roles recommended by the tactics creator for 4-4-2, of course. I've played around with them, but I come back to these because I believe they deliver the most effective football, assuming you have suitable players.

The point is that I don't believe I'm disadvantaged playing against a "4-5-1/4-3-3" - or a "4-2-3-1".

As others have pointed out, the crucial bit really is what kind of players you have available. This is a gross oversimplification, but I'll propose that if your most creative player is a deep-lying-forward, 4-4-2 might be the go, whereas if your most creative player is a midfield playmaker, you'll want to be in 4-3-3/4-5-1 - and functionally, those systems will be identical for you.

[Marsupian]

I agree that the 4-4-2 is still viable but you need a striker who will support your midfield. You can't just have a targetman and a poacher up front waiting till they get a long ball played to them (actually you could if the rest of the team just defends and plays long balls to the striker duo but that would get a bit silly ). The thing is that in this case the 4-4-2 becomes more like a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1. It's a matter of what you name as 4-4-2 and where you stop calling formations a 4-4-2. In the end all the new modern formations are still very much variations of the 4-4-2 with the difference that one of the strikers is generally played deeper and the wingers become goal scoring threads from wide.

Edit: I would actually go as far to say that the 4-2-3-1 I play will often look more like a 4-4-2 on the heat map with the AMC very close to the striker and the AML/AMR sometimes on the same line and other games just a tad behind the AMC. Would you then call the formation a 4-4-2 or not?