Is the 442 Formation Hopelessly Outmoded?

[Jebus_lives]

Regardless of system, we would greatly benefit from a CB comfortable on the ball and a midfield that actually wanted the ball and we're comfortable with it.

We never seem to have a simple pass into midfield from CB, it's almost always under pressure and goes straight back to Pickford.

 

[Philw]

I think that 2 important points are being largely missed here:

1) No formation is inherently better or worse than any other. They are all combinations of 11 players. Some are better against others, or more suited to certain players, but at the end of the day if one has weaknesses in one area it will be strong somewhere else.

2) Formations are not set in stone, with the players locked in position. They are fluid and dynamic, and adapt and evolve to suit the players and the opposition. In the best days of Moyes/Martinez our FBs would constantly bomb on, and Barry would sit deep. Were we still in a 4-4-2? The formation is just a framework/starting point that you set up in initially, and then change as required, be it in attack or defence. So what started as a 4-4-2 can be a 4-5-1 in defence, and effectively a 3-4-3 or 3-3-4 in attack.

 

[blueblue]

I think that 2 important points are being largely missed here:

1) No formation is inherently better or worse than any other. They are all combinations of 11 players. Some are better against others, or more suited to certain players, but at the end of the day if one has weaknesses in one area it will be strong somewhere else.

2) Formations are not set in stone, with the players locked in position. They are fluid and dynamic, and adapt and evolve to suit the players and the opposition. In the best days of Moyes/Martinez our FBs would constantly bomb on, and Barry would sit deep. Were we still in a 4-4-2? The formation is just a framework/starting point that you set up in initially, and then change as required, be it in attack or defence. So what started as a 4-4-2 can be a 4-5-1 in defence, and effectively a 3-4-3 or 3-3-4 in attack.

I think the second point is the important one. When you watched football years ago it was very easy to see how rigid the formation was but football has evolved so much that really there is no set formation any more.

 

[Arteta10]

I think that 2 important points are being largely missed here:

1) No formation is inherently better or worse than any other. They are all combinations of 11 players. Some are better against others, or more suited to certain players, but at the end of the day if one has weaknesses in one area it will be strong somewhere else.

2) Formations are not set in stone, with the players locked in position. They are fluid and dynamic, and adapt and evolve to suit the players and the opposition. In the best days of Moyes/Martinez our FBs would constantly bomb on, and Barry would sit deep. Were we still in a 4-4-2? The formation is just a framework/starting point that you set up in initially, and then change as required, be it in attack or defence. So what started as a 4-4-2 can be a 4-5-1 in defence, and effectively a 3-4-3 or 3-3-4 in attack.

I think the second point is the important one. When you watched football years ago it was very easy to see how rigid the formation was but football has evolved so much that really there is no set formation any more.

I've said this in a post here before, but the best way to see the true formation of a team is to look at the 'average positions map' that they sometimes post.

No team actually plays rigidly in the same formation they show at the start of the game

 

[LEONARD]

For us at present it's not about formations, it's the players available.

We have three or four quality players, the rest are dross.

Stick them in any formation you like, they would still stink the place out.

 

[COYB75]

completely agree. Digne, Holgate, Gordon and Richy are good players. Branthwaite DCL and Keane could be added to that but then we have nothing. Please let next season be better. In Carlo we must trust.

 

[ClausThomsen]

Formations are generally irrelevant, the best 11 players with the greater ability and motivation win games.

Formations can, in one off matches and for specific reasons, can sometimes be effective but generally the best players over come them.

The history of football is littered with failed teams who tried to shoehorn their best players into the starting 11 at the expense of a suitable formation and system.

 

[ClausThomsen]

I've said this in a post here before, but the best way to see the true formation of a team is to look at the 'average positions map' that they sometimes post.

No team actually plays rigidly in the same formation they show at the start of the game

True. Look at the heatmap for the Sheff Utd game. Their central defenders don't fit into the formation graphic the TV coverage shows at the start.

Nor does DCL in our 4411/ 42211 (or whatever it was) formation - Often as deep as Iceland and taking a lot of touches in wide positions away from goal.

 

[dublinbluenose]

The history of football is littered with failed teams who tried to shoehorn their best players into the starting 11 at the expense of a suitable formation and system.

Thats a different argument entirely.

 

[ClausThomsen]

Thats a different argument entirely.

"Formations are generally irrelevant, the best 11 players with the greater ability and motivation win games. Formations can, in one off matches and for specific reasons, can sometimes be effective but generally the best players over come them. "

Really?

 

[Bullens Rd]

I don't I think that it is outdated at all because it can become very flexible depending how the game is going. The wide men can tuck in, a central midfielder can turn into a number 10, a striker can drop deeper, the wingers can double up wing backs, etc. Very flexible system. Our problem is we have very thick players who are not committed or professional enough to understand how it works.

 

[dublinbluenose]

"Formations are generally irrelevant, the best 11 players with the greater ability and motivation win games. Formations can, in one off matches and for specific reasons, can sometimes be effective but generally the best players over come them. "

Really?

Yes,

The notion that 442 is better than 433 etc is largely irrelevant. The team with the better players and greater motivation will win more often than not.

Your post is about trying to shoehorn a clubs best 11 players into a side. Thats a different argument.

If one formation was superior to all other formations then every team would play the same formation.

Also formations and systems are not the same thing.

 

[Goat]

Watching United here and I really have doubts whether we can make a TRUE 442 work in this league.

They have Pogba and Matic patrolling with Bruno popping up everywhere.

Very risky and I doubt we will use it going forward personally.

 

[Lloydystark]

Like the old Pyramid formation the 442 became for a period the ubiquitous set up in football.
It is arguable that many of the current successful formations were devised to defeat the best practitioners of the 442.
Today it’s leading exponents are probably Simeone and our own Ancelotti.
I realise no two managers use the same iteration of the tactic and each will infuse it with their own variations but as with any formation it retains its own limitations (and benefits).
For me it seems akin to digging First World War trenches to face the Blitzkrieg attack of the modern tacticians.
Can it still bring consistent success?
I’m sceptical.

Great post, something different from the usual trash. I think a lot of managers just play whatever formation they can get all there star players in but higher profile wiser managers may chose a formation for there team and stick to it. 4-4-2 is still my favourite formation as I like to see 2 strikers Working together like a proper partnership (not the RF CF LF). It worked for Leicester when they won the league but they played specific tactics which went well with the formation and personnel. I also think it’s more of a trend in the era we’re in and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a different formation favoured by most managers and team in 10 years. Formations go out the window a lot of the time these days too, a team sheet will come out and it will say 4-5-1 but then they’ll line up differently once the games started also formations change Wether in possession or not ( 4-5-1 defend then 4-3-3 attack)

 

[Dymak]

I don’t think formations are irrelevant at all, having 3 central midfielders rather than 2 can make a massive difference in that area of the pitch, and there’s no point in having two strikers if the midfield is being so overrun that they can’t even get the ball through to the strikers.