Is the 442 Formation Hopelessly Outmoded?

[Lloydystark]

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.

I agree but it’s the tactics and roles which go with the formation which make thing tick

 

[ClausThomsen]

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.

None of that means formations are in any way irrelevant. And I'm not making the argument that one formation works better than all others.

Formations have their strengths and weaknesses and are a building block in how a system works or doesn't work. An aggressive pressing system needs enough forward players taking up defined positions when not in possession. That's a shape and formation that is drilled on the training pitch.

Playing with a flat back 4 with 4 midfielders generally means the fullbacks aren't as aggressive going forward as wingbacks would be. The winger or wide midfelder ahead of them takes on more of that work. That in turn means the same gaps aren't left behind them and the central defenders don't get pulled wide to cover as often as they would with wingbacks. That's an effect of the formation.

Look at someone like Michael Keane getting pulled everywhere with wingbacks (Wolves) and then look at him being left to largely play centrally in a comparatively flat back 4 (Sheff Utd).

 

[Kever10]

No, I don't believe it is.

Saying 442 is outmoded or outdated is akin to saying Scissors is outdated in Paper/Scissor/Stone. Every formation has its advantages and disadvantages over other formations. What might be strong against a team that plays 433 could be completely useless against a 451.

It is all about players and execution. As @Bluebonic rightly pointed out, the subtleties of all advanced tactics will be lost on a lot of people, and often the formation is based on the best way to accommodate these finer points. A managers preference to a formation is no different than a managers fondness for certain types of players. It's whatever they feel gets the best results. And as has been pointed out by several, that usually comes down to the best blend of players.

 

[Goat]

No, I don't believe it is.

Saying 442 is outmoded or outdated is akin to saying Scissors is outdated in Paper/Scissor/Stone. Every formation has its advantages and disadvantages over other formations. What might be strong against a team that plays 433 could be completely useless against a 451.

It is all about players and execution. As @Bluebonic rightly pointed out, the subtleties of all advanced tactics will be lost on a lot of people, and often the formation is based on the best way to accommodate these finer points. A managers preference to a formation is no different than a managers fondness for certain types of players. It's whatever they feel gets the best results. And as has been pointed out by several, that usually comes down to the best blend of players.

We have a manager who can and will change formations 5 or 6 times during games.

So yes, I agree.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

We have a manager who can and will change formations 5 or 6 times during games.

So yes, I agree.

In general a if a manager is changing formation in a game it’s because he’s got it wrong at the outset .
Exceptions could be dealing injuries , or packing the defence to defend a lead.
It is more commonly seen when chasing the game.
Changing a formation multiple times during a game requires a team containing a high proportion of intelligent players and those players come at premium and mainly congregate at the top clubs.
4-4-2 has enjoyed longevity because it is simple and easily understood . It is the go to formation for managers inheriting relegation haunted clubs for that reason.
It is however mostly a reactive formation and often means surrendering control of the game against more proficient and aggressive attacking teams.

 

[Bluebonic]

No, I don't believe it is.

Saying 442 is outmoded or outdated is akin to saying Scissors is outdated in Paper/Scissor/Stone. Every formation has its advantages and disadvantages over other formations. What might be strong against a team that plays 433 could be completely useless against a 451.

It is all about players and execution. As @Bluebonic rightly pointed out, the subtleties of all advanced tactics will be lost on a lot of people, and often the formation is based on the best way to accommodate these finer points. A managers preference to a formation is no different than a managers fondness for certain types of players. It's whatever they feel gets the best results. And as has been pointed out by several, that usually comes down to the best blend of players.

Careful there squire, dangerous stuff that common sense is!

 

[zook]

As with any formation, you just have to have the right players for it.

Atletico being the prime example of the 442 being used effectively. PSG have even started using it under Tuchel.

I do question us using it going forward tho, considering the lack of players we have that suit it.

 

[Carlito]

The key issue is that wingers bought for a 4-3-3 are completely different players to those you'd use in a 4-4-2, and so by switching between the two systems you're either going to have forwards trying to play as midfielders or vice versa. To pull this off, you'd need either a very large or very versatile squad.

It would, however, be more doable with the sort of midfield diamond that Ancelotti preferred at Milan, since this would simply be a matter of inserting or withdrawing a single set of wide players as and when needed, rather than expecting to have better rotation options than virtually any other team in the league.

 

[billyblue80]

Depends who you have in the midfield. The players we have are more comfortable in a 433

 

[Kever10]

In general a if a manager is changing formation in a game it’s because he’s got it wrong at the outset .
Exceptions could be dealing injuries , or packing the defence to defend a lead.
It is more commonly seen when chasing the game.

This can sometimes be the case, but it's a simplistic, glass half empty way of looking at it. For instance, you could plan your tactics based on an assumed approach which doesn't pan out, so the change is made, not because the tactic doesn't work, but that the tactic chosen is unsuitable for the other teams approach on the day. It could also be a case of noticing a weakness in real time and having the nous to exploit it. Your assumption is based on having to pick 1 single tactic and sticking to it regardless of what unfolds.

Changing a formation multiple times during a game requires a team containing a high proportion of intelligent players and those players come at premium and mainly congregate at the top clubs.

This is another assumption, that organisation and tactics are limited to the best players. When in fact, sometimes its these very attributes that help overcome superior players/teams when there is a mismatch in quality.

So most importantly, it requires a manager who is tactically astute and a good communicator, able to get his players to do as he pleases, when he pleases.

4-4-2 has enjoyed longevity because it is simple and easily understood . It is the go to formation for managers inheriting relegation haunted clubs for that reason.
It is however mostly a reactive formation and often means surrendering control of the game against more proficient and aggressive attacking teams.

442 has enjoyed longevity for the very reasons Carlo has himself explained several times. It is literally THE most balanced structure in terms of pitch coverage and the balance and symmetry of it is the best basic shape for a team to fall back into when not on the ball. It's simplest form is THE simplest form. This doesn't mean, with the right group of players, and the right understanding about where and when they should be, that you couldn't get a 121321 formation to work, but the more complex the formation, the more difficult it is to communicate that to 10 individuals.

The old Shankly quote, "Football is a simple game, complicated by idiots" is at times quite apt. But sometimes, the subtleties of the best plans can appear simple to people who don't know.

The best make everything look easy. And Carlo is definitely of the best. And if he thinks 442 is good for him, and he recruits based on that opinion, then none of us are really qualified to argue.

 

[APN_EFC]

I think the only reason 4-4-2 isn't working nowadays is because there are hardly any players genuinely good playing on the wing, or as wide midfielders.
Think Trevor Steven and Sheedy - wow I didn't even realise Steven got 16 goals in that season.
Kanchelskis, Giggs & Beckham, that Blackburn title winning team had ...Ripley? and Wilcox or someone? Anyway...I haven't seen a genuine 4-4-2 for a long time, only Central midfielders pushed out wide and making a very flat, narrow bank of 4 across the middle. Would be great if we could retrain or have players in that position, then we'd suddenly be looking like an innovative team whom nobody can match

 

[degsy]

Don't get fixated o n 442 - or any other set of numbers.
Its just numbers, a convenient method to give you the gist of how the team is set out.

There are only Two formations of 11 players
Those that win

and those that lose.

And the key to winning is mostly better player and a bit of luck.

and you make your own luck by having better players

Its the old golfing thing, attributed to Player or Palmer or take your pick.

...some say I practice too much and I'm just lucky - seems the more I practice, the luckier I get.

 

[neilsyd]

I feel that 4-4-2 became harder to play, rather than outdated, because of the lack of all round centre midfielders.
When Makelele came along, many midfielders became either defensive, ball players or number 10s and the real art of being a centre mid became rarer.
A centre mid should be expected to tackle, create, drive forward, score goals even but its now acceptable to have someone who just breaks play up. If you can get two good centre midfielders, its a great formation to play. But there's a lack of Keane, Inces, Vieiras, Petits and dare I say it, Gerrards around these days.

 

[Seathestars]

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.

I agree to a certain extent. I think you should try to exploit any weakness in the opposition and set your tactics that way.
I remember Chelsea with Mourinho in charge, they played a team (can’t remember who) but this team had a young 17 year old left back making his debut.
Chelsea kept going at him and almost crucified the kid.
Mourinho was almost apologising after the game but he called it ‘their‘ weakness which he exploited.

I think tactics are more important than formation although they go hand in hand almost.

 

[Sverre Takleifbotten]

Formation is the static starting point of the team, while system is the formation in use. There are many teams that have 4-4-2 as a starting point, but the systems are different. In Spain, for example. there has been a renaissance for various 4-4-2 systems.

Especially in clubs with low budgets, and which therefore do not have the opportunity to dominate the matches. The club that may have succeeded best with this is Getafe. The key words here are high pressure, and vertical passes after ball recovery. Other teams prioritize a low block, but they also focus on vertical passes.

What is traditionally the challenge with 4-4-2 defensively is that you are outnumbered in the center of the field, and that the opponent constantly seeks the spaces between the lines. This often means that teams have to compress so much that they often lie very deep, or that they leave a lot of space behind. Getafe e.g. has repeatedly been exposed to this, and is one of the teams that has had the most goal chances against them. Nor does one have the offside rule, which Sacchi's Milan utilized to the maximum.

The problem offensively is that it is difficult to dominate the game - since you are outnumbered centrally. In addition, it can often be far to the opponent's goal, if the team is lying too deep. This is not a problem just for 4-4-2, but with 4-4-2 you have only three lines, while in 4-2-3-1 you have four lines. Another challenge is the passing angles created by the formation, but as I said, this can be adjusted.

Formation is just the static starting point. I do not think 4-4-2 is outdated, but I think the traditional system that has been used with 4-4-2 is outdated. There is a rapid development in Spain, and not least in Leipzig (+ a couple of other German clubs).