4-4-2 vs 4-3-3

http://www.nufcblog.co.uk/2012/04/25/4-4-2-versus-4-3-3-the-numbers/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Ok we have only been using 4-3-3 for 6 games ( although its more of a 4-2-1-3) so some of it might be misleading but it shows why its a far superior system and interesting read none the less.

no such thing as a superior system, only superior implementation of a system

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:no such thing as a superior system, only superior implementation of a system

Good point lol, but in todays game it could be argued its a superior system regardless of players atleast at the top level as most games are revolved around the midfield and the control of it.

Not only does the 4-3-3 in most cases allow for better control and fluid attacking movements it also allows for defensive stability that you simply cant have in a 4-4-2.

Yeh it's more of a 4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3.

mtfootball wrote:Yeh it's more of a 4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3.

Because of the players in the system it fluidly alternates between 4-3-3/4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3......

Suppose its easier to say 4-3-3 lol.

4-3-3 is more modern and better than 4-4-2?

Shocker.

We english are old fashioned leave us alone

i miss the 442 diamond.

lenear1030 wrote:i miss the 442 diamond.

Would be a major fail in england mind.......

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:We english are old fashioned leave us alone

TBH the arguments Ive heard from some EPL fans over here in favour of 4-4-2 are truly hilarious

Man Utd says hey

lenear1030 wrote:i miss the 442 diamond.

It's still used... ish. Clubs still use a 4-4-2 with one midfielder more prone to attack and another more prone to defense. It's just not nearly as rigid. I think the concept of more fluid formations has really blurred the lines between a lot of these. For example, tell me the difference between a 4-1-4-1 and a defensive minded 4-3-3. If staffed by the same personnel, the formations will in reality only be ideologically and semantically different.