The return of the traditional 4-4-2?

RealGunner wrote:Traditional 4-4-2 is dead. The orthodox wingers aren't produced anymore. Not even in England. Strikers are becoming less important and there will always be a no 10 upfront with a striker rather than two strikers like in the past. The demand for a provider is increasing faster than ever.

With the way football is moving, it really won't make a come back for a long time.

I mean we play a version of 4-4-2 at times but it's nowhere near the tranditional 4-4-2. It's different in personnel and in structure. Same can be said about Atletico.  

So basically you're saying the formation is outdated because of the lack of capable wingers to carry out the duties?


And btw, I do remember Fergie's United teams with Giggs/Beckham drifting out wide a lot in a tack but tucking in like half the time to add numbers to midfield while defending.

I don't see how the 4-4-2 can't work in today's game tbh if the wingers are disciplined enough.

Blue Barrett wrote:

juventus101 wrote:The thing people dont understand is that tbe 4-4-2 never really died out. It was just renamed a 4-2-3-1. But for example when Bayern play Muller as the CAM, its basically just a 4-4-2 with a hard working SS. The 4-2-3-1 is rarely actually a 4-2-3-1. Usually its either a 4-3-3 (such as Bayern when Kroos is the AM) or a 4-4-2 (such as Bayern when Muller is the AM). I dont think it ever will die out either. Its simply been too successful over the years.

Completely disagree. The 4-2-3-1 is a completely different formation. Its not a form of 4-4-2.

Lol theres nothing really to disagree about. When you have a lazy SS type playing as the CAM in a 4231 then IT IS a 442. Doesnt even have to be lazy, just not extremely hard working like Muller for example. Bayern can only say they play a 4231 because Muller works so hard. Another example is Koln a few seasoms back. On paper the formation was called a 4231 by EVERY source, with Podolski as the AM behind Novakovic. Is that really a 4231? No. Iys only called one because Podolski works so hard. But like Muller, he is an SS not an AM. Its not always the case. Sometimes a 4231 is actually a 4231, sometimes its actually a 433. But to say it cant be a 442 is just false.

Blue Barrett wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Traditional 4-4-2 is dead. The orthodox wingers aren't produced anymore. Not even in England. Strikers are becoming less important and there will always be a no 10 upfront with a striker rather than two strikers like in the past. The demand for a provider is increasing faster than ever.

With the way football is moving, it really won't make a come back for a long time.

I mean we play a version of 4-4-2 at times but it's nowhere near the tranditional 4-4-2. It's different in personnel and in structure. Same can be said about Atletico.  

So basically you're saying the formation is outdated because of the lack of capable wingers to carry out the duties?


And btw, I do remember Fergie's United teams with Giggs/Beckham drifting out wide a lot in a tack but tucking in like half the time to add numbers to midfield while defending.

I don't see how the 4-4-2 can't work in today's game tbh if the wingers are disciplined enough.

Well who is going to close down the Pirlo's, the Busquets of the world in a 442?

One of the strikers? So then, its basically 4411 which has never left us.

Tbf any successful 442 was never the flat 442 people use as the example.

Doesn't matter who it was but there was always one forward who would either drop into midfield or into wide areas.

I know we are not the most successful of examples but we had two teams who were relatively successful teams using a 442.

First example was Keegan.... Shearer and Ferdinand would rarely stay up top they would drop deep and go wide with regularity.... Beardsley would come off the wing into central positions and so on.

Under Robson it was the same but with Bellamy doing similar things Shearer or Ferdinand used to do and Solano or Robert doing what Beardsley used to do.

The same is the case with all the great Man Utd, Juventus and even Arsenal's great teams.

Flat 442s have never really been IN to begin with.

Yeah I was about to say what Mole just did. People cite City as an example of a prevalent 4-4-2 but Silva/Nasri are not really traditional wingers, right? In fact they drift centrally fairly often. Likewise with Madrid Di Maria never stays wide only, Cristiano and Isco always goes to the middle regardless of their initial position. At Atletico the "wingers" rarely act like true wingers either. So even though it's true that on paper we see a lot of 4-4-2 this season it's not the traditional one most people have in their head when they think of this position.

donttreadonred wrote:

vanDEEZ wrote:when are people going to realize that its not formation that dictates play its the individuality of the players that dictates the play?

no team ever stays in a strict formation throughout the game, its much more fluid than that.  players drop, push up, pinch in, spread out.  at any one point in a match a team could be organized in 5+ different formations.

5+ different formations... really? Come on now. Formations in modern football are as much about the roles a player is asked to perform than the literal shape of the team at any given point. Perhaps you shouldn't think of things as being a "shape", like a square, triangle, or circle, but as a combination of roles with a general area the player is meant to inhabit. In any case, football formations are dynamic and vary based on the position of the ball, filling the open space, and the tactical situation. If you don't understand that basic point... Well, there's simply not much to say to that.

Good summation.

People still say Arsenal use a 4-2-3-1 formation, yet the Arsenal set up is in stark contrast to that of, say, Real Madrid. The reality is Arsenal play more like a lob-sided diamond 4-4-2.. With Walcott making up the 2nd forward as a winger, and Wilshere (atm) operating as an inverted winger come attacking midfielder, Gibbs over-lapping - but that over complicates things a little, doesn't it?. It is far too simplistic to just stick certain formations in a box or to say that teams use 4-5 different formations during a match, as this is a natural adaptation that is bound to occur.

This is why managers are important, otherwise Man Yoo may as well get on the phone to Tony Robbins.

4-4-2 is showing signs of creeping back to some extent, I would be doubtful that it will ever return as it was, the traditional 442 is quite a stagnate formation and isn't exactly pliable (England under SGE). I do agree that if played effectively and with the right squad, you can dominate due to what it can offer on your flanks.

No team ever used a strict 442. Even 4-3-3 was never strict. Alex Ferguson has even said he has never used a 442 in his career and I agree. I mean people getting hyped up about Bayern's supposed "4141" formation that is essentially a 433 itself...

Yea it was very rare. It was almost always basically a 4-4-1-1. For Example Juventus in the early 2000 with Del Piero and Trezeguet. Or Inter with Ibra and Adriano. Or Italy with Totti/Del Piero and Gilardino/Toni. When have we ever seen a top team use two target men in a 4-4-2? Rarely, if ever.