Is the 4-4-2 Really Dead?

[Alcaraz]

Prelude

I have seen quite a number of articles on this topic and have also seen it being discussed avidly on both these forums and other forums so I though that I will compile people's opinions together and create an article on this Topic which I hope you guys enjoy

Introduction

So is the 4-4-2 really dead? Especially after England's dismal time with this system in the 2010 World Cup, many peopel criticized Capello saying that his tactics were old and out-dated.

However, as we observe matches more closely, we see that a number of Teams in the England Top-flight as well as league's around the world employ the 4-4-2 formation or atleast variants of the Formation. Fulham and Aston Villa employed it sucessfully last season with the former reaching the Europa League Final.

The Problem as many have noticed is not the formation in itself but how the 4-4-2 is employed by certain managers. So today I will explore this statement in further detail using the example of two managers namely Sir Alex Ferguson and Fabio Capello.

England in 2010 World Cup

Absence of a Natural Left Winger

The Main problem as I see it in Capello's Tactics in the World Cup were not that his players were tired or carried strains as he put it but by his team selection.

Milner when played on the left generally tended to cut in and hardly was someone who was going to provide natural width on the left. Hence, to provide this width Capello relied on Ashley Cole working hard and running up and down the flanks.

However, we can see that Landon Donovan looked to cut in and outnumber England's Centre-Backs 3 v 2 thus forcing Ashley Cole to spend most of the match defending against Landon Donovan.

Lampard-Gerrard Combination

This topic has already been hotly debated about and I have to say that it does not work. The problem is that both of them are attack-minded players who like to go forward together and obviously as their is no Defensive Midfielder, they leave behind enormous space which Germany exploited to sheer delight.

Not that is the player's fault ofcourse but the fact remains that even with Barry these two cannot and should not play together for the sake of the team.


Link between Attack and Defence

I believe that this factor played a major part in England's downfall in the World Cup.

Whenever Rooney dropped deep to link up with Lampard ad Gerrard he would always encounter a defensive midfielder in the form of Bradley or Clark which would render him worthless from reallly hanging onto the ball for long and generall leaving Heskey isolated upfront.

Lennon on the right would hug the touchline throughout the game and was rarely called upon to join Build-Up play and again this left him isolated as he rarely looked to move into the Centre of the Pitch and help Lampard and Gerrard out.

Also, one of the USA Strikers also tended to drop deep slightly and this caused a dramatic 3 v 2 battle in the Centre of the Pitch for the ball.

And with the Donovan and Dempsey constantly staying upfront this also forced the defensive line to move deeper and prevented them from pushing up and helping in the Midfield battle.

Conclusion

I do not want to drone on and on as their were obviously many other factors such as the absence of Rio Ferdinand a ball-playing defender which cost England but obviously these 3 were major flaws in Capello's plan as well as the players being horrificly unorganised.


Man Utd vs Liverpool


​

​

Scholes and Fletcher

Unlike the Lampard-Gerrard Combination for England , the Scholes-Fletcher combination was so much better as these two players are by far more defensively proficient.

Another factor helped was that Scholes also tended to drop deep so as to get more time and space on the ball to dicate play while Fletcher also worked hard in linking up with the strikers and helping out defensively.

In the England Camp as we could see, neither Lampard nor Gerrard were happy to track back and were extremely keen on atatcking

Always happy to help-- Giggs and Nani

Another factor in the works was that Giggs and Nani tended to be more involved in the build-up play by coming more central and also they were happy to track back Maxi and Nani respectively.

This allowed Evra and O Shea more freedom to go forward and add a new dimension to the Man Utd attack while also providing natural width on their respective flanks and Nani and Giggs were playing the role of the Inverted Wingers.

As we compare to the England Game, Lennon and Milner never tracked Dempsey and Donovan respectively and also hardly were involved in build-up play as they hugged the touchline with the exception of Milner.

However, when Shaun-Wright Phillips was brought on these problems compunded even more.


Berbatov

As we can see Berbatov was happy to drop slightly deep to link up the play and although he was normally covered my Meirless and Poulsen he generally had more support in Nani,Giggs and occassionaly Fletcher.

Thus, Berbatov was given the freedom to play his game without having the burden of being solely responsible for linking up play and as he and Rooney constantly swapped positions, he duly scored a hat-trick.

In the England Game however, Rooney was tasked solely with linking up play and he was not helped by the unwillingness of the Wingers to help him out and neither did Clarke or Bradley show him too much sympathy

Conclusion

As we can see that there were many tactical errors in Liverpool's gameplan too but generally the way Ferguson adopted the 4-4-2 was the way for other teams to follow and build their own tactics on.

It involved the use of hard-working players and a team working as a cohesive unit rather than a one-man show.

Ultimate Conclusion

So what did I hope to prove to you people here by giving you a break-down on two different games. I hope to make you understand that the 4-4-2 itself is not a problem but the way it is employed by certain managers that is.

When employed correctly, the 4-4-2 gives you 2 bands of 4 players each for the opposition to break down and gives you a stable structure both when attacking and when defending.

The Tactic especially in today's world of 4-5-1's and 3-5-2's will not work without hardworking players who are willing to work as a team and not rely on one player to bear the brunt of their workload as Rooney had to do in South Africa.

I hope you enjoyed this article and any comments are welcome




​

 

[CJACKO11]

I like the 4-4-2 and i think if you have the right balance of 1 centre mid that will go and 1 that will stay then i think it can work. You also need 2 strikers that will work well together and both drop back. For instance i think if needed Chelsea could play a 4-4-2 with a midfield of Malouda on the left, Ramires on the right Lamps/Essien and Mikel in the centre with Nico and Drogs up top. But i do think the 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 works better for most teams. Great read though mate.

 

[khemo]

i think it's a good formation,if you give the right tasks to your players it can be very effective

 

[Mike.]

the best way to describe the 4-4-2 at the top level is: easy to learn difficult to master, your sides must have fewer flaws/weaknesses as players to pull it off compared to a 3 man formation. you must have modern attacking fullback with good defensive positioning; your central defenders must have pace, and at least one must be good on the ball.

Your MCd must must be equally good at defending/support, and your MCa equally good at supporting/attacking, wide your wide players intelligent, preferably two footed and must be willing to track back.

and most important you must have to intelligent creative forwards, especially the deeper of the pair, becuase he will be the one to create the extra man in midfield. you players must be able to change shape in transition quickly, from a 4-4-1-1 in defence to almost a 4-2-4 or 3-3-4 in for in attack depending on how aggressive in getting players forward the side is. I think to pull it off an international level is very difficult because it requires a lot of practice and work and you simply dont get that time in international level, nor can you bring in players like you can at club football. If it can be pulled off well, it has the versatility to out manouver virtually any other framework. If not it can leave you at a significant disavantage.

 

[psycho1970]

I use a Flat 4-4-2 Formation both home and away with the fullbacks able to assist the wingers and a ball winning Midfielder with a Playmaker centre midfielder. The Centre backs and wingers are disciplined to only do their specific jobs ie, with the Playmaker CM in a free role linking midfield and attack. One striker is used as a Poacher and the other as a support target man.

The home starting strategy is set as Attacking with the philosophy set as Fluid and the away starting strategy is set as control with the philosophy set as very rigid. This allows me to change the Strategy and philosophy mid game without upsetting the balance and team.

 

[GodCubed]

There are, I'm afraid, a number of flaws in this mini-article.

Absence of a Natural Left Winger

The Main problem as I see it in Capello's Tactics in the World Cup were not that his players were tired or carried strains as he put it but by his team selection.

Milner when played on the left generally tended to cut in and hardly was someone who was going to provide natural width on the left. Hence, to provide this width Capello relied on Ashley Cole working hard and running up and down the flanks.
​

Milner is a natural winger. Even if he wasn't, then in theory this works well, as inverted wingers are dangerous when backed up by a rampaging full-back running outside them, as Cole is and does, for instance.
​

Lennon on the right would hug the touchline throughout the game and was rarely called upon to join Build-Up play and again this left him isolated as he rarely looked to move into the Centre of the Pitch and help Lampard and Gerrard out.

So hang on, are inverted wingers a good thing, or a problem with England? First you criticise Milner for cutting inside, and then you say that Lennon should have?
​

Unlike the Lampard-Gerrard Combination for England , the Scholes-Fletcher combination was so much better as these two players are by far more defensively proficient.

Whilst I won't argue with Fletcher, are you seriously arguing that Paul "Horror Tackle" Scholes is better defensively than, say, Lampard? Apart from that, yes, it's a good point. Fletcher's work-rate and stamina allows him to play the ball-winner and also link the attack.
​

Another factor in the works was that Giggs and Nani tended to be more involved in the build-up play by coming more central and also they were happy to track back Maxi and Nani respectively.

Apart from the fact there seems to be two Nanis on either side, again you're being contradictory. Are you saying that Milner coming inside (which he didn't really) is a bad thing or a good thing? I'd say if Nani cut inside too often in a game with John O'Shea, a solid, unspectacular fullback behind him, this wouldn't exactly add to the natural width of the team.
​

This allowed Evra and O Shea more freedom to go forward and add a new dimension to the Man Utd attack while also providing natural width on their respective flanks and Nani and Giggs were playing the role of the Inverted Wingers.

Whilst I can't argue against Evra, I heard once (from Madsheep, I think) that O'Shea is a purposely defensive fullback, remaining deep so that the back line can essentially swivel on an axis and allow Evra upfield without compromising defensive responsibilities. Hence, Fergie prefers Valencia to Nani on the right often, as he provides the natural width O'Shea and Nani cannot.
​

As we compare to the England Game, Lennon and Milner never tracked Dempsey and Donovan respectively and also hardly were involved in build-up play as they hugged the touchline with the exception of Milner.

On the contrary, Milner was adept at tracking his man. Also, you've just said both hugged the touchline... with the exception of Milner. So, one out of two did. Besides, you seem to be acting under the assumption that wingers need to come inside to help with build-up play, flawed logic at best. A midfield with Lampard and Gerrard should have little problem with creativity, meaning that the wingers should take up wide positions and offer an outlet on the flanks.
​

However, when Shaun-Wright Phillips was brought on these problems compunded even more.

Agreed. He didn't have Milner's workrate and diligence. Plus, he's **** anyway.
​

In the England Game however, Rooney was tasked solely with linking up play and he was not helped by the unwillingness of the Wingers to help him out and neither did Clarke or Bradley show him too much sympathy

Not quite true. Lampard and Gerrard were tasked with alternating between sitting roles and making late runs, a task which actually they performed quite well. See, for example, the Gerrard goal against the USA.
​

That's my rant over. Apart from those bits quoted, it's a rather good article, and I enjoyed it. All the bits not quoted I agreed with, so thanks for taking the time to do it.
​

 

[Alcaraz]

There are, I'm afraid, a number of flaws in this mini-article.

Milner is a natural winger. Even if he wasn't, then in theory this works well, as inverted wingers are dangerous when backed up by a rampaging full-back running outside them, as Cole is and does, for instance.​

So hang on, are inverted wingers a good thing, or a problem with England? First you criticise Milner for cutting inside, and then you say that Lennon should have?​

Whilst I won't argue with Fletcher, are you seriously arguing that Paul "Horror Tackle" Scholes is better defensively than, say, Lampard? Apart from that, yes, it's a good point. Fletcher's work-rate and stamina allows him to play the ball-winner and also link the attack.​

Apart from the fact there seems to be two Nanis on either side, again you're being contradictory. Are you saying that Milner coming inside (which he didn't really) is a bad thing or a good thing? I'd say if Nani cut inside too often in a game with John O'Shea, a solid, unspectacular fullback behind him, this wouldn't exactly add to the natural width of the team.​

Whilst I can't argue against Evra, I heard once (from Madsheep, I think) that O'Shea is a purposely defensive fullback, remaining deep so that the back line can essentially swivel on an axis and allow Evra upfield without compromising defensive responsibilities. Hence, Fergie prefers Valencia to Nani on the right often, as he provides the natural width O'Shea and Nani cannot.​

On the contrary, Milner was adept at tracking his man. Also, you've just said both hugged the touchline... with the exception of Milner. So, one out of two did. Besides, you seem to be acting under the assumption that wingers need to come inside to help with build-up play, flawed logic at best. A midfield with Lampard and Gerrard should have little problem with creativity, meaning that the wingers should take up wide positions and offer an outlet on the flanks.​

Agreed. He didn't have Milner's workrate and diligence. Plus, he's **** anyway.​

Not quite true. Lampard and Gerrard were tasked with alternating between sitting roles and making late runs, a task which actually they performed quite well. See, for example, the Gerrard goal against the USA.​

That's my rant over. Apart from those bits quoted, it's a rather good article, and I enjoyed it. All the bits not quoted I agreed with, so thanks for taking the time to do it.​

Great to see u paying so much attention and I will now answer your Questions


1. Milner working as an inverted winger failed with England as all the opposing team needed to do to prevent England from getting any width on the left-side was to push a player up to occupy Ashley Cole and make sure he can attack the left flank and provide width


2.The way Capello had set-up the tactic was to rely on Lennon and Ashley Cole to provide the width however Ashley Cole was pushed back into his own half and Lennon hugged the touchline all game rendering him next to useless in the build-up play, hence I felt that he should have been more central to assist the midfield but I believe that be it a Natural Winger or an Inverted Winger they must fit into the tactic and Lennon as a Natural Winger did not

3. The point I was making there was not that Scholes is better defensively than Lampard but his job was to stay deep and provide the passes which he did spectacularly hence we can see the the roles handed down to Gerrard-Lampard and to Scholes-Fletcher were rather different and it has nothing to do with defensive abilities as in one both were allowed to atatck while the other only one was allowed to attack

4. Again I will say that the most important thing is that players and their roles fit into the tactic, obviously Capello could have use Natural Wingers in a 4-4-2 for instance if he tweak the roles of the other members of the team, basically its not about being a Natural Winger or Inverted Winger but its about how well this role fits into the tactic


5. I agree that I may be wrong about this one as I was purely trying to guess O Shea's role from the diagram

6. As you can observe, I also did my analyasis in relation to how the other team played so in theorey yes Lampard-Gerrard should have no problem with creativity but the way the opposing teams had set out their players made it immensely difficult for them to do so and thus I believed that the wingers had to come in as Lampard-Gerrard were being outnumbered in the centre of the park

Also while Milner is adept at tracking his man as we can see, Landon Donovan played extremely high up the pitch and Donovan rarely tracked back to help defensively so Ashley Cole was the man to take over the responsibilty of Donovan while Milner did not track back as he did not have to while he also did not provide width on the left flank


7. Yes true Lampard-Gerrard had those roles you mentioned but neither of them are spectacular defensively and I what I noted here was Capello's poor team selection as both these players are keen on attacking and neither of them can do the job defensively against the bigger teams and we needed a Gareth Barry or Carrick in there to support the defence

I hope you enjoyed the article and my answers to your queries is sufficent

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

the best way to describe the 4-4-2 at the top level is: easy to learn difficult to master, your sides must have fewer flaws/weaknesses as players to pull it off compared to a 3 man formation. you must have modern attacking fullback with good defensive positioning; your central defenders must have pace, and at least one must be good on the ball.

Your MCd must must be equally good at defending/support, and your MCa equally good at supporting/attacking, wide your wide players intelligent, preferably two footed and must be willing to track back.

and most important you must have to intelligent creative forwards, especially the deeper of the pair, becuase he will be the one to create the extra man in midfield. you players must be able to change shape in transition quickly, from a 4-4-1-1 in defence to almost a 4-2-4 or 3-3-4 in for in attack depending on how aggressive in getting players forward the side is. I think to pull it off an international level is very difficult because it requires a lot of practice and work and you simply dont get that time in international level, nor can you bring in players like you can at club football. If it can be pulled off well, it has the versatility to out manouver virtually any other framework. If not it can leave you at a significant disavantage.

In a nutshell Madsheep as I said in the article the formation relies heavily on Techinally-superiro and hardworking players

 

[sass101]

Wow ! Nice write up there ! (It took long time to read it through ) And answering your question - No

 

[Mike]

The 4-4-2 was and still is the best formation out there. Love it so much when you watch a team play beautifully with this tactic (Arsenal 2002-04 prime example).