«Home

Why Has 4-4-2 Been Replaced By 4-2-3-1?

i saw this article somewhere and i can't find the answer to it.

what made managers go for 4-2-3-1 and not the old 4-4-2?

why do managers prefer the lone striker with a "number 10" just playing off him?

are managers getting too defensive or too cautious?

football analysts over to you!

Avatar
Newbie
21 answers

there are various type of 4-4-2

:4-4-2 with 2defesinve midfield.you use this when you are playing a very touch team you.its defensive and gives extra protection to your Defenders.

4-4-2 with a defensive midfielder and a central.(thats what Arsenal plays most of the time)

We have 4-4-2 with 2central midfielder,like the one Man-U plays.

Everything depends on whats working for you team and position of the players you have.

Most team plays 4-5-1 now which i can say its the same thing with 4-3-3.4defenders,1or2 defensive midfielder(it depends on what the Coach things)you have two players playing in the flanks .to me a believe in kind of create a momentum in the team and makes playing easier.

Formation depends on Coaches strategy but most Small teams now are used to defending against the Bigger ones

Cia

0
Avatar
Newbie

yes, some players are greatly underatted and underappreciated usually only noticed for their absence rather than their presence such as Makelele at Real Madrid.

I beleive Africans are good in the DM role because of our now generally accepted better athletic attributes. With a little more discipline and organization the europeans no suppose get mouth for where we dey at all and even the South Americans should fear us more because we also have skill. A very good example was this year's Olympics final which in my opinion we had every opportunity to win with a little more discipline.

Anyway, lets look forward to SA 2010 though we might not get the weather advantage as SA will be in the thick of their winter with low temperatures when the tournament gets underway.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The system has its positives and negatives as well. The central midfielders must be workaholics and disciplined.

Mark Van Bommel and Ze Roberto gets a lot of skinning during games thats why the defensive midfielder is very important in 4-4-2.

He carries a lot of loads particularly if the other attacking midfielder(classic 10) does not mark e.g Okocha, Diego, Zidane.

Oliseh suffered a lot in his playing days. Check our game against Denmark when Okocha was busy dribling and playing to the gallery Oliseh was working his Butts off.

You need a Defensive midfield workaholic like Makalele, Flamini, Lorik Cana, Senna, Frings, DeRossi, Tacchinardi, Tymoschuk, Sisoko, Diarra (Africans are good in this role)

or you have 2 central midfielders  who compliment themselves Like Albelda-Baraja, Keane-Scholes, Jeremies-Effenberg, (these 3 are my favourite pairings)

0
Avatar
Newbie

com'on sauron if i had lick anyones Bottom it definitely wont be "loud mouth" Jose Morinho jst stating a tactical observation considering thta both Robben nd joe cloe were always tracking back to help d full-backs unlyk fc bracelona's attacking trios!

0
Avatar
Newbie

because modern football is getting more and more cautious/defensive

everybody wants to pack the midfield and play on the counter

mourinho's style was mostly 4-5-1 not like barca's 4-3-3 where the wingers have never heard of the word 'defence'

now even barca understand the wingers have to come defend sometimes

only bayern still maintain the 4-4-2 effectively

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't see how Mourinho coulda made 4-2-3-1 popular when 4-3-3 was his preferred formation 90% of the time.

He had Robben-Drogba-Joe Cole in his 3-prong attack. Makelele, Lampard and Gudjohnsen/Thiago in the midfield.

JM started using 4-2-3-1 to accomodate Ballack in 06/07 season so stop this Mourinho Bottom-licking.

0
Avatar
Newbie

despite mkng ma 1st line bold i can see dat u dont understand wat i meant, he made it "much more popular"nd was also succesful attracting lots of immitations!

0
Avatar
Newbie

France and Portugal used the 4-2-3-1 formation in Euro 2000. . . . . .

Blimey, Man Utd used it in 1991 against Barcelona(Cup winners cup final).

Bryan Robson/Paul Ince holding with Mike Phelan n Lee Sharpe playing wide AND Brian McClair playing OFF Mark Hughes!!!!

Loads of teams have been using it as far back as the 90s.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yeah ur right d 4-2-3-1 formation has become much more popular thanks to JOse morinho but he had a somewat defensive mentality, Franck rijkaard was highly succesful at FC Barcelona wif d hyper-attacking mentality of these formation but later became his undoing coz he lacked flexibility wif Formations, but i Still stand on that the most tactically nd technically complete Formation is d 4-4-2 where u hv a holding midfielder nd 1 suporting striker wif a "box-man" nd a super playmaker lyk ZINEDINE ZIDANE!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I think the 4-2-3-1 is a more attack oriented variation of the 4-5-1 that doesn't rely on a target man for goals but relies on the pace and dynamism of the more advanced players. It also allows you use a deep lying play maker in the Pirlo/Alonso/Carrick/ mould along with a destroyer in the Gattuso/Flamini mould without rigidly tying down any of them into the Makelele role as is typical of any of the 4-1--- based combinations

As someone noted earlier, allows your front playes switch around such as when ManU plays Ronaldo/Rooney/Tevez or Berba.

You can also afford to play a high defensive line with the assurance you will have ample players in defensive positions to track inrushing midfielders when yur opponent is trying to counter attack.

The 4-4-2 is the most balanced formation that makes good use of the wide areas of the pitch and works quite well when you have 2 pacy wingers who are also good crossers of the ball (as we had in Finidi and Amunike a combination we have never quite managed to replicate) it is however conservative and doesn't make allowance for exceptional players in either defensive or offensive roles for either your team or your opponent and is often useless against a 5-3-2 and 4-1--- based formations where the other team basically refuses to play and put most of their players behind the ball  unlike the 4-2-3-1 where players can move around, probe, switch play around and find chinks in the opponent's defensive setup.

The 3-5-2 is basically an attack oriented form of the 5-3-2 and requires very mobile fullbacks with high workrates, IMO the only people to have successfully pulled off this formation have been the brazillians with Cafu and Roberto Carlos as it usually relies on you outscoring your opponent as you lose in the wide areas of your defence what you gain in attack (you would recall that the Brazillian 2002 team usually had goals scored against them while the 1998 team lost the final in 1998 after Ronaldo did not turn up and they were beaten 3-0 by france). It is a tournament formation and I doubt if any league team can sustain this formation over a season as the full backs will burn out quickly and possibly get muscular injuries.

The 4-3-3 formation could be a more attack oriented 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 formation depending on its implementation and is not much favoured by tacticians nowadays and hardly ever works out in my opinion because I've hardly seen a successful team with it though there are days it does seem to work well. A team famous for using it but which flopped at USA 94 was Colombia with Asprilla, Rincon and Valencia upfront though they did famously beat Brazil 5-0 during the world cup qualifications, topped their group and were greatly hyped before the competition but never made it past the group stages after being beaten 3-1 by Romania who played a classic counter attacking game while Brazil won the competition. The Netherlands have also experimented with it using RVP, Robben and RVN/Kuyt/Huntelaar in recent times but have not had much success with it either.

I personally think it either isolates the strikers from each other too much when they try to use the wide spaces or becomes too narrow when the strikers converge in the center thereby allowing the Defenders pick them off easily while allowing the midfield get overrun  when the team is on the defensive due to the advanced positions of the forward players and the concurrent reduced number of players in the defensive zone of the midfield.

0
Avatar
Newbie

paid well for spain in euro 2008, when fabregas plays behind the lone striker

0
Avatar
Newbie

Try : http://livefooty.doctor-serv.com/

0
Avatar
Newbie

4-4-2 is fading fast. How many teams in Europe have the strike partnership of Andy Cole/Dwight York or Sheva/Rebrov.

Things have changed now. With 4-4-2, U have 8 players playing in the same-third of the pitch but with  4-2-3-1, u would have 5 players(at least) in each quarter of the pitch. 4-2-3-1 also allows rotating forward men. . . . .Rooney-Ronaldo-Tevez-Park.

4-4-2 is too rigid and u can't win games in Europe going with a FLAT FOUR. It also narrows passing angles amongst the midfielders.

The Makelele role??

3-5-2 is obsolete. Play 3 CBs in Europe and watch intelligent wingers like Ronaldo, Robben, Messi destroy the plans bit by bit.

These players attract defenders thus pulling the BACK THREE wide from each other to allow box to box midfielders like Scholes, Cahill, Lampard and Fabregas to tuck in those chances. 3-5-2 was what killed Steve McLaren against Croatia in Zagreb!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

There are essentially many variants of the different formations.

4-4-2 remains the most tried and tested version, ifyou have good wingers and two strikers who can operate in tandem. The reason for many teams going for a single man upfront is either because he is extremely prolific, or because a suitable strike partner is not available. To provide for the lone striker's needs, the coach then plays 2 or three attacking players behind him or close by in a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-2-1 depending on the personnel available,

Sometimes coaches will employ a 4-1-4-1 or some more complex variant when a deep lying 'sweeper' is needed to shield the defence. This often happens when the opposing side has very skilled and talented attacking midfielders so the sweeper nullifies many attacks before they reach the defence.

3-5-2's are not as popular as before, mostly because of fear of coming under undue pressure from the wings. But with three mobile/tall CBs a team can pull it off successfully, with the wingers covering back and possibly a sweeper in the 5 man midfield.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ earthmama,

go to www.myp2p.eu.

click on live sports on the top, click on football, select whichever game you want and go the right and click on the icon that looks like a TV infront of the match you want.

there would be different options so I always choose whichever has Media player. One link might not work, try the other.

You can watch any football match being played in the world live and for Free.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Premiership and serie A check Fox soccer channel

0
Avatar
Newbie

@those that live in the US, which website can i watch live english premiership for a fee?. Most i tried getting online always tell me it's for UK residents only. I have a contract with Time warner and they are asking me to renew my contract before I can add the particular ESPN that shows english premiership. I get ESPN 1 and 2 but they don't show them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The 4-3-3 is a very conservative approach that allows you to dominate play in the midfield and deny your opponent any room.

Managers would be like why waste an extra striker upfront when he might not even get services so he replaces them with 2 fast and hardworking wingers who are ready to run up and down the flanks and support the striker.

Some clubs like Roma have even gone the extra lenght of playing 4-6-0 with 6 midfielders and no recognised striker

3-5-2 is a game of full backs requires exceptional wing backs with 3 central defenders and and 2 wing back/wingers

A team that has defensive frailties cn adopt it as it allows 3 defenders

Brazil used it in 2002 with Cafu and Carlos running you ragged you would never beleive they are full backs cos they are always in the opponents half.

the best way to counter 3-5-2 is to get fast wingers who would limit/pin down the opposing wing backs

0
Avatar
Newbie

I still prefer the 4-4-2. You can get the same sort of protection an extra central-midfielder affords in 4-3-3 by playing a midfielder whose starting position is on the flanks but who is also comfortable playing down the middle.

It seems the 3-5-2 formation is dead now. Many German teams, like Hitzfeld's early seasons with Bayern, popularised it but it seems to have lost its lustre. Capello used that formation with Roma but no team seems to adopt it anymore. Glen Hoddle pushed strongly for it. My problem with it is that it leaves teams vulnerable down the flanks if the full-backs, who double as wingers, don't track back astutely.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Bayern Munich still plays the classic 4-4-2 with KLONI strikeforce MvB and Ze Roberto in the middle and Schweini and Ribery on the wings.

In the closing stages when a game is safe, A striker might be sacrificed for an additional midfielder(Usually Borowski) to go 4-5-1 or if we have to score, a midfielder is sacrificed for another striker (usually Podolski)

0
Avatar
Newbie

These formations sef . . .I think you are refering to 4-3-3 : 4 defenders, 3 central midfielders and a striker flanked by 2 wingers. This seems to be in vogue.

The key attraction of the 4-3-3 is that it allows extra-protection through the middle in the form of 3 central midfielders - usually, 2 of the 3 will be defensive midfielders.

It's also flexible - when holding on to a lead, the 2 wingers track back and the formation effectively becomes 4-5-1. When chasing a goal, the 2 wingers effectively become auxilliary strikers while a playmaker, one of the 3 central midfielders, pushes forward to stay closer to the 'lone' striker.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.