Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Formations. 4-4-2 versus 4-3-3



Billy the Fish

Technocrat
Oct 18, 2005
17,472
Haywards Heath
There was a minor debate on the Seville match thread about Hughton playing a 4-4-2 formation this season, which I think deserves it's own thread.

I've seen many comments recently about 4-4-2 being a step backwards and I really don't see what the fuss is about. As I said on the other thread I think that football fans pay far too much attention to formation when it's the players on the pitch (and specifically their capabilities) who make the biggest impact on how a team can play.

4-4-2 seems to be viewed as a rigid way to play, but I think that's because it's how were taught to play as kids and amateurs. It can't play like that in the modern game where players have much more freedom and are much more fluid in the areas they occupy on the pitch.

By it's nature this is very subjective so it would be good to concentrate on what it means specifically for us this season compared to the last few years.

The big difference IMHO will be how the 2nd forward plays because it will affect the rest of the midfield. We have been essentially having wingers who come inside and an attacking CM who has freedom to move around. I find that ACM can get a bit lost in the game depending on who's in midfield and how much the wide player is coming inside, this seemed to happen a lot to Colunga who never saw much of the ball in that role.
If we're playing Hamed and Baldock up front against a team that has an extra midfielder then someone will have to drop into that space if Kayal and Stephens get overrun and we can't get the ball back. Mabye it'll be one of the wide players, especially if we only have one out-and-out winger and it's a bit more lopsided.

I haven't seen any of the friendlies so looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

If you think it's a throwback to the 80's I'd like to know why.
 


Seasider78

Well-known member
Nov 14, 2004
5,926
Our biggest issue last season was not enough balls into the box as a result of being too slow getting from back to front. When we did get the ball forwards our lone striker cut a desperate and frustrated figure chasing off scraps. So for me 2 wide men with pace and an extra man in the box is a welcome change.

This should not compromise our defensive abilities as I still feel we consistently deliver one of the best defensive lines in this division
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes.
Brian Clough.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,988
Goldstone
As I said on the other thread I think that football fans pay far too much attention to formation when it's the players on the pitch (and specifically their capabilities) who make the biggest impact on how a team can play.
But our best 11 players are our best 11 players, and we can't change that (at least once the window closes). So with a given set of players, the biggest difference the manager can make to our chances of winning is to change the formation and tactics.

4-4-2 seems to be viewed as a rigid way to play, but I think that's because it's how were taught to play as kids and amateurs. It can't play like that in the modern game where players have much more freedom and are much more fluid in the areas they occupy on the pitch.
It is more rigid. Players can't so easily play triangles and fluidly swap positions.
 






Rod Marsh

New member
Aug 9, 2013
1,254
Sussex
I think that the more interesting change is how further up the pitch we are defending. The back four at times were near or on the half way line. The game is much more condensed. This is a huge change. As long as pressure on the ball is maintained when we push up the field like this it should mean that we create and score a lot more goals. Having the two up front fits better with this change in approach.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,264
It is more rigid. Players can't so easily play triangles and fluidly swap positions.

not necessarily. it depends on how the players are instructed. if we are talking the two banks of four, then yes, and that has value in defense. however you can have one of the CM deeper and the other more advanced, combined with the front two dropping off, its giving more fluidity. probably not so much scope for players interchanging positions, but i don't think that necessarily works out at our level (nor do inverted wingers, just clogged up the midfield while letting the opponent run at your full back).

fact is goals have been a problem and 2 up front will help that. 4 in midfield sort of follows. few teams really have 3 outright strikers in 433, usually they are (very good) wingers and if theres similar players in midfield, the centre midfield ends up a bit light.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,988
Goldstone
not necessarily. it depends on how the players are instructed. if we are talking the two banks of four, then yes, and that has value in defense. however you can have one of the CM deeper and the other more advanced
That sounds like a diamond formation. Regardless, we'll have to agree to disagree :)
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here