4-4-2ers: This is for you

[Machiavelli]

What we have so far is:
1. arguments against intellectualising via formations
2. arguments saying formations don't matter, it's how the players play or implement the tactics that matter
3. arguments for fluidity within systems/formations, such that they can be adapted to the opposition or within a game
4. arguments that broadly support 4-3-3 or Oscar's philosophy

I'd say that :
RE 1: Oscar and the Barcelona approach intellectualise the game, and this is perfectly illustrated by their recourse to the word philosophy -- as in "we have one philosophy".
RE 3 and 4: 4 is the best way to achieve 3
And to add finally, and perhaps most importantly, we are still yet to hear someone elaborate an argument in defence of 4-4-2. I still maintain that the reason why that is, is that there isn't a decent one, which is the point made at the start of the thread.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

One of the most repeated and tedious claims made on NSC is that we should play 4-4-2, or two up front. This, quite patently, is not going to happen while Oscar is in charge, yet that doesn't seem to deter you. I'm of the view that all you 4-4-2ers are akin to flat-earthers, 'intelligent' (!) designers, climate change deniers, but here's an opportunity for you to amend this view, by answering the following questions. One of the claims made in defence of 4-4-2 (and there aren't that many to make for it) is that Man City play it, so it can't be that bad.

1. why did Pellegrini decide to abandon 4-4-2 as he did last night, and play a 4-5-1 (or, if you prefer, 4-2-3-1), as soon as he came up against top-class opposition? FYI, that opposition are the most ideologically committed to 4-3-3, which is the system Oscar operates, and he very much buys into that ideology.

2. was the reason why they lost last night because they abandoned 4-4-2 and, as a consequence, Pellegrini will somehow recognise that he made a terrible mistake, and will revert to it in the second leg, and City will overturn their current deficit, and storm to victory against Barcelona before defeating all the other teams in the last 16 that play one up-front, with Vincent Kompany holding that big trophy above his head in late May?

Err, am I missing something. THere are plenty more argument for 442 than Man City (or Spain) play it. There are plenty of arguments against other systems especially trying to play a system you do not have the players for, but if you are trying to argue against 442, surely basing your argument on Man City, then saying they abandoned it, then got ****ed over, isnt the most compelling argument is it.

You're saying its a tedious claim on here for 442, but then you seem to suggest City shouldn't have abandoned it, and should go with it in the return leg

Your position on 4-4-2 isn't very clear, so I won't lecture you on the pros and cons.

Personally as soon as CMS or Hoskins is back, with what is available to the manager, I would go 4-4-2 all day long. When Lita was sitting on the bench, I would have instead played 4-4-2.

I firmly believe Oscars system is on the whole negative and boring, and we do not have the squad and players to play it well.

I think we have a squad and the players to get promoted a lot easier than we seem to be now, if we played 4-4-2.

My biggest issue with Poyet was he would not use that system, even though the squad fitted it perfectly.

Whether the system is out last century or not, personally I couldn't give a ****. The soon to be champions, world cup holders, European cup holders all play a form of it, so I'd rather be old fashioned and win things, then play pretty technical football and always just fall short.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

What we have so far is:
1. arguments against intellectualising via formations
2. arguments saying formations don't matter, it's how the players play or implement the tactics that matter
3. arguments for fluidity within systems/formations, such that they can be adapted to the opposition or within a game
4. arguments that broadly support 4-3-3 or Oscar's philosophy

I'd say that :
RE 1: Oscar and the Barcelona approach intellectualise the game, and this is perfectly illustrated by their recourse to the word philosophy -- as in "we have one philosophy".
RE 3 and 4: 4 is the best way to achieve 3
And to add finally, and perhaps most importantly, we are still yet to hear someone elaborate an argument in defence of 4-4-2. I still maintain that the reason why that is, is that there isn't a decent one, which is the point made at the start of the thread.

Well as I said above, I don't really see you point at the start of the thread, but you have listed 4 arguments above, and in my opinion no gone into detail on the most important one.

Point 2 - Would you not play a system that the players can implement easiest, or would you rather stick to you philosophy and end up with fewer points, and fighting to get into the play offs?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

What we have so far is:
1. arguments against intellectualising via formations
2. arguments saying formations don't matter, it's how the players play or implement the tactics that matter
3. arguments for fluidity within systems/formations, such that they can be adapted to the opposition or within a game
4. arguments that broadly support 4-3-3 or Oscar's philosophy

I'd say that :
RE 1: Oscar and the Barcelona approach intellectualise the game, and this is perfectly illustrated by their recourse to the word philosophy -- as in "we have one philosophy".
RE 3 and 4: 4 is the best way to achieve 3
And to add finally, and perhaps most importantly, we are still yet to hear someone elaborate an argument in defence of 4-4-2. I still maintain that the reason why that is, is that there isn't a decent one, which is the point made at the start of the thread.

My argument/moan isn't against barca talking about the clubs philosophy its the faux intellectualism adopted by a lot of people as a result. It's the footballing equivalent of the sixth form student rocking up to college with a copy of Proust/Camus/Satre under their arm. Too many people adopt a position where they pretend to be deep thinkers of the game when in reality all they are doing is pushing numbers around, whether it be 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-2-1-,4-1-2-1-2, 4-6-0 without any real consideration of what, in my opinion, are the two fundamentally more important factors, namely tactics and the ability of your players.

As for point two, formations obviously aren't aren't redundant but they're only a simplistic representation of the game. They're a loose starting point. Tactics and players are, IMO, more important. How you set up a particular formation to play is more important than what the formation is, along with the quality of your players. You can set pretty much any formation to be defensive or attacking. Greece and Man City being the contrasting ends of 4-4-2; Spain and Scotland's attempt against the Czech republic(I think it was against the Czechs...) a few years ago doing the same for 4-6-0. Teams can have success playing any formation. They can also fail playing any formation.

As for 3 and 4. How does nominally starting with a 4-3-3 formation create a greater chance of fluidity during a game? Surely the idea of fluidity entails not sticking to a rigid formation? If you've got players who are flexible and can play in different areas of the pitch then it makes very little difference what formation is written down on paper.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

When City play 4-4-2 does Silva play? If he is then i wouldn't call it a 4-4-2 but more of a 4-3-1-2 because he tends to sit behind the front two (or at least when i've seen them but thats not often as i don't watch MOTD regularly)

 

[Questions]

What we have so far is:
1. arguments against intellectualising via formations
2. arguments saying formations don't matter, it's how the players play or implement the tactics that matter
3. arguments for fluidity within systems/formations, such that they can be adapted to the opposition or within a game
4. arguments that broadly support 4-3-3 or Oscar's philosophy

I'd say that :
RE 1: Oscar and the Barcelona approach intellectualise the game, and this is perfectly illustrated by their recourse to the word philosophy -- as in "we have one philosophy".
RE 3 and 4: 4 is the best way to achieve 3
And to add finally, and perhaps most importantly, we are still yet to hear someone elaborate an argument in defence of 4-4-2. I still maintain that the reason why that is, is that there isn't a decent one, which is the point made at the start of the thread.

If you cannot see the advantage of having two central strikers attacking crosses or playing off each other then you are not looking deep enough. 4-5-1 is not the be all and end all if the wide 2 don't put balls through or over. If the wide 2 are forever attacking then you might want to call it 4-3-3.
If you play with 2 strong central midfielders it allows all sorts of options and to dismiss 4-4-2 is silly. It can work superbly well with the right players and certainly doesn't always leave your solitary striker knackered and isolated as has been happening with the Albion of late. I'm not writing 4-5-1 off just saying there is more than one way to skin a cat. Great players can fit into most styles but average players can't always do that. Man City have talent in abundance up front and when they get it right they rip teams to pieces........ Playing with 2 up front and Silva floating in and around them.
Oscar is playing 4-5-1 because he has to I suspect. Let's wait to see what he does when he has a choice. I do hope its more attacking than the recent attempts because I for one find the performances of late as downright boring. Derby and Watford spring to mind here and the 1-0's at home have not sent me home over excited although obviously I enjoy my team winning.

 

[Buzzer]

So bored of these people who think just because they've watched a Barcelona game and a few YouTube videos they are now tactical masterminds :snore:

Precisely this. All these football geniuses telling us why 4-5-1 is so much better than 4-4-2 sound EXACTLY like the pub bores who became instant experts on why the sweeper system is the perfect way to play after Bobby Robson started using it in the World Cup 1990.

Is a 4-5-1 always better than 4-4-2? Will it beat a sweeper system? What happens when both teams play 4-5-1? What about the Christmas tree formation? I've no idea - and neither most of these frustrated Champions League Managers - especially the OP. Only difference is I'm not an IT worker on an internet forum kidding himself that he's a veritable Pep Guardiola.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not convinced 442 is the way forward for me. Way too rigid and unimaginative for my liking.