4-4-2

[linkenholtroyal]

So this might be nostalgia talking but why do we not play 4-4-2 anymore. Or any team for that matter.
As a team our most successful period was in that setup and the game seemed to flow so much better with 2 strikers playing off each other being provided crosses from the wings. Why does no one do it anymore?
Trying also to work out which team in any of the English leagues still play that way and whether it works for them.

I would love nothing more than buying 2 new strikers and playing them in that system.

[Esteban]

I think Wrexham played it a lot last season maybe? Certainly did in League 2 and the National league.

I guess football has moved on from it, but the best I've ever seen Reading play is using that formation. I'd have no issue if Noel gave it a try as a plan B now and then.

[Hound]

I think basically teams worked out how to counter it by overloading the midfield and outnumbering the 2 cms and isolating the wingers so they weren’t in the game

Something like the popular 4-2-3-1 just overruns that 4-4-2 midfield

Football is often cyclical though so you never know, may come back into fashion

[Extended-Phenotype]

Possession football, midfield control, the press, specialised midfielders etc. All work better with the extra man in the middle.

[WestYorksRoyal]

I was thinking about Coppell's 442 earlier. We got the ball wide quickly, put quality crosses in and always had 3 or 4 players attacking it. So hard to defend against.

I think in today's game they would see a lot less of the ball, and teams would press to stop them getting upfield. The game is just not set up for it any more. They would be good enough to have a good season, but not the unstoppable force we remember.

[leon]

For every formation there’s a counter formation(s).

That’s why there’s no one formation that football has arrived at that supersedes all others.

[stealthpapes]

Short answer - triangles.

Medium answer - Possession football, midfield control, the press, specialised midfielders etc. All work better with the extra man in the middle.

Additional medium answer - For every formation there are counter formations. That’s why there’s no one formation that football has arrived at that supersedes all others.

What we're playing now means that we've got an additional body in midfield and *should* always mean they've got options, whether inside to another midfielder, back to the more defensively minded midfield or centre back, or up to striker or forwards. In defence, we should have an extra body to help press - which I think is meant to be Savage and a great use of his additional energy. It puts a lot of pressure on the striker, who has to do two roles, effectively. First, run the channels, holding the ball up where possible, putting pressure on the defence. Second, be in the right place for any crosses that do come in. It also can end up being very negative - if your forwards end up pushed back, you've lost any advantage you previously had and have crowded the centre of the pitch. There's no obvious ball, so often you push it long for someone, anyone, to run on to.

i.e. what we saw on Wednesday in the first half.

All formations have a weaknesses. Coppell's 4-4-2 really didn't work that well the previous season, with a few square pegs in round holes. Remember endless arguments about the usage of certain players - Forster couldn't work with a partner, Hughes was a wild card, I'd argue Harper and Sidwell were not quite mature enough to work as a central two, which necessitated another body in there.

[Sutekh]

Get fed up with the new fads and everyone copying someone else just because that someone else won something. Worst ever was the damn tedious tippi-tappi that everyone invested in suddenly in the late 00s, the remnants of which we have today with the execrable "must play out from the back at all costs" even when that means poncing about with opponents strikers right in your face.

[Extended-Phenotype]

People copy it because what ever “it” is, tends to be countered best (or simplest) by the same thing.

[Hound]

Blame Pep.

I actually preferred the old days to be honest with the 4-4-2 set ups, but progress…

[rabidbee]

If it’s all about having an extra man in the middle and overloading opposition centre-backs, we should revert to the old 2-3-5 formation.

[Millsy]

442 is football

Everything else is muggy bonehead.

[stealthpapes]

If it’s all about having an extra man in the middle and overloading opposition centre-backs, we should revert to the old 2-3-5 formation.

I know you know and you know I know you know, but the move from 2-3-5 to 'W-M' was all about having extra men where it was perceived they were needed most.

[Snowflake Royal]

Be a novel approach to solving our 2 goals against per game though.

[Hound]

In possession us, and a lot of other teams will end up going 2-3-5. And then drop back to 4-4-2 out of

Check out someone like Arsenal or City. They do this all the time

[Forbury Lion]

If we had two quality strikers that worked well as a pairing and were scoring goals then we'd likely play 2 up front and then we could look at 4-4-2 but we'd have to have good wingers who can cross the ball in and a midfield who can cope in a 3 on 2 situation

[Armadillo Roadkill]

4-4-2 is almost always 4-4-1-1 anyway.

4-2-3-1 is what we usually play, I think. It's a matter of interpretation anyway.

Because 4-3-3 easily morphs into 4-3-2-1 or 4-2-3-1.

No simple sequence of numbers can really sum up the tactical sophistication teams need to use today anyway. It changes in different phases of the game.

Longing for 4-4-2 and a nice long ball from the goalkeeper every time is pure nostalgia.

Ince didn't believe in tactics and coaching, preferring old style management. Look how that worked out.

[Millsy]

Too obvious mate.

In this day and age you need a big bumper book of tactics from abroad, no need for strikers or wingers.

Just 4-5 defenders and everyone else some sort of generic attacking midfielder type person who can't cross, can't score, but is generally good at football and has a fancy name. Ideally get some of your defenders in the action too and when they get tired sub them instead of people up the pitch.

Why the hell would you want people hyperspecialised in their areas who actually know how to run down the wing and pop a decent cross in several times a game? Or a striker who knows how to get onto the end of such crosses, or another striker to receive layoffs to knock in. The last time we tried basic football by simply increasing our crossing and playing basic football we got promoted from this league, why would we want to do that?

Come on FFS, this isn't third tier English football... oh hang on....

[Snowflake Royal]

If we had two quality strikers that worked well as a pairing and were scoring goals then we'd likely play 2 up front and then we could look at 4-4-2 but we'd have to have good wingers who can cross the ball in and a midfield who can cope in a 3 on 2 situation

So in summary, if we had a completely different squad and travelled back in time 20 years, we could play 4-4-2.

Quality as ever Forbs.