This formation in my opinion is the best for wing play. What do you think?

I see two major problems with this information:

1)You leave vast amounts of empty space in the midfield to opposition. This is invitation to trouble in modern day football. Unless you dominate the ball possession by %80 to %20 every game, you'll leak a huge number of goals.

2)The link between the attacking line and the rest of the team is very weak. If the opponent manage to pressure the midfielders, they'll not be able to pass many balls to attackers. In 4-4-2 wingers stay close to defense to pick the balls and dribble or pass forward. If they stay too deep in attack, they won't be able to create much.

Brilliantly explained, hcho. These formations are really obsolete, they were used in 60s and abondoned.

For playing wingers these days, would need to drop 1 of the forwards for an extra midfielder.

Not many teams would play a striker up front on their own - needs a more traditional centre forward.

You guys hate attacking football? Well, I love attacking football my philosophy is having possesion, few touches, good passing, intelligence, equilibrium and lot of plays meaning lots of crosses, through balls, etcet. If you watch a football game nowdays some of them are very boring. It is said that modern football is becoming more defensive and my question is why aren't the best teams in the world defensive? Is Man U defensive? Chelsea? Real Madrid? Inter?

Which of these teams play with just 2 men in the midfield? Arsenal probably plays the most attacking football in the premiership, how many midfield players do they have?

You have to control the width of the pitch as well as depth to play any kind of football; be it attacking or defensive. And you cannot control a midfield with just 2 men. End of.

You have to understand the wingers and forwards don't stay in one single spot. In offense this formation is a 4-2-4 on defense a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 just because you choose a formation for a team it doesn't mean the players have to stay all the time in that single spot. Players move they are not statues.

If you're calling a player a winger, you're basically saying he's there for attacking play only. If you want a player to split his play between attack and defense, depending on possession, you're describing a traditional flank midfielder.
Sounds to me like you want to play a standard 4-4-2 with the focus on movement from the flanks.

Even if you played with a 4-4-2 on offense it will probably be a 4-2-4. 4-2-4 just means you are playing with 4 offensive players, but that does not mean they can't defend.

So ... it's a 4-4-2 then?

No, it's a 4-2-4 with wingers that come back to defend.

People whats with the 4 attackers 3 ATTACKERS is enough , 4 attackers for young people or any schools soccer , 3 attackers is very enough and by the way , and 2 midfielders is not enough at least 3 or 4 , no 5 midfield cuz if its a 5 midfields it will be 4-5-1 , i hate 4-5-1 cuz its a virus formation there is no place to attack , just only count on the wings in the midfield , i really dont think is form might work , and if your really telling me that the 4 attackers in the two goes back to defend. i dont think it really work cuz the other team might put 4 midfielders , and then it Means They can Put pressure and attacking ways on your formation and team , its bad , in 2 midfielders there is no sides to catch in the Midfield , and if its the Full backs are holding the Sides then it will be 2 defenders , and 4-2-4 , is Virus formation

I repeat this one more time to all of you. You have have to understand a formation is a way of organizing players so that they don't run around like crazy chickens without a head. Players are not confined to one spot they move. Football players are like chess pieces. They are organized in a way, and every piece moves. Chess pieces don't stay in one spot just like football. Plus, trbws you say this formation might not work. Than, why does the 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, etcet exist. You say that you think the 4-5-1 does not work and there has been teams that have been champions using this formation. You choose the formation that suits your players not the formation that suits your likes. Now, understand that all formations can be successfull as long as you have the correct players. Somebody can use the 4-2-4, 3-3-4, 3-5-2, 3-4-3 have the correct players and be succesfull. Also you can't say a formation would not work without showing evidence that it does not.

No you dont understand me Redrebel , 4-5-1 do i really mean a Standing 4-5-1 , no i dont mean like a 4-5-1 really , i mean example: 4-2-3-1,4-4-1-1,4-1-4-1,4-3-2-1, thats what i mean but teams accualty can win with a great formation like 4-2-3-1 , and i agree that some teams play a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 and other, and teams can be champions of 4-2-3-1 not really 4-5-1 , and yes if your telling that even Big teams like Inter or Manutd or Barca or Madrid or whatever, they use the formation of 4-5-1 u know why ? , because 4-5-1 is a defending formation like in Manutd 0-0 barcelona 2008 Uefa champions-L , manutd was defending a lot in the match and while defending while attacking it was 4-5-1 , and i told you already that 4-5-1 is a virus formation cuz there is a extra player in the midfield, and thats why nobody scored in this match, and yeah , some teams uses formations for the correct players , and only i think is a great formation might work is with 4 defenders , okay look pick the mid and the best ,u can play a 5 or 4 or 3 defenders , u can play 6 or 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 midfielders and you can play a 4 attackers and 3 and 2 and 1 , now Pick the middle , in attack is only 3 or 2 and defend is 4 , in midfield is 4 or 3 , thats why these conditions and these dribble or those ways can always work.

I see what you mean, but something that everybody agrees in is that there is no perfect formation and there is no such thing as a guide book which tells you that having 4 defenders or 3 or 5 etcet. is the best because all teams have different needs and goals. Also I respect your opinion that you think having four defenders is great, but in my opinion I also believe 3 defenders is more than enough depending on the formation and it's defensive and offensive runs.

So like I pointed out, this is a standard 4-4-2 with the wide midfielders pushing on when in possession (which would look like a 4-2-4) and defending when not in possession (which would look like a 4-4-2 or even 4-5-1 if 1 of the forwards drop off to help out the midfield).

Think about the current Manchester United team with, for example, Ronaldo and Nani on the wings. They wouldn't track back to help out with defending much but they are positioned in the midfield to receive passes and run into the final third (ie. the winger position). But it's important that these players realise they have to be available in the midfield in order for the rest of the team to be able to play passes either to them or for them to run onto.

It's true that Ronaldi and Nani do not track back much. But it has to be said that they are not useless defensively; they cover the space and tackle the opponent, if comes their way.

Wasn't saying they were useless defensively, Georgie - quite the opposite. They both play as midfielders even though their (almost exclusive) strengths are going forward. They make themselves available as wide midfielders, hence the 4-4-2 argument.

An advantage a team has when playing with wingers is that you can play a lot of through balls because wingers are all the way up with the opponent's fullbacks and crosses can be plentiful. If you have a normal outside midfielder when he doesn't have the ball he only stays wide to receive a pass and most of the time they rarely cross the ball because they are being double teamed by the opponent's wide midfielder and full-back and if you don't believe me look at team that plays with a 4-4-2 and look at the outside midfielder and full-back and you will see what I'm talking about. Now, a winger he plays close to the opponent's full-back which means most of the time it will be a one on one match which there is a bigger chance the winger will beat his man and cross the ball because he is only going against 1 opponent, but two opponents is a different story.

Except who is playing these through balls? If the wide men are staying as high up the pitch as possible, the opposition (assuming they're playing a 4-4-2) have 4 midfielders to 2 of yours. Every good manager knows that, in the modern game, whoever controls the midfield controls the match.

Would this system end up resorting to the long ball game of teams like Wimbledon 15/20 years ago?

Has it really been 15/20 years since the Crazy Gang? Oh my, I am getting old.

Sp88 you say that who ever controls the midfield controls the match and that is true to some extent. But, what is the point of controlling the midfield if you don't have the ball. You also ask who will be playing these through balls and the answer is simple anybody that can pass. You also said that in midfield it will be 4 against 2, but that does not matter because there will only be two in center of the pitch when on offense. First of all if you were to use this formation you would use the correct players for this formation. Let me give you a simple example of how it works. Defense recovers the ball passes it to center-midfielder he has two options he passes it to a winger that checks in or passes it to a striker. In this case he passes the ball to the striker and than the striker sees a little gap on the right flank and slips the ball through and the right winger gets the ball and a deadly cross comes in. This is not the only example there are other ways to score, but you never limit where your players can move. A lot of you guys have said that this is technically a 4-4-2 and guess where the 4-4-2 comes from the "4-2-4". And yes I would say this is a 4-4-2, but with classical natural wingers. A real natural winger is Cristiano Ronaldo you guys are going to argue that he is a midfielder, but no he is a classic winger just like Ricardo Quaresma, Ribery, Robben, Luis Figo, Joe Cole, etcet. And yes long ball game would work for this formation because you got a lot of people in the box which means you play a long ball to the striker and he just flickers the ball in the box with his head and there is a big chance somebody will score.

sorry Redrebel but i can think of 1000 ways a 4-5-1 formation would crush yours, especially with 2 defensive midfielders, there would be no passes to get to your "wingers" feet.

and in my opinion Joe cole, ribery and even robben sometimes they're nothing like "natural wingers" as u describe em, and theyr game don't compare to CR's or quaresma

imo, mate, you got a lot of football to watch, and learn, start watching real football and leave your PES aside

no seriously , you got to watch alot of football mate , and RanolfoKnox is right , like i said there is no ways to pass to the wingers , this formation might put pressure on you and 4-2-4 is not a good formation its bad you know why , because there is no place to attack


because 4 attackers are already in the box!
4-4-2 might work cuz the wingers LMF and RMF attacks so it makes good work

You guys need to stop looking at football the English way and start looking at football the "universal football way". Ranul says that he can think of 1000 ways to crush this formation while this formation is technically a 4-4-2. He also says I need to start watching football while I watch 15 games from different leagues a week and study and analyze them. Trbws says that there is no way to pass balls to wingers when the wingers can come to midfield and receive a ball. If you guys were experts about this game you should already know that players are not "limited" to stay on one spot. You also say that there is no place to attack and my question to you is how is there no place to attack? Show supporting evidence that there is no place to attack. There are teams that play with 5 defenders and still get scored on and there is little space to move. How do you answer to that? You also say that Joe Cole, RIbery, and Robben are nothing like wingers when they have been successful in that position. You also say to not compare tham to Cristiano Ronaldo or Quaresma showing that you are not being neutral and it is more of a matter of like and dislike of the player of your side. Thus, showing little expertise of the game.

Redrebel, I'm finding your constant assertion that nobody else appreciates that players are allowed to move (shock, horror) quite patronising now. It's football, not fussball with little men stuck on sticks. Everybody knows that people move on a pitch.

I'm a Manchester United fan so I've seen the way United's attack is so fluid (as influenced by so many European teams over the last 10 years).

When you lay a formation out, it's important that the team knows the formation, not so that players can stand in 1 spot, but so that players know how the play could develop without necessarily having to look at where their colleagues are.

I do not believe that a formation like this would give you many opportunities to attack because (and here's the flaw in your plan) when the defense play the ball to the centre midfielders, they are going to get swamped by the opposition who outnumber them so could double up on them. You'd end up relying on a long ball.

Last point: you've said it yourself in your last post here that the wingers start from a midfield position to receive the ball. Isn't that the definition of a wide midfielder who then looks to get forward? It's kind of like starting your goalkeeper in the centre circle and telling him to go towards the goal if he needs to make a save.

Finally you get the point Sp88. Now, that you get the point you really don't get the point still. You said that when the ball goes to the centre midfielders they are going to get outnumbered and my question is how many people? 6,5, or 4. You are saying if the opponent plays with a 4-4-2 all 4 midfielders are going to mark the center-midfielders. Well, wow that leaves incredible space because they are going to crowd around the center-midfielders leaving the last line 4 vs 4. Meaning there is high chance theres going to be a goal. And if you say 6 people are going to mark 2 center-midfielders that is ridiculous I have never seen a team in my life mark two men with 6 guys. You will probably also say that the two center-midfielders will get pressured and if you are so smart you know that pressuring has its flaws. Pressuring leaves space in the back you know and if they crowd around 2 men like you say all the center-midfielders have to do is play the ball to somebody and the opponent will have to sprint back to it's last line to support them. So, now that you said you understand this is a 4-2-4 and it has it's strenghts and weaknesses just like all formations.

I'm genuinely interested on the nuances of your thinking here, Redrebel, but I really can't say it any clearer than I have already. You have 4 luxury forwards sitting out of the play waiting for the ball to magically land at their feet the way your formation is set up.

But if you argue the 'wingers' aren't playing from the forward line but from midfield ('the wingers can come to midfield and receive a ball' is a direct quote), 4-4-2 QED.

With increased player stamina and higher levels of skill in the game, a team can choose to have 11 defending players if it so chooses. 4-2-4 is great when you've got the ball but is awful if you're trying to get the ball in the 1st place. A harder working team will beat this formation every time. This is why it simply isn't used anymore in any serious league.

I'll admit, it may be there's a difference between the English style I'm used to and the various leagues you watch. In England, the philosophy is to win the ball wherever it may be on the pitch and have your players ready to begin building an attack. I too watch a lot of football from other leagues and appreciate there are differences.

One further point, I didn't say anything about 6 men marking 2 in the midfield, but it's the way of modern football to pack the midfield in this way (Roma effectively play a 4-6-0, for example). Your defence would then have to push out to support the midfield (leaving space for runners behind) or just watch as you lose possession (again) and have to defend (again).

Sp88 you have a great problem a problem that a lot of people and people in this website have which is that you see football using the "English way of doing things". You have even admitted in various other comments that you do. And my point is that looking at football only one way drives you to complete ignorance. I know the English game is exciting and you love it and you probably think is the best in the world "club" wise because national teams wise it is easily countered. But the point is that you have to open up your mind to different styles, ways of playing, formations, etcet. Doing this thus increases your view and understanding of the game. Do you know why English teams dominate a lot of European teams? Because of their pace, speed, and stamina which means that a lot of teams can't keep with the speed of game and than they get tired and when you get tired you defend and when you defend tired they score on you. This how it is and it is the truth.

Also the 4-2-4 is a very flexible formation. When Brazil used it in World Cup one of the wingers dropped as center-midfielder on defense and than it became a 4-3-3. Now, don't tell me the 4-3-3 is a lot different from the 4-2-4 because the only difference is that there are 4 offensive players to 3 offensive players. The 4-2-4 can be used in professional football today, but like I said before you need the "correct" players for this formation. If I have slow wingers with low stamina and weak defense why even bother using the 4-2-4. I'll use a 5-3-2

Just to make some points clear, since redrebel thinks he has the absolute truth about football and can't listen to other people because were all close minded:

1) When i wrote about joe cole, ribery not being "natural wingers" i meant that a natural winger play relies basically in their pace and running along the line and crossing balls etc, more like young giggs, C ronaldo, wright phillips for example. Cole and ribery's game don't rely on pace but on skill and ball control, more like attacking midfielders or "10" who are used to play on the wing... i only reffered to playing style. i agree that they have been succesful in their positions

2) for you this "4-2-4" formation is more like a 4-4-2 with two very offensive wingers and that's what sp88 is trying to explain, and that to me seems like a very good formation but a real 4-2-4 with 4 fowards in the box would be a complete flaw.

3) your logic in the post where you start "finally you get the point sp88" (a few posts above this one) shows that you see football as an static sport where a player only sees what hes got in front of him and one player can only have one task in a match... attacking or man marking... more offensive men doesnt guarantee more goals coz it doesnt guarantee they'll get good passes for behind. 2 man in the midfield seems to me like a lot of long balls from the defensive line to the attackers and that my friend means a lot of loose balls and thus poor playmaking.

3) you think i only look at things "the english way"?, how about this, my favorite formation happens to be 3-3-1-3, the one that my national team, Chile, uses now (due to the argentinian genius - manager Marcelo Bielsa) and were on 2nd spot for the world cup finals along with brasil and argentina now. although 3-3-1-3 is a very hard formation to execute because it necessarily requires that all the men on the pitch to have some kind of defensive task, along with their offensive duties

sorry for the long post... now mate, go and watch some football for real

I don't think there's much point in arguing here, RanulfoKnox. Redrebel is stuck in his view and cannot see what everyone else seems to be pointing out. But thanks for the support, all the same.

I say we just let Redrebel carry on thinking this is a good system when it was given up on by football, in general, in the late 60s/ early 70s (even by Brazil, who he cites here) with the onslaught of total football and players being asked to both defend and attack instead of having set roles.

I'll just remind Redrebel how he started this thread.

"This formation in my opinion is the best for wing play. WHAT DO YOU THINK?"

I guess he's not actually interested in what people think after all.

I did say WHAT DO YOU THINK? And I did ask for just your opinion but, you are not going to teach me and persuade me to believe that whatever you say is true. Also you are telling me to watch "real football" Ranulfo. My guess of your real football is the Chilean league which if I'm not sure is one of the poorest and weakest leagues in the world. There is no wrong and right in football. That is something that looks you never are going to understand. It is true that Brazil did use this formation in the 70s, but if it was used before why can't it be used again? Who in the world makes the rules and says you can't use the 4-2-4 again? I know for a fact that you don't. I see many teams use the 4-3-3 which is no different from the 4-2-4.

whatever dude, by know you should probably have had realized that i watch a lot of european football as well, and i also like the argentinian league which is probably one of the top 3 in the world... your assertion about me only watching chilean football because i just made a comment about the chilean national team just proves that you don't think much about what you type in here, which is also noticed on some of the posts about your tactics above

anyway, if 4-2-4 was that good an idea, then probably a lot of european teams would use it weekend after weekend... i don't remember any using that formation lately

The Argentinian league is rated one of the best in the world you know why? Because Argentinian teams mostly win Copa Sudamerica, Copa Libertadores, and Recopa Sudamericana. This adds ratings to their league if you don't know. So, you are basically telling us the Argentinian league is better than Serie A, German Bundesliga, Dutch Eredevise, French Ligue 1, Turkish First Division, Portuguese First Division, etcet. Last FIFA World Cup Boca Juniors lost 4-2 to AC Milan. So, I wouldn't be so sure about the Argentinian League being better than Serie A. Plus, not a lot of teams can play the 4-2-4, but it is possible to play it. About you only watching Chilean league is what you make me think when you say "real football".

dude you've totally lost the plot of the discussion. just arguing about any statement i make doesn't make u a football genius and it's kinda of annoying, and your arguments are the ones of a six year old. i'm not bothering in posting here no more. If none of us is eating grass with you, probably you're the only cow in here... just 1 person fancy the 4-2-4 formation in here, you... then probably is not as good as you think, or as it looks inside your mind

I got out of the discussion because you mentioned something different and I gave an opinion about it. Plus, I never said I'm a football genius. Nobody can be a genius in football because football is so broad and universal that there is no way somebody can know every single thing about football. My argument about the Argentine league is true. You also said that I'm the only person that fancy the 4-2-4 and that it is not good as I think. I repeat again the 4-2-4 is hard formation to play and teams like Sheffield County, Hull City, Derby County, etcet. If they play this formation it would be a disaster because first they don't have the players necessary to play it and don't have the coach willing to take a risk. But, a strong team with high quality players and good coach can surely play with this formation and be successful. A lot of people say this formation is obsolete and it is not true. This formation is just out of style. As football evolves styles of playing change. But, that doesn't mean this formation can't be used again.

37 comments that's a record.

I'll see your 37 and raise you. ;-)
You guys need to get out more. It's great. There's girls and everything.

Ofcourse there is girls everywhere by the way I have one right now.