jmancubsfanI've read a lot of things saying that this is the most common formation and was a natural progression from the 4-4-2. So I thought I'd put it out there in front of all of you to see if you can manage to find the weaknesses of this formation and what can be used against it. Please comment on anything and everything that comes to mind.
20.02.2009
Robert O'CarlosThe most obvious (English) example of using this formation would be Liverpool. Where I think Liverpool get it wrong is failing to use the width effectively though.
Liverpool seem to keep the 6 'defensive' players behind the ball to dictate the bulk of play being in the opposition half. The back 4 are all quite defensive players (since the departure of Riise). The front 4 really only have to concentrate on creating and attacking play then. Which is a workable strategy, but would not be my preference.
If it were me, I would look to using the full backs to push up the pitch far more to provide width, making it similar to a 2-2-5-1 look. There should be enough defensive cover from the 2 holding midfielders to cope.
:-)
Obviously, Liverpool do very well out of the system they play. I often find watching Liverpool quite dull though as it seems the main defensive thrust is to kill the excitement of the game, while relying far too heavily on just 2 players and not showing too much creativity going forward. It's purely an opinion based on entertainment value, but there you go.
:-D
21.02.2009
jmancubsfanI agree with every bit of your analysis. This is defensive football at it's finest and that seems to be where everything is headed. Teams have adapted the philosophy of "if they can't score, we can't lose" instead of the opposite. While it is boring, if teams playing this style can capitalize on mistakes in the opponent's third, they can probably get the one goal they need. Because let's face it, if the two D mids do stay behind the ball, a mistake is probably the only way you get a goal.
I've actually read that this trend is progressing all the way to teams playing without designated forwards at all and rather try to draw the defense out and make their runs from a midfield position. So it really makes me try to predict, where does the game go from there?
21.02.2009
jmancubsfanWow in reading your description of Liverpool's way of using this it really reminds of the old school 4-2-4 back in the days of Pele. It's hard to see where it differs from that at all really. Yes the outside "forwards" are now encouraged to tackle much more as they're considered attacking mids and both of the center backs stay back as opposed to having one move up. But is it really that much difference?
21.02.2009
Robert O'CarlosI must admit I've not seen too much footage of how the old 4-2-4 was played. Would you say it was a very fluid attacking system backed up by an organised and rigid defense? Were the wing backs (I only use that term because I'm a pedantic sod! :-D) very mobile on the flanks?
:-)
We're already at the stage seeing some teams playing without any designated forwards - Roma, for instance, have played for a few years with only Totti, who drops off and acts as a playmaker for midfield runners. Also I would say that Manchester United played a 4-2-4-0 system last season, with Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo and Giggs/Nani playing as a very fluid attacking line. Neither team could really be described as defensively dull, so might not be so bad.
:-D
21.02.2009
FeriAtsSome forwards do not perform well in a lone striker setting. You wouldn't want Van Persie as your man up front in this formation.
Another thing is how much your attacking midfielders score in a season. Assuming you are chasing the title, if they can produce at least 30 league goals between them, this formation is fine. Otherwise you'd find yourself in a drought.
22.02.2009
jmancubsfanReally the only main difference between your description of Liverpool and the classic 4-2-4 is that now nearly everyone on the field plays a more defensive role. All of the attacking threats play a little deeper and try to be behind the ball when the other team wins it back.
Even in the adult rec league that I play in I've noticed that if you play with one striker you can definitely still score. If, say this formation (the 4-2-3-1) lined up against the typical 4-4-2 you'd really only be looking at a difference of making the center mids a little deeper and withdrawing one of the forwards behind the other. But this can be a huge tactical difference.
Imagine if the striker and the CAM had the ball facing the back four. The outside backs might be too wide to get involved (likely looking for the outside attacking mids). If the striker has his back to the goal posting up one defender, the CAM just draws the other to him, where he has space to accelerate and beat him off the dribble or plays 1-2 with the striker and there you have it. I think it's very important these days to have somebody in front of your back four responsible for pressuring the ball; essentially a sweeper in the midfield moving laterally as opposed to vertically. With the 4-2-3-1 you have two of them who can them play a little further forward but more often only one of them truly plays the Makelele role.
22.02.2009
Robert O'CarlosGood call, FeriAts (as usual). To further the point, which would demonstrate the lack of entertainment with this formation, a team who finds success with this formation would surely be a low scoring outfit, winning a fair few games 1-0 or something similar.
:-)
And, as jman says, this formation wouldn't work with 2 'Makeleles'. You'd really need one solidly defensive player, and one who could pass the ball effectively. For Liverpool, Mascherano is an excellent example of what is needed in a defensive midfielder, although I'm amazed that the club were willing to let Alonso go so readily because he is a great example of the type of player Mascherano thrives next to.
22.02.2009
