4-3-3 or 4-4-2

MrMarcello · 9th November 2009, 00:31

Fletcher-Carrick-Anderson was superb. From now on if these three start in midfield I will have zero doubt United will control tempo and possession.

That said, this would mean Valencia-Berbatov-Rooney in a three-pronged attack. Who's ok with this?

Granted against some opposing sides 4-4-2 will be plenty quality to secure three points. But based on today's evidence 4-3-3 might be the way to go for most matches. Especially if the RB spot can get forward and contribute which I felt O'Shea did well today and Valencia tracked back well. Giggs, on the other hand, left Evra exposed too much. Rooney would cover the left better but my fear is who would be upfront to receive the balls up-field with Berbatov dropping deep so much? Or can Berbatov play as a target man?

Allforone · 9th November 2009, 00:35

4-4-2 is the best bet against lesser opponents and home matches while the 4-3-3 is best for us in tough away games against top opposition...4-3-3 really dosnt suit any of our forwards as none naturally like playing the lone striker role (they can do it as Rooney proved today but its not their best position) and Fergie has already said Rooney wont be pushed out wide left again...so if we were to adopt the 4-3-3 week in week out then Berbatov is effectively out of the picture.

Doevle · 9th November 2009, 00:37

Both.

Name Changed · 9th November 2009, 06:05

Carrick Fletcher and Anderson has to be the choice when playing against the better sides, as they all play 3 in midfield also. These three will win 99% of the midfield battles they are in.

Eto'odinho · 9th November 2009, 06:29

Some of you people are obsessed with 4-4-2, with the players we have at our disposal we just can't be playing 4-4-2 week in week out. This necessitates a chop and change system whenever we change the formation and I reckon it is doing us more harm than good.

SAF needs to decides a formation and stick to it. He has the players to play 4-4-3 all the time but not 4-4-2. In addition Carrick almost always looks better in alongside his minions, D Fletch and Ando. I also reckon 4-4-3 could help Rooney (because of his love for wandering all over the place), Obertan (because he would have fewer defensive duties), the defence (more protection) and crucially Nani (because he just needs a helping hand).

LLMU · 9th November 2009, 06:30

With 4-3-3, i noticed Rooney was tracking back a lot when he is playing as a lone striker. It may not be a good thing as we do not hv a target man in front when he leaves his position. However, when we play 4-4-2 , at times when Berba or Rooney drops deep, we are like playing 4-3-3. Our issue is that the wide players like Nani or Valencia doesnt come inside like what Ronnie used to do.

JezChan · 9th November 2009, 06:42

What about a 4-3-1-2

Pretty much 4-3-3 with Berbatov, Rooney and one other player up top; one of who will drift in and out everywhere (probably Rooney or Giggs).

Wan · 9th November 2009, 13:05

433 for the big games, 442 for the others. We don't play that well in that 433 against the normal teams.

Floyd · 9th November 2009, 13:16

One might argue that we don't have the attackers for 4-3-3 nor do we have the midfielders for 4-4-2.

We are The Champions though, so it's not all bad.

Sam#1 · 9th November 2009, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd

We don't have the attackers for 4-3-3 nor do we have the midfielders for 4-4-2.

Spot on.

EdWeatherall · 9th November 2009, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMarcello

Giggs, on the other hand, left Evra exposed too much.

That was clearly be design

I don't think I'm saying anything out of turn in suggesting that of all their players, bar the CBs, he is the weakest link in attack, the one you'd be most happy to have the ball.

Which is why Giggs was tucking in and compressing the space for Chelsea's narrow four man midfield

Nick 0208 Ldn · 9th November 2009, 13:38

4-3-3 should be our default setting so to speak. The shift back to 4-4-2 this season has not been a convincing one.

Whether Fergie thinks likewise i somewhat doubt.

Wan · 9th November 2009, 13:56

Eh, we've played 442 in the majority of games ever since Keano left. 433 big games, 442 for the others.

Anderson Searl · 9th November 2009, 18:09

Sign Silva and De Rossi, we're laughing.

... no im not serious

johnmufc · 9th November 2009, 18:11

4-3-3 suits our midfield while 4-4-2 suits our forwards.

It's a difficult situation. I think we can get away with 4-4-2 in the majority of our matches but we have to prioritise on the midfield and play a 4-3-3 in the bigger matches.

Rowem · 9th November 2009, 18:13

4231

Still wouldn't mind seeing Rooney in the central role of the '3' behind a striker. Rooney is great upfront but we lack a genuine goal threat from the attacking mid/second striker in the big games. Anderson will be a quality box-to-box midfielder in my opinion, not an attacking mid/second striker.

Clique · 9th November 2009, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eto'odinho

Some of you people are obsessed with 4-4-2, with the players we have at our disposal we just can't be playing 4-4-2 week in week out. This necessitates a chop and change system whenever we change the formation and I reckon it is doing us more harm than good.

SAF needs to decides a formation and stick to it. He has the players to play 4-4-3 all the time but not 4-4-2. In addition Carrick almost always looks better in alongside his minions, D Fletch and Ando. I also reckon 4-4-3 could help Rooney (because of his love for wandering all over the place), Obertan (because he would have fewer defensive duties), the defence (more protection) and crucially Nani (because he just needs a helping hand).

I'm pretty sure the defense would struggle without a goalie.

The 4-3-3 has gained prominence over the years and with a brilliant finisher a la Eto'o you'd actually get some brilliant football with it. However since i believe we aren't really going to buy a striker in the coming markets, the 4-3-3 would be reserved for these "big" games and away games in Europe.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 9th November 2009, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd

One might argue that we don't have the attackers for 4-3-3 nor do we have the midfielders for 4-4-2.
.....

Yes .So lets play 4-2-3-1 and get the best of both worlds I say.

F-Red · 9th November 2009, 18:41

4-3-2-1 against the other big sides

4-4-2 against anyone outside of the 'top 4' realm

cw1984 · 9th November 2009, 18:42

Agree with the general opinion. We need to use both.

Clique · 9th November 2009, 18:44

This multi layered structure gets on my tits.

Essentially in my view the Diamond is a form of 4-4-2 in the view that there are 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 Forwards.

Likewise, the 4-3-2-1 or the 4-2-3-1 are all nothing but the 4-3-3.

My tits.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 9th November 2009, 18:47

I don't think 4-4-2 does us any favours against the sides in that second tier of clubs in the Premiership either.

And why should we be employing a formation that we can "get away with" in the first place?

Versatility is one thing but until yesterday we've pretty much had the reverse this season, been too stuck in the two CMs and conventional wingers mindset.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 9th November 2009, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

This multi layered structure gets on my tits.

Essentially in my view the Diamond is a form of 4-4-2 in the view that there are 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 Forwards.

Likewise, the 4-3-2-1 or the 4-2-3-1 are all nothing but the 4-3-3.

My tits.

Replace them. They are fecking lousy tits.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 9th November 2009, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eto'odinho

...
SAF needs to decides a formation and stick to it. He has the players to play 4-4-3 .

Dude.....

Nick 0208 Ldn · 9th November 2009, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Dude.....

Gio · 9th November 2009, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Yes .So lets play 4-2-3-1 and get the best of both worlds I say.

It was certainly 4-2-3-1 against Chelsea.

redpie · 9th November 2009, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMarcello

Fletcher-Carrick-Anderson was superb. From now on if these three start in midfield I will have zero doubt United will control tempo and possession.

They competed, they worked and probably won the midfield battle. But that is all they did, just shade the physical battle while providing next to nothing going forward.
Fletcher is worth his place but ultimately Carrick and Anderson are not good enough.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 10th November 2009, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpie

They competed, they worked and probably won the midfield battle. But that is all they did, just shade the physical battle while providing next to nothing going forward.
Fletcher is worth his place but ultimately Carrick and Anderson are not good enough.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber · 10th November 2009, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio

It was certainly 4-2-3-1 against Chelsea.

true. All that missed was Berbatov.

Tumbling-Dice · 11th November 2009, 09:14

But is 4-3-3 more attacking than 4-4-2 ?

Hmmm - I think we need another thread about it.

9th November 2009, 00:31	#1 (permalink)
MrMarcello First Team Regular Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Georgia Posts: 26,334	4-3-3 or 4-4-2 <a href="http://d.mediadakine.com/ck.php?n=ad232b97&cb=10772" target="_blank"><img src="http://d.mediadakine.com/avw.php?zoneid=81&cb=10772&n=ad232b97" border="0" alt="" /></a> Fletcher-Carrick-Anderson was superb. From now on if these three start in midfield I will have zero doubt United will control tempo and possession. That said, this would mean Valencia-Berbatov-Rooney in a three-pronged attack. Who's ok with this? Granted against some opposing sides 4-4-2 will be plenty quality to secure three points. But based on today's evidence 4-3-3 might be the way to go for most matches. Especially if the RB spot can get forward and contribute which I felt O'Shea did well today and Valencia tracked back well. Giggs, on the other hand, left Evra exposed too much. Rooney would cover the left better but my fear is who would be upfront to receive the balls up-field with Berbatov dropping deep so much? Or can Berbatov play as a target man?

9th November 2009, 00:37	#3 (permalink)
Doevle First Team Sub Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: LUH*G Posts: 5,849	4-3-3 or 4-4-2? Both.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

4-3-3 or 4-4-2

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

9th November 2009, 00:35	#2 (permalink)
Allforone First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Javier Hernandez...All the talent in the world plus the looks of Natalie Portman, lucky fella. Posts: 6,722	4-4-2 is the best bet against lesser opponents and home matches while the 4-3-3 is best for us in tough away games against top opposition...4-3-3 really dosnt suit any of our forwards as none naturally like playing the lone striker role (they can do it as Rooney proved today but its not their best position) and Fergie has already said Rooney wont be pushed out wide left again...so if we were to adopt the 4-3-3 week in week out then Berbatov is effectively out of the picture.

9th November 2009, 06:05	#4 (permalink)
Name Changed weso26 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Dublin Posts: 16,382	Carrick Fletcher and Anderson has to be the choice when playing against the better sides, as they all play 3 in midfield also. These three will win 99% of the midfield battles they are in.

9th November 2009, 06:29	#5 (permalink)
Eto'odinho Retard magnet Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Thomas Muller's fanboi Posts: 10,315	Some of you people are obsessed with 4-4-2, with the players we have at our disposal we just can't be playing 4-4-2 week in week out. This necessitates a chop and change system whenever we change the formation and I reckon it is doing us more harm than good. SAF needs to decides a formation and stick to it. He has the players to play 4-4-3 all the time but not 4-4-2. In addition Carrick almost always looks better in alongside his minions, D Fletch and Ando. I also reckon 4-4-3 could help Rooney (because of his love for wandering all over the place), Obertan (because he would have fewer defensive duties), the defence (more protection) and crucially Nani (because he just needs a helping hand).

9th November 2009, 06:30	#6 (permalink)
LLMU Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: down the road where the red building is and take the lift up to the 4th floor where a big Red Devil greets you Posts: 588	With 4-3-3, i noticed Rooney was tracking back a lot when he is playing as a lone striker. It may not be a good thing as we do not hv a target man in front when he leaves his position. However, when we play 4-4-2 , at times when Berba or Rooney drops deep, we are like playing 4-3-3. Our issue is that the wide players like Nani or Valencia doesnt come inside like what Ronnie used to do.

9th November 2009, 06:42	#7 (permalink)
JezChan Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,534	What about a 4-3-1-2 Pretty much 4-3-3 with Berbatov, Rooney and one other player up top; one of who will drift in and out everywhere (probably Rooney or Giggs).

9th November 2009, 13:05	#8 (permalink)
Wan Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where else? Posts: 997	433 for the big games, 442 for the others. We don't play that well in that 433 against the normal teams.

9th November 2009, 13:16	#9 (permalink)
Floyd Doesn't like his Tagline played with Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Chicken Of The Coast Posts: 6,820	One might argue that we don't have the attackers for 4-3-3 nor do we have the midfielders for 4-4-2. We are The Champions though, so it's not all bad.

9th November 2009, 13:38	#12 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 11,781	4-3-3 should be our default setting so to speak. The shift back to 4-4-2 this season has not been a convincing one. Whether Fergie thinks likewise i somewhat doubt.

9th November 2009, 13:56	#13 (permalink)
Wan Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where else? Posts: 997	Eh, we've played 442 in the majority of games ever since Keano left. 433 big games, 442 for the others.

9th November 2009, 18:09	#14 (permalink)
Anderson Searl Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: :lol: Posts: 16,435	Sign Silva and De Rossi, we're laughing. ... no im not serious

9th November 2009, 18:11	#15 (permalink)
johnmufc Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Daniel Nii Tackie Mensah Welbeck's #1 fan Posts: 3,165	4-3-3 suits our midfield while 4-4-2 suits our forwards. It's a difficult situation. I think we can get away with 4-4-2 in the majority of our matches but we have to prioritise on the midfield and play a 4-3-3 in the bigger matches.

9th November 2009, 18:13	#16 (permalink)
Rowem First Team Sub Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,957	4231 Still wouldn't mind seeing Rooney in the central role of the '3' behind a striker. Rooney is great upfront but we lack a genuine goal threat from the attacking mid/second striker in the big games. Anderson will be a quality box-to-box midfielder in my opinion, not an attacking mid/second striker.

9th November 2009, 18:41	#19 (permalink)
F-Red Reserve Team Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Over there Posts: 4,463	4-3-2-1 against the other big sides 4-4-2 against anyone outside of the 'top 4' realm

9th November 2009, 18:42	#20 (permalink)
cw1984 I'm SO desperate for some recognition on an internet forum Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: at home, probably. Posts: 9,640	Agree with the general opinion. We need to use both.

9th November 2009, 18:44	#21 (permalink)
Clique Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mermania Rulez!!!...Merms come back!!! Posts: 4,743	This multi layered structure gets on my tits. Essentially in my view the Diamond is a form of 4-4-2 in the view that there are 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 Forwards. Likewise, the 4-3-2-1 or the 4-2-3-1 are all nothing but the 4-3-3. My tits.

9th November 2009, 18:47	#22 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 11,781	I don't think 4-4-2 does us any favours against the sides in that second tier of clubs in the Premiership either. And why should we be employing a formation that we can "get away with" in the first place? Versatility is one thing but until yesterday we've pretty much had the reverse this season, been too stuck in the two CMs and conventional wingers mindset.

11th November 2009, 09:14	#30 (permalink)
Tumbling-Dice Caf Nostradamus Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: I don't have to sell my soul, he's already in me. Posts: 15,807	But is 4-3-3 more attacking than 4-4-2 ? Hmmm - I think we need another thread about it.