SAred
Full Member
A system that had brought so much of United's success is hardly ever used by pity much any Football manager, Why?
A flat 442 lacks control in midfield, a diamond lacks width. More emphasis on possession based systems leads to these points being crucial for most teams.A system that had brought so much of United's success is hardly ever used by pity much any Football manager, Why?
Leicester and Atletico played 4-4-2 for ages.Because you need wingers to maintain the width and put some good crosses in so that the two forwards can hold their places and attack them. Now tell me a world class winger who is playing now ? Wingers are being played as full backs now.
I remember City playing a 442 under Pellegrini. With Silva and Nasri as inverted wingers . I don't think anyone has actually played a 442 after that.
Yeah forgot about Leicester. Atletico isn't a flat 442. Simeone just plays different variants of it.Leicester and Atletico played 4-4-2 for ages.
Carlos Quiroz's ears just pricked up.FOUR FOUR feckING TWO
ThisTo be fair Man City last season played 442 few times except instead of using 2 strikers, Pep used 2 attacking mid/false 9 drop deep.
In the PL, sure. I think we were struggling more in Europe in later years partly due to this (obviously also due to our team was aging, that bitch referee against Madrid...)You need two very well rounded top class midfielders to make it work, imo.
I wouldn't mind seeing it for us with Hendo and Fabinho.
No idea how Ferguson pulled it off with Carrick and Scholes as late as 2013. I think I concluded back then that most teams are a bit shit and couldn't live with their quality on the ball.
But those adventurous fullbacks are now often used in a 3-5-2. Keeps the midfield three so you don't lose the battle there, but allows you to relatively safe attack on the wings.It would be interesting if more teams play through midfield (4-3-3) rather than through the wings (4-4-2). It seems likely because traditional wingers are extinct, but at the same time fullbacks have become more adventurous so not sure.
Mostly this. Those players don't exist anymore. You have specialist defensive midfielders, box to box, attacking, high tempo, deep lying and more. A midfielder that works in 442 is a jack of all trades master of none and would get left behind by a group of specialists. As good as he was, 1990s Roy Keane would not defend enough, attack enough, run enough and lots of other things to be effective in a modern midfield.You need two very well rounded top class midfielders to make it work, imo.
True. And one could also add that the very best 4-4-2 teams often had at least one wide man who was more of a "side midfielder" than an actual winger, i.e. someone who could drift in (centrally) when needed and who was both hard working and tactically aware (someone like, say, Donadoni for Milan - or Beckham for United).You also need wingers who like to get paint on their boots, and there are not many of those around either.
Awb would surely work much better in a 442. At times our full backs have to do all the work down the wing. With a proper partner out there it'd help.I'd quite like it to come back.
I have to say i grew up playing and watching 442 football.
We even have some of the players who could play in a 442.
What we are missing is a right fullback, cos AWB aint it.
A formation of
DDG
Right fullback - Varane - Maguire - Shaw (Telles)
Sancho (Lingard) - Bruno (VDB) - need a world class CDM (so far we have Fred or Mctom) - Rashford
Ronaldo (Greenwood) - Cavani (Martial)
We could pull it off, considering we bring in a attacking right full back and a world class CDM aka Roy Keane.
Not extinct at all. Leroy Sane has rediscovered his form that made City in 2017/18 so good. I hate how Ole has a hard on for inverted wingers tbh.It would be interesting if more teams play through midfield (4-3-3) rather than through the wings (4-4-2). It seems likely because traditional wingers are extinct, but at the same time fullbacks have become more adventurous so not sure.
Dude our defensive midfield duo of Fred and Mctominay gets run over by mid table midfielders (Wolves, Southampton and Villa) are recent attestations to this. How in the world will Bruno and Mctominay shape up?Against Week |Teams
----------------Ronaldo-------------------Cavani-------------------
---Rashford------Bruno---------McTominay---------Sancho----
Against Big Teams
-----------------------------Cavani-----------------------------------
----Ronaldo------------Bruno------------------Lingard-----
------------------Donny-----------McTominay----------------
All true though the main problem is in central midfield. Compare two elite midfields of Keane - Scholes, and Iniesta - Busquets - Xavi.True. And one could also add that the very best 4-4-2 teams often had at least one wide man who was more of a "side midfielder" than an actual winger, i.e. someone who could drift in (centrally) when needed and who was both hard working and tactically aware (someone like, say, Donadoni for Milan - or Beckham for United).
We couldn't pull off a 4-4-2 with our current personnel - no chance, since the middle of the park is just too weak.
Pogba is actually a plausible "side midfielder". And Bruno a very plausible "second striker". Fergie might've used those two to good effect in a 4-4-2. But even he couldn't work - at the highest level - with some kind of McFredish combo in the engine room.
Thats not true. In the classic 4-4-2 the wingers are pacy but running isnt the only thing they do. They provide passing options when needed and track back to defend against opposing wingers.A flat 442 lacks control in midfield
Yes.Forget being outnumbered, Iniesta was a better attacker, Busquets a better defender, and Xavi a better passer than either of Keane or Scholes. Even if those two may have been better all rounders than any of them. No midfield two will ever match a half decent three, let alone the very best.
It is true when you look at the "real" midfield, the center of the pitch. There you only have two players in a flat 442, and therefore lose against a 433 in that area. But filling the wings with a full back and a winger means you are strong there.Thats not true. In the classic 4-4-2 the wingers are pacy but running isnt the only thing they do. They provide passing options when needed and track back to defend against opposing wingers.
???All true though the main problem is in central midfield. Compare two elite midfields of Keane - Scholes, and Iniesta - Busquets - Xavi.
Forget being outnumbered, Iniesta was a better attacker, Busquets a better defender, and Xavi a better passer than either of Keane or Scholes. Even if those two may have been better all rounders than any of them. No midfield two will ever match a half decent three, let alone the very best.
The point of that Barca midfield was that they never had to rely on risky long balls.???
Got to disagree with all of that. I guarantee that if you replaced Biscuits with prime Keano in the Barca midfield, it would drastically improve. Keane could anchor a midfield better than anyone: it just so happened that he could play the B2B role better than anyone as well so that's what he did.
And Scholes was an infinitely better passer than Xavi. I mean, Xavi rarely attempted a pass that was more than 5 yards while Scholes could put a ball on a sixpence from 60 metres. Xavi had better off the ball movement and positioning than Scholesey though.
Don't want to sidetrack the thread too much but it annoys me how much our own greats get underrated. A 3 man midfield with Keane, Scholes and Iniesta would have been far more dominant than Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta.