4-2-3-1 needs to die

[R'hllor]

Issue being formation or not, 4-2-3-1 is just the worst

 

[Fer]

I completely agree. I hate how everyone is obsessed with a 4-3-3 these days. Strikers are becoming obsolete. Give Lukaku a strike partner and I guarantee we will be banging in the goals...

Maybe the problem is that we don't have the proper player to play 442.
Sanchez and Lukaku up front with Martial-Rashdord as cover look promising.

 

[Danny Roberts]

Formations come and go out of fashion but they don't really matter as long as you have fluidity and flexibility within them. I'd love to see Lukaku flanked by Sanchez and Bale personally, with three all-round midfielders in behind, which I think would suit Fred, Pogba and AN Other.

 

[André Dominguez]

4x2x3x1 is one of the most versatile and agile formations. We are just hating it because we are failing to get a grip on it.

 

[MUFC OK]

It's the Jose Mourinho formation for a reason.

It's probably the most 'does what it says on the tin' formation in football.

4 defenders - their job is to defend primarily, fullbacks getting forward is a bonus at best, an unnecessary evil at worst.

2 holding midfielders - they hold, provide stability and build on a solid defensive foundation, they are afforded little to no freedom of expression in this formation.

3 advanced/attacking midfielders or 1 and 2 wingers - this is probably the only area for negotiation, its either wing play or essentially 3 attacking midfield players, this usually depends on the personnel involved. Inverted wingers will drift inside providing little width and trying to pass the ball through gaps between defenders to the big number 9. With wingers the formation is slightly more offensive, they obviously hug the touchline in attack but still remain narrow in defence. These players really need to have magic as they are almost the sole creative hub of the team.

1 the lone striker - this is who's responsible for the majority of goals, the 3 players behind try to create chances for this player. They have to be strong enough to hold the line alone and quick enough to get on the end of chances. They must be clinical - this formation creates at most 4/5 chances for the striker per match, it's their job to score at least 1 preferably 2 of them. Basically they have to be very efficient.

The player behind the 3 are rarely expected to contribute to the attacking aside of the game, they have limited roles.

In summary this is a functional, rigid formation with little dynamism or freedom afforded to the players, aside from the 3 behind the striker. Player roles are as described above but the players very much play in the positions designated to them in the formation with little interchanging.

I think this is one of the most antiquated formations in football and can be frustrating and uninspiring to watch. However the organisation it gives a team means it is possible to beat anyone playing this way, its just imperative that chances created are taken when they do come.

 

[Craig Ward]

Style of play is equally as important as the formation.

technically we have the players to play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Problem is the set up is based on defence/not losing rather than playing to beat the opponent. Another element that lets us down is our players don't seem to understand how to play different roles (Pogba cant play in a midfield 2, he has to be in a 3, and Lingard/mata always drift in from RW leaving us with no width, our FB's are limited to defensive roles rather than being allowed to attack)

We should be able to play 4-2-3-1 and destroy teams

 

[Hoof the ball]

Formations are very rarely the issue. They're not a magical formula for success, just as much as they're not the reason for abject failure. This mentality is seemingly prevalent when performance decreases and you might soon by witness to a plethora of individuals crying out for a return to 4-4-2, the default master formation, as it were. 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 3-5-2, et al, only work in accordance with the instructions given to the players within that formation and their assigned roles, therein. A 4-4-2 might be fluid, whereas, a 4-3-3 might be rigid; conversely, a 4-4-2 might be stifling, yet, a 4-2-3-1 might be offensively progressive. They key is not the change of formation, per-se, but the implementation of a better system within the framework of that formation. It's just naive, at best, the simply state that such and such a formation, which is merely only field position, is inherently the issue.

 

[haram]

It's the Jose Mourinho formation for a reason.

It's probably the most 'does what it says on the tin' formation in football.

4 defenders - their job is to defend primarily, fullbacks getting forward is a bonus at best, an unnecessary evil at worst.

2 holding midfielders - they hold, provide stability and build on a solid defensive foundation, they are afforded little to no freedom of expression in this formation.

3 advanced/attacking midfielders or 1 and 2 wingers - this is probably the only area for negotiation, its either wing play or essentially 3 attacking midfield players, this usually depends on the personnel involved. Inverted wingers will drift inside providing little width and trying to pass the ball through gaps between defenders to the big number 9. With wingers the formation is slightly more offensive, they obviously hug the touchline in attack but still remain narrow in defence. These players really need to have magic as they are almost the sole creative hub of the team.

1 the lone striker - this is who's responsible for the majority of goals, the 3 players behind try to create chances for this player. They have to be strong enough to hold the line alone and quick enough to get on the end of chances. They must be clinical - this formation creates at most 4/5 chances for the striker per match, it's their job to score at least 1 preferably 2 of them. Basically they have to be very efficient.

The player behind the 3 are rarely expected to contribute to the attacking aside of the game, they have limited roles.

In summary this is a functional, rigid formation with little dynamism or freedom afforded to the players, aside from the 3 behind the striker. Player roles are as described above but the players very much play in the positions designated to them in the formation with little interchanging.

I think this is one of the most antiquated formations in football and can be frustrating and uninspiring to watch. However the organisation it gives a team means it is possible to beat anyone playing this way, its just imperative that chances created are taken when they do come.

What huge and boring generalisations.

 

[André Dominguez]

It's the Jose Mourinho formation for a reason.

It's probably the most 'does what it says on the tin' formation in football.

4 defenders - their job is to defend primarily, fullbacks getting forward is a bonus at best, an unnecessary evil at worst.

2 holding midfielders - they hold, provide stability and build on a solid defensive foundation, they are afforded little to no freedom of expression in this formation.

3 advanced/attacking midfielders or 1 and 2 wingers - this is probably the only area for negotiation, its either wing play or essentially 3 attacking midfield players, this usually depends on the personnel involved. Inverted wingers will drift inside providing little width and trying to pass the ball through gaps between defenders to the big number 9. With wingers the formation is slightly more offensive, they obviously hug the touchline in attack but still remain narrow in defence. These players really need to have magic as they are almost the sole creative hub of the team.

1 the lone striker - this is who's responsible for the majority of goals, the 3 players behind try to create chances for this player. They have to be strong enough to hold the line alone and quick enough to get on the end of chances. They must be clinical - this formation creates at most 4/5 chances for the striker per match, it's their job to score at least 1 preferably 2 of them. Basically they have to be very efficient.

The player behind the 3 are rarely expected to contribute to the attacking aside of the game, they have limited roles.

In summary this is a functional, rigid formation with little dynamism or freedom afforded to the players, aside from the 3 behind the striker. Player roles are as described above but the players very much play in the positions designated to them in the formation with little interchanging.

I think this is one of the most antiquated formations in football and can be frustrating and uninspiring to watch. However the organisation it gives a team means it is possible to beat anyone playing this way, its just imperative that chances created are taken when they do come.

4x2x3x1 has several interpertrations, with Mourinho giving a very conservative one.

You can use with success a 4x2x3x1 for high defensive line and high pressing. A good example of that is Paulo Fonseca at Shakthar: he uses a 4x2x3x1 with high pressing and offensive football.

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

What huge and boring generalisations.

You should explain why what he said was wrong. I'd like to hear your opinion because I share his opinion with regards to the 4231 being slightly outdated; especially if there is a relevant importance placed in to positioning of a core within the 4231 (which is what we have) - this leads to an aspect of rigidity that used to give team's an element of defensive prowess having the ability to have atleast 5 men behind the half way line if we found ourselves on the back foot - usually this means that our attacking midfielder; which interestingly is not Mkhitarayan, Ozil or Sneidjer but most likely pogba this year will have to be a main creative asset if we do play 4231. The whole forum is talking about formations with 2 strikers up front be it 352 or 442 or 442 diamond - why is 4231 the one that we should stick to and will see us improve as a team?

 

[haram]

You should explain why what he said was wrong. I'd like to hear your opinion because I share his opinion with regards to the 4231 being slightly outdated; especially if there is a relevant importance placed in to positioning of a core within the 4231 (which is what we have) - this leads to an aspect of rigidity that used to give team's an element of defensive prowess having the ability to have atleast 5 men behind the half way line if we found ourselves on the back foot - usually this means that our attacking midfielder; which interestingly is not Mkhitarayan, Ozil or Sneidjer but most likely pogba this year will have to be a main creative asset if we do play 4231. The whole forum is talking about formations with 2 strikers up front be it 352 or 442 or 442 diamond - why is 4231 the one that we should stick to and will see us improve as a team?

Teams can differ in the way they set up their lines, the way they press. It also depends on the quality of counters and transitions from each line. It also depends on the profile of player in each position. He’s just making generalisations to fit his idea of what a 4231 is.

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

Teams can differ in the way they set up their lines, the way they press. It also depends on the quality of counters and transitions from each line. It also depends on the profile of player in each position. He’s just making generalisations to fit his idea of what a 4231 is.

Totally agree- though what he said on my understanding was that he saw the team playing to the formation structure of a 4231. Whilst what you said was true as seen by the post above about shaktar donetsk playing 4231 in a more non - restrictiveness manner; we seemed to play strict to the placement of the players on the 4231.

Lukaku was traditionally purely central apart from the very few times he would find him self off to the right where he seemed deadly but lacked any central partner. Players like Martial & rashford were forced to hug the touchline resembling a LM or RM rather than a LW or RW which would indicate a movement from 433 to 4231. Attempting to cross in towards the central striker was a main tactic of ours whilst our midfielders seemed too deep sometimes until we added another midfielder to share the work load.

Mkhitarayan was our central attacking midfielder - our creativity was significantly (but not all) reliant on him playing central at the core of the 4231; alongside the core of the central striker and the core central midfielders in Matic. It is quite a rigid formation, where certain players form the core basis of the formation.
The only flexibility that arises from the 4231 is Mourinho allowing one winger only to cut in and usually join the centre forward or manipulate the central areas; whilst the other stays off wide.

Pandev in comparison to eto'o cutting in
Duff in comparison to robben
Di maria in comparison to C.Ronaldo
Martial/Rashford in to Mata
Sanchez allowed to cut in whilst someone like willian holds the width probably this season ( as sanchez plays occasionally centrally or upfront with the striker whilst willian stretches the width and provides crosses to the our central striker at the tip of the 4231)

Anyway - we ended up losing our central playmaker which is fundamental the 4231 and now replaced on paper by either Pogba or Lingard. So depending on our intentions Pogba we could see Pogba play deeper where we have the wide midfielders play as wingers or we make Pogba our central creator and have the wide midfielders play off him (whilst Lukaku plays off the wide midfielders) - ie keep it the same as last year and the year before that.

 

[Fer]

Pogba played well today in a midfield of 2.

When we bought Matic, we play him next to Pogba with Lingard as CAM where he was at his best. IMO Pogba was playing good in that formation (4231)

Maybe Mourinho wants to play some games with that formation, and sign a tall attacking midfielder like Savic/Talisca to play behind Lukaku (If we sell Fellaini). Also, Fred used to play in a midfield of 2, so he could play next to Pogba or Matic.

 

[SwansonsTache]

Pogba played well today in a midfield of 2.

When we bought Matic, we play him next to Pogba with Lingard as CAM where he was at his best. IMO Pogba was playing good in that formation (4231)

Maybe Mourinho wants to play some games with that formation, and sign a tall attacking midfielder like Savic/Talisca to play behind Lukaku (If we sell Fellaini). Also, Fred used to play in a midfield of 2, so he could play next to Pogba or Matic.

Kante is about 400 times more mobile than Matic. The dynamic wouldn't be the same at all.

 

[Fer]

Kante is about 400 times more mobile than Matic. The dynamic wouldn't be the same at all.

That's true. Not even Fred is as mobile as Kante... Maybe we could play some games with Matic and Fred in a midfield of 2 with Pogba behind Lukaku.