4-2-3-1 vs. 4-3-3

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,155
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Could someone explain the differences between these formations please? I have read a lot of comments like "Rooney cant play in a 4-3-3 so we will keep playing in the 4-2-3-1." But I remember Van Gaal spoke about them as essentially the same thing and since then I have tended to look at it as such. But I dont want to be Van Gaalised, I want to have a normal brain.

So: when Van Gaal spoke about 4-3-3 he envisaged a balance in his midfielders, a DM, an AM and a B2B.
Our recent outings in 4-2-3-1, and many people's fantasy lineups involving Pogba, have seen the block of two comprise a DM and a B2B - with Pogba being the latter going forward.

So I guess the first difference in the formation must be between the AM as envisaged in the 4-3-3 and the central attacking player in the 3 - the #10 - in the 4-2-3-1. What is so different about these roles? They look pretty similar to me. The "AM" doesnt have too many defensive responsibilities, does he? The other two sort that out, he is free to roam about and attack. If Rooney can play #10 (hypothetically speaking of course) why cant he play AM?

And then the two either side of the #10, they are basically attacking players, joining the striker. Do they have more defending to do in the 4-2-3-1 system, as nominal midfielders, rather than attackers?

Is the difference basically that the 4-2-3-1 places more defensive responsibility on the attacking wide players, while giving the #10 more freedom? Whereas the 4-3-3 gives the AM a little more defensive responsibility, while giving more freedom to the wide players?

Can you say 4-3-3 is a more attacking system than 4-2-3-1? I rather thought these formations were rather meaningless when it comes to deducing whether a team is attacking or not, as you can play 4-3-3 defensively, or 4-2-3-1 with a great emphasis on attack.

So what are the fundamental differences?
 
a true 4-3-3 doesn't have a #10 and uses wide forwards and not wingers. See Real Madrid.

You can play both formations with a variation of midfield partnerships.
 
Cassidy said:
a true 4-3-3 doesn't have a #10 and uses wide forwards and not wingers. See Real Madrid.

You can play both formations with a variation of midfield partnerships.
Click to expand...
Yes but as I said it has an AM, which looks like a pretty similar job - to me at least.

And is it fair to say a wide forward is narrower than a winger? Or is there less emphasis on crossing for a wide forward, and more on attacking the goal itself from wide positions?
 
A 433 has No #10 and 3 Midfielders in the middle of the pitch, usually two creative ones and one that offers a defensive contribution to bring balance. Pretty useful if you have midfielders and wide players who are good at occupying the empty space left with a lack of a #10. Which we do (Pogba, Martial, Mkhitryan etc.)
 
Don't get too bogged down in formations, they are fluid. In your Rooney example it's more to do with Rooney having to play off the striker and accommodating him in that way.
 
Adebesi said:
Yes but as I said it has an AM, which looks like a pretty similar job - to me at least.

And is it fair to say a wide forward is narrower than a winger? Or is there less emphasis on crossing for a wide forward, and more on attacking the goal itself from wide positions?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yeah. But it's all just theory. Neymar/Ronaldo are examples of wide forwards.
 
Extra width in a 4-3-3.

More pressure on the players either side of the striker to score goals.

In a 4-2-3-1, the player in the hole links the midfield and attack and is expected to both create goals and score them.

There is more discipline required of the now two man midfield, without the luxury of having a third man alongside them.
 
In 4-3-3 wide forwards have less defensive duties because of 3 midfielders who make up for that.

In 4-2-3-1 RW and LW have more defensive duties because AM (number 10) has less of it since in our case Rooney acts more like second striker than classic nubmer 10, but even classic number 10 in this system wouldn't have to work as much as AM in 4-3-3.

That's my view, could be that I'm completely wrong :D
 
Adebesi said:
Yes but as I said it has an AM, which looks like a pretty similar job - to me at least.

And is it fair to say a wide forward is narrower than a winger? Or is there less emphasis on crossing for a wide forward, and more on attacking the goal itself from wide positions?
Click to expand...

But it doesn't, like I said it has a variety of midfield partnerships. It can be played with a DM and 2 box to box etc. There doesn't have to be a designated AM.

On the wide forwards yes you are right, they are not there to cross, they are there to support the striker and score goals, also less defensive responsibility. They are not classed as midfield but as part of the forward line, don't need to follow the fullback since that is the job of one of the midfield 3
 
Last edited:
These days formations seem to be relevant only for the defensive shape. Managers decide whether they need to defend with two or three midfielders.

When there are only two defenders in the midfield(4-2-3-1) there is an extra body in attack when we have to counter. This also occupies both the opposition CBs. One of the midfielders has the liberty to join the attack creating an overload in the opposition area. So when you're attacking you aren't in 4-2-3-1 anymore. You'll often see a pattern where we have CBs back, a FB on the half way line, a midfielder just around the centre circle, another full back joining the attack and all others in the box.

I never understood 4-3-3 properly but it seems to be the best formation when you intend to keep the ball with your midfielders who move up collectively as a unit. This way defend by starving teams of possession. You're sacrificing a second striker for a midfielder so your front three need to be prolific. But once the ball goes out wide higher up the pitch, the formation looks exactly like a 4-2-3-1.
 
I think you are getting too specific in what every formation uses. It's not like managers decide that "now I am playing 433 so my forwards HAVE to be in this area." They usually focus on transitions, defensive shape, movement when you will the back back, pressing, etc... with the formation a simple way to sum up a semblance of the overall shape. That's why at times, one's 433 can be another's 4231 or even 4321.
 
The thing is that LvG's version of 433 was much closer to 4231 than it was to a stereotypical 433 (point backwards with a DM and two B2B midfielders. In terms of tactics, it's miles away from what Mourinho is trying to implement now.

LvG's initial intention was to squeeze out the spaces in the middle third and leave no breathing room in those areas for the opponent. For that you need to be able to maintain a relatively high defensive line and creative/attacking players who are able to press and work hard off the ball in order to stretch defenses. The midfield organization is build upon two fundamental pillars. The first one is LvG's #6, the player who shields the defense, while the other one is his #10, the big ace up his sleeve in the attacking third. This is the player who interchanges positions with the forward and tries to create little pockets of space on the edge of the opposition box for himself and others. When that happens smoothly, the third midfielder (b2b) has permission to join the attack and turn the system in something that resembles more a 433. Unfortunately, we didn't have attackers who could protect the ball under pressure but we conceded possession quite often instead. That's why many people here were complaining about our two midfielders not moving forward and the whole team being broken in half all the time. The real reason was that the inability to retain possession in the attacking half leaves you extremely vulnerable to counter attacks when you want to play with a high defensive line. This particular "fear" lead to our rather pedestrian and dull displays under LvG.

The goal under LvG was to stay high up the pitch. The holding player has to be a good reader of the game and spot potential risks in order to be able to intervene right on time and help the team retain a high line. The #10 must have an active role in pressing off the ball, he must have the vision to spot potential openings in the defense and he must be able to operate in tight spaces/play with back to goal when he is on the ball. The third midfielder has also little room to operate into, he has to be pretty good at shielding the ball (Verratti kind of good) and he must have his passing options figured out before even the ball comes to him.

In Mourinho's system the objectives in the midfield are different. The holding player can/must drop deeper and his main duty until the defensive transition is complete is to not allow a free passage down the central channels. He has more time to think and assess the situation. It's the main reason Fellaini looks decent nowadays. In LvG's system it would be a form of suicide to play some with Fellaini's (lack of) vision and positional awareness right in front of the back four. Rooney in the #10 role doesn't have to press systematically, he just has to delay the opponent's first pass in order for the team to get back. He also doesn't have to work hard to create spaces, others are responsible for that job. Plus in an ideal world where our attacking transition will be perfected and we will be able to travel the distance from one end of the pitch to the other with two or three passes, Rooney and all the other attacking players will get more (crucial) time on the ball and more opportunities to play with face to goal. Finally, the third midfielder's role is not to help the team retain its shape with his passing and positioning but to carry or pass the ball forward. And if he has the stamina to run up and down the pitch, it's only natural that he enjoys a lot more freedom in the attacking phase of the game.

As for Rooney in the 433, people are having doubts because in any variation of this system even the most attacking minded midfielder, in terms of duties on the pitch and spacial coverage, has to operate more like an actual midfielder than a second forward. Players like Iniesta, Matuidi, Alcantara or Silva lately, they do different jobs on the pitch but their mindset and their skillset is that of a midfield player. That's not the case with Rooney.
 
The differences? Negligible. Which players you put into one of these formations makes more difference to how it looks on the pitch that which one you actually choose. Really, 4231 is just a more specific description of a type of 433 made so by the choice of players fed into it.
 
The differences are more obvious in the defensive shape. Most 4-2-3-1s becomes 442s (or at least 2 banks of four) when defending, while in a proper 4-3-3 the midfield 3 defends as a unit. Attacking-wise many 4-2-3-1s have undue burdens on the #10, since the team often gets disconnected between the deeper midfielders (who will always retreat when asked to defend) and the free forwards (the AM and ST will often stay forward). That means it's tough to find a ball to the 10, and he then has to link play all around him (wingers, CMs, ST). I think this problem was very visible in a successful 4-2-3-1: Germany in 2010. Facing Spain's possession, Schweini and Khedira, the 2 DMs, did not have attacking options once they got the ball back, Ozil was too tough to find, long balls to Klose were not successful, and the wingers were alongside not infront of them.
Which is why having someone like Pogba in the 2 could be a plus: he can simply run past the wave of pressing himself, and it means we have 2 link-players: the 10 and Pogba.
 
The most offensive player in a midfield 3 contributes more to the control of matches rather than roam around in attack. While in a 4-2-3-1 the middle of the 3 is what you'd call an old fashion no10, he plays more in the 'hole' than in midfield. Or some clubs would use a second striker there rather than a attacking mid.

Defensively, the 3 in a 4-3-3 do most of the protecting of the back four. You'll see the wide midfielders drifting into wide areas as the attacking 3 have so much freedom that its hard for them to get back quickly into position. In a 4-2-3-1 the wide men are tasked with protecting the fullbacks.
 
Check games in first season under LvG,games vs Liverpool etc. Triangles between Ander,Mata and Valencia on right and Afroman,Shaw and Young on left. Once he placed Rooney instead of Ander and i swear it was like we had black hole on that right side.
 
Brightonian said:
The differences? Negligible. Which players you put into one of these formations makes more difference to how it looks on the pitch that which one you actually choose. Really, 4231 is just a more specific description of a type of 433 made so by the choice of players fed into it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Player roles are vastly more important than formations.

442 with Mata and Rooney on the flanks would look and play a lot different than 442 with Valencia and Young on the wings, despite being the same formation. because you wouldn't send Mata out to try and beat his man for pace, or Valencia to drop in and link up play behind the striker.

If one of the 3 midfielders in a 433 has been instructed to play ahead of the two supporting midfielders, then it's essentially 4231. Though really, it just doesn't matter all that much.

I think under Mourinho, formations are less important than under LvG, where they were very rigid. Mourinho allows a lot more freedom and fluidity. We have already seen the wide players drift in to the middle a lot, Zlatan coming deep into midfield, Pogba doing whatever he wants, even Carrick roaming high up then pitch. Formation will have more of an effect on how we line up defensively than how we attack, I reckon.
 
Interesting the different takes on here.

When I played a long long time ago the 4-3-3 was developed to bring two aspects to the game and the midfield was narrow, so no wide players in midfield. First when the team attacks the two outside midfield players move forward next to the striker or just behind to create a 5 in the forward line. Thus the 2 wide front players are wide players or traditional wingers, not inside forwards. This requires the two FBs to move forward into midfield to assist the CM and prevent counters. Secondly, when defending the 2 wide forwards moved back to the midfield to create a 5 in midfield. This balance gave you strong attack and strong defense, i.e. the team attacked and the team defended. I don't recall anyone talking about AMs and DMs, you were RM or LM.

Obviously the game and positions have changed. If I recall it was the Italians who created the formation. Not sure how it is supposed to work nowadays
 
Main difference is in the role of the last midfielder. Ultimately, you can expand it further and say that 4231 is no different from a 442.

After all, we played 442 under Fergie. One of the strikers was usually Rooney, who played in the same role he plays now - off a main striker. We did get close to a 433 when we played Hargreaves on the right though, as he was a nominal winger.

The Spanish sides (Real and Barca) play 3 proper midfielders. Kroos, Modric, Casemiro - none of them are 10s. Same as Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta, although Iniesta is close.

We played with Carrick, Fellaini and Herrera for period under Van Gaal, and it was our best football under him. However, at that period, Rooney had the 9 spot to himself, so we didn't have to accommodate him deeper.

I personally believe that all of the top level duties of a modern midfield ideally needs 3 people to perform. The three elements are defending, controlling and creating/scoring. Two players will leave one short - can't defend enough, can't create enough, or can't control a game against a three.

I think this is the best way for us, and suits the players in our squad best. Particularly in midfield. We have one top class midfielder in Pogba, but the rest are good, but not great, and can best express their qualities with help. With the right help, the likes of Herrera, Morgan etc can flourish.
 
A 4-3-3 is the best formation if you want a high-tempo short passing game, because it allows for a lot of natural triangles between team-mates, but football is evolving. Even at Barca, home of the Cruijff school of thought, the forward players are more fluid, changing positions.

Players like Xavi was and now Iniesta and Messi are beyond attacking formations though, they just probe for weaknesses and pounce whenever an opposing defensive player lapses. Instead of a few ideas, they have nearly all the ideas, and create new ones all the time. The bench-mark.
 
4-2-3-1 is played with a no10 and either 1 #6 and a #8 or 2 #,6 also better off IMO having 1 natural winger and an inverted winger

4-3-3 is played with a #6 and 2 #8 and best with 2 inverted wingers
 
4-3-3 is actually too vague a term and can mean different things - in my mind it is more like a 4-1-4-1, but there are various possible interpretations

4-2-3-1 is more specific as you know you are getting 2 defensive mids so that is why it is usually seen as a defensive formation

I dont know when formations progressed to having 4 levels actually - it always used to be a simple 3 (defenders, mids and forwards) but nowadays it seems to have got more detailed.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Pretty much.

Player roles are vastly more important than formations.

442 with Mata and Rooney on the flanks would look and play a lot different than 442 with Valencia and Young on the wings, despite being the same formation. because you wouldn't send Mata out to try and beat his man for pace, or Valencia to drop in and link up play behind the striker.

If one of the 3 midfielders in a 433 has been instructed to play ahead of the two supporting midfielders, then it's essentially 4231. Though really, it just doesn't matter all that much.

I think under Mourinho, formations are less important than under LvG, where they were very rigid. Mourinho allows a lot more freedom and fluidity. We have already seen the wide players drift in to the middle a lot, Zlatan coming deep into midfield, Pogba doing whatever he wants, even Carrick roaming high up then pitch. Formation will have more of an effect on how we line up defensively than how we attack, I reckon.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Mourinho is still using his same ideas for football that he was using 10 years ago. They revolve around player roles and responsibilities and not formations. Mourinho follows the 4 moments of the game ideals. These are the cornerstone of how he trains his teams and how they are setup. The 4 moments being 1.When a team wins possession 2. When a team is in possession 3. When a team loses possession 4. When a team is out of possession.
What happens at the moment of a team either winning or losing possession and what players should do individually and collectively, same for during or out of possession. Formations mean nothing when a team has got well forward and lost the ball and has to deal with a fast counter attack with only 3 defenders, whats important is how each player reacts, what their role is in that situation individually or collectively. A team setup with 442 for example isnt relying on the formation to deal with that situation, its relying on the principles of defending and how they apply to that situation. The fascination with formations I think means so many people actually miss whats really going on.
 
25-08-201601-26-58ghkw0.png


These are the touches Rooney made against Southampton.

I don't give a shit how Mourinho chooses to define his role to the media. He's playing as a fecking midfielder. It's a 4-3-3 with Zlatan as a false 9.
 
Dante said:
25-08-201601-26-58ghkw0.png


These are the touches Rooney made against Southampton.

I don't give a shit how Mourinho chooses to define his role to the media. He's playing as a fecking midfielder. It's a 4-3-3 with Zlatan as a false 9.
Click to expand...

This is the perfect example of how fans overuse stats etc and arent actually seeing whats going on.
Each one of those dots is a touch for Rooney, what those dots dont tell us is where was the rest of the team when he made those touches. Quite possibly many of those touches in the middle thrid of the pitch could have been made when we were in a defensive situation and he could have been one of our 3 most forward players at those touches if we saw where the rest of the team were. That lovely graph of touches doesnt tell us he was playing as a midfielder at all.
 
Rood said:
I dont know when formations progressed to having 4 levels actually - it always used to be a simple 3 (defenders, mids and forwards) but nowadays it seems to have got more detailed.
Click to expand...
It formed due to managers wanting two levels for defence and two for attack. Of course it also means the number 9 or ST needs to keep the defenders up high and on their toes. RvP did this very well.

But opposing managers would then just play a high back line to keep the ST back but if you have a quality and quick ST then he can cause havoc. It's something we miss. Ibrahimovic comes close though because he has power and can score from anywhere.
 
Dante said:
It's a 4-3-3 with Zlatan as a false 9.
Click to expand...

No, not true IMO. A false 9 drops deep in order to disrupt the CBs usual marking rhythm, to make space for runners into central positions, and to create. The main point is disrupting the marking.
Zlatan drops deep to get his feet on the ball and link play. Whenever the ball is out wide, he is in the box, like the true traditional 9 he is. And we don't really have runners flooding the box when Zlatan is trying a few flicks in midfield.
 
Dante said:
These are the touches Rooney made against Southampton.

I don't give a shit how Mourinho chooses to define his role to the media. He's playing as a fecking midfielder. It's a 4-3-3 with Zlatan as a false 9.
Click to expand...
I think that as Pogba grew into the game Rooney did start dropping deeper and allow Pogba to go more forward instead. Pogba was having a lot more success holding and distributing the ball in attack anyway, so it made sense but at the same time highlighted Rooney's ineffectiveness. I always have a difficult time deciphering Mourinho's formations because as Stack said, he uses different setups for the different phases of the game.
 
CS@SG said:
FM makes a lot of fans obsessed with formation...
Click to expand...

Well as little knowledge as people have on these boards about football tactics and formations the percentage of people who play it can't be that high.

Apart from that I do agree though, people here have a weird obsession about formations when in the end they are just a piece of the puzzle and not the all defining factor on how you play.
 
Stack said:
This is the perfect example of how fans overuse stats etc and arent actually seeing whats going on.
Each one of those dots is a touch for Rooney, what those dots dont tell us is where was the rest of the team when he made those touches. Quite possibly many of those touches in the middle thrid of the pitch could have been made when we were in a defensive situation and he could have been one of our 3 most forward players at those touches if we saw where the rest of the team were. That lovely graph of touches doesnt tell us he was playing as a midfielder at all.
Click to expand...

However, having seen the game, we know that that wasn't the case. The pattern of touches is actually quite interesting if you look at all the players. In terms of average position, Martial was by far our most advanced player with Ibrahimovic next and Rooney basically tied with Mata in third place. Pogba was pretty much all over the field while Fellaini had only one touch (out of 56) in the final third. What this makes clear is that it makes no sense to try to characterize us as playing either 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 as we clearly playing neither. Perhaps 4-1-3-2 might be closer to the truth - with the "2" being Martial and Ibrahimovic. Of course next game, with a different problem to solve, we might see a very different pattern - that's what you get from having a pragmatic manager.
 
ravelston said:
However, having seen the game, we know that that wasn't the case. The pattern of touches is actually quite interesting if you look at all the players. In terms of average position, Martial was by far our most advanced player with Ibrahimovic next and Rooney basically tied with Mata in third place. Pogba was pretty much all over the field while Fellaini had only one touch (out of 56) in the final third. What this makes clear is that it makes no sense to try to characterize us as playing either 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 as we clearly playing neither. Perhaps 4-1-3-2 might be closer to the truth - with the "2" being Martial and Ibrahimovic. Of course next game, with a different problem to solve, we might see a very different pattern - that's what you get from having a pragmatic manager.
Click to expand...

So how about supplying the link so that we can all see the pattern of touches for all the players.

@Stack was right, the dots don't show where the rest of the team was. You say you watched the game yet argue that Rooney was playing as a midfielder yet you seem to have forgotten that Southampton ended the game with 56.6% possession and 13 shots on goal, one more than we did. This would suggest that all our players would have been in our half at some stage or another, even Ibrahimovic. So yes Stack was right in calling out the fact that the graph shows nothing as it's most likely out of context, which it is.

For large portions of the game, in fact up to the first 28 minutes were largely possessed by Southampton, after which we regained the larger possession and scored until about 38 minutes where they got possession and pressed until half-time. The second half was better and we pressed more and Pogba pressed more during that time too until the 75th minute where Southampton then pressed mostly until the end.

Also, Rooney is a number 10, and is supposed to be behind Martial and Mata so I don't see a problem with him being behind Martial and Mata as our most advanced player. That is his roll.
 
Last edited:
Dante said:
25-08-201601-26-58ghkw0.png


These are the touches Rooney made against Southampton.

I don't give a shit how Mourinho chooses to define his role to the media. He's playing as a fecking midfielder. It's a 4-3-3 with Zlatan as a false 9.
Click to expand...

Mourinho said he wouldn't play as a 6 or 8, which are centre midfielders. Number 10's, on the other hand, still have the license to drop in the midfield and get on the ball, as Rooney has, but they also have much more freedom to get in the box and make runs in behind, etc.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
The thing is that LvG's version of 433 was much closer to 4231 than it was to a stereotypical 433 (point backwards with a DM and two B2B midfielders. In terms of tactics, it's miles away from what Mourinho is trying to implement now.

LvG's initial intention was to squeeze out the spaces in the middle third and leave no breathing room in those areas for the opponent. For that you need to be able to maintain a relatively high defensive line and creative/attacking players who are able to press and work hard off the ball in order to stretch defenses. The midfield organization is build upon two fundamental pillars. The first one is LvG's #6, the player who shields the defense, while the other one is his #10, the big ace up his sleeve in the attacking third. This is the player who interchanges positions with the forward and tries to create little pockets of space on the edge of the opposition box for himself and others. When that happens smoothly, the third midfielder (b2b) has permission to join the attack and turn the system in something that resembles more a 433. Unfortunately, we didn't have attackers who could protect the ball under pressure but we conceded possession quite often instead. That's why many people here were complaining about our two midfielders not moving forward and the whole team being broken in half all the time. The real reason was that the inability to retain possession in the attacking half leaves you extremely vulnerable to counter attacks when you want to play with a high defensive line. This particular "fear" lead to our rather pedestrian and dull displays under LvG.

The goal under LvG was to stay high up the pitch. The holding player has to be a good reader of the game and spot potential risks in order to be able to intervene right on time and help the team retain a high line. The #10 must have an active role in pressing off the ball, he must have the vision to spot potential openings in the defense and he must be able to operate in tight spaces/play with back to goal when he is on the ball. The third midfielder has also little room to operate into, he has to be pretty good at shielding the ball (Verratti kind of good) and he must have his passing options figured out before even the ball comes to him.

In Mourinho's system the objectives in the midfield are different. The holding player can/must drop deeper and his main duty until the defensive transition is complete is to not allow a free passage down the central channels. He has more time to think and assess the situation. It's the main reason Fellaini looks decent nowadays. In LvG's system it would be a form of suicide to play some with Fellaini's (lack of) vision and positional awareness right in front of the back four. Rooney in the #10 role doesn't have to press systematically, he just has to delay the opponent's first pass in order for the team to get back. He also doesn't have to work hard to create spaces, others are responsible for that job. Plus in an ideal world where our attacking transition will be perfected and we will be able to travel the distance from one end of the pitch to the other with two or three passes, Rooney and all the other attacking players will get more (crucial) time on the ball and more opportunities to play with face to goal. Finally, the third midfielder's role is not to help the team retain its shape with his passing and positioning but to carry or pass the ball forward. And if he has the stamina to run up and down the pitch, it's only natural that he enjoys a lot more freedom in the attacking phase of the game.

As for Rooney in the 433, people are having doubts because in any variation of this system even the most attacking minded midfielder, in terms of duties on the pitch and spacial coverage, has to operate more like an actual midfielder than a second forward. Players like Iniesta, Matuidi, Alcantara or Silva lately, they do different jobs on the pitch but their mindset and their skillset is that of a midfield player. That's not the case with Rooney.
Click to expand...

Thread should have been locked after this post and all others deleted, best and most detailed answer yet people keep spamming the same simple lines anyway.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
The thing is that LvG's version of 433 was much closer to 4231 than it was to a stereotypical 433 (point backwards with a DM and two B2B midfielders. In terms of tactics, it's miles away from what Mourinho is trying to implement now.

LvG's initial intention was to squeeze out the spaces in the middle third and leave no breathing room in those areas for the opponent. For that you need to be able to maintain a relatively high defensive line and creative/attacking players who are able to press and work hard off the ball in order to stretch defenses. The midfield organization is build upon two fundamental pillars. The first one is LvG's #6, the player who shields the defense, while the other one is his #10, the big ace up his sleeve in the attacking third. This is the player who interchanges positions with the forward and tries to create little pockets of space on the edge of the opposition box for himself and others. When that happens smoothly, the third midfielder (b2b) has permission to join the attack and turn the system in something that resembles more a 433. Unfortunately, we didn't have attackers who could protect the ball under pressure but we conceded possession quite often instead. That's why many people here were complaining about our two midfielders not moving forward and the whole team being broken in half all the time. The real reason was that the inability to retain possession in the attacking half leaves you extremely vulnerable to counter attacks when you want to play with a high defensive line. This particular "fear" lead to our rather pedestrian and dull displays under LvG.

The goal under LvG was to stay high up the pitch. The holding player has to be a good reader of the game and spot potential risks in order to be able to intervene right on time and help the team retain a high line. The #10 must have an active role in pressing off the ball, he must have the vision to spot potential openings in the defense and he must be able to operate in tight spaces/play with back to goal when he is on the ball. The third midfielder has also little room to operate into, he has to be pretty good at shielding the ball (Verratti kind of good) and he must have his passing options figured out before even the ball comes to him.

In Mourinho's system the objectives in the midfield are different. The holding player can/must drop deeper and his main duty until the defensive transition is complete is to not allow a free passage down the central channels. He has more time to think and assess the situation. It's the main reason Fellaini looks decent nowadays. In LvG's system it would be a form of suicide to play some with Fellaini's (lack of) vision and positional awareness right in front of the back four. Rooney in the #10 role doesn't have to press systematically, he just has to delay the opponent's first pass in order for the team to get back. He also doesn't have to work hard to create spaces, others are responsible for that job. Plus in an ideal world where our attacking transition will be perfected and we will be able to travel the distance from one end of the pitch to the other with two or three passes, Rooney and all the other attacking players will get more (crucial) time on the ball and more opportunities to play with face to goal. Finally, the third midfielder's role is not to help the team retain its shape with his passing and positioning but to carry or pass the ball forward. And if he has the stamina to run up and down the pitch, it's only natural that he enjoys a lot more freedom in the attacking phase of the game.

As for Rooney in the 433, people are having doubts because in any variation of this system even the most attacking minded midfielder, in terms of duties on the pitch and spacial coverage, has to operate more like an actual midfielder than a second forward. Players like Iniesta, Matuidi, Alcantara or Silva lately, they do different jobs on the pitch but their mindset and their skillset is that of a midfield player. That's not the case with Rooney.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
Ok, I'm also going to confess to being pretty naive about all this, so this is probably a good time to start asking questions:

In our vintage lineup (ie. 1998-99 treble winners,) I've always understood that we played a 442. So what were the responsibilities of the midfielders/attacking players in that formation? Was Keane considered a defensive midfielder or b2b (something which seems a pretty suitable description of his style)? What about Scholes? Was he deep-lying, attacking, also b2b? Who took up the so-called playmaking duties in that lineup? Was one of the forwards responsible for dropping off and more or less playing the role Rooney does now? What about Beckham and Giggs? What were their primary responsibilities?

This is a question devoid of irony, agenda or any other white text, so gentle answers please?
 
Back then, we played a lot from the wings. With overlapping backs, for example Neville and Becks. And a lot of crosses towards the two strikers.

I'd say that both Keane and Scholes were box to box midfielders. Of course, Keane had more defensive responsibilities and Scholes had more attacking responsibilities (and he was famous for his terrible tackles - often resulted to yellow cards) but Scholes wasn't the typical number 10, he often played further back.

For a couple of years, Becks had unbelievable accuracy in his passes and crosses. He was often the one who played the role of the "midfield general"... from the wing! Good times!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.