4-4-2

[11101]

You are simply wrong when you think Goretzka plays a defensive role. That's what Kimmich does, along with his passing to keep attacks going. Goretzka is playing box to box, 8 goals and 8 assists last season show that he delivers up front.

Yes they have Müller to support them in midfield, but he is more like a second striker than a real midfielder, so Bayern's setup is quite close to a classic 442.

I don't know why you think that. Maybe because Kimmich sits deep as the pivot player, but that doesn't make him the defensive one. Goretzka's job is to roam the middle and cut out attacks before it reaches the back line, which is why he has more tackles and interceptions than Kimmich aka he does more defending. Kimmich is allowed to get forward when he wants to and start the buildup, which is why he has more goals, assists and important passes than Goretzka does.

Here are a few stills from a recent game. Nothing about this is 442.

 

[Withnail]

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 also need wingers who like to get paint on their boots, and there are not many of those around either.

Roy Keane would not be effective in a modern midfield?

You don't think he would have been able to adapt? If he grew up in the late 90s/early 2000s he'd have stayed in Cork, would he?

 

[stefan92]

I don't know why you think that. Maybe because Kimmich sits deep as the pivot player, but that doesn't make him the defensive one. Goretzka's job is to roam the middle and cut out attacks before it reaches the back line, which is why he has more tackles and interceptions than Kimmich aka he does more defending. Kimmich is allowed to get forward when he wants to and start the buildup, which is why he has more goals, assists and important passes than Goretzka does.

Here are a few stills from a recent game. Nothing about this is 442.

My point is that they have both offensive and defensive duties and can roam the whole field. They are allrounders in a similar way to Keane, Goretzka as the more dynamic one is a better example I thought.

You focused on the defensive duties and I wanted to give his attacking contribution as context to show he is not a specialist defender.

 

[Ronaldo's Fan Boy]

Yes, please. With Ronaldo and Cavani upfront. Both are awesome strikers who can score from either foot or head.

 

[11101]

Roy Keane would not be effective in a modern midfield?

You don't think he would have been able to adapt? If he grew up in the late 90s/early 2000s he'd have stayed in Cork, would he?

Without a doubt.

My point is you lifted 1999 Roy Keane out of that team and dropped him in a Premier League midfield next Saturday, he would be overrun. There are better runners in midfield, better attackers, and better defensive players. Maybe not all in one player, but the way the game is played now is totally different, midfielders focus on mastering specific areas of midfield play and back then they needed to be jack of all trades.

Look at Bruno, he is a better attacking midfielder than Keane ever was, but he can be that because he doesn't have to worry about the defensive or positional side. Our future defensive midfielder will (should) be a better defender than Keane ever was, because they don't need to do anything else. And the third player, even if it's Fred, will be a better runner than Keane was. And that's before you consider modern inside forwards who come into central midfield a lot more than your Giggs and Kanchelskis's used to. Combine them all together and a 1990s midfield two simply could not compete.

 

[Gio]

???
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.

I'm struggling to fathom a 'drastically improved' Barcelona midfield. The whole reason that midfield was probably the most dominant of all time is the sum was greater than the parts. Certainly Keane was a better off-the-ball player than Busquets and infinitely better in a box-to-box role. But Busquets was one of the finest one-touch players of all time. His natural holding position is key to both build-up and ball retention - Keane would either have to forge a different role or play with the handbrake on which instinctively would not get the best out of his qualities. In contrast, the role of Busquets perfectly complemented his teammates in a way that more rounded midfielders - with a more balanced set of strengths and weaknesses - would not. For example, Toure was more powerful, a more robust defensive presence, carried the ball forward better, and could do things with the ball over 30 yards such as long-range shooting or a through ball that were outwith Busquets' range. Yet even a superior all-rounder like Toure did not complement Xavi and Iniesta as slickly as Busquets did. The fact the three of them were on the same wavelength was priceless in multiplying their ball-retaining qualities. They were not just a unit in a team, but a system of play that was unprecedented in its dominance and impact on the wider game.

 

[bosnian_red]

Team you can make of current players most suitable for a classic 4-4-2?

------- Lewandowski ---- Mbappe
Sane ---- Kante --- Kimmich --- De Bruyne
Shaw ------ Van Djik ----- CB --- R James
----------------------------Goalkeeper

Sane might be controversial, but he's the only left footed LW I can think of who actually can take the ball either side. De Bruyne RM might be turning back some years, but he can be almost like a version of Beckham from there.

Reece James might be controversial as well, but he's played as a RCB in a back 3 which makes me think he'd be quite comfortable in a more traditional full back role. Though I think you can probably get away with someone even as attacking as Cancelo. The other CB can be anyone who's good in a back 2 - so none of the 3 back specialists. Varane and Maguire have a shout.

Why would Sane be controversial? He's the most shoe in player around who would fit a 4-4-2.

The back 4 wouldn't be any different to back 4's now, and for the front 2 all you'd need would be to find a blend of a inside forward like Rashford with a forward with good hold up play. Those players are everywhere IMO. The hardest is finding the midfield 4. And the thing with 4-4-2 is your wingers have to be players who are comfortable in possession and balanced enough that they don't overcommit in attack always and do nothing defensively. You can have one side be more attacking sure, but can't have them both.
Wingers - Sane, Coman, Chiesa could all easily be world class normal wingers. Plenty of "slower" wide players could be adapted to hold wide playmaking roles without being inverted players, though wingers like Coman who stays wide anyway can still be inverted.

Midfield duos - 2 obvious pairings right now are Kimmich and Goretzka, Jorginho and Kante. Verratti or De Jong as the playmaker in either of those works too.

 

[Davie Moyes]

I dont know if people have a weird baseless perception of Keane now. A lot of people in their early 20s probably never saw him play. Absolute monster midfielder. Great passer, great combative and tackling qualities. Had a good vision for where the ball would drop or where the interception could be made. Could turn a man and was a decent dribbler. Add to that leadership and motivational qualities on and off the pitch. I would give absolutely anything for a prime Roy Keane (albeit with modern fitness levels) in our team right now.

Absolutely spot on. Keane was the most influential and dominating player during most of his time at Utd. My favourite player during that era and Utd were far weaker when he was not in the team.

Out of all Utd's past players since 90s onwards he's the one I'd choose if I could pick one player right now