442 vs 532 in the defensive phase

[Physiocrat]

After watching Hungary vs Germany I concluded 532 in the defensive phase is inferior to 442. Firstly, the wide CMs get pulled from side to side constantly and the wing backs are so deep it makes it difficult to counter that well. 442 has a more solid shape which is easier to keep compact and secondly there are more options outwide higher up on the counter.

Is this assessment fair or am I missing something?

If I am correct something like this which transitions to a 325 in possession -

..............CF.......SS..........
LAM......DM.....CM.....RWB
LWB.......CB......CB.....RB.....
....................GK...............

 

[harms]

It really depends on your personnel and situation, but 4-4-2 is generally the best defensive set up if you're not going all-in on possession. 4-3-3 gives you more control & more fluid attack, but 4-4-2 controls all of the zones defensively.

Germany doesn't really have the best defence to execute 3-5-2, but they have too much quality central midfielders so Löw decided that this the way to fit in all three of Kroos, Gündogan & Kimmich without limiting the latter to a secondary role. Their attack is also weird as feck personnel-wise, so a fluid front three seems like a better option than, say, pushing Sane & Gnabry wide and putting any pair of their forwards up front.

 

[Physiocrat]

It really depends on your personnel and situation, but 4-4-2 is generally the best defensive set up if you're not going all-in on possession. 4-3-3 gives you more control & more fluid attack, but 4-4-2 controls all of the zones defensively.

Germany doesn't really have the best defence to execute 3-5-2, but they have too much quality central midfielders so Löw decided that this the way to fit in all three of Kroos, Gündogan & Kimmich without limiting the latter to a secondary role. Their attack is also weird as feck personnel-wise, so a fluid front three seems like a better option than, say, pushing Sane & Gnabry wide and putting any pair of their forwards up front.

That's possibly true about Germany. My inspiration was Hungary's dogged 532 out of possession. Their side mids would have been absolutely shattered, shifting side to side all game.

 

[Gio]

That's possibly true about Germany. My inspiration was Hungary's dogged 532 out of possession. Their side mids would have been absolutely shattered, shifting side to side all game.

I think most teams considering that sort of shape either go down the 541 route or the 352 / 361 to smother midfield. The 532 probably worked better when teams had clunkier centre-half types at full back, who were less able to exploit space in front of them.

 

[antohan]

Didn't watch the game so can't comment, but wouldn't draw conclusions based on a single game with specific personnel.

One of the most interesting things about us (Uruguay) in 2010 was how Tabárez switched in-game between 5-3-2, 3-5-2, 4-3-3 and 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 just by tweaking the positioning of Alvaro Pereira/Martín Cáceres (Cáceres moved from LCB to LB when Palito moved to LM/LCM), Edinson Cavani (RM/RFwd/Striker) and Diego Forlán (Second Striker, LFwd, AM/10).

I can't say any one of them was my favourite, just the more appropriate one to what we needed to accomplish and the best way to deal with how the oppo were going about things at any one point.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Depends on whether team is attacking through wingbacks or libero.

 

[Physiocrat]

I think most teams considering that sort of shape either go down the 541 route or the 352 / 361 to smother midfield. The 532 probably worked better when teams had clunkier centre-half types at full back, who were less able to exploit space in front of them.

Yeah, 541 or 361 make a lot more sense as a purely defensive setup although they would likely be very lightweight up front

 

[Physiocrat]

Depends on whether team is attacking through wingbacks or libero.

Even if you are attacking through a libero 442 would still work better as on counters the libero joins midfield and both full-backs tuck in. As harms says it depends on what players you have but conceptually it makes more sense IMO.

 

[antohan]

Even if you are attacking through a libero 442 would still work better as on counters the libero joins midfield and both full-backs tuck in. As harms says it depends on what players you have but conceptually it makes more sense IMO.

But then, that's a 3-5-2 you just formed off a 4-4-2 that doesn't work like 99% of 4-4-2s do.

It's far more likely you will find a 3-5-2 with a DM dropping into defence to make it 4 than a 4-4-2 with defensive fullbacks and a libero pushing up and making it 3-5-2.

 

[antohan]

Yeah, 541 or 361 make a lot more sense as a purely defensive setup although they would likely be very lightweight up front

Our defensive setup in the 2008 CL Final was a 4-5-1. Cagey game, more so because both teams knew each other inside out, but I wouldn't say we were lightweight upfront. In fact, we could/should have put the game to bed in the first half.

 

[Physiocrat]

But then, that's a 3-5-2 you just formed off a 4-4-2 that doesn't work like 99% of 4-4-2s do.

It's far more likely you will find a 3-5-2 with a DM dropping into defence to make it 4 than a 4-4-2 with defensive fullbacks and a libero pushing up and making it 3-5-2.

Well that's very true, I actually don't know of any historical examples of it. All my point is that the 442 is the better defensive shape and you can accommodate a libero to go through the middle with it.

In 2008 we had Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo. That isn't the type of 451 I was envisioning and isn't one you would go for sitting deep and playing on the counter

 

[antohan]

In 2008 we had Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo. That isn't the type of 451 I was envisioning and isn't one you would go for sitting deep and playing on the counter

That was sort of my point, too much fixation with numbers/headcount when ultimately it's the personnel behind them, their attributes, and how they go about things in defensive/attacking phase.

 

[Himannv]

4-3-3 or 3-5-2 offers more control of the game and you'd have the ball more. In LVG language this means more chances to score.

 

[Jim Beam]

Many teams pull in 4-4-2 in defensive phase regardless of their attacking shape, like Real Madrid for example often did in CL making them more solid

Then again you look Tuchel Chelsea this year. An absolute nightmare to get through. Or Conte back 3 in his first year in EPL. I guess it always comes down to what fits the team the most looking at personnel.

 

[Jim Beam]

Our defensive setup in the 2008 CL Final was a 4-5-1. Cagey game, more so because both teams knew each other inside out, but I wouldn't say we were lightweight upfront. In fact, we could/should have put the game to bed in the first half.

Yeah, we should have been 2-0 up the halftime at least.

 

[Ecstatic]

After watching Hungary vs Germany I concluded 532 in the defensive phase is inferior to 442. Firstly, the wide CMs get pulled from side to side constantly and the wing backs are so deep it makes it difficult to counter that well. 442 has a more solid shape which is easier to keep compact and secondly there are more options outwide higher up on the counter.

Is this assessment fair or am I missing something?

If I am correct something like this which transitions to a 325 in possession -

..............CF.......SS..........
LAM......DM.....CM.....RWB
LWB.......CB......CB.....RB.....
....................GK...............

Please choose a country playing the Euro and let's see if your theory works

 

[Physiocrat]

Please choose a country playing the Euro and let's see if your theory works

I'll go with England as I know them best.

.................Kane......Sancho......
Grealish...Rice....Bellingham...R.James
Shaw.......Maguire....Stones....Walker.....
........................Pickford.....................

It's too defensive for my tastes but if the idea was a back 3 for defensive stability I would suggest this as an alternative approach of the ball.

 

[Ecstatic]

I'll go with England as I know them best.

.................Kane......Sancho......
Grealish...Rice....Bellingham...R.James
Shaw.......Maguire....Stones....Walker.....
........................Pickford.....................

It's too defensive for my tastes but if the idea was a back 3 for defensive stability I would suggest this as an alternative approach of the ball.

I can't debate with you on this on as I am not familiar with most of these players.

Will think later about France to see if a 442 is more robust or not

 

[Šjor Bepo]

I can't debate with you on this on as I am not familiar with most of these players.

Will think later about France to see if a 442 is more robust or not

.................Benzema......Mbappe......
Griezmann...Kante....Verratti...Florenzi
Digne......Kimpembe....Varane....Pavard
........................Lloris.....................

Pretty much this.

 

[Himannv]

.................Benzema......Mbappe......
Griezmann...Kante....Verratti...Florenzi
Digne......Kimpembe....Varane....Pavard
........................Lloris.....................

Pretty much this.

No Pogba on the left wing?

 

[Stack]

4-3-3 or 3-5-2 offers more control of the game and you'd have the ball more. In LVG language this means more chances to score.

The formation doesnt dictate the control of the game. The formation doesnt dictate the chances to score.

 

[Physiocrat]

No Pogba on the left wing?

Yeah, Pogba would make more sense on the LW given the system I suggested. It would be a choice between Benzema and Griezmann for one of front two alongside Mbappe

 

[Šjor Bepo]

No Pogba on the left wing?

Pogno

 

[Himannv]

The formation doesnt dictate the control of the game. The formation doesnt dictate the chances to score.

Obviously you need the players to make it work, but I think a 4-3-3 for instance will have more of the ball in midfield compared to a 4-4-2 as the two pivots will be outnumbered by the 3 CMs. Not saying that's a bad thing as that might be the intent with the counter in mind.

 

[Stack]

Obviously you need the players to make it work, but I think a 4-3-3 for instance will have more of the ball in midfield compared to a 4-4-2 as the two pivots will be outnumbered by the 3 CMs. Not saying that's a bad thing as that might be the intent with the counter in mind.

there are 4 midfielders in 442. Out of possession do you think the 2 wide ones just stay on the wing? My point is that graphic representation of players positions doesnt equate to in game responsibilities and movement relative to the situation at any given moment.

 

[antohan]

.................Benzema......Mbappe......
Griezmann...Kante....Verratti...Florenzi
Digne......Kimpembe....Varane....Pavard
........................Lloris.....................

Pretty much this.

Verratti?

 

[antohan]

there are 4 midfielders in 442. Out of possession do you think the 2 wide ones just stay on the wing? My point is that graphic representation of players positions doesnt equate to in game responsibilities and movement relative to the situation at any given moment.

Agree. I've been moaning about how clear 4-4-1-1s get depicted as 4-2-3-1 just to avoid stigmas or to look more "current".

Depending on the personnel a "4-2-3-1" could just as easily be "4-5-1" or actually "4-2-4" when it comes to working on recovery and/or control.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Verratti?

He supports france and psg so did it with familiar players

 

[Physiocrat]

Agree. I've been moaning about how clear 4-4-1-1s get depicted as 4-2-3-1 just to avoid stigmas or to look more "current".

Depending on the personnel a "4-2-3-1" could just as easily be "4-5-1" or actually "4-2-4" when it comes to working on recovery and/or control.

Truth. 4411s just have a two man midfield but 4231s magically have 3 and have the luxury of the wide players being further up the pitch. It is stupid and just part of the unfair reputation versions of 442 get.

 

[Himannv]

there are 4 midfielders in 442. Out of possession do you think the 2 wide ones just stay on the wing? My point is that graphic representation of players positions doesnt equate to in game responsibilities and movement relative to the situation at any given moment.

Out of possession they are two banks of 4, but they hold their shape and do not cluster centrally ((unless we're talking about Simeone's Atletico or something). The wingers will, more often than not, be up against opposition fullbacks. Either way, it's a tactic built to be more effective on the counter. When they have possession, their goal is to stretch the pitch and maintain the advantage in width.

4-3-3 offers more control in comparison and gives more license for fullbacks to get forward. The presence of wing forwards restrict opposition fullbacks. Also with two attacking B2B midfielders and a holder they are better suited to controlling the midfield as it offers a wider array of passing lanes, more numbers centrally obviously, and more options to attempt to break down opposition defensive lines.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. They are both systems with different goals and can both be equally successful.

 

[Himannv]

Sorry but thats just fundamentally wrong. Kids get taught the basics of defending and what you have said is not even what they learn. I think you need to have a look into the fundamentals of 1v1 defending, 2 v 2 defending and most importantly 3 v 5 defending. those basics give you all you need to know about cover, pressure and shape. Holding their shape also refers to maintaining balance in defence and if you watch teams defending they slide across the pitch as well as forward and back.The wide midfielder furthest from the ball does not stay wide, they come infield and even if there is a wide opposition player hugging that line they still squeeze in. They can transition back wide as the ball cross the pitch and also by being on the inside of the wide opposition attacker means they can more easily delay and defend that switch in attack. No single formation has more control over another, control comes from application of the fundamentals. Are you defending a long ball direct attack? Are you defending a wing attack?, are you defending a short passing centrally based attack? Are you defending a possession attack? Are you defending a counter attack?. Control does not come from the formation.

If you're talking about 3 v 5 defending then I think we're clearly talking about two different things.

 

[Stack]

If you're talking about 3 v 5 defending then I think we're clearly talking about two different things.

You dont appear to understand what I meant by the fundamentals of 3v5 defending or why that basic fundamental is at the heart of all defending. Its at the heart of all defending no matter the formation, no matter the area of the pitch its in place. Its the backbone of pressing, its the backbone of defending a counter attack, its the backbone of defending against width etc etc etc. Its in essence why formations cant and dont dictate the control of a game.

 

[Himannv]

You dont appear to understand what I meant by the fundamentals of 3v5 defending or why that basic fundamental is at the heart of all defending. Its at the heart of all defending no matter the formation, no matter the area of the pitch its in place. Its the backbone of pressing, its the backbone of defending a counter attack, its the backbone of defending against width etc etc etc. Its in essence why formations cant and dont dictate the control of a game.

I beg to differ since I think formations and tactics do indeed dictate how much control you have over a game. If what you say is true then possession based teams can basically play any formation and still have the same possession stats and I think it's clear that's not the case hence their preference for certain formations over others with that goal in mind. Similar story for a low block team or one with a high line, etc. All different ways to play with different goals.