Why did Sir Alex Ferguson stop playing the 4-4-2 diamond?

MoneyMay

Guest
If it turns out as a consistent team selection from me, playing a diamond, it is revolutionary because we're going against our history … I think the level of the game in England and Europe is such a high level now that making yourself unpredictable is going to be a strength. Teams will have to think if we are going to play two wide players or the diamond because we have players capable of doing both things. Players like Shinji Kagawa and Tom Cleverley can play very well in the type of matches the diamond offers. And of course in Nani, Ashley Young, Antonio Valencia, I've got really good wide players also. It is difficult – we have had some success playing with the diamond. The history of the club is always to play with wide players, particularly at Old Trafford, so I have a decision to make
Click to expand...

I was watching a few games from last season where we played the diamond, and enjoyed watching them more than I did last season. I thought the fluidity in our attacks was on point, and we didn't rely on wing play for 100% of our attacks. Instead, we relied on intelligence in the centre and tactical width. Every system has pros and cons, and requires the manager to make a trade off. The trade off in this case is allowing a lot of space laterally, since the formation doesn't rely on wide men to track back. In this case, Kagawa and Cleverley have to recover quickly when the ball is switched.

Defending in the 4-4-2 diamond​

One trade off in this system is allowing a lot of space in the wings, and if not careful, a long switch can be deadly. The full backs have to be very strong in 1 v 1 situations and, at times, can face 1 v 2. In the early build up phase of the opposition team, the strikers and midfielders have to press well to avoid these switches. In the images below, Braga are looking to construct an attack. With Cleverley narrow in midfield, a long ball is played to the opposite end, but Cleverley recovers and presses well with Rafael. As Cleverley progresses to press, Van Persie drops deeper to block off the passing option in the centre.


grdb.png


vp1n.png

The role of the strikers​

The "twin strikers" have to show very good movement, and bring defenders out. In this system, you can play one poacher, but the other striker can drop deep to create a greater overload. In the first image below, Welbeck drags out a defender. In doing so, he has created space for Van Persie who runs into the space and has a shot saved. Notice how in this system, long balls can be very effective in these situations. In the second image, the role of the attacking midfielder is portrayed. Hernandez looks at Rooney's positioning and knows what to do: create space for Rooney to run into. This allows Fletcher to play a long ball to Rooney.


8ic0.png


gmkq.png


8m21.png


Numerical advantage in midfield​

In theory, you will always have midfield superiority. Against a 4-4-2, you will have a 4 v 2 midfield advantage centrally; against a 4-2-3-1, you will have a 4 v 3; against a 4-3-3, you will have a 4 v 3; and against a 3-5-2, you will have a 4 v 3. Sometimes, it will be incremented by one since one of the strikers can drop deep. In the images below, you can see the midfield advantage United has. And with Van Persie dropping deeper, it creates a greater overload. Obviously this is great as it means the opposition midfield sometimes have to close down to players (in the first image below). It can, however, favour the central areas more than it should (notice where Rafael is in the first image).


v15m.png



08bl.png


iic9.png

Midfield rotation​

Midfield rotation is great in getting past a team, especially against a low block. In this system, the players can move freely. There is interchange. Rooney can interchange with Cleverley; Kagawa with Rooney; Rooney with Van Persie, and so on. The final pass made is to Cleverley in a dangerous position, and it's the midfield rotation that allows for this to happen. Rooney makes a simple pass to Fletcher (first image) and moves to Kagawa's position, while Kagawa moves to Rooney's position (second image). Fletcher plays a one-two pass with Rooney and as can be seen, there is space now to find Cleverley between the lines.


wdhq.png


h14o.png


6fem.png

​
A simple write-up. There are a few other games I could have used to further emphasise the above points, but I thought that would be excessive. So what do we think about the 4-4-2 diamond we played last season? And what was/were the reason(s) Fergie stopped playing it?
 
We need to stop this thinking of 'the history of this club is to play with wide players' nonsense. Football has moved on from traditional wide players and its about time we did as well, particularly as we dont have an adequate set of wingers. I loved the diamond formation that we utilised, alwayd wanted to see it more. It would definitely suit our current bunch better than a traditional 442.
 
Some old lady phoned-up MUTV and told him to stop playing it. Seriously (well sort of; Fergie did acknowledge the call and laughed about it, saying he better not play it again after that).

I thought after the Newcastle game that this would be the way forward for us that season - it was new and exciting, and seemed to make the most of the assets in squad whilst covering our obvious weakness. Maybe Sir Alex was just too much of an old dog to commit to a new trick?
 
The reason why Fergie stopped it was because he knew he only had one season left. He wanted to win the prem before finishing but he knew that alot of learning and failing would have needed to be done if we were to implement it full time. If he hadnt retired I'm 100% he would have carried on using it. It was clear Fergie wanted to evolve our style of play and saw Kagawa as an essential part of that which is why he tried the diamond. But as I previously said Fergie probably felt he didnt have time to implement a new style and badly wanted his last prem title.
 
Simply - Lack of suitable players for the two wide midfield roles.

Cleverley and Anderson are they only two players really suited to those positions - and they're both shit/not players you'd base a formation change around. Kagawa could play there too but would be more suited at the tip of the diamond.
 
Carrick
Mata Januzaj
Kagawa
Rooney RVP

​
 
Pogue Mahone said:
In answer to the thread title: because we played shite, every time he tried it.
Click to expand...

Yup, generally agree with this.

We had that one game away at Newcastle where we played well, but besides that it was very average and didn't seem to suit the players. I don't think we have the midfielders for it.
 
Theon said:
Yup, generally agree with this.

We had that one game away at Newcastle where we played well, but besides that it was very average and didn't seem to suit the players. I don't think we have the midfielders for it.
Click to expand...

Can't remember the Newcastle game, specifically. I just remember us being really boring to watch and struggling to create every time we played the diamond (not that we were tearing teams apart with different formations but still...). What was the score against the barcodes?
 
Great read, though I think you've answered your own question in the first few lines, in that you acknowledge that it puts a huge amount of pressure on your fullbacks as there's no winger to shield them. Given that Evra's defensive qualities are questionable even when he's got a player in front of him, it seems risky to expose him further.

Also the success of that diamond system as you say is hugely to do with the strikers performing their tactical roles, which I'm not sure is particularly realistic when everyone's fit. Rooney and RVP seem to have a relatively open brief because they're both top strikers capable of great individual quality, but that comes at a cost tactically. This season especially we've seen them both making the same runs, which I'd argue is one of the reasons we've not looked great when they've both played. The problem's most visible when we have the ball in wide areas in the opposition half, instead of one of them stretching the defence and the other dropping into space to give an option for a pass inside, the player on the ball has to either attempt an unrealistic ball from deep to find one of them, hold the ball up until one of the midfielders can offer a pass inside or simply to pass it back to the fullback. So either we lose the ball or we lose momentum.

To get the diamond working we have to either force RVP and Rooney to give up some of their freedom or drop them for people who will.
 
@MoneyMay - I think the reason that Fergie ditched the diamond was simply down to the players available to us. Forget how their seasons panned out, back then we all thought Nani, Young and Valencia would play a big role in the season ahead and that they should be accommodated. Its generally a good idea to have a first choice formation and stick with it, even if you need to be flexible. A diamond formation was never going to be more than a backup for us.

Generally speaking I'm not a fan of the diamond, though of course in football any fairly sane system can work if it suits the players and troubles the opposition.

The main problem is that I don't really see the advantage over playing 4-3-3. Assume in your diamond you're going for 3 midfielders, a number 10 and two strikers. Your No. 10 isn't going to be doing too much tracking back so you actually only have three people covering the opposition, the same as you get in a 4-3-3. On the other hand if you play 4 midfielders in the diamond, you face a supply problem, as you'll struggle to get the ball to your strikers unless one takes over as the number 10.

On the other hand a 4-3-3 has more options. You can play three strikers and go all out. You can play a number 10 and two strikers just the same as in a diamond. Or you can play two wingers and one striker, use a lot more width and drop into a 4-5-1 when you're being pushed back by the opposition, good for away games. Or you can use one winger and two strikers a la Ronaldo/Tevez/Rooney. Or other variations on the theme.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Can't remember the Newcastle game, specifically. I just remember us being really boring to watch and struggling to create every time we played the diamond (not that we were tearing teams apart with different formations but still...). What was the score against the barcodes?
Click to expand...

Erm not certain, but either 3-0 or 4-0...

Kagawa played on the right of the diamond, Cleverley on the left IIRC

But yeah, I didn't like it and I usually like those formations. I loved early/mid Milan side which played that way. I just don't think we had the players for it.
 
Theon said:
Yup, generally agree with this.

We had that one game away at Newcastle where we played well, but besides that it was very average and didn't seem to suit the players. I don't think we have the midfielders for it.
Click to expand...
We had a good 20 minutes against Newcastle. We spent the rest of the game hanging on for dear life with De Gea making a ridiculous goal line save before Cleverley's cross found the back of the net to finish the game off.
 
Because that old woman on sky sports news said she didnt like it. He made reference to it once and we never saw it again
 
It was awful. It was an overreaction to us getting constantly overrun in midfield when we were playing at least one of Scholes and Giggs. Turns out replacing them with someone whose legs hadn't gone was a better solution. It was also a way to play three of our four strikers in a bid to keep them all happy and give them game time. Perhaps it might have worked better had Kagawa been the top of the diamond and Rooney alongside RVP with either another central midfielder or a wide player taking the right side. As someone has already said, we only really played well at Newcastle, all the other times we were poor and didn't create much. I remember away to Cluj being particularly awful.
 
MoneyMay said:
I was watching a few games from last season where we played the diamond, and enjoyed watching them more than I did last season. I thought the fluidity in our attacks was on point, and we didn't rely on wing play for 100% of our attacks. Instead, we relied on intelligence in the centre and tactical width. Every system has pros and cons, and requires the manager to make a trade off. The trade off in this case is allowing a lot of space laterally, since the formation doesn't rely on wide men to track back. In this case, Kagawa and Cleverley have to recover quickly when the ball is switched.

Defending in the 4-4-2 diamond​

One trade off in this system is allowing a lot of space in the wings, and if not careful, a long switch can be deadly. The full backs have to be very strong in 1 v 1 situations and, at times, can face 1 v 2. In the early build up phase of the opposition team, the strikers and midfielders have to press well to avoid these switches. In the images below, Braga are looking to construct an attack. With Cleverley narrow in midfield, a long ball is played to the opposite end, but Cleverley recovers and presses well with Rafael. As Cleverley progresses to press, Van Persie drops deeper to block off the passing option in the centre.


grdb.png


vp1n.png

The role of the strikers​

The "twin strikers" have to show very good movement, and bring defenders out. In this system, you can play one poacher, but the other striker can drop deep to create a greater overload. In the first image below, Welbeck drags out a defender. In doing so, he has created space for Van Persie who runs into the space and has a shot saved. Notice how in this system, long balls can be very effective in these situations. In the second image, the role of the attacking midfielder is portrayed. Hernandez looks at Rooney's positioning and knows what to do: create space for Rooney to run into. This allows Fletcher to play a long ball to Rooney.


8ic0.png


gmkq.png


8m21.png


Numerical advantage in midfield​

In theory, you will always have midfield superiority. Against a 4-4-2, you will have a 4 v 2 midfield advantage centrally; against a 4-2-3-1, you will have a 4 v 3; against a 4-3-3, you will have a 4 v 3; and against a 3-5-2, you will have a 4 v 3. Sometimes, it will be incremented by one since one of the strikers can drop deep. In the images below, you can see the midfield advantage United has. And with Van Persie dropping deeper, it creates a greater overload. Obviously this is great as it means the opposition midfield sometimes have to close down to players (in the first image below). It can, however, favour the central areas more than it should (notice where Rafael is in the first image).


v15m.png



08bl.png


iic9.png

Midfield rotation​

Midfield rotation is great in getting past a team, especially against a low block. In this system, the players can move freely. There is interchange. Rooney can interchange with Cleverley; Kagawa with Rooney; Rooney with Van Persie, and so on. The final pass made is to Cleverley in a dangerous position, and it's the midfield rotation that allows for this to happen. Rooney makes a simple pass to Fletcher (first image) and moves to Kagawa's position, while Kagawa moves to Rooney's position (second image). Fletcher plays a one-two pass with Rooney and as can be seen, there is space now to find Cleverley between the lines.


wdhq.png


h14o.png


6fem.png

​
A simple write-up. There are a few other games I could have used to further emphasise the above points, but I thought that would be excessive. So what do we think about the 4-4-2 diamond we played last season? And what was/were the reason(s) Fergie stopped playing it?
Click to expand...
The wingers returned to some semblance of good form. Their loss of form was the reason he resorted to it in the first place
 
I never liked it tbf, but it was interesting.

I am more interested in why did we stop playing 451 this season, when most of our best displays came when we played like that.
 
Dominos said:
We had a good 20 minutes against Newcastle. We spent the rest of the game hanging on for dear life with De Gea making a ridiculous goal line save before Cleverley's cross found the back of the net to finish the game off.
Click to expand...


Yes we dominated with our diamond for 15 minutes (vs Newcastle's 4-4-2), then Newcastle changed to a 4-5-1 and they absolutely battered us for the next 40 minutes until Fergie eventually gave up with the diamond and switched to a 4-5-1 as well to try and see the game out.

Basically we surprised them. As a long term strategy it would never work.
 
mancan92 said:
Nah if we had persisted with it I am 100% sure the players would have adapted.
Click to expand...
They had already adopted tbh. I don't believe we lost a single game with that formation and a a 3-0 win away to Newcastle was particularly impressive. I'm convinced us having so many wingers meant Fergie could never use it long term.
 
bishblaize said:
@MoneyMay - I think the reason that Fergie ditched the diamond was simply down to the players available to us. Forget how their seasons panned out, back then we all thought Nani, Young and Valencia would play a big role in the season ahead and that they should be accommodated. Its generally a good idea to have a first choice formation and stick with it, even if you need to be flexible. A diamond formation was never going to be more than a backup for us.

Generally speaking I'm not a fan of the diamond, though of course in football any fairly sane system can work if it suits the players and troubles the opposition.

The main problem is that I don't really see the advantage over playing 4-3-3. Assume in your diamond you're going for 3 midfielders, a number 10 and two strikers. Your No. 10 isn't going to be doing too much tracking back so you actually only have three people covering the opposition, the same as you get in a 4-3-3. On the other hand if you play 4 midfielders in the diamond, you face a supply problem, as you'll struggle to get the ball to your strikers unless one takes over as the number 10.

On the other hand a 4-3-3 has more options. You can play three strikers and go all out. You can play a number 10 and two strikers just the same as in a diamond. Or you can play two wingers and one striker, use a lot more width and drop into a 4-5-1 when you're being pushed back by the opposition, good for away games. Or you can use one winger and two strikers a la Ronaldo/Tevez/Rooney. Or other variations on the theme.
Click to expand...

Largely agree with this reasoning.

The only problem is fitting both Rooney and RVP into some sort of trio up front. If you can get Rooney to play well in a wide-ish role, you're sorted. But it's by no means certain that he will do well in such a role. If we dare think about dropping one of them, it looks very good right away:

Januzaj - RVP (Rooney) - Mata. Perfect for that set-up, you'd think. Play Carrick - Fletcher (Fellaini) - Kagawa behind them, say. Or play Mata in the AM role. Plenty of possibilities there.
 
Mystry said:
It was awful. It was an overreaction to us getting constantly overrun in midfield when we were playing at least one of Scholes and Giggs. Turns out replacing them with someone whose legs hadn't gone was a better solution. It was also a way to play three of our four strikers in a bid to keep them all happy and give them game time. Perhaps it might have worked better had Kagawa been the top of the diamond and Rooney alongside RVP with either another central midfielder or a wide player taking the right side. As someone has already said, we only really played well at Newcastle, all the other times we were poor and didn't create much. I remember away to Cluj being particularly awful.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with the Kagawa at the tip comment.

The central midfielders just weren't/aren't good enough or suited to playing that way. Against Cluj it was Anderson and Cleverley in the two side role IIRC, which was never going to work terribly well.

I seem to remember our centre mids playing the role in a strange way and getting quite wide, as opposed to playing narrow. When Italy, Milan etc play that formation the likes of Gattuso stayed much more centrally, whereas from what I can recall Cleverley and Anderson were actually often pulling out to the flanks. That may be a viable tactic but I've never seen it happen before.
 
I think Rooney can be very effective from the left. It's where he naturally drifts anyway and allows him to cut in and shoot, as well as put in a lovely cross when the mood takes him.

Thinking about it, a lot of his best work in the CL this season has started with him getting possession to the left of the opposition box.
 
This generation of football fans are getting too hung up on formations. 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3 are quite interchangeable during games. Just need a bit of flexibility and intelligence from the players, and coaches to make slight adjustments if needs must during a game.
 
Sultan said:
This generation of football fans are getting too hung up on formations. 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3 are quite interchangeable during games. Just need a bit of flexibility and intelligence from the players, and coaches to make slight adjustments if needs must during a game.
Click to expand...

Aye, you're right - there's a tendency to focus too much on the numbers, and they don't mean much in themselves. When I say "4-3-3" what I mean is basically this: An extra man in the middle of the park compared to how we usually play. And no line hugging winger. Valencia in our system is incompatible with what I would call a 4-3-3.
 
I don't like the diamond. Yes you create a numerical advantage in midfield, but at what cost? If you come up against an opponent that's happy to leave a 4 vs 3 in midfield and pushes 2 wide men forwards to stop the full backs, you're going to be powerless against their upcoming full backs. If they've got a hardworking midfield the spare man isn't going to make a decisive difference there, but the constantly overloaded wings will. As a surprise tactic it might work, but why put yourself at such a disadvantage? It seems to me that the most balanced tactic is still having 3 bodies in midfield and 2 wide men, in whatever configuration you prefer.
 
Teams packing central midfield gives us an opportunity to dictate space on the wings. The problems not the formation, more an issue with players. Our wingers have lost form, and have failed to score goals, and not put it crosses expected of quality wingers. We have also lacked a quality box to box midfielder for a number of years who can make timely runs into the box increasing numbers in the box and score a few goals. Basically besides RvP and Rooney, and Welbeck for a few games this season we have been lacking a goal threat from every other part of the pitch.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
I think Rooney can be very effective from the left. It's where he naturally drifts anyway and allows him to cut in and shoot, as well as put in a lovely cross when the mood takes him.

Thinking about it, a lot of his best work in the CL this season has started with him getting possession to the left of the opposition box.
Click to expand...

Well the left side makes him cry though so its obviously not an option
 
Plenty of systems can work in football. We won the league by 11 pts playing wide players last season, so if you suggest that over the course of the summer 4-4-2 became redundant, expect people to laugh at you
 
I believe it was our game against Braga in the CL last season that convinced Fergie to stop using the midfield diamond (aka the 4312).

Formation:

Fletcher
Cleverley....Kagawa
Rooney
van Persie Hernandez
​
We won the game 3-2, but as the game went on Braga found more and more space down our flanks, especially on our left where Buttner doesn't have the raw speed of Rafael.

We didn't concede a goal to these onslaughts (Braga's goals came in the first 20 minutes), but we very easily could have, and we have to remember this was only Braga.

Just for the pure joy of watching such an attacking line-up I was completely unconcerned about the defensive issues, however.
 
I always thought it was a 4-1-4-1 not a diamond. It looked that way against Braga.
 
To me it's more of a question about why did he become so one dimensional in single games. We go into a game playing diamond and we stuck to it. We go into a game with a plan to play down the right and we stuck with it. It didn't often matter that things weren't working so to make slight adjustments, change in approach - it was the whole idea of square peg in round hole and trying to hammer it in.

We often lament the days of when we had Tevez, Ronaldo, Rooney and whoever else on the field. The thing about that period was the pattern to our play would/could change in an instant during the game. Things weren't quite working for Ronnie on the right, he'd end up switching wings. One player would come in field and another would go outside.

Yes, we've always played with width but, it wasn't the end all. The thing about United is we are able to with the quality of personnel we've had been able to adapt our play to the situations.

So to me it's less about formations and more about being able to use all of our strengths as the situation evolves on the field. On a day putting the ball out wide right, then switch wingers or look to come inside more. Getting over run in midfield, have someone drop in more to give options.

With all our attacking players we've got the ability to not play in a singular way in games with everyone in a fixed position for the entirety. Even Valencia who is the most limited in where he can play still can be moved to play in field more.

I used to laugh at the idea of beautiful football from Arsenal, how they would play with a singular thought and not be able to adjust, unfortunately we've fallen into that trap now and not even the "beautiful" brand where at the least you can enjoy the intricate play even if the result is nothing.
 
Sultan said:
This generation of football fans are getting too hung up on formations. 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3 are quite interchangeable during games. Just need a bit of flexibility and intelligence from the players, and coaches to make slight adjustments if needs must during a game.
Click to expand...
That's it exactly. Formation is not the issue as the difference in the latest fad for 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 is next to nothing. The mentality and freedom is the key.
 
Because United always play their best football when played with a semblance of width. Sadly, both Sir Alex and more so Moyes, have struggled to strike a balance in recent years. And somebody should tell Moyes that whacking 81 crosses into the box isn't utilising width and attacking play in the way United have of old.

I think Sultan is right in saying that the formation isn't what's important. It's about the player movement, imagination and creativity, all of which can be worked upon on the training field. City play with two strikers, as do we, but Pellegrini and his coaching staff have got their players playing with a real freedom, with some awesome passing plays. Rodgers does the same with Liverpool.

The diamond was poor. We looked better through the midfield, naturally, but we looked toothless in attack and struggled for goals as a result - the first 20 minutes at St James' notwithstanding. The best way to play is to mix it up, and I think both Bayern and Dortmund last season were great examples of that. They used width, yet focused their play through the centre, too. Pace out wide and some real technique through the centre.

I think we do have the players to achieve similar results without having to bulk up the midfield with a diamond. By playing three in midfield, with Mata given an attacking role at the tip, we could give a three of Januzaj, Van Persie and Rooney a real freedom to move about and make runs in behind defences. Januzaj and Rooney could tuck in when necessary, and both are dynamic and energetic. The midfield wouldn't suffer as a result. I really, really want us to move to a 433. Sadly, it isn't happening under Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.