flat 4-4-2

[Fibonacci91]

Can someone explain to me the advantages of a flat 4-4-2 other than it means you can play two strikers and you can con the fans into thinking your trying to play in an attacking manner.

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

 

Below are my very simple diagrams of our formations, they simply had more players in more locations on the pitch than we did.

 

- - - -

- - - -

 - -

 

 ---

-     -

  ---

  - -

   -

[Dronfield Blue]

2 minutes ago, Fibonacci91 said:

Can someone explain to me the advantages of a flat 4-4-2 other than it means you can play two strikers and you can con the fans into thinking your trying to play in an attacking manner.

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

 

Below are my very simple diagrams of our formations, they simply had more players in more locations on the pitch than we did.

 

- - - -

- - - -

 - -

 

 ---

-     -

  ---

  - -

   -

 

Is that in braille?

[rosstiga]

22 minutes ago, Fibonacci91 said:

Can someone explain to me the advantages of a flat 4-4-2 other than it means you can play two strikers and you can con the fans into thinking your trying to play in an attacking manner.

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

 

Below are my very simple diagrams of our formations, they simply had more players in more locations on the pitch than we did.

 

- - - -

- - - -

 - -

 

 ---

-     -

  ---

  - -

   -

100% agree with this, great post.

 

Effectively gives them an extra man, mainly in midfield, so our wide players are forced inside leaving our full backs hopelessly exposed. 

 

And to make matters worse, in possession the plan is for us to play a fairly slow tempo passing game in the areas that we're outnumbered. 

 

Leicester are the only team I can think of who have had success recently playing 442, but they tended to bypass midfield and use Vardy's pace and Okazaki's energy. Plus, it helped that Kante does the work of three men in midfield. 

[gurujuan]

Think it's an out of date system, that probably suits our out of date players

[Owl999]

35 minutes ago, Dronfield Blue said:

 

Is that in braille?

It’s Morse code for I’m a clueless Portuguese fuckwit .

[Mr. Tom]

41 minutes ago, Fibonacci91 said:

Can someone explain to me the advantages of a flat 4-4-2 other than it means you can play two strikers and you can con the fans into thinking your trying to play in an attacking manner.

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

 

Below are my very simple diagrams of our formations, they simply had more players in more locations on the pitch than we did.

 

- - - -

- - - -

 - -

 

 ---

-     -

  ---

  - -

   -

 

12 minutes ago, rosstiga said:

100% agree with this, great post.

 

Effectively gives them an extra man, mainly in midfield, so our wide players are forced inside leaving our full backs hopelessly exposed. 

 

And to make matters worse, in possession the plan is for us to play a fairly slow tempo passing game in the areas that we're outnumbered. 

 

Leicester are the only team I can think of who have had success recently playing 442, but they tended to bypass midfield and use Vardy's pace and Okazaki's energy. Plus, it helped that Kante does the work of three men in midfield. 

 

Quite literally gives them an extra man, judging by the OP's figures and diagrams

[HendOwl]

Old adage. Doesn't matter what formation it is it players that count. If you only play with one  player that knows how to defend and is strong and tough then guess what happens?

Great at 2.2 but..., 

[Earlsfieldowl]

1 hour ago, rosstiga said:

100% agree with this, great post.

 

Effectively gives them an extra man, mainly in midfield, so our wide players are forced inside leaving our full backs hopelessly exposed. 

 

And to make matters worse, in possession the plan is for us to play a fairly slow tempo passing game in the areas that we're outnumbered. 

 

Leicester are the only team I can think of who have had success recently playing 442, but they tended to bypass midfield and use Vardy's pace and Okazaki's energy. Plus, it helped that Kante does the work of three men in midfield. 

 

Always the problem with 442 but our manager can't or won't see it.

 

Whenever teams line up against us with 5 in midfield or a variation thereof my heart sinks.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Earlsfieldowl

[OhForAnotherShez]

2 hours ago, Fibonacci91 said:

 

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

Did they sneak 11 outfield players on?

[frastheowl]

 

3-5-2 (or 5-3-2) was a system used to nullify the 4-4-2 originally. 

 

The three centre halves, gives you an extra man at the back, and the you out number the 4-4-2 in centre midfield. And you still have the luxury of playing 2 strikers up against two central defenders. 

 

The weak points are obviously the wings, where you can technically get overloaded. However, when you're up against a 4-4-2 system where the wingers cut inside and play very narrow, it kind of nullifies that advantage.

 

On paper, (and we all know football isn't played on paper), Reach & Hunt, along with Bannan & Wallace, should've caused overloads against their wing backs today. But, it didn't happen. Hunt saw a lot of the ball, but was poor with it, and Wallace struggled to find space in behind their left back. Reach was non-existant going forward in the first half, but wasn't helped by Bannan, literally roaming about wherever he wanted. Not once did Bannan & Reach combine in the 1st half today, with any success.

 

Because we didn't expose the weakness in their system, it meant we had to nullify ours. And we didn't. Their midfield dominated in the 1st half, Jones & Lee were passengers, and our totally naive strategy of allowing both full backs to advance, left a 2 vs 2 on almost every occasion United broke.

 

It was an absolute clusterfook of a tactical display. Totally shambolic. Even during our best period in the second half, we continued to look likely to concede on the break. Ever since the beginning of last season, we have struggled to find any sort of balance or control to our performances. It seems we're either very sound defensively, but toothless going forward (i.e. our more typical away performance) or it's gung ho, throw everything forward and look vulnerable to counter attacks.

 

I could probably count on one hand, the number of games where we have controlled the majority of a game since the start of last season. It's worrying...especially considering, in his first season, tactically, Carlos was fantastic and innovative. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by frastheowl

[basegreenowl]

Our manager hasn't got much of a plan B let alone multiple systems. A diamond 4-4-2 can work but a flat 4-4-2 gets found out in this modern game. Might work in League 2 or the likes. Our manager as gone with this season upon season. Season upon season we have failed. This open system with our kind of players seems to fail against a system teams and in the big games. We were overpowered playing this way in the play-off and this derby game. Knew in a big game against a 'system' team we would fail like we did in the play-offs. So automatic has slipped already and yes we might make the play-offs but really with these players, in an open 4-4-2, with this manager? What's the point in trying again. It will be fail number 3. Do the right thing chairman! With these players we should be challenging! Need systems and someone with a promotion track record!

Edited September 24, 2017 by basegreenowl

[frastheowl]

Just now, basegreenowl said:

Our manager hasn't got much of a plan B let alone multiple systems. A diamond 4-4-2 can work but a flat 4-4-2 gets found out in this modern game. Might work in League 2 or the likes. Our manager as gone with this season upon season. Season upon season we have failed. This open system with our kind of players seems to fail against a system teams and in the big games. We were overpowered playing this way in the play-off fails and this derby game. Knew in a big game against a 'system' team we would fail like we did in the play-offs. So automatic has slipped already and yes we might may the play-offs but really with these players in an open 4-4-2 with this manager? What's the point in trying again. It will be fail number 3. Do the right thing chairman! With these players we should be challenging! Need systems and someone with a promotion track record!

 

That's rubbish.

 

Leicester won the most unlikely League title of a generation playing a flat 4-4-2.

 

Atletico Madrid, one of Europe's most consistent teams over the past 4 seasons, play a flat 4-4-2. 

 

Brighton & Newcastle got promoted from this division last season, playing 4-4-2. 

 

A 4-4-2 can work, just as 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 5-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-2-1 etc. etc. all can work. It's all about utilising the players you have, making the most of the systems inherent strengths and nullifying it's weaknesses. 

[basegreenowl]

13 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

That's rubbish.

 

Leicester won the most unlikely League title of a generation playing a flat 4-4-2.

 

Atletico Madrid, one of Europe's most consistent teams over the past 4 seasons, play a flat 4-4-2. 

 

Brighton & Newcastle got promoted from this division last season, playing 4-4-2. 

 

A 4-4-2 can work, just as 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 5-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-2-1 etc. etc. all can work. It's all about utilising the players you have, making the most of the systems inherent strengths and nullifying it's weaknesses. 

How come we get found out then if its a winning system? Suppose players have to fit the system. Some of them mentioned teams have better players than us it is fair to say. Newcastle had the likes of Shelvey and Hayden in that system. We haven't got that luxury. I sure know there are better systems than 4-4-2 for our group of players. Why is it we have looked powerless in in all the play-off games and the derby yesterday against teams playing different systems? Sheffield United are not Real Madrid. Man to man we should not be losing 2-4! How many systems as Carlos played often since his arrival?

[sheriwozgod]

4 - 4 - 2  Can work with the right players, both Burnley and Brighton got promoted with it.............but anyone other than Carlos looking at our lopsided one dimensional squad (one that he put together lets not forget) would very quickly decide that 4 - 4 - 2 is the LAST system we should be playing as we are weak at full back, have no real mobile ball winners in midfield and painfully slow "wingers".

 

EVERYONE can see this so;

 

A  Why cant Carlos ???

B  Why have we spent big money on players like Abdi and Mattias if he is so intent on playing 4 - 4 - f***in 2

[S36 OWL]

Carlos`s 4-4-2 is bizarre. Our midfield is badly unbalanced and lobsided because of his obsession with shoehorning three centre mids into a midfield four. The result of this means we have no width down one side and makes us very narrow and easy to play against because we cant stretch teams . 

[Mike Hunt]

I said when Van Aken was signed that he was perfect for a back 3 and yesterday underlined the fact , against 1 + 1 which Utd played it would have given us the extra man  against Leon and Brookes and our fullbacks pushing forward into the midfield making 5 when necessary . 

 

Van Aken is quality no doubt but games like yesterday is a step too far for the lad at this stage . 

 

Their defenders are not a patch on ours IMO but they tackled and headed everything while we were chasing shadows .

[Matt_1]

3-5-2

Westwood

Lee - Loovens (when fit) - Joost

Hunt - Reach

Hutch (when fit)

Lee - Bannan

Hooper - Fletcher

 

Let's try and be unpredictable for once.

[Lord Snooty]

13 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

A 4-4-2 can work, just as 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 5-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-3-2-1 etc. etc. all can work. It's all about utilising the players you have, making the most of the systems inherent strengths and nullifying it's weaknesses. 

 

This ^^^^^^^

 

Quote

How come we get found out then if its a winning system? Suppose players have to fit the system. Some of them mentioned teams have better players than us it is fair to say. Newcastle had the likes of Shelvey and Hayden in that system. We haven't got that luxury. I sure know there are better systems than 4-4-2 for our group of players. Why is it we have looked powerless in in all the play-off games and the derby yesterday against teams playing different systems? Sheffield United are not Real Madrid. Man to man we should not be losing 2-4! How many systems as Carlos played often since his arrival?

 

Leicester were able to do it because in Drinkwater and Kante they had two absolute stamina monsters in the middle of the park. 

 

They also had full backs who were just that. Full backs. 

Simpson and Fuchs barely stepped over the half way line the season they won the title. It was a 'proper' defensive back four.

 

More than half their goals came on the counter with a direct ball over for a pacy striker. 

 

It can be done.

We just don't have two central midfield machines. Full backs who can defend for 90 Minutes or a striker with any pace.

 

Which does beg the question why we persevere with it.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Lord Snooty

[pgmetcalf]

19 hours ago, Fibonacci91 said:

Can someone explain to me the advantages of a flat 4-4-2 other than it means you can play two strikers and you can con the fans into thinking your trying to play in an attacking manner.

 

It seemed today that they played a 3-2-3-2-1 (or something like that). This meant they had players physically located between our very flat lines. This meant that by default, simply due to the fact that they had players physically stood in more locations on the place than we did, that they were able to pick up 50-50s and dominate the spaces. 

 

Below are my very simple diagrams of our formations, they simply had more players in more locations on the pitch than we did.

 

- - - -

- - - -

 - -

 

 ---

-     -

  ---

  - -

   -

 

We don't play a flat 442 we play with wing backs ... that aren't covered when they get forward. More importantly the wings backs are ineffective going forward anyway. All the opposition has to do is hoof it into the corners - basic stuff. It's not a recent scenario 

Edited September 25, 2017 by pgmetcalf

[ash60s]

U can have any system, any formation but.......

It's players not plays - think about it.

Blunts did us and did us badly, they wanted it we thought we did!