The cry for 4-4-2


Status
Not open for further replies.
No reason why 442 can't work, it's just not fashionable atm.
There is, because sides playing 3 in the middle can effectively make it seem like the team playing 442 has 10 men. The 2 strikers end up isolated and the 2 centre midfielders are overrun.

You see it all the time these days when a well drilled 4231 comes up against a 442.
 
There is, because sides playing 3 in the middle can effectively make it seem like the team playing 442 has 10 men. The 2 strikers end up isolated and the 2 centre midfielders are overrun.

You see it all the time these days when a well drilled 4231 comes up against a 442.
8 men behind the ball against 6 attacking. 2 up top at all times means they always have to leave at least 3 back. You either go long to a target man or hit on the break with a quick winger.

You just need discipline and legs in midfield.
 
8 men behind the ball against 6 attacking. 2 up top at all times means they always have to leave at least 3 back. You either go long to a target man or hit on the break with a quick winger.

You just need discipline and legs in midfield.
Then you end up with the 2 forwards being isolated and relying on hopeful balls forward. The other team wins the ball and puts them straight under pressure again.

It's just not a recipe for success at the top level anymore which is why nobody uses the system. Tactically the game has moved on a lot in the last 10 years.
 
Then you end up with the 2 forwards being isolated and relying on hopeful balls forward. The other team wins the ball and puts them straight under pressure again.

It's just not a recipe for success at the top level anymore which is why nobody uses the system. Tactically the game has moved on a lot in the last 10 years.
Football is a simple game.
 
Didn't Brian Clough once say it's players that win games, not tactics?

40 years ago maybe. Very naive to believe that this is true now, so much more goes into the tactical side of the game than ever before it really is decided by tiny details. Just have to look around all of the successful teams and note that very very few of them use anything other than 451 or a similar variant of it. There is a reasoning behind this and isn’t just coincidence or that “managers are afraid of change”.
 
40 years ago maybe. Very naive to believe that this is true now, so much more goes into the tactical side of the game than ever before it really is decided by tiny details. Just have to look around all of the successful teams and note that very very few of them use anything other than 451 or a similar variant of it. There is a reasoning behind this and isn’t just coincidence or that “managers are afraid of change”.
Aye of course you're right like, it used be a team of 11 players trying to kick a round ball into their opponents goal, a simple game. Now it's more reminiscent of a battle field with tactics, strategies and formations. You could of course be a master of all these and still have shite players, so Cloughy is right after all ;):D
 
40 years ago maybe. Very naive to believe that this is true now, so much more goes into the tactical side of the game than ever before it really is decided by tiny details. Just have to look around all of the successful teams and note that very very few of them use anything other than 451 or a similar variant of it. There is a reasoning behind this and isn’t just coincidence or that “managers are afraid of change”.
In 1966 they said that Ramsey was mad not to play with wingers.

Our 1973 team wasn’t 4-4 effing two.

Beckenbauer played a libero role, Italian teams had the catennacio defence etc.

Managers were not naive imbeciles, they adapted and used tactics just like modern ones do. Herbert chapman had revolutionary ideas.

In 10 years time a genius will be using 4-4 f***ing two!
 
You can make any formation work with the right players - 3 at the back became fashionable again after Chelsea won the league but nobody had played it for donkeys years. But we don't have the right players.

But in any case, people keep calling for 2 strikers because we aren't scoring many, but we aren't scoring because we don't get enough players up to support and don't move the ball around quick enough. What would change by swapping a midfielder for a striker? Presume one of the two would have to be Wyke but he's a targetman and regardless whether you play one up front or two you need your wingers to whip quick crosses in, whereas we have McGeady who tries to beat his man over and over and dink balls in to the back post.
 
In 1966 they said that Ramsey was mad not to play with wingers.

Our 1973 team wasn’t 4-4 effing two.

Beckenbauer played a libero role, Italian teams had the catennacio defence etc.

Managers were not naive imbeciles, they adapted and used tactics just like modern ones do. Herbert chapman had revolutionary ideas.

In 10 years time a genius will be using 4-4 f***ing two!
Well said marra, tactics, formations and strategies are not a modern day football invention but without the right players it all means nothing. Cloughy built his Forrest team with players he felt could do specific roles within his team, players that individually were nowt particularly special but as a team they conquered Europe.
 
Well said marra, tactics, formations and strategies are not a modern day football invention but without the right players it all means nothing. Cloughy built his Forrest team with players he felt could do specific roles within his team, players that individually were nowt particularly special but as a team they conquered Europe.
Kenny burns and Robertson were cast offs iirc.

For us, halom did nowt elsewhere, Guthrie was a reserve at the mags, and Watson was a centre forward!

I remember reading years ago as a kid that managers should choose the formation and tactics for the players at their disposal - now managers buy players to fit a system.
 
Last edited:
You can make any formation work with the right players - 3 at the back became fashionable again after Chelsea won the league but nobody had played it for donkeys years. But we don't have the right players.

But in any case, people keep calling for 2 strikers because we aren't scoring many, but we aren't scoring because we don't get enough players up to support and don't move the ball around quick enough. What would change by swapping a midfielder for a striker? Presume one of the two would have to be Wyke but he's a targetman and regardless whether you play one up front or two you need your wingers to whip quick crosses in, whereas we have McGeady who tries to beat his man over and over and dink balls in to the back post.
People blaming McGeady for not crossing quickly need to remember he has 1 isolated striker to hit. Put two strikers in the box and it is a diffirent ball game!

Playing two wingers with 1 isolated striker is a bit daft.
 
Kenny burns and Robertson were cast offs iirc.

For us, halom did nowt elsewhere, Guthrie was a reserve at the mags, and Watson was a centre forward!

I remember reading years ago as a kid that managers should choose the formation and tactics for the players at their disposal - now managers buy players to fit a system.
Spot on, Robertson had his own problems with drink iirc but Cloughy kept faith with him, didn't he drop Archie Gemmill in the final in favour of Robertson who went on to play a blinder? Made Francis the first £1m player then stuck him in the team for the final, can't remember the lad that got dropped, for Francis to score the winning goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top