4-4-2: Why yes and why not

[Tony Minoldo]

Most coaches and players in England prefer to use a flat 4-4-2 formation.

Why?

[spacey]

I would have thought most coaches around the world play 442, but you would would be in a better position than me to answer that having coached abroad.

One of the reasons teams play 442 is due to the success of the formation when you look at the most succesful teams recently, the majority of them have played 442. (Man Utd, Arsenal, France, Brazil, Italy) I would also say (guess) that every team that has won the World Cup after 1966 probably played 442

Its the way they play 442 it that differs though.

Overall though most teams at least play with four at the back, a few might play 433 or 451 and some play 352 and a few 343

At WSFL and SCFL level I think the majority of teams also play 442 team management and players are more comfortable with it than other formations.

[slim shady]

It's because we aren't good enough to play any other way.

Steve

[Tony Minoldo]

Spacey,

I disagree: Italy didn't play 4-4-2 in the last world cup (4-2-3-1 0r 4-5-1 most of the time, neither did France (4-2-3-1 in both 1998 and 2000).

At WSPL we don't play 4-4-2, but you're right, we might be the exception...

[spacey]

Spacey,

I disagree: Italy didn't play 4-4-2 in the last world cup (4-2-3-1 0r 4-5-1 most of the time, neither did France (4-2-3-1 in both 1998 and 2000).

At WSPL we don't play 4-4-2, but you're right, we might be the exception...

Well whatever they played it worked,

So what formation do you play in the WSFL then?

[Tony Minoldo]

I can't tell you know, we still have 6 matches to play and I know that at least one person from Dorking W and one from TD Shipley use this forum... But basically, I coach my teams to play with 2-3 different formations in training, so we can swith between formation in the middle of a match if needed.

[bakes]

i think thats the right way to go about it the main 3 probably being 4-4-2 4-3-3 and 3-5-2

i think most teams play a 4-4-2 as its the most adaptable formation, with more coverage/discussion these days people begin to analyse more and realise that often teams are playin a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1. where as before this was just a 4-4-2???

keeping a 4-4-2 is very easy keep your team shape and change your style of play. where as some other formations can tend to dictate the way u play.

possibly another reason why is that players arent coached at a young age in anything other than a 4-4-2. so then these 2nd striker roles, target man, anchor man, play maker roles, interchanging midfielders. become hard to find. and a lot of the time managers/coaches are forced to play a formation dictated to them by the players they have??
not necesarrly the right thing to do, but then it always seems to come back to what i think is our biggest problem in this country, which is our enphasis being too much on winning to the detrement of the long term???

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

I think that sometumes coaches try to put round pegs into square holes with formations because that's what they know. I do believe that players should be adaptable and I try to teach kids generic football skills that apply to all positions, but............why not play to your strengths within a team. If you've got an awesome sweeper, use him!! If you've got someone that can genuinly play as an attacking midfielder and not just a lazy rat that wants to be a luxury player then use them in that role.

Play a formation that uses the strengths of the players you've got and try to hide the weaknesses.

[Lord Zola]

I think that sometumes coaches try to put round pegs into square holes with formations because that's what they know. I do believe that players should be adaptable and I try to teach kids generic football skills that apply to all positions, but............why not play to your strengths within a team. If you've got an awesome sweeper, use him!! If you've got someone that can genuinly play as an attacking midfielder and not just a lazy rat that wants to be a luxury player then use them in that role.

Play a formation that uses the strengths of the players you've got and try to hide the weaknesses.

Makes perfect sense Jack, a coach in the making...............

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

I can't wait to be a coach/manager mate. You'd definately be my first signing

[Big Sus]

I sometimes wonder whether too much is made of formations. Obviously you need some form of structure but the honest truth of it all is that PLAYERS WIN FOOTBALL MATCHES NOT FORMATIONS

[Geoff]

Hitler thought he could win without a formation to...

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

I sometimes wonder whether too much is made of formations. Obviously you need some form of structure but the honest truth of it all is that PLAYERS WIN FOOTBALL MATCHES NOT FORMATIONS

Although I appreciate what you're saying about the players on the pitch actually winning the game, if the tactics aren't correct for the players and the opposition you will undoubtably lose. Tactics play a major part football. Look at what Rafa Benitez can do against some of the top sides. In a one-off game I'd have him as my manager over anyone else in the world.
Tactics can also motivate and demotivate players depending on whether or not they like/agree with the formation or job thay have been given. Tactics are more improtant than many people think. It is very important to be flexible with your tactics and be able to change throughout a season/game to adapt to your environment.
So in conclusion I agree that to a certain extent the players win matches but if they don't know their jobs within the team you may as well have any old idiot playing for you.

[Big Sus]

Although I appreciate what you're saying about the players on the pitch actually winning the game, if the tactics aren't correct for the players and the opposition you will undoubtably lose. Tactics play a major part football. Look at what Rafa Benitez can do against some of the top sides. In a one-off game I'd have him as my manager over anyone else in the world.
Tactics can also motivate and demotivate players depending on whether or not they like/agree with the formation or job thay have been given. Tactics are more improtant than many people think. It is very important to be flexible with your tactics and be able to change throughout a season/game to adapt to your environment.
So in conclusion I agree that to a certain extent the players win matches but if they don't know their jobs within the team you may as well have any old idiot playing for you.

Captain JS please read what I wrote again mate. I know you have to have some sort of structure BUT my point is you can have all the tactics in the world but if your opposition change theirs then your up a certain creek without a paddle !!

At this level it is the PLAYERS who can influence results moreso than formations and tactics, BUT this is only my opinion mate

[Tony Minoldo]

What come first, the hen or the egg??? Both tactics and players are important, I think we can argue for ages without reaching an agreement, but I can see Big Sus point too, but I wouldn't say "at this level".

A manager plans every detail, then his striker misses and open goal, or the referee gives a dubious penalty against your team, or your keeper let's the ball in from a corner, and all your plans go to heck...All those three have happened to my teams in the past...

Or the opponents have a free kick, the ball hits a forward in the shoulder when the keeper is commited to the other side and you concede a goal (Milan v Liverpool, UCL 2007 final)?? What happen then to the tactics then?

In sum, I think that tactics, strategies, schemes, plans A and plans B are all of paramount importance, but end of the days the players are the ones who put them into action...