Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

[Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?]

Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

Yes - please state why

 3 (12%)

No - please state why

 2 (8%)

It's just not as fashionable as other formations right now

 4 (16%)

4-4-2 will always be popular but it is ultimately flawed against modern systems

 16 (64%)

Total Members Voted: 25

[Crouchaldinho]

Is the 4-4-2 outmoded or even becoming obsolete?

During England's World Cup campaign, I have heard this said a great deal by pundits, the media and also people on various football forums. The idea that you can no longer get away with playing a 4-4-2 at the top level and that it is old fashioned or even outmoded seems to be a popular one. I just wanted to gauge opinion on this matter and generate some discussion.

So what is your opinion? It would be great if you could explain your choice as well as selecting your preferred option on the poll.

To clarify one point, the poll is essentially a 'real life' question but I'm also interested in talking about 4-4-2 on FM as well. Many articles and commentators here in England are talking about Capello's tactics being outdated and the 4-4-2 being obsolete. I'm interested in hearing opinions on this specifically and hopefully we can relate this to FM and talk about that as well. (However, if the moderators feel that this would be better in a different part of the FM Britain forums, then that is fine too!)

[Crouchaldinho]

For those who might be interested, this has also been posted on the SI Forum:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=215321

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=215319

[Millie]

I don't think England's inability to play 4-4-2 necessarily shows that it's outmoded, but I do think that for it to work coaches and players alike need to break out of the mindset that:

- formations must be symmetrical
- there should be two full backs, two centre backs, two wingers, etc. etc.
- each position is rigid and must be adhered to

If Capello wanted to make a 4-4-2 work, he could have had a "#9" in Defoe or Crouch () and a "#10" in the Argentine mould (an "enganche"). In FM, that could be a 4-4-2 standard shape, or it could be a 4-4-1-1.

The left and/or right forward could be converted into an inside forward. Rooney could have done that job from the left, as could Walcott with some training. The other could be a more conventional winger, or an inside forward as well.

With both of those changes, we're entering the sort of territory of Germany's 4-2-3-1. But in a 4-4-2 shape on the tactics board.

The two central midfeilders could either both hold (a la Brazil), or one could act as a deep-lying playmaker (such as Pirlo) and the other as a more destructive midfielder (a bit like Rafa B*****z's central midfield).

Back fours are, to make a gross simplification, back fours. And there's plenty of well documented things you can do there.

So is the 4-4-2 dead? No. It depends on what you do with the players in it. You can set it up very much like a 4-2-3-1 and get the movement between lines that you need in modern football. But ostensibly it can be played with four "defenders", four "midfielders" and two "forwards" (with one of the forwards encouraged to roam around in the hole).

[cagiva]

Of course 4-4-2 is not dead.

Tottenham had succes based on this formation. The key things is that the formation should possess different type of players in the pair - ie in the wing-pair ( fullback + winger ) ,the pair of two MCs ,and the pair of two FCs.

There is many ways you could play your 4-4-2 formation.

Some quick examples :

1) Classic dribbling and crossing wingers,paired with classic TM upfront,paired with little and pacey poacher,and two destroyers in the centre.
This type of 4-4-2 is the so called "british one".
2) The "european type" of 4-4-2 consider one pure playmaker in the centre and different type of wingers and forwards. One of the winger could be the inside forward,the other - the defensive one. The central midfieders pair includes one more deep-lying playmaker,paired with one pure destroyer. Doing this the side have balance - have one destroyer in the centre,and one on the wing. The defensive winger could allow more freedom to the fullback behind him.
Upfront the pair could include one more ball-playing forward ( why not pure trequartista) and one more consumer-type forward/poacher. Doing this the playmaking forward will act as advanced playmer,who will help the DLP to build the team's attacks.
3) The third type ( I personal called it "The Spurs 4-4-2" ) is little bit mixture of these two types. Spurs have assymetrical ( as roles and duties ) winngers,the classic pair of forwards,and little bit "unclassic" pair of central midfielders. Even their fullbacks are different as roles and duties.

[Crouchaldinho]

Two interesting and well written answers.

For what it is worth, my thinking is along the same lines as Millie's post in particular.

I just thought that it was an interesting question to discuss. Also, I have recently been reading The Italian job by Vialli and Marcotti. In it, David Platt suggests that the 4-4-2 is the 'easiest formation to play if you are poor technically' and the 4-4-2 is described as the 'English tradition'.

The book makes the point that in order to play some other popular formations you need specialist players. For example, 3-5-2 needs wingbacks, 4-3-3 needs specialist wingers and to play 4-3-1-2 you need a no.10 who can play between the lines. You could also add the 4-2-3-1, where you need holding midfielders and attacking midfielders. It is suggested that these are some of the reasons that the English play 4-4-2, because they don't tend to have these types of players. Look at the England squad from this tournament and you could probably make the same argument about them. The book also mentions that the coaching system is poor, so while managers and coaches on the continent might switch between different formations and know various systems inside-out, the English managers/coaches stick with what they are familiar with and what they have used during their playing career - usually a 4-4-2.

It is worth noting that in the same book, Arsene Wenger also says the following about the 4-4-2:
'I think it is simply the most rational formation in most cases. In fact, it is the essence of reason. With a 4-4-2, sixty percent of your players are occupying sixty percent of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient in covering space'.

Cagiva, your comments are also spot on. It has been well documented that the 4-4-2 formations at the top level can often resemble 4-2-3-1 during certain phases of play. The midfielders can often act as a 'double pivot' with the wide players pushing on and one forward dropping off. However, the basic 4-4-2 shape is still firmly present, especially when defending with two banks of four (it is, however, common to see one of the strikers dropping off to do some defensive work or to show for the ball too). Now, for me that is something quite different to the 4-2-3-1 played by Liverpool under B*****z, for instance, where the shape is firmly in four bands and the attacking midfielder is not a second striker but can be defined as a midfielder (e.g. Gerrard). But it is also very different to the traditional English 4-4-2.

[Crouchaldinho]

How about in FM terms by the way?

I find the 4-4-2 solid wherever there is already a 4-4-2 culture (e.g. English lower leagues). However, whenever I play at the top, I tend to stop trusting in the 4-4-2, especially as you are coming up against formations like 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1/4-3-3 shapes which have numerical superiority in the centre of the field. I find 4-4-1-1 can be a good compromise at the top level, although I'm more likely to employ a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 shape when I'm playing with a top side.

It's also a case of having players that suit a 4-4-2 more than any other formation at lower levels. The players have less outstanding qualities and are less likely to specialise. As I said above, you need great wingers to play 4-3-3, or holders to play 4-2-3-1, or intelligent and creative playmakers to play between the lines in, for instance, 4-3-1-2. Furthermore, you need more complete forwards capable of successfully playing the role of a lone striker in these 4-5-1 variations. You don't often come across these players at the lower levels, which is why 4-4-2 probably still rules all. At the top level though, it could be a waste of great attacking talent to play certain players in a flat 4-4-2 because you would have to shoe-horn them into the system.

[cagiva]

You are right,but still Real M played somekind of modificiation of 4-4-2.

Kaka as AMC,Ronaldo as AMR,Xabi Alonso as MC,L.Diarra as DMC,Marcelo as ML.

Still such as formation suits all their players. And still their formation could be labelled as 4-4-2.

It's not essential ( or a must-thing to do ) to play in a flat 4-4-2 to be sure that the formation will be labeled as 4-4-2.

Bayern also played 4-4-2,but with two deep-lying MC,that could be labeled as DMCs,two advanced wingers and a pair of two forwards,one of which is dropping off.
But still the formation is 4-4-2.

[Crouchaldinho]

That's true Cagiva. I'm talking more about the two banks of four in flat lines. The traditional 4-4-2.

England's 4-4-2 was very much a classic, flat 4-4-2, apart from Steven Gerrard's position, of course.

[latzee]

You are right,but still Real M played somekind of modificiation of 4-4-2.

They most certainly do not, at least not this year. Pellegrini plays 4-2-2-2 system, he really dislikes permanently wide players (besides wing backs, of course) and always prefers to use more central players with both offensive midfielders and forwards expected to provide width when needed, and his plan B is 4-2-3-1 as the more defensive version of the same (but it is rarely used, only against stronger teams). Of course it wasn't always possible with Real as some of the players don't really fit that system (Kaka primarily, Ronaldo was perfectly happy playing that semi wide forward role), but basically that was his idea of how they should play.

As for 4-4-2 it is a question what exactly is considered 4-4-2.  Formations like Bayern's could be called 4-4-2, but they are not really that. Bayern plays 2 deep-lying midfielders in Schweinsteiger and Van Bommel, 2 inside forwards in Ribery and Robben, (probably closer to AML/R positions than ML/R really), and heavily split forwards, with Mueller playing something that certainly borders on AMC position and Olic spearheading the attack.  So it is more 4-2-3-1-ish than true 4-4-2.  It is not really that easy to draw the line where one formation starts and the other ends, they are really similar.

[Xulu]

The 4-4-2 is not dead overall. At upper levels it is maybe not as strong due to other formations (notably the 4-2-3-1), but it is still (along with the 4-3-3 and 3-4-3) the ideal formation of choice for lower sides. The 4-4-2 has amazing versatility and a lot of the variants of it can be played with no problems at upper levels I think; or even shades of the 4-4-2 into other systems like the 4-2-3-1. As per 4-4-2 with a flat midfield, well that's another story. It certainly will work at lower levels; the real question being will it work in uppers? I think that question hinges on the front 6, as the back 4 can be molded to fit whatever the front 6 do.

Starting with the forwards, the #10 (in the traditional sense) needs to primarily be a Deep-Lying Forward or Trequartista - not a Target Man. The reason is that the first two players can drop into the Midfield when you are outnumbered, thus easing the burden on your CMs when playing against most modern lone-striker systems. Now this does go into some gray areas as now you are moving towards a 4-4-1-1 (4-5-1 perhaps?), but I do not think that is anything too nit-picky. I suppose you could make this player an AMC Inside Forward as well, although that will make you change the dynamic of the #9 and it makes your #10 more of a midfielder than a forward. The problem with most Target Man style players is that they have to have a striker partner, and few are pacy enough to move around. As this player is not your main goal scorer that makes you play two up top all the time, instead of being able to play between two and one up top with a shadow. I think that the #10 will have to track back a little more and be involved with the midfield more if you play with two up top. This is not a post to condemn the Target Man though; the Target Man does have his place and it is very important - especially for direct teams and lower teams. Now if you have a Dennis Bergkamp-type player who could be a Deep-Lying Forward and a Target Man then you've got a perfect #10 to combine the two roles and thus play the 4-4-2 partnership both ways (Big/Quick v. Creator/Scorer) to give you lots of options. This player can exist in higher leagues, so perhaps worth a look?

The Midfield is the other place of fun. There are so many midfield combonations in the 4-4-2 that it is quite dizzying. I do not know if a "pure" flat line is good enough anymore at the top though. Wingers need to be able to press forward and halt the opposing fullbacks (who get so much press in modern formations). Ideally these players are between an ML/R and an AML/R. As for something else, making the Wingers have different duties/roles (a Winger on one side and a Wide Midfielder/Defensive Winger on the other for example) combined with a Wingback on the WM/DW side will give you dynamism and solidity. The CMs are something else to behold. I personally would like to see the twin Box-To-Box Midfielder engine room come back (think of the options for defending en masse and overloading in attack) and think such an option is feasible. Both players will need to be able to create and destroy at the top levels in a flat midfield 4-4-2 however, because otherwise it leaves you unbalanced and predictable. This is opposed to the predictability of a 4-2-3-1 however, because the clear roles assist here. I do not think the 4-4-2 needs roles to be as crystallized at the top levels, something that plays both for and against modern trends in the game with squad management (Universality v. Specialization).

[SFraser]

I think it is obsolete. The concession of space and numbers in all the key areas of the pitch is far too great a weakness for it to be anything other than an overwhelmingly defensive or overwhelmingly offensive formation.

We are seeing teams employing pure wide strikers now, not even aggressive Inside Forwards but actual strikers planted high and wide, while also employing four Central Midfielders. That's primarilly as a direct counter to the effectiveness of different types of 3 man midfields both defensively and offensively. When teams like Barcelona can dominate a 3 man midfield with 75% possession through the middle, and usually score a shedload of goals doing so, then conceding yet further numbers and space down the flanks in return for huge numbers of players through the middle is inevitable.

There isn't a vast evolutionary gap between the 4-4-2 and some of the more radical formations we are seeing more regularly today and the 4-4-2 is still a hugely important formation, and a very effective one in the right time and place, but it's not going to stand up to formations employing four through the middle to re-dress the balance of exceedingly effective three man midfields. The closest you are going to get to a "traditional" 4-4-2 is Capello playing three converted Central Midfielders as his wide players and we all saw how well that went.

I think we all just have to accept that the tactical battle for space, marking and "free men" through the centre has reached a level at top level football that the 4-4-2 is never going to return unless a side has overwhelming player superiority, and even then the 4-4-2 is going to be highly assymetric. The 4-4-2 does pop up now and again, especially in English sides, but usually as an ultra-defensive ultra-counter attacking 4-2-3-1 or when bigger sides are seiging the box of some utterly stalwart 10 man defence. I can't speak for it's prevailance in lower leagues but at the top level of the game I think it well and trully has had it's day.

Ofcourse we may end up talking about the 4-4-2 alot more in future, as teams play a central striker and a highly aggressive wide attacker ahead of a diamond or box midfield, but that's not the 4-4-2 we are talking about here.

[Arianyr]

I don't think the 4-4-2 is obsolete, per se... but this is the world cup we're talking about. At any other level (top leagues, possibly even champion's league) it still has a place.

What I would agree on, however, is how the 4-4-2 didn't suit England at all. On one hand they want to stick with a 4-4-2, but on the other hand you have Gerrard and Lampard. I don't think you can combine those two players in a 4-4-2 successfully. Putting Gerrard on the left is such a waste.

Either they should have put one of em on the bench, or opted for a 4-2-3-1

[NakS]

I don't have a well defined opinion about 4-4-2 is dead (I do believe formation is not the real point), but I would like to point out one thing that you maybe want to consider in your positional thinking.
Millie and Cagiva already spoken about it in previous post, 4-4-2 as a formation without opposition is symmetric right? But when you pick your players and set roles, this is not symmetric anymore, because the guy on the left side of the midfield is maybe like Kuyt and has a great work ethic, work rate and is defensively concerned. If you have a C.Ronaldo or somebody like that on the opposite side, you are not "really" playing 4-4-2 anymore.
Another example before I start think about your dilemma, is the "between the line" positionning. If you had spend some time studying Brazil formation

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/03/analysing-brazils-fluid-system-at-close-quarters/

You have noticed that Robinho is neither acting like a pure winger nor a "forward", nor as a offensive midfielder. So Brazil is highly asymmetrical.

My point is, I do not think 4-4-2 is dead, I just believe more and more formations at top level are using asymetrical formation (meaning roles) to suit the skills of the players they line up. So whatever your board formation is actually, you can start the game with a 4-5-1 formation and actually play like a 4-4-2, you just have to adapt if you are outnumbered in the middle (@Xulu post), make a forward marking the DMC or something like that. You "just" have to know how to use your player in the best way and how to counter the opposition, how to associate your players (not exactly like england did with Lampard-Gerrard), how to create partnership

So at the end you have the question: universality/specialization.  Like Crouchaldinho said, a 4 bands formation, 4-2-3-1 for example, is more likely to have "specialized" player in well defined role, but actually with the same XI, if you line up a 4-4-2, I insist with the same 11 "specialized" players, I don't think the opposite manager will be that troubled, he can be, but when you are in top level, you know how "specialized guy" are playing. For example, Makelele or Mascherano, in a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1, you actually know the job this kind of players will have, and it doesn't matter because they are defensively oriented and almost every side have a back fours and at least a holding guy, so I go for "specialization". But if you look at the offensive guys, they must not be predictable, top players like Rooney, Ronaldo or Messi can play almost wherever on the field (I mean in an offensive way), but I you line up Crouch or Inzaghi you are predictable, and poacher are disappearing...I go for versatile players high on the pitch.

My point is finally, if you only have "specialized" player, whatever your formation is, you will be predictable. But I have some highly versatile players along 1 or 2 specialized one, and especially in the miedfield, it will be more difficult to know what to expect for the opposite manager. Even asymmetric formation with specialized players can be predictable, so just line up a very classic 4-4-2 or even a 4-5-1, the main informations I think come from your players and a bit for your line up. Dynamics formation (in defense and attack) are much more important than your starting formation.

In Fm, it could be harder to do such a thing, because formation states where your player will be, I am not sure but I think in an average way. So you have to use individual setting to really do what you actually want, but this is still limited if you want to be very accurate, knowing that most of people not really care about such possibilities.

So I agree with the previous post, just wanted to think more about specialization and universality, sorry if it is off topic, I don't think so, but just in case

[SFraser]

My point is, I do not think 4-4-2 is dead, I just believe more and more formations at top level are using asymetrical formation (meaning roles) to suit the skills of the players they line up. So whatever your board formation is actually, you can start the game with a 4-5-1 formation and actually play like a 4-4-2, you just have to adapt if you are outnumbered in the middle (@Xulu post), make a forward marking the DMC or something like that.

That's the point though. The game is about the battle for control of space and numbers using specialist players, assymetry and exploitation of details and the 4-4-2 and indeed the 4-5-1 cannot effectively explain what is going on. It would be like calling Zona Mista a 4-4-2.

It is an "artifact" of popular culture that formations are simple, easy to explain, easy to remember, easy to define, and invariably utterly false.

Here is Alex Fergusons "4-5-1" from Manchester United versus AC Milan at the San Siro.



Every British channel showing this match had Park out wide in a 5 man midfield, because that's how they understand the game.

The actual 4-4-2 is obsolete on the pitch. The variations that can stem from 4-4-2 are called 4-4-2 even when never being a 4-4-2 because that is the popular perception of football.  A formation could be a 4-4-2 for about 5 minutes in an entire match when a defense is finally breached and the man sitting most advanced in a three man midfield bursts forward and scores, but despite playing three in midfield for 85 minutes, the British media call it a 4-4-2.

The difference between a Manchester United 4-4-2 and a Manchester United 4-5-1 towards the end of last season was whether Gibson or Berbatov was playing. If Berbatov plays it's a 4-4-2 despite the fact he is sitting in the exact same area of the pitch for the overwhelming majority of the game as Gibson would. If Gibson plays in Berbatovs deep right AM role then it's a 4-5-1 and not a 4-4-2.

And despite the fact that Manchester United showed an obvious tendency to attack down the right hand side of the pitch, despite the fact Rooney put in more crosses than Park did during 90 minutes of each match played, no one barring Zonal Marking and a couple other random internet sources ever showed Manchester United any other way than being completely symmetric with Park wide Left as a "winger".

When you classify everything erroneously and simply and everyone agrees with you, there is no need for depth and understanding, nor accuracy nor detail.


Manchester United play a 4-4-2. Why is Berbatov sitting infront of Scholes? Why is Berbatov dribbling down the right or left flank? Why is Rooney crossing for Fletcher? Why is Park mis-hitting shots from Inside Right? Why is Evra shooting from Inside Left? Ah wait, it's an "assymetric" 4-4-2 but still a 4-4-2 though. Utterly meaningless.

The reason the 4-4-2 isn't dead is because popular culture wont let it die.

[Millie]

Or, the reason we still talk in numbers is because the culture won't let it die. Though I agree that the days of two defenders, two full backs, two central midfielders, two wingers and two forwards are, at the highest level at least, over. For now.

[ViolentSilence]

I'm of the school of thought that there is no such thing as a bad formation, but a bad utilisation of players within it. A formation should utilise the players you have to their maximum potential, but I'd say that 4-4-2 might require a broader skillset than formations that use more specialist players. The ML and MR in a flat 4-4-2 need to be able to track back and tackle as much as they need to go forward which I'd say is something that isn't true of most modern wide players. This is a development brought about by the evolution of attacking fullbacks. Playing them advanced in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, you pass over a bit of the defensive responsibilities to central players.

Whatever formation you use should not be rigid though - I'd say that England's World Cup formation was an inflexible hybrid between 4-4-2 diamond on the left and a regular 4-4-2 on the right, but lost it's shape if the opposition attacked down our left side as it forced Ashley Cole to play more like an orthodox 4-4-2 fullback. I don't think being asymmetrical is as effective as having players understand how to move to create space and not leave too much space to be exploited, but is used as a result of not having players on both sides of the pitch of equal calibre. If you have the players, I'd say a symmetrical formation gives you more options but teams rarely do.

[game_breaker]

Fulham proofs 4-4-2 is not dead. It just have to be more flexible (itc wingers cutting in, wingbacks taking their place in hugging the line and going forward, having a floating forward, being able to eventually have your central midfielders drop deeper to have the ball out of pression, etc).

[Millie]

But the question is, does that stop it being a 4-4-2? Is a 4-4-2 "four defenders, four midfielders and two attackers", or is a system with two full backs, two centre backs, two wingers, two midfielders and two forwards?

I like to think of 4-4-2 as the former, especially in Football Manager where we have to think in terms of strata (SW, D, DM, M, AM, F) and sides (L, Cl, Cc, Cr, R). But in the big bad world I think talking in numbers actually oversimplifies what's going on.

[game_breaker]

the numbers are there exactly to simplify stuff, or at least i think so.

it's serves both the media and whoever else analyses the system teams are playing, and the managers explaining their players how they should behave in the field.

on the other hand, some people are just trying to overcomplicate things. telling a football player, who is usually dumb as a wall that he is going to play the "false 9" role will problably not be a good idea. you just tell him he's a forward and give him additional instructions such as dropping deeper, moving as much as he can, aiming to create chances and not only limiting himself to poaching goals, etc...

it also shows that having a gelled squad is nice. explaining the Man Unt player's what the "Park" role is will certainly be possible. But imagine yourself explaining that thing to some other squad that couldn't care less about Man Utd and don't even believe in tactical nuances anyways (sides in Brasil come to my mind)...

[SFraser]

the numbers are there exactly to simplify stuff, or at least i think so.

it's serves both the media and whoever else analyses the system teams are playing

Exactly, it is the media's way of making those that don't have a clue what is going on feel informed and on-the-ball.

Just like the opening game of the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship in 1894 between two of the most utter genius Chess players that have ever lived is called the Three Knights Variation of the Queens Gambit Declined, so that all those Chess players reading the newspapers that have absolutely no clue what is actually happening get to feel involved, get to feel that they have a handle on events, instead of being told that they are completely out of their depth.

"The inventor of modern positional Chess and the mathematical, philosophical and psychoanalytical genius protege that embraced the masters concepts have opened their title defining contest with a slight variation on the Queens Gambit. From this point onwards I will only describe the moves, because to define the "pattern of play" would only insult the readers knowledge of the game."

Indeed.

[Team_Team]

I think the 4-4-2 will always be used, especially in Britain. As the case is above with Fulham etc,  it allows teams who aren't as technically proficient with the ball but are perhaps better physically, to punch above their weight as it allows you to have enough players back to defend, but with the constant threat of scoring, especially from the counter attack, with two strikers, two wingers, generally one midfielder and even the full backs can put themselves in threatening positions.

I think where it fails as is said above, is when playing against possession oriented formations, like the 4-2-3-1 and the 4-5-1/4-3-3. They always have the spare man in the centre of the park and your two centre midfielders won't be able to keep them all in check. I think that's why at higher levels it usually fails, as the opposition has the quality to take advantage of this extra space and time on the ball to drag your players out of position and create goal scoring opportunities.

However that won't always be the case especially in Britain, where teams still favour more physically adept players over their technically adept counterparts, although in my opinion, especially in the Premiership, this is beginning to change. It will always be used in the lower leagues as it is effective both defensively and in attack, and is a very versatile formation that can suit different situations.

[Millie]

the numbers are there exactly to simplify stuff, or at least i think so.

it's serves both the media and whoever else analyses the system teams are playing, and the managers explaining their players how they should behave in the field.

on the other hand, some people are just trying to overcomplicate things. telling a football player, who is usually dumb as a wall that he is going to play the "false 9" role will problably not be a good idea. you just tell him he's a forward and give him additional instructions such as dropping deeper, moving as much as he can, aiming to create chances and not only limiting himself to poaching goals, etc...

it also shows that having a gelled squad is nice. explaining the Man Unt player's what the "Park" role is will certainly be possible. But imagine yourself explaining that thing to some other squad that couldn't care less about Man Utd and don't even believe in tactical nuances anyways (sides in Brasil come to my mind)...

I think that's incredibly insulting to football players. They might not have many GCSEs, but you cannot deny that players like Rooney and Beckham have very good intelligence and awareness of what's going on on the football pitch.

Besides which, the players with low intelligence and no grasp of any different concepts are not the sort of guys you're going to spend long trying to re-educate.

You actually hit the nail on the head by saying that nobody plays the "false 9" role; they get told to play as a forward and are then given further instructions. The same is surely true of the "Park role", surely? Play ahead of the midfield, but chase everything down in that hole to disrupt their holding midfielders.

I don't think these are difficult concepts, and I would suggest that if football is your job then you should be able to pick this sort of thing up. There's some pretty complicated concepts in everybody's line of work which come as second nature to you after a couple of months.

[Xulu]

I think that's incredibly insulting to football players. They might not have many GCSEs, but you cannot deny that players like Rooney and Beckham have very good intelligence and awareness of what's going on on the football pitch.

Besides which, the players with low intelligence and no grasp of any different concepts are not the sort of guys you're going to spend long trying to re-educate.

You actually hit the nail on the head by saying that nobody plays the "false 9" role; they get told to play as a forward and are then given further instructions. The same is surely true of the "Park role", surely? Play ahead of the midfield, but chase everything down in that hole to disrupt their holding midfielders.

I don't think these are difficult concepts, and I would suggest that if football is your job then you should be able to pick this sort of thing up. There's some pretty complicated concepts in everybody's line of work which come as second nature to you after a couple of months.

Not football related per se, but it is a relevant tag to your response. In short, you get better by doing what you do. The link (and important part) is below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11Pinker.html?_r=1


Moreover, as the psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons show in their new book �The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us,� the effects of experience are highly specific to the experiences themselves. If you train people to do one thing (recognize shapes, solve math puzzles, find hidden words), they get better at doing that thing, but almost nothing else. Music doesn�t make you better at math, conjugating Latin doesn�t make you more logical, brain-training games don�t make you smarter. Accomplished people don�t bulk up their brains with intellectual calisthenics; they immerse themselves in their fields. Novelists read lots of novels, scientists read lots of science.

[Millie]

To be fair, I'm a historian and I spend too much time reading about football. I'm clearly not spending my time productively...

[Forza hellas]

To be fair, I'm a historian and I spend too much time reading about football. I'm clearly not spending my time productively...

Sounds far too familar to me 

----------------

As for a reasonable answer to the thread have you considered flipping the question within FM?

4-4-2 is by far and away the easiest formation to play against. It is a simple matter of either playing a third centreback of playing three in the centre of midfield to completely dominate possession and dictate the pace and direction of the game. The simple 4-4-2 also lacks a degree of sophistication within the game which is against my way of playing at least.

I have recently been experimenting with a proactive and reactive tactical midset inspired mainly by Biesla's approach during the World Cup. By being reactive in defence and switching formations to counter any AI setup and being proactive in attack I seem to be able to dominate games with relatively inferior players.

In this midset I have found the 4-4-2 by far and away the easiest setup to counter.