Is 4-4-2 out of fashion?

[Mister Chops 7]

Watching Match of the Day last night, a number of teams playing a variation of 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3) with just one lone striker - including Man City, Liverpool, Man U, Villa, City etc.  This may have been the case for a while, but if so it''s passed me by - definitely seems to be more of a fashion this season.  Do you think this reflects a general tactical shift, or is everyone just ripping off Paul Lambert?

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

I know its international football rather than club football but this table indicates 4-4-2 is being used less and less.

I just feel its important to get in between the lines of the opposition, a rigid 4-4-2 doesn''t allow it.

http://twitpic.com/6vzmmc

[ZLF 271]

Def a tactical shift;  and a lack of quality strikers to make a 442 work.   I think PL would like a diamond 442 as his prefered style but he has quickly found that the best mix from his squad is a 4-2-3-1,  so I dont think its a case of ripping St PL off.

 

As we are seeing we have better quality midfielders that forwards,  who are rare and so prohibitively expensive,  while there is an overstocked midfield supply (both gratfters and creatives).  

 

Same for other managers - cut cloth according to available resources.

 

 

[Legend Iwan 30]

I thought 4-5-1 came into vogue last season as teams looked to control the midfield, provide genuine width through wingers, as well as fielding the false number 9 that both Manchester sides favoured.  It was certainly the go-to tactic at the World Cup for both Germany and Netherlands. Whereas the 4-3-3 was immortalised with the arrival of Mourinho.

I quite like that Lambert is willing - or at least has been this season - to try 4-4-2 when required.

[Aurelius 0]

Yes it''s 2 or 3 years that the 4-4-2 seems out of fashion. I don''t agree with this point of view, though. If it''s played the way it has to be played, with two real wingers and two strikers, it''s a very attacking minded formation (maybe the more attacking minded after thew 4-3-3) that allows the 60% of the players to cover the 60% of the park.

Back to 4-4-2 as far as I am concerned.

[lake district canary 0]

In the olden days we used to have 4-2-4.

Two wingers and two strikers,

Then the four in defense and two protecting in front of the defence.

This not a million miles from what we do now, 4 in defence, 2 in front of the defence, two wingers, one striker with hoolahan palying just behind.

The subtle differences of the different systems change throughout the game, players tracking back to make two banks of four, hoolahan or whoever playing further forward to support the lone striker.

If you mentally think 4-4-2 it is a recipe for creating a stagnant set up. Teams get into the frame of mind of two banks of four and then the attacking mentality is harder. You end up with the front two being more isolated, making their job harder.

(Watching Norwich v Stoke to me that is exactly what happened)

4-2-3-1 or 4-5-1 , or whatever you want to call it is a good flexible system for any situation. It can be varied throughout the match and is easy for players to adapt to.

[Mahogany 0]

We''re playing more of a 4411 than a 4231. Our fullbacks and wingers tend to attack and defend in pairs rather than the wingers focused on attacking and fullbacks defending. There were quite a few times yesterday where Bennett was further back than Naughton.

[Lambert is King 0]

It changed about 5 years ago in England 15 years ago in the rest of the world. Now we have caught up the rest of Europe have spent the last 5 years training their kids the Barcelona way.