Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

4-4-2 - The Underrated Formation


LF:D
 Share

Recommended Posts

Prefer 4-3-3 or its variants.

 

Did like Johnny King's 4-4-2 at Tranmere in the mid 80's. He played:-

 

----------------decent keeper--------------

 

touch RM-----CB -----CB--------tough RB

 

Pacy-------midfield----midfield-----pacy winger

winger     general      enforcer

 

-----Target man-----skillful finisher----

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still reckon it'll come full circle eventually. 

 

Each year there's a new revolutionary formation, and other managers need a counter to that, and that becomes the norm, until a counter is formed, eventually 442 will be the one that works best against the current norm. 

 

Big man-little man up front. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2018 at 9:52 PM, Jennings said:

Prefer 4-3-3 or its variants.

 

Did like Johnny King's 4-4-2 at Tranmere in the mid 80's. He played:-

 

----------------decent keeper--------------

 

touch RM-----CB -----CB--------tough RB

 

Pacy-------midfield----midfield-----pacy winger

winger     general      enforcer

 

-----Target man-----skillful finisher----

 

I dispute your 'decent keeper' if it was Achterberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We played 4 2 3 1 in the first half on satdee and, whilst we scored 3, we looked more vulnerable than we should have against that lot. Changed to 4 3 3 in the second half and didn't score but looked a lot more solid.

 

Suggests 3 in the middle is important - certainly in our style. So then the argument is how does the middle 4 in 4 4 2 line up. Traditionally it involves 2 wide men which leaves you short in the middle.

 

The take from the argument is that 4 4 2 doesn't descibe one potential line up; there are a number of variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...