Is the 4-4-2 gone?

Is it gone? The 4-4-2 is not really used by any top teams anymore, whereaa 10 years ago and even less, even 5 years ago it was still the most prominent. The traditional second striker is also hone now as most formations other than the 4-4-2 use only 1 main target man. So is the SS position and 4-4-2 formation both gone?

Yeh, not a lot of top teams use 4-4-2 nowadays. It's usually a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3.

If teams do use a 4-4-2, they might get outnumbered in midfield. Plus there's a lot of attacking midfielders.

Wasn't Utd using 4-4-2 diamond ? That fomartion is still usable

Sir Alex still uses the 4411 and is going strong with it.

The only top team I can think of who uses it on a consistent basis is Manchester United. Ronaldo made his name in a 4-4-2. It's sad to see it fade away though. Zlatan Ibrahimovic actually loves the 4-4-2 and asks for it at almost every club he is at.

442 is still used by many PL clubs including MU (obviously).

Even City deployed the formation in a number of games this season.

technically yes. it is virtually gone. but honestly from my point of view formations now-a-days are almost irrelevant. what matters most are the players.

what i mean is that during the course of a match a team can look like 20 different formations, players push up, spread out, drop deep, pinch in etc. and this all effects formation.

for instance- ive seen quite a few times where madrid look like they are playing a 4-4-2 when ronaldo pushes up. di maria floats to the left and ozil to the right and bam, pretty distinct 4-4-2.

so are teams setting tactics to be based around a 4-4-2 playing style? -not really, not nearly as much as it used to and is practically only left to a few teams in the bpl.

BUT situationally it exists, and pretty much all teams have times when they will play a 4-4-2 in the course of a match.

5 years ago the most prominent? Your like 15 years off or more.

Nobody puts 2 out and out strikers in front anymore and they havent for years.

Seecond striker is not gone, it can be basically in the 4231, the central player in the "3" can be a second striker or a number 10, depends on that player.

Anyways, all formations are relative. The players dictate what it becomes and its usually different on defence than it is to offence

Nowdays formation changes very often during the game depending on the result.

Man U play 442 with Rooney.  PSG play 442 with Ibra.  Chelsea are moving towards a 442 with mata right behind Ba with Ramirez and Hazard attacking the wings.

442 is coming back in a big way.  It's too hard to find midfielders that are multi-faceted enough to run a two man midfield.  Depending on whether you have better wingers or better CMs, you see either a 433 or 442.  I always thought the 4231 was flawed because the midfield is too thin.

and the 442 is not about two CFs... it has always been about a SS and a CF.

we roll it out essentially every week...rooney plays behind RVP....some days Rooney is moer of a attack midfielder then a SS tho, but still essentially we play it all the time.

Formations only matter when defending as far as I'm concerned.

Question of definition, if your CAM/SS doesn't help out much in defence, you're playing a 4-4-2 whether you like it or not.

sportsczy wrote:and the 442 is not about two CFs... it has always been about a SS and a CF.

No, not always....which is why I contend that is indeed dead.

Arsenal, Blackburn, Newcastle and many others have had very popular 442's with 2 real CF's.

classic left mid and right mids like beckham are not that many in football right now . mostly managers want them to engage in attack therefore wingers are more than classic mids nowadays . 4-2-4 does not provide a strong midfield so they drop a striker in favor of the midfield and you get 4-3-3 .
or the easiest way that by dropping one striker into CF or SS 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 in made .

Well, here are some famous striking duos where one was the creator and the other the pure scorer when both could be scorers and have been: Bebeto/Romario, Trezeguet/Del Piero, Platini/Rocheteau, etc.

For now, you have Rooney/RVP, Suarez/Cavani, Messi/Higuain, etc. At Juve, you're going to have Vucinic and Llorente soon with Pogba going in and Marchision pushing wide left + Vidal wide right. PSG want to get either Higuain or Benzema to play with Ibra. If Madrid pass on Falcao, they'll go after Falcao. Mata is playing more like a SS/AM combo, which is why he's scoring so many goals. His positioning and runs are now on goal. City do it as well with 2 of Aguero/Tevez/Dzeko.

As i mentioned, most teams are going towards 443 or 442 or both. Big reason is that fullbacks are just not that good right now + most of the great creative players like to drift to a wing (Ozil, Silva, etc.).

Just my opinion though.

Sure Sport,mostly true.

But I am talking about say in mid 90's PL the likes of Arsenal with Ian Wright and Kevin Campbell, Blackburn with Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton, Newcastle with Bellamy/Kluivert briefly and Alan Shearer..any many more..The PL had straight 442 for years...that is what is dead and died long ago mostly.

You still get odd exceptions like Stoke.

When we speak of a striker and then a Del Piero behind, or a Zola for Chelsea or now Rooney behind or Mata, whoever the case may be, thats a different thing and that will likely always be around because it just makes sense to have a player to link the lines together. That I consider different to 442 and make a point of separating that type of thing.

In England, they caught on pretty late and the concept of linking the lines isnt one they knew about. Which why even now, some teams are still stuck in the idea of wing play-crosses and direct football with little control over the game. That is dying too, but the fact its still around in any way is to me crazy, but more importantly shows the slowness for teams/coaches to get with the program.

Tbf Dani that 4-4-2 we had under Robson wasn't really a straight 4-4-2....

Bellamy, Speed and Dyer would hover off Shearer with Robert and Solano on the wings.

That was one of the reasons we conceded so many goals ( other than the fact individually the defence wasn't all that) we would empty the midfield constantly.

It was a frightening prospect going forward because we had such pace and ability combined with guile and skill and a set piece threat.

But defensively it was a joke at times

Even the 4-4-2 under Keegan wasn't either arguably..... 1 of our strikers would often drift wide and Beardsley would operate in the "hole" with fullbacks bombing on and Ginola providing genuine width.

Tbh the idea of a straight 4-4-2 isn't often successful and hasn't been for a very long time.

But a 4-4-2 that can combine into 4-2-3-1 and other systems by players dropping into other areas is and still is to this day.

PSG are an example of it, Man Utd are quite a few others.

Really it depends what you're asking, is straight 4-4-2 dead? yes it has been for a long long time is a flexible 4-4-2 with players dropping into space while retaining that 2 striker threat dead? no far from it.



This is an average position graphic from our win against Chelsea a couple of weeks back.... now what formation does that look like to you?

It looks like a 4-4-2 to me, difference being is one of the forwards will drop back and the fullbacks are almost like extra wingers to allow sustained pressure and midfield numbers while the actual wingers will tend to drift inside to help with build up.

I don't think 4-4-2 is dead personally, it really depends on who you use those 2 strikers and midfielders to drop into space to counter the numbers of a 4-3-3.

A flat 4-4-2 is definitely dead though.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Tbf Dani that 4-4-2 we had under Robson wasn't really a straight 4-4-2....

Bellamy, Speed and Dyer would hover off Shearer with Robert and Solano on the wings.

That was one of the reasons we conceded so many goals ( other than the fact individually the defence wasn't all that) we would empty the midfield constantly.

It was a frightening prospect going forward because we had such pace and ability combined with guile and skill and a set piece threat.

But defensively it was a joke at times

Even the 4-4-2 under Keegan wasn't either arguably..... 1 of our strikers would often drift wide and Beardsley would operate in the "hole" with fullbacks bombing on and Ginola providing genuine width.

Tbh the idea of a straight 4-4-2 isn't often successful and hasn't been for a very long time.

But a 4-4-2 that can combine into 4-2-3-1 and other systems by players dropping into other areas is and still is to this day.

PSG are an example of it, Man Utd are quite a few others.

Really it depends what you're asking, is straight 4-4-2 dead? yes it has been for a long long time is a flexible 4-4-2 with players dropping into space while retaining that 2 striker threat dead? no far from it.



This is an average position graphic from our win against Chelsea a couple of weeks back.... now what formation does that look like to you?

It looks like a 4-4-2 to me, difference being is one of the forwards will drop back and the fullbacks are almost like extra wingers to allow sustained pressure and midfield numbers while the actual wingers will tend to drift inside to help with build up.

I don't think 4-4-2 is dead personally, it really depends on who you use those 2 strikers and midfielders to drop into space to counter the numbers of a 4-3-3.

A flat 4-4-2 is definitely dead though.

Well I would argue in Shearer's later days, they required Bellamy's pace so he ran off of Shearers flick ons and that is a classic proponent of the old 442. Beardsley of course not, he was one of the few England players who understand the lines at the time.

But overall we are in the same place, I agree.

I think we all agree having a player drop off the front and then go on to be an additional scoring threat later on the move still exists and I think it will always because I think its always great when you can have some players in your team do multiple roles.

The thing is, I for one think its important to distinguish the difference between this and 442..because they are not the same. As you said, the answer to the question is what are you talking about when you say 442.

Not for the En-ger-lund NT, for some odd reason they think it actually works and will lead them to glory

We played 4-3-3 against Brazil

For England I think it makes sense we play a 1 striker formation since we only have like 1 elite striker.