4 4 2 please come back!

[Belgian Spur]

3-5-2 FTW !

But indeed, football in general has become a very boring chess like game. The first coach who started using two DM's and got results with it should be shot for crimes against humanity.

All these systems are largely the same though, everything is a variation of thebasic set ups 3-5-2, 4-4-2, 4-4-3, 5-3-2 etc. Adding a fourth variable to basic setups is just a bit of snobbery f.ex a 4-4-1-1 is a 4-4-2; a 4-2-3-1 is a 4-5-1. I suspect the FM people started all these variations to add elements to their game but a tactical set up still remains threefold (Def-Mid-att) with individual tasks.

 

[Mr S Pippo]

Agree with you totally. Not sure leaving at half time is acceptable regardless of performance.

 

[Mr S Pippo]

If we were world beaters no one would care about formations. Modern football is evolving into this sanitised game.A game which is also is trying to be clever. A global game that needs to generate so much money it effecting its whole exsistance. Example, drink breaks at games on the 30 mins, introduction of tv advert breaks in games..money. this will change football asvwe have known it for ever.

 

[Mr S Pippo]

The best football in the prem at the moment is played by Man City IMO, they use a 4-4-1-1 with no wingers as such so for us it would be something like.

[formation=4411, Lloris, Trippier, Alderwierald, Wimmer, Rose, Dembele, Dier, Mason, Clinton, Eriksen, Kane][/formation]

4 4 2?

 

[Tomo]

Man City play a 4-2-3-1.

Yaya - Ferdanino
Navas - Silva - Sterling
------------Aguero

Oh have they changed it, every time I watched Man City at least last season they always showed City as with 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 for the formation.

Anyway they play good stuff, I know they have great players but I thought Mancini was quite boring, Pellegrini has them playing really fluid if sometimes a bit reckless which is kind of Spursy in that respect.

I think the nostalgia for the likes of Redknapp comes from how we played back then, we might lose 3-4 but it's going to be a cracking game of football.

 

[Cripps14]

It's just numbers in a certain order. Football is more fluid than this.

I think it was Totti who called the formation we played with VDV a 4-4-1-1, this could also be seen as a 4-2-3-1 as Bale and Lennon pushed on too, while Modric and Sandro/Parker stayed a little deeper.

A 4-3-3 can easily turn in to a 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-1-1, 3-4-3, 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or whatever.

The key is not a formation, you can play boring football with a 4-4-2 as well if you just decide to shut up shop with two banks of 4 and lump the ball up to the two strikers. The key is the philosophy, and I think what people would like to see is direct, fast football using the full width of the pitch, rather than players clogging up the middle of the pitch. I don't care whether we call a formation 3-5-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or 1-2-3-4

(Lost count of how often I've posted this and yet still the discussion keeps focusing on numbers. Think there's a lot of people out there who need to get off FIFA and FM and go play a game of football themselves)

 

[Matias]

Yeah the key is the philosophy and the approach, but the formation is important
It's natural that if you play a 3-men defense vs an offense with two wide wingers and a striker, you are in trouble regardless of your philosophy.

I am seeing more more upcoming coaches use hybrid formations, in the sense that they switch easily from one set up to another during the game.
Forgive me if I bring up Fiorentina often but it's of course what I know best.
Paulo Sousa is using a hybrid between a 3-4-2-1 and a 4-2-3-1, like this:

I think it's clear how the shift works: Alonso can act both as a LB and as a LM, Gilberto as a RM and RW, while Ilicic plays close to the striker while in possessione and instead tracks back towards our right side when defending.

I think that it's solutions like these that make football less boring tactically. Not saying it's something new huh, coaches have been tweaking formations forever, but it's interesting to follow how such developments rise as reaction to the "trending" moves of the football world.

 

[Tottenham Sean]

Like the majority of spurs fans I am bored!!! I've renewed my season ticket with 7 of my other spurs supporting mates and some thing quite strange is happening. Maybe it's because we are all getting older and more misrable. After all we have been going to the Lane for nearly 30 years now and been STH for the last 20.

We don't really care about the actual football anymore. We go for a laugh and a catch up and of course a few beers. There were times in the last 2 seasons where we have actually stayed in the pub and other times left at half time out of complete boredom.

Now don't get me wrong I love spurs it's in my blood, and Christ I have seen some crap, but I can say hand in heart I have never felt so bored. Why?

Maybe it's the players who I have no infinity with anymore
Maybe it's the countless false dawns over the years that have finally taken their toll

But for me it's the style of play. I hate this one up front bollocks with no width and two defensively minded in midfield. What happened to the all round midfield player who could do everything?! Viera, Gerrard, or a Robson.

It's not just spurs though. That formation seems all the rage at the moment.

But we are THFC we need to something different especially at home against socalled weaker opposition. Let's go back to 4 4 2, sign some wingers who can actually beat their man and excite the fans. Sign a partner for Kane. Have a couple of midfielders who can get forward into the box and score goals as well as defend.

If it carries on like this there will actually be no point building the new stadium as fans won't pay top dollar for too long to watch that crap.

Change it now please.

Good post,my views almost exactly.
I remember in the late 80s ,in the milford having "where will be in 20 years time" chat with the lot I went with.
We all agreed we would be season ticket holders still. 2 even stating " If spurs went down the pan and played their home games in a park field ,we would still go"*
Out of the 12, 1 is still a sth, one shares one ,I go when I can(more Europa , CC and "yoof" games to be honest these days) and the rest attend periodically.
A shame, but that's the way it is for a lot of people
* The two that made this comment, I haven't seen at the lane for about 4 years

 

[Boltonspur]

Yeah the key is the philosophy and the approach, but the formation is important
It's natural that if you play a 3-men defense vs an offense with two wide wingers and a striker, you are in trouble regardless of your philosophy.

I am seeing more more upcoming coaches use hybrid formations, in the sense that they switch easily from one set up to another during the game.
Forgive me if I bring up Fiorentina often but it's of course what I know best.
Paulo Sousa is using a hybrid between a 3-4-2-1 and a 4-2-3-1, like this:

I think it's clear how the shift works: Alonso can act both as a LB and as a LM, Gilberto as a RM and RW, while Ilicic plays close to the striker while in possessione and instead tracks back towards our right side when defending.

I think that it's solutions like these that make football less boring tactically. Not saying it's something new huh, coaches have been tweaking formations forever, but it's interesting to follow how such developments rise as reaction to the "trending" moves of the football world.

This.

 

[Light Blue Spurs]

We have lots of problems in the midfield.
We have 3 players good to defend, but they are really bad to generate offensive flow. 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 or 3-5-2 doesn't matter because we can't able to attack with the right way. We really need a director of midfield.

I really like Son, he's a good player right now and an incredible talent. But I prefer to spend £ 10 mln for one as Cabaye, who plays in a normal team and he could play as starter in the Tottenham.

 

[Light Blue Spurs]

Yeah the key is the philosophy and the approach, but the formation is important
It's natural that if you play a 3-men defense vs an offense with two wide wingers and a striker, you are in trouble regardless of your philosophy.

I am seeing more more upcoming coaches use hybrid formations, in the sense that they switch easily from one set up to another during the game.
Forgive me if I bring up Fiorentina often but it's of course what I know best.
Paulo Sousa is using a hybrid between a 3-4-2-1 and a 4-2-3-1, like this:

I think it's clear how the shift works: Alonso can act both as a LB and as a LM, Gilberto as a RM and RW, while Ilicic plays close to the striker while in possessione and instead tracks back towards our right side when defending.

I think that it's solutions like these that make football less boring tactically. Not saying it's something new huh, coaches have been tweaking formations forever, but it's interesting to follow how such developments rise as reaction to the "trending" moves of the football world.

Good post, dear.

I agree totally. Sousa uses a hybrid formation, a 4-2-3-1 that becomes a 4-4-2 in the defensive transitions.
It's the same thing that Rafa Benitez did in the 2 years in Naples, with a dynamic formation.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

We don't stick to one formation when we play, so I don't get the point of this.

On paper things get written down as 4-2-3-1, but in defence we're generally lined up 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 if the press hasn't created a quick turn over. When attacking we wind up in all sorts of shapes (not always to the good) depending on how much space we have to attack into.

Looking at the games so far, Pochettino seems (this year) to want a holding midfielder and a box-to-box player, with at least one, maybe two wingers playing as forwards cutting into the box, while Eriksen floats as a playmaker and Kane moves around to pull the marking/defensive shape apart.

That can look like a 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 2-1-2-1-2 or 2-3-5, so why are we getting hung up on a number when the point seems to be that it isn't one?

 

[Cripps14]

I wonder if there had been internet forums when 4-4-2 was first introduced how many posters would be on there wanting to bring back the 3-2-5 formation.

To be honest it's something I'd like to see more of. Champions League finals ending 7-3. That'd be fucking brilliant.

 

[Matias]

We don't stick to one formation when we play, so I don't get the point of this.

On paper things get written down as 4-2-3-1, but in defence we're generally lined up 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 if the press hasn't created a quick turn over. When attacking we wind up in all sorts of shapes (not always to the good) depending on how much space we have to attack into.

Looking at the games so far, Pochettino seems (this year) to want a holding midfielder and a box-to-box player, with at least one, maybe two wingers playing as forwards cutting into the box, while Eriksen floats as a playmaker and Kane moves around to pull the marking/defensive shape apart.

That can look like a 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 2-1-2-1-2 or 2-3-5, so why are we getting hung up on a number when the point seems to be that it isn't one?

The 4-4-1-1 (or 4-5-1 if you're Mourinho) is the "natural" outcome of the 4-2-3-1 when in defence.

"Winding up in all sorts of shapes" is not what matters when defining a formation anyways. You name the formation from the positions taken at the beginning of a play, not during it or after it, of course.
(I love those tv shots while a GK is about to take a goal-kick and the camera moves upwards and shows the whole pitch from above. In that moment the formations are usually even more evident than one would think).

Your perfect description of how Poch wants their players to move (hence where they start from) says it is a 4-2-3-1.
Getting hung up on a number is not important, it's just a useful label that says synthetically what type of positions the players are (mostly) expected to take.

However, despite the great variety of number combinations, in my opinion there are only a few questions that can be used to describe a tactical approach, the two most important of which being:
i) are there 2 or 3 players in the centre of the midfield?
ii) is there 1 or 2 players in each flank?

 

[Macch]

Think we can all agree it won't matter what formation we play if our players refuse to make runs off the ball, our offense will continue to struggle.

 

[BAE32]

I don't think our players are suited to 4-4-2 as we have too many of the classic midfield/forward type players who wouldn't work as a wide man or central in a 4-4-2. I don't think Dier is ready to take on a role next to Mason/Bentaleb as the partner in the middle of a four either. You should play to your players strengths not 'which formation has more stikers'.

 

[Juicy Sushi]

The 4-4-1-1 (or 4-5-1 if you're Mourinho) is the "natural" outcome of the 4-2-3-1 when in defence.

"Winding up in all sorts of shapes" is not what matters when defining a formation anyways. You name the formation from the positions taken at the beginning of a play, not during it or after it, of course.
(I love those tv shots while a GK is about to take a goal-kick and the camera moves upwards and shows the whole pitch from above. In that moment the formations are usually even more evident than one would think).

Your perfect description of how Poch wants their players to move (hence where they start from) says it is a 4-2-3-1.
Getting hung up on a number is not important, it's just a useful label that says synthetically what type of positions the players are (mostly) expected to take.

However, despite the great variety of number combinations, in my opinion there are only a few questions that can be used to describe a tactical approach, the two most important of which being:
i) are there 2 or 3 players in the centre of the midfield?
ii) is there 1 or 2 players in each flank?

You're missing my point. We're frequently in many different shapes at the start of a play. The label is what people here are taking so seriously, and it's a label that doesn't really matter when looking at how we seem to be trying to play.

The major characteristics of our attacking play this year have been Kane dropping deep to pull a CB out of position, with a throughball or ball over the top then played to a runner coming through to attack that space.

We've struggled to make that work as well as we'd like because if we're using Chadli to do it, he's lacking sufficient pace to get there in time consistently. Pochettino and Levy seem to agree that's a problem, since they've bought N'Jie, and are trying to buy Son and Berahino. All of them are forwards who can either play centrally or wide, and who can use their pace to attacking the openings Kane's movement creates.

You can call that a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-4-2 or whatever you'd like at the start of the play, but the point is that our system presses to turnover the ball and then attacks with that idea in mind. Do we have the players to properly execute that strategy? I think Pochettino feels he didn't last year, and seems to be trying to change that. Will it work? That's what the rest of this year will tell us.

 

[Freundwerfer]

Sorry to say this, but gaffer chooses formation. He's not going to change just to get you out of the pub.

 

[Cripps14]

The major characteristics of our attacking play this year have been Kane dropping deep to pull a CB out of position, with a throughball or ball over the top then played to a runner coming through to attack that space.

This is why I hate when everyone is so focused on how many goals he gets. He's not a Jermaine Defoe type striker who scores goals and does nothing else. He's a smart player, and in the games I watched even though he wasn't scoring he was still contributing to the team.