One of the major talking points in football these days, especially as far as Norwich City fans are concerned, is that of team formation (ie) the ‘set up’ preferred and chosen by the manager for his side.
Not so very long ago of course, nearly every team in football played 4-4-2. Two full backs and two central defenders behind a couple of central midfielders, one of whom was defensively minded, the other more inclined to be creative and go forward to support the front two-usually the ‘classic’ big strong one and little quick one. The midfield would be supplemented by a winger on each side, their brief: get the ball, run like hell and deliver the killing pass to the forwards – onto the head of the big strong one or to the feet of the little quick one.
Simple. Classic. Hugely effective. It was employed by the great Leeds United team of the late 60s and early 70s as well as the even better Liverpool one that dominated the English game for so long afterwards. George Graham won two Championships in three years with it at Arsenal with a team that was as rigid and fixed to that formation as you could ever wish to see whilst the team that ex-Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson calls the ‘greatest’ of his Manchester United reign, the one that won the treble in 1999 was classic 4-4-2. Gary Neville and Denis Irwin as full backs alongside central defenders Jaap Stam and Ronnie Johnson; Paul Scholes and Roy Keane in the centre of midfield, flanked by Ryan Giggs and David Beckham on either flank with Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke in attack.
Like I said. Simple. Classic. Hugely effective – after all, how much more effective can a team formation and playing ethos be than one which wins the Premier League title, FA Cup and Champions League in the same season? Even when injury or suspension deprived Ferguson of some of his first team choices, he invariably had quality replacements to fit into his system of play meaning that, as much as the side could have been deprived of its major components, their system of play and understanding of their respective roles was so precise that you barely noticed the difference.
Their Champions League win over Bayern Munich that system is testimony to that. With Keane and Scholes both suspended, David Beckham and Nicky Butt slotted into their central places, Giggs switched to the right and Jesper Blomqvist played on the left hand side. Major team and positional changes yet one which still beared fruit despite two of their major players slotting into a relatively unfamiliar position. But they still won. Clearly and obviously, in this case, the team, that formation and manner of play was greater than the sum of its parts, an indictment of the effectiveness of the system and the 4-4-2 formation as a whole.
Yet that formation is now held up and ridiculed as being out of date, out of touch and in no way relevant to the ‘modern game’.
Ah yes, that all telling phrase, ‘the modern game’. A swift and easy statement to make of course, especially if accompanied by a knowing look that defies any desire to ask for further definition. But what does it mean, exactly? And why has the 4-4-2 formation, so effective for so long and with a winning CV that begs for attention, now been written off, laughed at almost by so many people in-and, interestingly and far more predominantly, out of the game?
Norwich City fans, in the main, seem to have written it off. I noted in the build up to both the Everton and Hull City games that, whenever people were, as we do, jotting down their preferred line up for those matches, those that advocated anything like a 4-4-2 formation were subjected to copious amounts of abuse for even daring to suggest that Chris Hughton think such a thing, those same detractors busily, as an alternative, offering their own versions of the preferred line up.
Thus you could select from 4-3-1-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-3-2 (hardly revolutionary, it’s the formation England played when they won the World Cup) and even, on a couple of occasions, a 4-3-3 that had The Wolf flanked by a pre-injury Elliott Bennett in an advanced role on the right and Pilks on the left – I quite liked the look of that one.
Anything but a 4-4-2 in other words. Indeed, after the game against Hull City, one of my esteemed colleagues on this very website noted that Norwich had started the game set up in a 4-2-2-1-1 formation, similar to how many of the leading club sides in Europe do – progressive indeed and a clear sign of intent – after all, if it’s good enough for some of them and effective enough when deployed properly, surely its good enough for us?
Yet I look at that formation as well as all the others and one inescapable fact comes back to me. And that is this: they are all derivatives of 4-4-2. So that old fashioned, classic, romantic formation of old hasn’t so much been consigned to the pages of history as upgraded-in much the same way that the forecourt price you might pay for a new car gets you the basic model. But if you want all the optional extras, those little luxuries, the add-on peripherals, then the technology is a little more complicated, and the engineering involved a bit more classy. As is the price.
In other words, for your basic, on the road, no frills or perks forecourt footballing model, you get 4-4-2. But if you want a bit more than that, some added extras, footballing bells and whistles, then up the ante a little and go 4-2-3-1. Or 4-5-1. Or a regular favourite of a certain ex-manager of ours, 4-1-2-1-2.
The only problem with that is, as the technology and the understanding that goes with it is enhanced, then things are more likely to go wrong. Look at Formula One cars. The peak of engineering perfection – yet some of them are so highly tuned, so sophisticated from a technological point of view, they can barely go a few laps around a track without breaking down. Yet your or my old four door saloon can get up to 100,000 miles plus without needing as much as an oil change or new brake liners every now and again.
Yet if you strip both cars back to the very basics, they’re still four wheels, a chassis, an engine and a steering wheel. Thus for every new or advanced formation we see in football they are, when we strip them down to the basics just your very basic, very core and simple 4-4-2 at foundation level. So nothing has really changed. 4-2-3-1? Its 4-4-2 really – it’s just that nobody likes to admit it.
One of the front two players has dropped slightly deeper and, to make room for him, two of the central midfielders have dropped back as well with the back four staying as it is. 4-5-1? Even simpler. One attacking player drops back but the core midfield-four stay together in an attempt to dominate the centre of the pitch and, with it, the game.
It used to be the penalty areas where games were won and lost – either through defensive errors or swift and decisive action from the forwards. However, winning and losing games in that part of the pitch – yours or your opponents – is now deemed as too risky a tactic to employ so teams have taken the softer option and withdrawn into what was previously considered shared, even neutral space.
But not any longer. Games are now won and lost in midfield and, a consequence of that, more and more goals are coming from set pieces and set plays and, with that in mind, why waste valuable possession time on an extra forward, a perceived luxury, when you can have another man back in order to win that all too crucial battle in no man’s land, an extra fighter, a grafter, someone prepared to put a shift in – and the reason why David Fox doesn’t get a game now. Because that’s not his game – and that, in itself, is a little local tragedy as far as I am concerned, he can’t get a game because he is too creative a player, too imaginative to fit in. Too high a risk to the master-plan.
Which brings me back to an earlier point – the ‘modern game’. What does that really mean? It means, for me, a game that is now played on the principle of attrition, the wearing down of the opposition by continuous pressure and harassment led from not the front-but the middle.
Hence 4-4-2 has not become old fashioned, out of date and out of touch as far as the modern game is concerned. Far from it. It is, and has become fashionable to condemn it in that manner but it is not true and we have been misled into thinking that it is, so much so that the infamous phrase about how “…if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” comes to mind.
The real reason 4-4-2 is now so out of fashion in football is that it is considered too much of a risk tactically, too open and too prone to error and chance. It is, was, a formation designed to win games. Those employed now are designed to ensure that you do not lose.
A subtle difference.
Proof of this could be seen for anyone who watched the Manchester United versus Chelsea game in Monday night which saw a midfield so tightly congested with players – eleven in total at one point – that the two teams were only ever going to be able to play one game: wear down the opposition, no matter what the cost might be in terms of entertainment value.
But at least there was a vague inkling in United’s starting line up that they might want to win with the selection of van Persie. Chelsea, for all their potential flamboyance and flair planned and played for a 0-0 draw. No question about it. A player of the skill and vision of Mata in your ranks and you stick him on the bench? Come on Jose, what’s that all about? It’s about not risking him, that’s what it’s all about. And not because he might have an injury or be one yellow card away from a suspension. He’s not being ‘rested’ either. Mata wasn’t playing because he was considered too much of a risk tactically in a team that went there to grind out a 0-0 draw. Modern football eh?
This, regrettably, is the price we have to pay in a game that is now so riddled with money that success or failure is not measured in goals scored or trophies won but, as far as the Premier League is concerned, defined by just two things. The first is qualifying for the Champions League – an option for maybe six, seven clubs at the most. For the other thirteen or so success is merely staying put, fighting and scrapping to stay in the money pit by whatever means possible to do nothing more than have a chance to do it all again the following season. And the one after that. Plus the one after that. And so on. Nothing else matters and, to the games eternal shame, winning a Cup becomes a distraction, an obstacle even, rather than a means of celebration.
And, with that, 4-4-2 has been consigned to the pages of footballing history. Selecting two strikers is seen as an near obscene indulgence whilst the old fashioned winger, once seen as a permissible luxury are now rarely seen at all, certainly in pairs. 4-4-2 has been killed off as a result of how the priorities, on and off the pitch have changed, but has its hunt into near extinction been for the greater good of the game? I don’t think so.
So yes, it might be easy to lambast Chris Hughton when he selects what appears, on paper, to be a negative formation for our game against Southampton on Saturday. But what choice does he have? Should he be cavalier, attack from the start and go for goals, glory and entertainment – bearing in mind we have all gone to Norwich games that were packed full of entertainment and goal mouth action – and lost?
Or does he start with a point and aim, at the very least, to end with one as well? We might not like it and, I strongly suspect, neither does he or the players. But until the games’ priorities swing and demand that teams go out to win again rather than not to lose, then that’s how it is always going to be – and that’s exactly how it will remain until there is some sort of financial parity and the price of failure is measured in purely footballing tones rather than financial ones – because then teams might decide it’s worth taking a risk again.
And we might see the renaissance of the 4-4-2 formation at the same time a sign of a brave new footballing world rather than one considered backward and out of date.
That’s some serious number crunching you’ve done!
The third option of 4-2-2-1 in the article title presumably is employed after we’ve had a man sent off? (i.e. it only adds up to 9!).
In all your analysis of formations, I must congratulate you for not mentioning the word ‘diamond’ once. That’s a rare achievement in these formation-obsessed times.
In the ‘old days’ teams were awarded 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw. Football gradually became defensive as away teams started only playing for a draw in away matches. To overcome this the reward for a victory was changed to 3 points. Unfortunately football has now drifted back to the fear of losing mentality. The answer has to be, again, to provide a greater incentive to win matches. Perhaps it should now be 4 points for a win and 1 for a draw!
I think it’s still 4-4-2 but with at least one striker in a more withdrawn role. The likes of Cole and Yorke, they were both good at coming deep to get the ball and basically alternated the striker and attacking mid roles. With wingers having the liscence to roam these days, 2 more withdrawn centre mids are usually played with at least one needing a good engine to help get forward and help get back and the other needing good ball retention skills (passing, ball control, composure). It’s basically 4-4-2 but we are all better informed with TV cameras, constant analysis and the internet. I bet even back then there were 4-2-3-1 teams that we just saw as 4-4-2.
Good article.
Slight exaggeration, I feel, in that there are some noticeable differences in style and feel when watching, for example 4-4-2 against 4-5-1. However, as you say, there really isn’t much difference.
The one formation that you don’t touch on which genuinely is a different formation is 3-5-1 or 3-4-2. Having three central defenders is a big change, because it requires brilliant communication between the three – I think this has the potential to be the next big thing.
I feel a good formation that hardly any team uses is that of a 4-5-1 system in sort of a pyramid shape, allowing the wingers to run down the flanks and cross the ball always with someone in there. It also means they have the space to get back when in defence of the ball and play the ball in attack. Although a lot of people criticise the use of one striker, surely with this system we will be playing with 6 strikers on the attack and 9 in defence. Thus allowing for better flowing football. Why don’t we see a formation like this that could potentially see us winning week in week out!
Interesting; though I don’t necessarily agree with all of it.
The long history of football tactics has all been evolutionary. 4-4-2 has only become a sort of standard around the mid-to-late 20th century, and primarily in this country more than most others. Before then you had different approaches in different countries and this remains. Even during 4-4-2’s heydey there were competing systems that were in fashion and out of fashion at various times – wing back systems in England, Catenaccio in Italy, and so on.
I don’t agree that a change from 442 is a necessarily defensive move as 1 striker systems have been shown to have just as much attacking intent – it all depends on the emphasis of the manager. Would anyone dare to call Barcelona or Bayern Munich defensive teams who crowd the midfield with ‘fighters’ and ‘grafters’ and the like? Even when you look at the United team from the other night, they had a midfield pairing of Carrick and Cleverley – two of the better ball players in the division.
I think the point I’m trying to make here is that formations are inherently neutral – it’s what the manager decides to do with them that makes them attacking or defensive or reactionary or what. If he picks three defensive players to fill that middle of the pitch, it will be inherently defensive. The same can be said of picking three ball players who can dominate possession and create chances – it’s attacking. The system itself is *not* the issue – it’s the players chosen to fit it and the instructions they’re given. It’s a bit of a wood-for-trees problem when fans look at a formation and immediately decide that it’s a negative thing (like some (thankfully few) did when they saw 1 up front vs Bury), and don’t look at what players are picked or how they’re instructed to play.
A side note on the comment about twin wingers: it’s not as common as received wisdom suggests that you get a pair of wingers that are as attacking and threatening as each other. You often find one is the pacey attacking threat and the other provides more solidity. To use the Man Utd example in your piece, the 1999 team had Giggs and Beckham – Giggs the speed merchant while Beckham (still a threat) was always more solid. Fast forward 10 years and you’ve got Giggs and Valencia – Giggs now the solid midfield pick while Valencia is the out and out winger. The best managers always looked for balance in wingers.
Anyway, interesting piece and something I enjoy looking at. I think the tactics of the game will always evolve. 1 up front systems in vogue for the last 10 years will create their own counters as managers look for ways to exploit space the space they offer. 4-4-2 isn’t and has never been a sort of standard, assumed formation that all others are based off. It’s just what we had, for a while.
What a good article. Particularly the bit about Chris Houghton being as much a victim of the current adoration of the Money God as anyone. Wouldn’t it be great to sit with him for an hour and agree that everything he says is completely off the record, then put the points raised here to him. Monday’s display in a showcase match simply served to illustrate that not losing is now everything. Four points for a win anyone?
I wouldn’t go for 4 points for a win. Keep it at 3 but give a bonus point for every goal scored beyond 2 say e.g. for a 4-2 win, you’d get 5 points!
Any takers?
..in support of my bonus points idea – (1) it’s ridiculous to get the same number of points (i.e. 3) if you win 1-0 or 6-0 and (2) it’s unfair to get nothing if you lose 4-3 say i.e. the winning team gets 5 points and the losing team 1 for their efforts. That’s the only way to reward goal scoring properly.
Thanks for the comments-its an interesting subject within the game and one that, for all the ‘number crunching’ (thanks Matty Matics-and the headline isn’t mine by the way!!) does generate debate and disagreement-the latter being, for me, one of the great joys of the game!
There’s probably a book in it somewhere.
I remember talking to John Polston about Mike Walker (first time around) a little while ago, one of the comments he made about Mike was that, “he introduced some sort of weird formation that no-one had ever seen before” and that none of the players understood it-might have been at the 7-1 at Blackburn.
I guess any professional footballer at the top of his game and career should be able to play anywhere-as Holland demonstrated with their ‘total football’ -yet we still get England internationals who are seen as ‘one footed’, you’d expect better at that level.
Agree on the 5-3-2 (ie) wingbacks-is that one we could play? Think thats a reverse of the old 2-3-5 of yore almost, comment there, Holtamania?
You didn’t mention Terry Venables’ ‘Christmas Tree’ formation of ’96, the 4-3-2-1 set-up that almost succeeded……
The essence of any formation is it’s solidity in defensive situations, it’s variability in attack and the flexibility to adapt quickly to changes.
It is down to the manager/coach to tweak the system.
Im just guessing but it appears that Holtmania’s comment has been taken directly from a Jonathan Wilson article…..
JC(11): Stop pining for the Christmas tree – the crucial word in your comment was..almost..
Why not sell the strikers and go for the 4-6-0 used by Spain in the Euro finals? Did them proud.
or why not personalise it – if you draw out a 1-2-2-3-2 formation, it gives the initials CH!
I’ve long thought the points system in football is way too simplistic and certainly not one that encourages adventurous play and, dare I say it, risk taking.
So concur with points for goals and would do something like this-
Home win- 3 points.
Away Win- 6 points.
Home Draw-1 point.
Away Drew-2 points.
1 point for 3rd goal and above in any game.
Thus if you won an away game 4-1 you’d end up with 8 points. And if last nights game had been a league encounter, Bury would have got 1.
Seems unbalanced-win a home game 1-0, 3 points.
Win away from home-3 points.
Wouldn’t our performances at Swansea and Man City last season deserve more?
It’d keep things really open for longer and reward enterprise and attacking play.
Above concept will, of course, has plenty of flaws-its back of fag packet stuff-but it would be nice to think something could be introduced that rewards on a scale similar to that.
Would like to know how last seasons Prem table would have finished if the above had applied-but then again, if it had, then the results and outlooks of clubs in games would have been different anyway.
Note that both Barwell and Kings Lynn are shown as having lined up with 4-3-3 formations in their league game last night.
Advebturous enough but for Lynn to go to an away game in a higher league and play with such intent is laudable, nice one Gary Setchell.
*blinks* I just like my players to be able to pass the ball to each other. Buh.
I can recommend a book, The History of Football Tactics that I have read recently. The current thinking behind the demise of 442 is to do with oppositions playing 5 in midfield to counter it and then winning the midfield battle and dominating possession as a result. Wingers too have become something of a luxury from a bygone era as evolution of tactical thinking has dispensed with them. The #10 role is where it’s at these days, so is it one behind a striker, a link man, a deep striker, a playmaker. It’s all about getting a man in between the two lines of defenders and midfield and finding space to play in. Hence two holding defending deep midfielders sitting to snuff out his creativity as the countering tactic. Formation is only a starting point; movement, energy for pressing, creativity and pace along with possession is key. You have to put the ball in the net still though.
Why have ‘points’ at all when you could simply count goals? Most goals scored tops the league. If teams are equal on goals scored then its goal difference. Keeps games attacking and keeps the match interesting until the final whistle.
Ed(15) – the ‘adventurous’ formation worked a treat for KL with a 3-1 win. Maybe it is the way forward? Then again they lost their next away game presumably with the same starting shape.