Striker/Winger Situation

[Tarbie]

That is rubbish. Tevez and Aguero are not midfielders.

City won the league with 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers.

I agree on the Toure/Kante part - its the not winning with 4-4-2 for a long, long time that gets me.

Like banging you're head against a brick wall sometimes, ain't it mate?

Anyone who knows anything about the English game will tell you that 4-4-2, or variations there of (i.e. 4-1-3-2, 4-4-1-1 etc.) has been the tried and tested, go to formation of pretty much every successful side in the last 30 years. OK, Mourihno did well with a 4-3-3 in his early years at Chelsea and yes, in recent years 1 up top has been quite popular. But all said and done, everything has been built on a solid foundation of 4 at the back and normally 2 forwards.

[nasser95]

That is rubbish. Tevez and Aguero are not midfielders.

City won the league with 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers.

I agree on the Toure/Kante part - its the not winning with 4-4-2 for a long, long time that gets me.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/roberto-mancini/leistungsdatenDetail/trainer/524/plus/0?saison_id=2011&verein_id=281&liga=&wettbewerb_id=&trainer_id=

There's the listings. I think they looked a lot at the positioning of the players in the match. you'd notice watching it again that one of those two would drop deep, playing as an attacking mid.

As for the not winning with the 442 for a long time, they don't win regularly enough to validate their long term benefits. 442 is very much a specialist formation, it relies on a set of key players who are purists in their role, a la the Kante, Yaya role, or the Vardy, aguero role, which isn't to say they're fast strikers, but they're fast strikers who close down like no other. To play a 442, you immediately limit your scouting pool and your ability to be flexible. And very very few teams win leagues with a 442. Leicester are the exception and at certain times Man Utd under Fergie.

[Shepherds Mush]

Like banging you're head against a brick wall sometimes, ain't it mate?

Anyone who knows anything about the English game will tell you that 4-4-2, or variations there of (i.e. 4-1-3-2, 4-4-1-1 etc.) has been the tried and tested, go to formation of pretty much every successful side in the last 30 years. OK, Mourihno did well with a 4-3-3 in his early years at Chelsea and yes, in recent years 1 up top has been quite popular. But all said and done, everything has been built on a solid foundation of 4 at the back and normally 2 forwards.

Spot on mate.

All this rotational 3 at the back for West Ham and Tevez being an attacking midfielder doesn't detract from the fact that the go to formation is 4-4-2.

[nasser95]

Like banging you're head against a brick wall sometimes, ain't it mate?

Anyone who knows anything about the English game will tell you that 4-4-2, or variations there of (i.e. 4-1-3-2, 4-4-1-1 etc.) has been the tried and tested, go to formation of pretty much every successful side in the last 30 years. OK, Mourihno did well with a 4-3-3 in his early years at Chelsea and yes, in recent years 1 up top has been quite popular. But all said and done, everything has been built on a solid foundation of 4 at the back and normally 2 forwards.

Go to formation maybe 10, 15 years ago when we didn't understand tactical football like we do now. People who know anything about the english game are Managers and I'll take their advice in going to a 4231/433, after all, it's their job.

[FACTS]

No big teams play 442 any more unless they're chasing a game and getting desperate. They all use 433 or 4231, some use 3 at the back but not many.

However we're in the Championship. A lot of matches in this league aren't tactical affairs and 442 can be effective.

I'd still prefer us to try 433, but if JFH is serious he should have us able to play more than one system anyway. Whatever the case we need a striker and a couple of wingers.

[Tarbie]

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/rober...d=&trainer_id=

There's the listings. I think they looked a lot at the positioning of the players in the match. you'd notice watching it again that one of those two would drop deep, playing as an attacking mid.

As for the not winning with the 442 for a long time, they don't win regularly enough to validate their long term benefits. 442 is very much a specialist formation, it relies on a set of key players who are purists in their role, a la the Kante, Yaya role, or the Vardy, aguero role, which isn't to say they're fast strikers, but they're fast strikers who close down like no other. To play a 442, you immediately limit your scouting pool and your ability to be flexible. And very very few teams win leagues with a 442. Leicester are the exception and at certain times Man Utd under Fergie.

Perhaps the biggest load of tosh anyone has ever written on this site..........and that's saying something!

[Shepherds Mush]

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/rober...d=&trainer_id=

There's the listings. I think they looked a lot at the positioning of the players in the match. you'd notice watching it again that one of those two would drop deep, playing as an attacking mid.

As for the not winning with the 442 for a long time, they don't win regularly enough to validate their long term benefits. 442 is very much a specialist formation, it relies on a set of key players who are purists in their role, a la the Kante, Yaya role, or the Vardy, aguero role, which isn't to say they're fast strikers, but they're fast strikers who close down like no other. To play a 442, you immediately limit your scouting pool and your ability to be flexible. And very very few teams win leagues with a 442. Leicester are the exception and at certain times Man Utd under Fergie.

39 goals for Aguero from midfield is spectacular then!

[Hove Ranger]

Slug it out!!!

[Tarbie]

Below is the list of every team that has won the Premier League. Next to them I have listed the formation that I believe they predominantly played that season. Over you to prove me wrong Nasser. And just to be clear, a 4-1-3-2, 4-4-1-1 etc. is still essentially a 4-4-2 formation so let's not get pedantic over minute details.

1992–93 Manchester United 4-4-2
1993–94 Manchester United 4-4-2
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers 4-4-2
1995–96 Manchester United 4-4-2
1996–97 Manchester United 4-4-2
1997–98 Arsenal 4-4-2
1998–99 Manchester United 4-4-2
1999–2000 Manchester United 4-4-2
2000–01 Manchester United 4-4-2
2001–02 Arsenal 4-4-2
2002–03 Manchester United 4-4-2
2003–04 Arsenal 4-4-2
2004–05 Chelsea 4-3-3
2005–06 Chelsea 4-3-3
2007–08 Manchester United 4-4-2
2008–09 Manchester United 4-4-2
2009–10 Chelsea 4-4-2
2010–11 Manchester United 4-4-2
2011–12 Manchester City 4-4-2
2012–13 Manchester United 4-4-2
2013–14 Manchester City 4-4-2
2014–15 Chelsea 4-5-1
2015–16 Leicester City 4-4-2

[Ginger Ninja]

Below is the list of every team that has won the Premier League. Next to them I have listed the formation that I believe they predominantly played that season. Over you to prove me wrong Nasser. And just to be clear, a 4-1-3-2, 4-4-1-1 etc. is still essentially a 4-4-2 formation so let's not get pedantic over minute details.

1992–93 Manchester United 4-4-2
1993–94 Manchester United 4-4-2
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers 4-4-2
1995–96 Manchester United 4-4-2
1996–97 Manchester United 4-4-2
1997–98 Arsenal 4-4-2
1998–99 Manchester United 4-4-2
1999–2000 Manchester United 4-4-2
2000–01 Manchester United 4-4-2
2001–02 Arsenal 4-4-2
2002–03 Manchester United 4-4-2
2003–04 Arsenal 4-4-2
2004–05 Chelsea 4-3-3
2005–06 Chelsea 4-3-3
2007–08 Manchester United 4-4-2
2008–09 Manchester United 4-4-2
2009–10 Chelsea 4-4-2
2010–11 Manchester United 4-4-2
2011–12 Manchester City 4-4-2
2012–13 Manchester United 4-4-2
2013–14 Manchester City 4-4-2
2014–15 Chelsea 4-5-1
2015–16 Leicester City 4-4-2

You got far too much time on your hands if you think you remember the formations of every club that's won the Premier league

[Shepherds Mush]

Go to formation maybe 10, 15 years ago when we didn't understand tactical football like we do now.

Love that. No-one understood tactics before 2001.

[Tarbie]

You got far too much time on your hands if you think you remember the formations of every club that's won the Premier league

You remember though don't you?

I remember strike partnerships at each team that's won the league. I also remember when teams do something different, like when Chelsea won it 2 years running with Robben on 1 wing, Duff on the other and Drogba through the middle.

Now I may have got 1 or 2 on that list wrong but I bet there ain't many teams in that list that weren't set up pretty close to a conventional 4-4-2.

[Ramsey is god]

Love that. No-one understood tactics before 2001.

He cant be told though Mush. Knows everything about everything...

[nanocopic]

Chelsea in 2010 had a 433 Drogba upfront and Anelka and Malouda either side.

City 2012 was a 451, barry and yaya or barry and milner in middle the silva aguero tevez johnson and yaya sometimes were rotating between the front four positions unless balotelli or dzeko played then those players played as AM whether centre left or right.

[nasser95]

You got far too much time on your hands if you think you remember the formations of every club that's won the Premier league

He doesn't but he'll make a point of it anyways. Anyways, I've gone through the relevant years where the information is readily available and valid to modern football. Lets take a look at what formation they actually played, either coming from the club itself or transfermarkt.co.uk

2001–02 Arsenal 4-4-2
2002–03 Manchester United 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 (13 times and 24 times) 1 time 5-3-2
2003–04 Arsenal 4-4-2
2004–05 Chelsea 4-3-3
2005–06 Chelsea 4-3-3
2006-07 Manchester United 4-3-3
2007–08 Manchester United 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 (18 times and 20 times)
2008–09 Manchester United 4-4-2
2009–10 Chelsea 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 diamond (24 times and 16 times)
2010–11 Manchester United 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 (21 times and 17 times)
2011–12 Manchester City 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 if you actually look at how they played, you'll see it's a 4231 but if you look at the players its a 442
2012–13 Manchester United 4-2-3-1
2013–14 Manchester City 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 (17 times and 21 times)
2014–15 Chelsea 4-2-3-1
2015–16 Leicester City 4-4-2

What you might notice is that against weaker teams, the winner will tend to play 442 since they don't need to work to get control of the game. From what I saw in the research, when teams split their formations throughout the season (a very common occurrence and I'll get to that below), they play a 4-3-3 against the bigger teams and a 442 against the weaker teams, which makes sense.

You'll also see the trend is heading in the direction of a 4231 in the long run, I did a bit more research and looked at the teams around the champions (Ie second and third) and they generally prefer to use a 4231 but have 442 available. What's clear is that tactical fluidity and versatility are key, having players who can play as attacking midfielders and strikers will definitely help in a match, but having the squad depth of speciality players will help throughout the season.

442 is still used, there's no doubt about that, but to use it, you can only use certain players and expect success. Why? Because of the 433 which is designed to totally take control of the midfield of two which in the past may have worked since everyone else used a 442 as well and the control was purely based on the quality of players and not the quantity. But now with the 433 there, the midfielders in a 442 are at an immediate disadvantage due to the numbers. That's why you need your Kante's, Yaya's of old, etc. I even looked at the Utd side that won the league of 10-11 to see who their specialist was whenever they played a 442 and it was unsurprisingly Darren Fletcher, another player who's running and workrate made him the asset to play a 442.

The Chelsea team that under ancelotti won in 09/10 played a 433 or a 442 diamond, but this isn't really a 442 in the traditional sense at all. Their midfield 4 was Deco, Ballack, Lampard, Joe Cole. These are 4 central players, playing in a very narrow diamond with the full backs (Cole and Ivanovic) overlapping. This is definitely not a standard 442, this is a formation designed to guarantee consistent control of the midfield and it worked because of the quality they had in those positions. You can't pull that off as a mid table side.

In any case, my takeaway from this is that football is leaning towards the 4231, the 442 is used to create a tactical diversity so the game doesn't get stale or easily readable. 442 in it's standard form is hard to pull of any more without the right players and as a club, it's much easier to build a long term squad with a 4231 in mind because of the fluidity brought about by the players taking each role. The 442 works against two types of teams 1) other 442s 2) 4231's with poor deep midfielders.