4-2-3-1: We need to adjust tactically for midfield to work

[Nela]

McIntyre, I'm not advocating that this should become our permanent formation in which we always play, nor am I saying that it's the ideal formation to play. What I'm talking about is specific to our problems right now. You only have to take a quick look at any of our match threads to see that our midfield simply doesn't work. We have a hard time imposing ourselves and taking hold of games because of our midfield. No one's happy with our CMs, Nasri is isolated on the wing, and then of course there's Eboue. Given the players we have to choose from, it seems obvious that we have to do something to fix this major problem.

We desperately need more creativity from the center. The only way to get that IMO is by moving Nasri centrally, but the only way for that work is a change in formation because he's not a 4-4-2 CM.

 

[hackajack]

So where does the notion that 4-2-3-1 is an effective formation come from? Let alone the notion that it would be successful in the Premiership?

Beacuse it's what has won the title for ManU for the last two seasons and is what most continental managers prefer, eg Capello, Benitez pretty much everybody at Euro 2008 including Spain.

 

[McIntyre]

What I'm talking about is specific to our problems right now. You only have to take a quick look at any of our match threads to see that our midfield simply doesn't work. We have a hard time imposing ourselves and taking hold of games because of our midfield. No one's happy with our CMs, Nasri is isolated on the wing, and then of course there's Eboue. Given the players we have to choose from, it seems obvious that we have to do something to fix this major problem.

I recognise what you're saying Nela, We do have to try and make the best of the players we currently have and playing Nasri, Diaby, Song and Denilson/Eboue, or any combination of those five in a four man midfield does not necessarily make for a good midfield. Maybe re-jigging the formation so that we don't have to force central midfielders to play wide, defensive midfielders to play centrally, Eboue to play anywhere etc etc. might work. We'd have to try it to see, but sadly now is not the time for experimenting, especially if we have to revert back to 4-4-2 as soon as Cesc and Theo come back.

My only real gripe is that everybody seems to be pulling 4-2-3-1 out of the air, as if it's some tried and tested formation. Yet, I haven't seen it deployed to any great success in the Premiership.

Beacuse it's what has won the title for ManU for the last two seasons and is what most continental managers prefer, eg Capello, Benitez pretty much everybody at Euro 2008 including Spain.

We're going to differ on what we consider a 4-2-3-1 to be hackajack. Because as far as I'm concerned United play a 4-3-3. With three strikers/attacking midfielders (eg. Rooney, Berbatov, Ronaldo) up front, and three midfielders (eg. Giggs, Carrick, Park) in the midfield. There is no way they are playing two holding midfielders, nor three attacking midfielders. They're playing a 4-3-3.

And I don't think we should be following Benitez's example in the Premiership considering he hasn't ever won it with that formation. Nor should we follow the example of the teams at Euro 2008 since international competition is wholly different from the Premiership so the formation won't necessarily translate.

I still don't see why it is so wholeheartedly advocated, as if it is a famously successful formation.

 

[raidersoftheark]

Where the f**k have all the good threads gone?

To AC Milan and Barca forums unfortunately.

 

[hackajack]

We're going to differ on what we consider a 4-2-3-1 to be hackajack. Because as far as I'm concerned United play a 4-3-3. With three strikers/attacking midfielders (eg. Rooney, Berbatov, Ronaldo) up front, and three midfielders (eg. Giggs, Carrick, Park) in the midfield. There is no way they are playing two holding midfielders, nor three attacking midfielders. They're playing a 4-3-3.

And I don't think we should be following Benitez's example in the Premiership considering he hasn't ever won it with that formation. Nor should we follow the example of the teams at Euro 2008 since international competition is wholly different from the Premiership so the formation won't necessarily translate.

I still don't see why it is so wholeheartedly advocated, as if it is a famously successful formation.

433 is what Barca play. With a DM in the centre of three CMs (Xavi, Toure, Iniesta) and three forwards (Henry, E'too, Messi). ManU played mostly 4231 last season (Scholes and Carrick deep or Anderson and Hargreaves as at emirates), a line of three (Ronaldo, Tevez, Giggs) and Rooney up top. This had lots of rotation between Rooney and Tevez and Ronaldo - one of the reasons why Ronaldo got 25 league goals. You can see it if you look at the heat maps in the Telegraph from last year's games. This year with Berbatov they seem to be more 4411 partly the reason for Ronaldo's poor relative form since he's stuck out wider.

 

[McIntyre]

Okay hackajack, I'll give you United. It was more like a 4-2-3-1 last season, but I still don't see it as an obviously functionable formation.

Like you said, it worked so well for them because Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez were able to rotate positions so effectively. Add to that two DMs as effective as Hargreaves and Carrick, and an AM as good as Scholes and the system works well. But, as you'll notice this season, without Hargreaves to play the second DM and with the need to accommodate so many forwards and so many average midfielders like Fletcher and Park, he's had to adjust to a 4-3-3 (or a 4-4-1-1 as you see it).

And this is my point, 4-2-3-1 only works if you have players of exceptional ability, fantastic movement etc. Just look at Liverpool's failed attempts at using it if Stevie G isn't at the hub of the whole thing. It's not some magical formation that is famous for it's effectiveness, and it suffers particularly when you're playing against teams that sit as deep as our opposition do. The central AM gets crowded out, and the two sitting deeper are wasted.

All I'm saying is that I don't think this formation is any more or less likely to get us success and so I don't see why so many people are calling for us to play it. Like Nela said, it might be a solution to our current lack of creativity and players playing out of position. But, personally, I don't think it's a formation that would suit us and we would certainly need a few more talented/disciplined individuals to make it work. Just because it works for someone else, doesn't mean it is universally successful.

 

[hackajack]

I think it's evolved because it has so much flexibility and it consolidates the move away from traditional wingers (you remember the guys who stand out on the touchline doing bugger all most of the games). It can be used to move relatively seamlessly from the basic shape into a 433 by pushing the wide players forward or a 442 by pushing the central AM forward. Or withdraw the AMs and you've got 451 to defend with.

 

[otfgoon]

@ Offgoon

no mate we were *****ing about the 451, which is an entirely different animal.

Entirely different animal like The Black striped white Zebra & The White striped Black Zebra you mean?

Nope - as in any formation with the likes of Walcott/Hleb/Nasri/Rosicky/Bendtner/Vela on the flanks as opposed to any formation with Diaby/Denilson/Eboue on the flanks......... :wink:

I remember people moaning (including myself) when Eduardo was being deployed on the left, Walcott on the right and Hleb in the middle because we were playing rubbish dispite the results. Incaft I remember many here calling Arsène a 'coward' for doing so. And once we lost the better players to injury it only got worse.

4-5-1 and 4-2-3-1 is exactly the same formation except one is slightly more specific about positioning, even more so for a side like us who have a lot of the ball and come across deep defences.

 

[hackajack]

4-5-1 and 4-2-3-1 is exactly the same formation except one is slightly more specific about positioning, even more so for a side like us who have a lot of the ball and come across deep defences.

Well 451 is a blanket term which covers, 4231, 4141 and the Xmas tree 4321. It's worth calling out exactly which one we're talking about.

 

[Anzac]

I think it's evolved because it has so much flexibility and it consolidates the move away from traditional wingers (you remember the guys who stand out on the touchline doing bugger all most of the games). It can be used to move relatively seamlessly from the basic shape into a 433 by pushing the wide players forward or a 442 by pushing the central AM forward. Or withdraw the AMs and you've got 451 to defend with.

Agreed - and as some have pointed out recently in the 442 thread - DB feels we lined up in 442 but played 4231 in the Highbury years until we sold Paddy & replaced him with Cesc.

 

[Timleaf]

So where does the notion that 4-2-3-1 is an effective formation come from? Let alone the notion that it would be successful in the Premiership?

Beacuse it's what has won the title for ManU for the last two seasons and is what most continental managers prefer, eg Capello, Benitez pretty much everybody at Euro 2008 including Spain.

Spain played with 2 up front until Villa got injured in the semi's.

 

[outlaw_member]

Spain played a 4-4-2 in the Euro's. It was a carbon copy of the system, we played at the start of last season.

 

[Timleaf]

Agreed - and as some have pointed out recently in the 442 thread - DB feels we lined up in 442 but played 4231 in the Highbury years until we sold Paddy & replaced him with Cesc.

DB being Bergkamp? Meh, maybe...

Personally I think there's a lot of wishy-washy stuff in this thread. We played a 4-4-2 during the invincible era. Bergkamp and Henry were a partnership up front, Pires played in midfield just ahead of Cole and freddie played in midfield just in front of Lauren. We then had two central midfielders. 4-4-2.

 

[Anzac]

Agreed - and as some have pointed out recently in the 442 thread - DB feels we lined up in 442 but played 4231 in the Highbury years until we sold Paddy & replaced him with Cesc.

DB being Bergkamp? Meh, maybe...

Personally I think there's a lot of wishy-washy stuff in this thread. We played a 4-4-2 during the invincible era. Bergkamp and Henry were a partnership up front, Pires played in midfield just ahead of Cole and freddie played in midfield just in front of Lauren. We then had two central midfielders. 4-4-2.

Bergkamp in speaking to Bob Wilson recently described it as a 4231 on the field = 2 holding MCs to anchor the midfield, 2 wide attackers on the flanks playing in the foward line, TH up front leading the line & himself dropping into the 2nd striker role in the hole. It lines up as 442 but executes in open play as 4231 because of the advanced positions Pires & Freddie used to attack from.

 

[hackajack]

It was evolution rather than revolution. I still think the DB10 team was more 4411, though Fred and Bob got higher and narrower. After Pat left it started to morph into the 4231, specially in Europe.

 

[Anzac]

Thought I'd drag this out again because for mind AW HAS changed our formation / attacking pattern in open play. IMO we look as if we are playing a narrow 4231 with an AMRC/LC either side of an AMC (behind the central striker), who drift wide when we lose possession as opposed to a AMR/L on the flanks. I think this is in conjunction with the CMs sitting more in central midfield, as opposed to them getting forward in support of the attack. But I also think that Eboue has been playing this role off the flanks for some time.

I've mentioned this in a couple of threads followin the match v Sunderland, but no responses as yet. Thoughts?

 

[Clrnc]

This is such a redundant topic, other than 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 Wenger have never started with any other formation

 

[Anzac]

This is such a redundant topic, other than 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 Wenger have never started with any other formation

And he probably never will - starting formations mean little other than your coverage at kick offs - we haven't played a 442 pattern in attack or defence since the days of Vierra & Pettit - in those days it was a 5-5 split. It's the patterns you execute in open play, the roles in the patterns, and the players in those roles that are the real indication.

IMO our 'wide' mids don't come back deep enough to collect the ball to be considered genuine MR/L - they play more from the AM line ahead of the CMs - as in a 2-2-2-2-1-1, but of late I feel they've been tucking into the middle much more than previously. Last season it was after they got the ball that they came inside around the area, now they do so as soon as we get near the final 3rd & without the ball.

 

[Nela]

We started 4-2-3-1 once, away to Fenerbahce. I remember because I was so surprised to see it.

 

[Anzac]

So regardless of the starting formation does anyone think that AW has changed anything in regards to our style/tactics/patterns or whatever you want to call it?