The Question: why has 4-4-2 been superseded by 4-2-3-1?

[wiw]

But that's no novelty. Dalglish-Rush, Beardo-Aldo and to a lesser extent, Keegan-Toshack.

Yeah of course... the role is just slightly different depending on the formation really

[Neil Young]

Yes, the wide midfielders are effectively further forward than in a traditional 4-4-2. Or maybe the holding central two are deeper.

It's much the same I suppose.

[TartanTerror]

4-3-3, with one DM marking out the central attacking midfielder and wingers exploiting the formation's weakness on the flanks.

The problem I see - the team playing the 4-3-3 would have a 1 man advantage in defense but (assuming one to one cancelation) that leaves the 2 wings and 3 forwards attacking 2 holding midfielders and the 4 defenders. It still leaves you playing 5 attacking 6. The team playing the 4-2-3-1 is playing 4 attacking 5, unless the wings are dropping back to defend in which case I would argue they are no more of a use in generating width than having a full back push up out of the 4-2-3-1.

I guess that is the problem with the traditional notation system, in the past which "number" the player figured in determined their movement, whereas now the players movement determines his "number" in the formation, hence we come up with ManUre playing a 4-6-0.

I feel Rafa really fields a 4-2-4. There are the four traditional defenders, and 2 holding midfielders, but the front four are truly fluid. I remember Torres pinging in a nice cross for someone (Keane?) earlier this season. Torres had pulled all the way out on the right wing.