Roy Hodgson's footballing philosophy

[The_weatherman]

Those players are a better fit in a 4-4-2, the player that doesn't fit into a 4-4-2 system is Torres therefore we should stick to our current system and buy better wide players, otherwise sell Torres and buy two good strikers.

I disagree, players like Gerrard, Kuyt, Babel and Maxi are IMO a better fit for some variant of 4-2-3-1. They are, except for Gerrard who is more central, players who can play upfront and cut in and attack the goal, or they are supposedly able to do it. Add Jovanovic to the mix and I think we shouldn't not try any big formation changes. I cant think of any top side that plays 4-4-2 today.

[Neil Young]

I cant think of any top side that plays 4-4-2 today.

Spain?

Don't tell me, they play 2-2-2-2-2.

[MrShawnMichaels]

Spain?

Don't tell me, they play 2-2-2-2-2.

They play a 4-2-3-1 with Villa on the left.

[dww]

While I don't see many top teams using an old fashioned 4-4-2 Spurs do quite often (even using the previously thought extinct 'big man - little man' combination on occasion) and many other teams use 4-4-2 based systems with some regularity (United, Chelsea and Spain to name a few).

I think that a lot of teams use something that approximates it any way. Rafa's 4-2-3-1 often looked a lot like a 4-4-2 if you could get over the idea of having to count Gerrard as a forward.

[Neil Young]

They play a 4-2-3-1 with Villa on the left.

Thanks for the update.

[The_weatherman]

While I don't see many top teams using an old fashioned 4-4-2 Spurs do quite often (even using the previously thought extinct 'big man - little man' combination on occasion) and many other teams use 4-4-2 based systems with some regularity (United, Chelsea and Spain to name a few).

I think that a lot of teams use something that approximates it any way. Rafa's 4-2-3-1 often looked a lot like a 4-4-2 if you could get over the idea of having to count Gerrard as a forward.

I think that a lot of these systems are more related to 4-2-3-1 than 4-4-2, I'll give you Spurs though they do it successfully, United most of the time play Rooney on his own and Chelsea played a diamond midfield with two upfront or the Milan formation, IIRC. For Spain I think we are seeing how Villa will operate a lot of the time for Barca next season, coming in from the left of a powerful centre forward.

Of course it can be useful to have 442 in your locker but when top teams play other top teams I think a 4-5-1 of sorts is usually what first springs to mind.

[dww]

I think that a lot of these systems are more related to 4-2-3-1 than 4-4-2, I'll give you Spurs though they do it successfully, United most of the time play Rooney on his own and Chelsea played a diamond midfield with two upfront or the Milan formation, IIRC. For Spain I think we are seeing how Villa will operate a lot of the time for Barca next season, coming in from the left of a powerful centre forward.

Of course it can be useful to have 442 in your locker but when top teams play other top teams I think a 4-5-1 of sorts is usually what first springs to mind.

I think you are mostly highlighting the problem with using such a reductive way of describing a system - i.e. the 'Milan' style diamond is clearly a 4-4-2 based system on the basis of the types of player used, it is however obviously different to the old school British variant of the same trio of digits.

I'm not convinced that United don't really play with 2 wingers and two more attacking central players (one of which is a genuine striker in Rooney but the other changes between an AM and a second striker). I'm also not sure that the current United team are all that far (tactically) from old Fergie 4-4-2 teams. People just tend to try and analyse them in the currently fashionable framework.

Spain is interesting but there is an argument that just because Villa starts wide shouldn't take away from the fact that he is a/ expected to get in the box and b/ is often a fair bit further forward than the other midfielders.

[Mattshark]

I think that a lot of these systems are more related to 4-2-3-1 than 4-4-2, I'll give you Spurs though they do it successfully, United most of the time play Rooney on his own and Chelsea played a diamond midfield with two upfront or the Milan formation, IIRC. For Spain I think we are seeing how Villa will operate a lot of the time for Barca next season, coming in from the left of a powerful centre forward.

Of course it can be useful to have 442 in your locker but when top teams play other top teams I think a 4-5-1 of sorts is usually what first springs to mind.

Even Chelsea commonly played Anelka on the left of the front too when Drogba played, they rarely played as a pair.

[Neil Young]

I think you are mostly highlighting the problem with using such a reductive way of describing a system - i.e. the 'Milan' style diamond is clearly a 4-4-2 based system on the basis of the types of player used, it is however obviously different to the old school British variant of the same trio of digits.

I'm not convinced that United don't really play with 2 wingers and two more attacking central players (one of which is a genuine striker in Rooney but the other changes between an AM and a second striker). I'm not sure that the current United team are all that far (tactically) from old Fergie 4-4-2 teams. People just tend to try and analyse them in the currently fashionable framework.

Spain is interesting but there is an argument that just because Villa starts wide shouldn't take away from the fact that he is a/ expected to get in the box and b/ is often a fair bit further forward than the other midfielders.

[The_weatherman]

I think you are mostly highlighting the problem with using such a reductive way of describing a system - i.e. the 'Milan' style diamond is clearly a 4-4-2 based system on the basis of the types of player used, it is however obviously different to the old school British variant of the same trio of digits.

I'm not convinced that United don't really play with 2 wingers and two more attacking central players (one of which is a genuine striker in Rooney but the other changes between an AM and a second striker). I'm also not sure that the current United team are all that far (tactically) from old Fergie 4-4-2 teams. People just tend to try and analyse them in the currently fashionable framework.

Spain is interesting but there is an argument that just because Villa starts wide shouldn't take away from the fact that he is a/ expected to get in the box and b/ is often a fair bit further forward than the other midfielders.

This way is maybe not perfect for describing tactics but it is the most descriptve I can think of that doesn't involve long sentences and tactics are difficult to debate in other forms.

Anyway I think United are sometimes closer to a 4-6-0 than 4-4-2, that is at least when Berbatov doesn't play. Although it could be that they are playing a false nine which maybe blur how people see them, that make 4-4-2 a lot like 4-5-1, since it's hard to class the second forward exactly as a a striker or an AM.

Regarding Milan then I think they could also be described as 4-1-2-2-1 or 4-3-2-1 (christmas tree) but I usually just chalk it off as a variant of 4-5-1.

Maybe the point should be about wheather 4-4-2 is changing and if it is becoming more flexible and fluid with the false nine for example.

[dww]

This way is maybe not perfect for describing tactics but it is the most descriptve I can think of that doesn't involve long sentences and tactics are difficult to debate in other forms.

I think people are un-necessarily scared of 'long sentences'. When using simple descriptions like '4-4-2' vs '4-3-3' there is a real danger that all subtlety and much of the meaning is lost. Sometimes precision trumps brevity.

Anyway I think United are sometimes closer to a 4-6-0 than 4-4-2, that is at least when Berbatov doesn't play. Although it could be that they are playing a false nine which maybe blur how people see them, that make 4-4-2 a lot like 4-5-1, since it's hard to class the second forward exactly as a a striker or an AM.

To be honest when I have seen them that has very much not been the case - I'll admit to not following them avidly. Since Queiroz left I think they have been increasingly reverting to much more simple tactics, even if some players are more tactically aware than before (Giggs and Rooney in particular).

Regarding Milan then I think they could also be described as 4-1-2-2-1 or 4-3-2-1 (christmas tree) but I usually just chalk it off as a variant of 4-5-1.

Maybe the point should be about wheather 4-4-2 is changing and if it is becoming more flexible and fluid with the false nine for example.

Possibly but it all seems a bit like fitting a debate to the way we represent systems rather than actually dealing with a real world phenomena to me.

[The_weatherman]

I think people are un-necessarily scared of 'long sentences'. When using simple descriptions like '4-4-2' vs '4-3-3' there is a real danger that all subtlety and much of the meaning is lost. Sometimes precision trumps brevity.



To be honest when I have seen them that has very much not been the case - I'll admit to not following them avidly. Since Queiroz left I think they have been increasingly reverting to much more simple tactics, even if some players are more tactically aware than before (Giggs and Rooney in particular).



Possibly but it all seems a bit like fitting a debate to the way we represent systems rather than actually dealing with a real world phenomena to me.

You are just being difficult and I'm being smug.

[dww]

You are just being difficult and I'm being smug.

Perhaps, but not deliberately so on my behalf.

[BillobShaisley]

The dutch clearly rate Kuyt ahead of Babel. I don't get the anti-kuyt sentiment amongst many of our fans?

[Fernandinho]

i think it stems from the fact that he can have an absolutely **** game where his touch is worse then a 10 year old girl