The contemporary 4-2-3-1 and its modern popularity

The Football Front’s writer Itsaballnotabomb evaluates the 4-2-3-1.

So over to our tactical expert.

The 4-2-3-1 was reportedly created in Spain by Josep Guardiola’s mentor Juanma Lillo. Lillo created the formation in the early 1990′s for his side at the time, Cultural Leonesa. But even he believes that someone might have created it before die to a variation of a 4-4-2.

The popularity of the formation was seen in the last World Cup where only mad dogs and Englishmen chose not to play the formation. So why has it become so popular? One formation is never inexplicably better than another, the 4-4-2 will not always lose to a 4-3-3. However, formations become fashionable, like any other trail of thought, and so gets played more, even if it does not necessarily fit into a clubs philosophy or playing staff.

One of the positives of a 4-2-3-1 is the defensive cover it provides, especially centrally. This is because the 2 holding midfield players or the double pivot, tend not to go forward as much. Therefore, if the opposition counter attacks, there will still be 5 players back, even if one of the full backs has pushed forward.

Another use of the double pivot is that it prevents the classic number 10 role or the playmaking role just behind the striker. With the two defensive midfielders there, it can be almost impossible for the attacking midfielder to find space and create due to the player being doubled up on.

As with any 2 midfield players though, one is usually more attack minded than the other and there can be a lot of variants in the way in which these two players set up, although one normally has a creative role than the other. For example, Real Madrid last season used the 4-2-3-1 fairly successfully. The Madrid club used Xabi Alonso and either Lassana Diarra or Sami Khedira. Xabi Alonso played as a deep-lying playmaker to great effect, whilst the other player played simple passes but closed down more aggressively and put more tackles in.

The front 4 in the 4-2-3-1 can also provide the side with great flexibility up front. The attacking midfielders can be set up in a narrow formation where essentially all of them play as Trequartistas, the width in this set-up will be provided by the full backs. The formation can also be played with traditional wingers, or with inside forwards who would cut in towards the goal, in this case, the wingers will yet again will have the duty of providing width.

With the 6 defensive players behind them the attacking four have a lot of freedom and may also change positions with each other through-out the match. This can create confusion for the oppositions defence, especially if they use man marking.

As with any formation that has a player behind the striker, there is a lot of pressure on that player to try and create for the other players, especially the striker. If this player plays well, which is more easily done against a 4-4-2 than a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 due to the space between the defence and midfield which I explained here. l, the team will function a lot better. Mezut Ozil has proved himself to be one of the best players in this position because of his great movement off the ball and eye for a defence splitting pass, shown by his performances for Germany and Real Madrid last year.

One problem which often happens with a 4-2-3-1 is that there is not a link between the 6 at the back and the 4 up front. Often the six do not support the attacking players, just leaving them to try and score whilst they leave the six to try and defend. These sides often lack fluidity and the opposition can find it very easy to defend unless the other side counter attacks efficiently.

Another problem that can happen is if the wingers or wide attacking midfield players do not track back. This can lead to a 2 v 1 situation with the full backs which can also happen in a 4-3-3 which I explained here.

Yet again, as with any formation there are positives and negatives. What the coach needs to do, is choose the best formation so that he can contain the side he is playing against and also exploit them. He also needs to pick the best formation for his players and his club. For example, you cannot imagine anyone playing any thing else than 3 in midfield at Barcelona as it does not suit their passing style.

This article was written by Itsaballnotabomb, you can follow him on Twitter at - @ballnotabomb

You can find more of his work on his blog - itsaballnotabomb.wordpress.com

Things you may like to read

4-4-2- its failings and it's former successes

Is there a right or wrong way to play football?

England’s new 4-3-3 system, the platform for English success? – Part Two

4-4-2- its failings and it's former successes

In his debut article for The Football Front, Itsaballnotabomb explains the strengths and weaknesses of the 4-4-2 formation.

The 4-4-2, arguably the most famous and most popular formation of the last 20 years. However, it is now falling out of favour.

For any manager in the 1980’s or 1990’s, especially in England, the notion of this formation 'falling out of favour' would be laughed at. Almost every side, whether it would be the national team or a club. They would play a 4- 4-2 of some variant. The only real exceptions to this idea were the Dutch and the clubs that they had influenced, most notably Barcelona, who had been transformed by Johan Cruyff.

The simplicity of the formation was loved by players and managers alike. It created partnerships in the formation. The partnerships included both centre backs, then the full backs linking with the wingers, the two central midfielders (one would normally hold his position while the other drove into the box) and the two strikers (traditionally a player good in the air and the other striker was quick and could finish). These partnerships are written into the folk-lore of English football and are still talked about today. The likes of Shearer and Sutton or SAS, Pallister and Bruce, Beckham and Neville and Yorke and Cole are all fondly remembered by British fans.

The 4-4-2 remained dominant in international competitions and for club sides in Europe until late into the last decade. Barcelona and Spain destroyed the 4-4-2, first in Euro 2008, where Spain picked apart the opposition by keeping possession with one touch passes and good technique. And then in Rome in the Champions League Final where Manchester United chased shadows against Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona and lost 2-0.

The problem with the 4-4-2 against a team playing a 4-3-3 system is that you simply have less people in midfield. It is therefore harder to control that area of the pitch thus making it difficult to keep possession. As shown in the diagram above, if player 1 has the ball, either one of the midfielders will try to pressure him and win the ball back, if they do this successfully, player 2 or 3 for the green team will then be free and a simple pass can be completed to that player. It is essentially like playing piggy-in-the-middle with the two central midfielders.

One way to get around this is if the two central midfielders of the other side sit deep or don’t press, although this allows the deep lying midfielder on the other team a lot of time and space which can still cause problems.

Another problematic aspect of the 4-4-2 system is that if a striker on the opposing side drops off between the midfield and the defence and no-one tracks him he will be allowed the space and time to shoot or pick a pass. However, if one of the centre backs follows him, it can lead to a 1 on 1 and a large hole in the defence to exploit, especially if the other striker has pace, this gap can be easily exploited. Thierry Henry and Dennis Bergkamp did this to great effect with Arsenal in the early 2000’s.

But if a defensive midfielder, as he would be in a 4-3-3, is sitting in front of the defence it makes the opposition striker dropping off the defence far easier to deal with, as the marking duties can easily be switched.

The 4-4-2 though can still be a useful formation. The natural width in a 4-4-2 allows a side to stretch teams. This can be done with direct passing towards the flanks. As shown in the diagram above, when the cross comes in from the wing there can be up to 4 people in the box, which can be extremely difficult to defend against. Manchester United have used this tactic extremely often in recent years. United would play a long ball out to Valencia/ Beckham, who then wait for the midfielders to make their runs and then any decent ball into the box can lead to a good goal scoring opportunity.

Another advantage of this formation is the ability for the front two to link up easily. This can also be exploited with a long pass, this time instead of out wide, it would be fired directly at one of the strikers. One of the strikers, usually the one who is better in the air, would then flick the ball on, whilst the other striker, usually the quicker of the two, would try to get on the end of it and exploit the space behind the defence, leading to a clear chance on goal.

Tacticians are claiming the 4-4-2 is on the decline. This isn’t true, formations go in and out of fashion quickly; the 4-4-2 has just become another victim of this cycle. For a defensive or counter-attacking side the 4-4-2 still provides the side with plenty of attacking options going forward. Also if the space between the midfield and defence is minimal and the side is willing to sit back and let the opposition have possession, it can still be a useful formation.

This article was written by Itsaballnotabomb, you can follow him on Twitter at - @ballnotabomb

You can find more of his work on his blog - itsaballnotabomb.wordpress.com

Things you may like to read

Is there a right or wrong way to play football?

The Eternal Struggle

Aston Villa and Alex McLeish – A marriage destined to fail