Playing three players in midfield, one being defensively minded and the other two taking an all-round 'box-to-box' role, allows for domination of midfield possession against teams playing just two in the middle. So long as your wide forwards stay in very advanced positions, it becomes too risky for the full-backs to push up, thereby limiting attacking options against you. It benefits teams made up of players who are incredibly skilled passers of the ball, allowing them to express themselves within a system that prioritises intelligent ball movement as a means to creating scoring opportunities.īy playing two very advanced wide forwards you give yourself the opportunity to nullify the threat posed by an opponent's full-backs. The system that Jose Mourinho found so much success with during his first spell at Chelsea is still popular today with some of the world's greatest clubs. The even distribution of players across the pitch tends to lend itself to players being unmarked at the moment possession is won back, opening the potential for an instant attack.
While it's difficult to pinpoint a specific formation against which 4-4-2 is especially effective, there is a case to be made for using the system when playing a team that is overly aggressive in attack. However, this takes a body away from the centre of the pitch and can force a team into playing a predictable wide game. In order to counter this, many 4-4-2 practitioners will play a defensive-minded central midfielder alongside a more attack-focused individual, it being the former's job to cut out any danger posed by an opponent's superior numbers before the backline is put under pressure. However, often you'll see one of the two forwards dropping back into midfield when not in possession in an attempt to even up the numbers. Having just two players in the centre of midfield can make keeping the ball difficult against teams playing a three-man central midfield. The formation has been around for so long that any number of ways to overcome it have been developed, a task made particularly easy if the wide players in a 4-4-2 lack discipline when it comes to their defensive duties. Predictability and rigidity are typically the problems associated with a 4-4-2, as is the enormous pressure on the central midfielders to both attack and defend constantly. Often, this can leave defensive gaps through the centre for the two strikers to take advantage of.ĭue to its clear structure and ease of execution, many teams, no matter what their 'primary' formation, will adopt something close to a 4-4-2 when under pressure and defending deep in their own half. This can result in flurries of crosses being driven into the box, but it also forces the opposition to stretch their defensive line to counter any threat down the wings. Playing two wide midfielders, as well as very wide full-backs, allows for the creation of width. For this reason, the best strikers to have ever played in a 4-4-2 are those that are adaptable and able to contend with a wide variety of situations with minimal midfield support.
Unlike formations in which only one striker is played, 4-4-2 allows the primary attackers to drive forward without having to wait for support from the midfielders. Having two dedicated strikers means that the midfield and defence needn't delay their attempts to get the ball into advanced positions. To employ 4-4-2 today, particularly if you're a 'big' club with grand ambitions, is often seen as something of a defeat and an indication that a club is unconvinced of its players' ability to execute a more advanced gameplan when in possession.Ĥ-4-2 is easy to understand and implement, meaning a well-drilled team can still find genuine success through it, but it does lack the complexity and more sophisticated passing lanes/angles offered by more modern, forward-thinking systems. Whatever the case, the formation's Golden Age has well and truly passed.
0 kommentar(er)
