Not really a fan of systems as such. But I was at my wit's
end with most of the world cup teams electing to play
two defensive midfielders. LONG LIVE FERGIE.

This article is about the historical 4 4 2 formation. Interesting read.

This was a bad World Cup for a lot of old favourites – anybody who appeared on the Nike ad, Marcello Lippi, preconceptions about Africa – but none of them had quite such a miserable tournament as 4-4-2. When even its old friend Michael Owen starts doubting it, the future for the formation that has ruled British football for 40 years looks bleak.

Johan Cruyff got stuck in as well last week – not particularly surprisingly given his lifelong ideological insistence on 4-3-3 – pointing out that "the numbers don't match up" and explaining that a system of three straight bands doesn't lend itself to the creation of passing triangles. This has always been an axiom: all else being equal, a triangle will always beat a line, and the Cruyff mode of play has always been predicated on the creation of triangles. A 4-2-3-1, with its W shape in midfield, is essentially comprised of interlocking triangles.

Which raises the question of why, if 4-4-2's disadvantages are so obvious, it has survived for so long? To start with, it should be made clear that Cruyff is speaking about his particular vision of football, which is rooted in ball possession and pressing, something that caused him, even before the game, to align himself with Spain rather than Holland in the World Cup final. That is one way to play – and the recent success of Barcelona and Spain shows it is a successful way to play – but it certainly isn't the only way. That a short-passing, technique-based game isn't for everybody was demonstrated very clearly in a tournament in which many people preferred the more dynamic, if more reactive, football of Germany.

Those passing triangles are only important for a side looking to dominate possession. For a side looking to disrupt that, 4-4-2 can be extremely effective – the famous "two banks of four" that for a long time seemed to be such a feature of any English team playing an away game in European competition. Fulham showed last season how effective the style can still be. Sit the midfield line deep on the back four so there is minimal space between the lines for attacking midfielders or deep-lying forwards to exploit, and it becomes very hard to penetrate. It doesn't matter how many triangles you create if you never get the ball closer than 35 yards from the opposition goal.

Think of Gérard Houllier's Liverpool away to Roma in the Uefa Cup in 2001, with Owen and Robbie Fowler left high upfield, often 50 yards and more from the midfield: keep it tight, make sure of the clean sheet, and if, as in that case, Owen can pilfer two goals, that's a bonus. Think of Fulham in the Europa League semi-final against Hamburg.

Slovenia's method both in qualifying and at this World Cup, although slightly more possession-based, wasn't dissimilar, particularly after Zlatan Ljubijankic had replaced Zlatko Dedic. Ljubijankic is a more technical player and a better finisher than Dedic, but he doesn't drop off and doesn't forage which, at least against England – a game in which Slovenia played with such trepidation you wondered if anybody had told them Stan Mortensen and Tom Finney had retired – left Valter Birsa's occasional forays on the right as the only bridge between midfield and attack.

Sacchi's squeeze and the modern stretch

So 4-4-2 has a future as a reactive formation, yet it was also the preferred formation of Arrigo Sacchi, probably the most proactive coach of all. It was the system's defensive attributes, though, that made it work for him. The great strength of the Milan of the late 80s was its pressing, with Sacchi demanding an ideal of 25 metres from centre-forward to centre-back when his side were out of possession. They squeezed high up the pitch, and so 4-4-2 made sense because a four-man midfield meant each member of the back four was protected by a midfielder and so was less likely to be isolated (which, with acres of space behind him, was a real concern).

Possession was less of a concern for Sacchi. I recently watched Milan's 5-0 victory over Real Madrid in the second leg of the semi-final of the 1989 European Cup, and was struck by how often (comparatively speaking) they gave the ball away. Madrid, for long periods, looked the better side on the ball, but were undone by the dynamism of Sacchi's side (although 5-0 was still a freakish scoreline). It's probably the case that, as Egil Olsen posited in a more pragmatic context, a team have to choose between prioritising possession and position on the field.

Pressing is still part of the game, and Barcelona and Spain both perform the high press excellently, but it has been made harder to execute because of the liberalisation of the offside law. The effective playing area has been stretched, and as a result, three-band systems have increasingly been replaced by four-band systems.

Perhaps it is just about conceivable that, if players could be persuaded to put their egos to one side (and that could be an issue for Roy Hodgson if he attempts to apply the Fulham system at Liverpool this season), a club team could still be drilled into an effective pressing 4-4-2, but achieving that level of discipline is an exhausting, demoralisingly boring process that became too much even for Milan after three seasons; it was very hard to implement then, with the change in the offside law and players enjoying greater freedom to change clubs it is even harder now. At international level, anyway, where the time available to work with players is limited and they are fatigued by club commitments, it is impossible, something even Sacchi was forced to acknowledge.

4-4-2 isn't dead

What the World Cup has done is to expose the problems 4-4-2 without hard pressing faces, and not just in terms of being outnumbered in midfield; with the stretching of the effective playing area, the midfield band can become exposed, with space in front of it and space behind it. That gap between defensive and midfield lines was precisely the space Mesut Ozil exploited so well in the first half of Germany's victory over England (this space, as Matthias Sindelar, Alfred Bickel, Laszlo Kubala, Nandor Hidegkuti, Pelé, Günter Netzer,Diego Maradona, Ruud Gullit, Zinedine Zidane, Rui Costa and Juan Román Riquelme and countless others have demonstrated, has always been a problem for England, and that weakness is one of the reasons Eric Cantona, Dennis Bergkamp and Gianfranco Zola were so successful in the Premier League in the 90s). Quite apart from the furious search for immediate justice that followed the non-award of a goal after Frank Lampard's shot had crossed the line, it may be that a desire to compress that area was partly behind England's suicidally high line in the second half of that game.

And yet when the Premier League begins again next month, probably around half the sides will be playing 4-4-2, and not all as a stifling tactic. That is not because of a lack of tactical sophistication, or at least not just because of a lack of tactical sophistication: 4-4-2, to those brought up in Britain, is the default; it's what every player is brought up to understand. A five-man midfield, however it is arrayed, brings its own problems, perhaps most obviously that it can be difficult, particularly for less technical teams, to get men forward to support the lone striker.

Below the very highest level, it may be that it is better simply to let players do what comes naturally. Then there is the issue of personnel, particularly at clubs with a relatively limited budget. At Sunderland, for instance, Steve Bruce may like the idea of 4-2-3-1, but when he has Kenwyne Jones and Darren Bent forming a potent partnership, it makes little sense to disrupt it, even if the corollary is that he occasionally loses control of midfield. Sunderland's form last season notably improved when Steed Malbranque moved to the left and began cutting infield, effectively giving Sunderland an auxiliary central midfielder and bringing them greater control in the centre.

So 4-4-2 isn't dead, but the World Cup confirmed that the trend of the past decade at the highest level is against it.

Please tell that to the NFF whose insistence on hiring Lagerback was based on the theory that "they wanted to see Nigeria go back to their successful 4-4-2 formation". The hapless suits at the NFF lauded the superiority of the 4-4-2, decrying Nigerias lack of success since Super Eagles switched to 4-3-3. . . . conveniently forgetiing that Nigeria only had success with 4-4-2 when everyone else was playing 4-4-2.

Needless to say, in the end, Lagerback was left looking like a tactical dinosaur.

Manchester United remain possibly the only big team left who still employ the 4-4-2 formation, although they do not move in straight lines like regular 4-4-2 teams. It is also pertinent to note that they always switch to 4-3-3 when playing against big teams.

Brilliant article by the way.

@Ibime,
you'd be tempted to think the 4-4-2 is dead.In actual fact I think you're setting up to lose if it's your primary formation.It's vanished from continental Europe for at least half a decade (from the way I see it),and it's only in England we still see shades of it.
As for those clowns in the NFF,they can hardly tell you what the 4-4-2 does for the team.
Like you rightly pointed out,United still employ it but I think Fergie has been trying to drift away from it for a long while though he still ends up using it for considerable portions within the season.

doyin13:

Not really a fan of systems as such.  But I was at my wit's
end with most of the world cup teams electing to play
two defensive midfielders. LONG LIVE FERGIE.

This article is about the historical 4 4 2 formation. Interesting read.

That's Jonathan Wilson at his best. . . . . .
I will get back to you on him.

Ibime:

Please tell that to the NFF whose insistence on hiring Lagerback was based on the theory that "they wanted to see Nigeria go back to their successful 4-4-2 formation". The hapless suits at the NFF lauded the superiority of the 4-4-2, decrying Nigerias lack of success since Super Eagles switched to 4-3-3. . . . conveniently forgetiing that Nigeria only had success with 4-4-2 when everyone else was playing 4-4-2.
Needless to say, in the end, Lagerback was left looking like a tactical dinosaur.

All tactical systems are relative and all are reliant on the players available and circumstance.
It may be that the overwhelming dominance of 4-4-2 in English thinking means it retains a valuable.

Manchester United remain possibly the only big team left who still employ the 4-4-2 formation, although they do not move in straight lines like regular 4-4-2 teams. It is also pertinent to note that they always switch to 4-3-3 when playing against big teams.

Brilliant article by the way.

Bayern Munich used this same formation throughout last season to reach the CL-final.
Fulham FC play the 4-4-2 system and they reached the Europa league final.

There's still life in 4-4-2 system but you need the right players for it to work so well.

~Sauron~:

Bayern Munich used this same formation throughout last season to reach the CL-final.

Bayern play 4-2-3-1 with Muller tucked behind Olic. . .

Ibime:

Bayern play 4-2-3-1 with Muller tucked behind Olic. . .

Hmmmmm. . . .

Wouldn't it just be easier to call it 4-5-1. . . .

Ibime:

Bayern play 4-2-3-1 with Muller tucked behind Olic. . .

They played 4-4-2. . . .

^^^And is Muller not behind Olic in that thing you just posted?


Olic

Ribery Muller Robben

Bommel Schweini

I agree with Sauron.
Formation depends on the personnel available.
The 4-3-3 favours highly mobile players who can cover for each other.
Nigeria do not have the players to do well in that kind of formation.
Certainly the 4-4-2 ain't dead

Ibime:

^^^And is Muller not behind Olic in that thing you just posted?


                  Olic

Ribery        Muller       Robben

         Bommel   Schweini

Where did you see Robben in what i posted. . . .Are you daydreaming?

Ribery and Altintop were wingers. . . . .Muller and Olic were the strikers on the night.
The issue of one tucking behind the other makes no difference. . . .2 strikers are 2 strikers, don't you think?

~Sauron~:

Where did you see Robben in what i posted. . . .Are you daydreaming?

Ribery and Altintop were wingers. . . . .Muller and Olic were the strikers on the night.
The issue of one tucking behind the other makes no difference. . . .2 strikers are 2 strikers, don't you think?

Whats all this nonsense?. . . . you claimed that Bayern play 4-4-2, now you are yarning that they play[b]ed[/b] 4-4-2. .

Which kain nonsense you dey yarn?

Bayern play 4-2-3-1. . . . Muller is an attacking midfielder first and a forward second. . . his role in Bayern is exactly the same as Gerrard's role in Liverpool. . . .

Ibime:

Whats all this nonsense?. . . . you claimed that Bayern play 4-4-2, now you are yarning that they play[b]ed[/b] 4-4-2. .
Which kain nonsense you dey yarn?

Bayern Munich play 4-4-2
4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers. . . . .Na you know where you see 4-2-3-1.

Bayern play 4-2-3-1. . . . Muller is an attacking midfielder first and a forward second. . . his role in Bayern is exactly the same as Gerrard's role in Liverpool. . . .

This na rubbish. . . . .
it's like saying Berbatov is an attacking midfielder because he tucks behind Rooney. . . .
Olic and Muller are strikers. . . . .When Muller doesn't play. . . .It's Mario Gomez and Olic or Klose and Olic.
They play 4-4-2.


http://www.goal.com/en/news/1716/champions-league/2010/02/17/1795324/bayern-munich-2-1-fiorentina-controversial-klose-strike

A controversial goal right at the death gave Bayern a priceless first leg win over a Fiorentina side that may well feel hard done by after battling to what they assumed would be a ten-man draw.
There were no surprises from Louis van Gaal today. The Bayern Munich coach lined up his side in the same ultra-aggressive 4-4-2 setup that has produced a 12-match winning streak.

I can produce 5000 other links that say Bayern play 4-4-2 formation.

Only someone who started watching footie yesterday would describe Muller as a striker.

Muller is by definition, an attacking midfielder, sometimes called a forward, but never a striker.

What you are saying is the equivalent of someone calling Gerrard a striker just because he plays behind Torres. . . . you know that person must be born yesterday.

A flat 4-4-2 is defined by deep wingers. Ribery and Robben cannot be wingers in a traditional 4-4-2. I think this is the main distinction between 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1.

Muller, Ribery and Robben play inbetween the midfield and the lone striker, therefore making a 4-band system as opposed to a 4-4-2 which is a flat 3-band system (defence, midfield, attack) . . . . this is the main distinction. . . .

The point of the article is that the traditional flat 4-4-2 is dead, and I stand absolved when I say Manure (not Bayern) are prolly the last big team playing the traditional flat 4-4-2.

Ibime:

Only someone who started watching footie yesterday would describe Muller as a striker.

Muller is by definition, an attacking midfielder, sometimes called a forward, but never a striker.

What you are saying is the equivalent of someone calling Gerrard a striker just because he plays behind Torres. . . . you know that person must be born yesterday.

A flat 4-4-2 is defined by deep wingers. Ribery and Robben cannot be wingers in a traditional 4-4-2. I think this is the main distinction between 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1.

Muller, Ribery and Robben play inbetween the midfield and the lone striker, therefore making a 4-band system as opposed to a 4-4-2 which is a flat 3-band system (defence, midfield, attack) . . . . this is the main distinction. . . .

The point of the article is that the traditional flat 4-4-2 is dead, and I stand absolved when I say Manure (not Bayern) are prolly the last big team playing the traditional flat 4-4-2.

Stop yarning dust. . . . . .Bayern played 4-4-2 in the CL.
I just spoke to Dayo who knows nothing apart from Bayern Munich and he confirmed they sometimes play 4-4-2 depending on the players available and you are here quoting 4-band system.

The traditional 4-4-2 isn't dead. . . . . . . . .Fulham played 4-4-2 throughout their campaign in Europa League and they were a whisker away winning the competition so i dunno what you are hollering about. When the EPL kicks off next month, more than half of the teams in the premier league will still play the 4-4-2 system.

^^^ Go and call Dayo to come and tell us that Bayern standard formation is 4-4-2. Olodo! 

First you say Bayern play 4-4-2, then you say Bayern play[b]ed[/b] 4-4-2, then you say Bayern played 4-4-2 in UCL.

Bayern's standard formation is 4-2-3-1. . . .

Of course, depending on which player is available, the system may change. Is that something new?

As long as the starting 11 is on the pitch, the system is 4-2-3-1. . . it will only change if Muller is injured cos he's their only ACM.

4.4.2 DEPENDS ON PLAYERS AVAILABLE. Carlo at ac Milan played that formation because he had Schevchenko and Crespo at their peak and it was a huge sucess.
Believe me at Chelsea, if Carlo can acquire Torres, he will swith to 4.4.2 and will not be tempted to abandon it half way through the season.

Ibime:

^^^ Go and call Dayo to come and tell us that Bayern standard formation is 4-4-2. Olodo! 
First you say Bayern play 4-4-2, then you say Bayern play[b]ed[/b] 4-4-2, then you say Bayern played 4-4-2 in UCL.
Bayern's standard formation is 4-2-3-1. . . .

Bayern's formation is 4-4-2, Amigo.

Of course, depending on which player is available, the system may change. Is that something new?
As long as the starting 11 is on the pitch, the system is 4-2-3-1. . . it will only change if Muller is injured cos he's their only ACM.

The formation is 4-4-2.
U are the only one disputing this fact. . . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-209599.0.html

~Sauron~:

The formation is 4-4-2.
U are the only one disputing this fact. . . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-209599.0.html

You are quoting Dayo from 2008 when Klose and Toni were playing upfront and Klinsmann/Magath was manager. Onye oshi.

Please go and call Dayo!!! Nonsense!

He's already told you on Manure thread that Bayern only play 4-4-2 when Muller is injured and you are still here yarning opaks.

At least, if you learn anything from this debate, its that Muller is traditionally an AM, not the striker you thought he was. Who can blame you since you dont even watch Bundesliga?

Ibime:

You are quoting Dayo from 2008 when Klose and Toni were playing upfront and Klinsmann/Magath was manager. Onye oshi.
Please go and call Dayo!!! Nonsense!

The fact that you were born on the 1st of April shouldn't make you a retard!!!
Bayern have always deployed 4-4-2 formation. . . .I remember an article in Guardian when the Bayern management said they are still committed to the formation under Louis Van Gaal and you are here yarning opaks.

He's already told you on Manure thread that Bayern only play 4-4-2 when Muller is injured and you are still here yarning opaks.

What has Muller gotta do with this?
What are Klose, Olic, Gomez in Bayern? Defenders?

This is another evidence that LVG is a fan of 4-4-2 more than any other formation.
Leverkusen vs Bayern Munich. . . .

At least, if you learn anything from this debate, its that Muller is traditionally an AM, not the striker you thought he was. Who can blame you since you dont even watch Bundesliga?

Muller is a second striker. . . .
Calling Muller an AM is like saying Berbatov is an AM for Man Utd.
Stop acting like a dolt. . . . .Go to ZonalMarking where tactics and formations are discussed and see what formation Bayern Munich play instead of embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

I subscribed  ESPN before you even learnt what they were about.
A quick glance at the MATCHDAY threads of European leagues on this forum would tell you i watch more LIVE Bunde$liga games than anyone on this forum.

Why dont you stop embarassing yourself on a public forum?

So Muller is a striker ala Berbatov?

Get this through your head, you public louse, Muller HAS always been a midfielder throughout his career. An eedjat  like yourself may be fooled if you see Muller named as a forward, but those of us who watch the game know he plays as an attacking midfielder.

No more debate. . . go and call Dayo.

dayokanu:

Depends on the role you assign Muller. I see Muller as a false striker. Who does more midfield work.

He was trying to interprete the role Ozil played for National Team.

The thing is Van Gaal is a 4-3-3 person and he tweaks any formation to look like 4-3-3

Ibime:

Why dont you stop embarassing yourself on a public forum?

So Muller is a striker ala Berbatov?

Get this through your head, you public louse, Muller HAS always been a midfielder throughout his career. An eedjat  like yourself may be fooled if you see Muller named as a forward, but those of us who watch the game know he plays as an attacking midfielder.

You are a world class lummox. . . . .Sometimes i think seminal fluids contaminate your logic process.
How can you tell us here that Bayern don't play 4-4-2 even after i have shown you stacks of evidence they do.

Ibime:

No more debate. . . go and call Dayo.

I don't need to call DK. . . .
He pretty much summed it up when he said Muller is a false striker.
That simply means he plays as one of the front 2 and intermittently drop to the midfield a la Berbatov to link the midfield with the attack.
Rooney played this role when United had Saha(06/07) and when they had Ruud(04/05 and 05/06), Is Rooney an AM?

Dayokanu:

Depends on the role you assign Muller. I see Muller as a false striker. Who does more midfield work.

He was trying to interprete the role Ozil played for National Team.

The thing is Van Gaal is a 4-3-3 person and he tweaks any formation to look like 4-3-3

Just to help your education this rainy afternoon. . . .

SCHALKE vs BAYERN
Bayern went with their familiar shape, a cross between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1, with high wingers and Muller dropping off the front



FIORENTINA vs BAYERN
Bayern lined up in a fairly standard 4-4-2, albeit with advanced wingers, and Thomas Muller looking to drop off into space, so it sometimes becomes a 4-2-3-1


Muller played in both games and they still lined up 4-4-2 contrary to your moronic and pathetic comment that Bayern play 4-4-2 ONLY when Muller is injured.

If analysing football is far greater than what your IQ can support, why not try knitting and leave football with people like me.
Your uncanny ability to spew crap is peerless even when faced with obvious facts.

~Sauron~:

SCHALKE vs BAYERN
Bayern went with their familiar shape, a cross between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1, with high wingers and Muller dropping off the front


FIORENTINA vs BAYERN
Bayern lined up in a fairly standard 4-4-2, albeit with advanced wingers, and Thomas Muller looking to drop off into space, so it sometimes becomes a 4-2-3-1


Muller played in both games and they still lined up 4-4-2 contrary to your moronic and pathetic comment that Bayern play 4-4-2 ONLY when Muller is injured.

The fact is that whether they advertise that they are playing 4-4-2 on the tactics board, the players roles are 4-2-3-1.

I would believe your bullcrap if Robben and Ribery were actual 4-4-2 wingers.

~Sauron~:

Bayern lined up in a fairly standard 4-4-2, albeit with advanced wingers, and Thomas Muller looking to drop off into space, so it sometimes becomes a 4-2-3-1

Lemme guess. . . . if you take a 4-4-2, push the wingers up high, then push one of the strikers back into AM, then it automatically becomes a 4-2-3-1



               Olic

Ribery   Muller      Robben

     Schweini  V.Bommel


Nothing more to add, just go and call Dayo to settle this.

Schweinsteigers position: both van Bommel and Schweinsteiger do clearly play DM for me, alternating in there offensive actions.

- Badstuber, who mostly concentrates on the defense, pushes considerably fewer to the offensive than Lahm does on the right side, supporting Robben, which:
- almost plays a kind of winger, getting through - and chip balls, while Ribery mostly comes from more behind, having more offensive players in front of him.

- Müller playing SS, fullfilling the whole in the offensive midfield and sprinting into the gaps of the opposing defensive; either on the wings or in the center. He also does a good job in the backward movement.

Thats what Muller does on the field

Muller links play with whoever plays as CF.


Louis Van Gaal has utilized 3 formations thus far this season:

4-4-2 (diamond)
4-3-3 (classic Dutch system)
3-4-3 (variation of above)


Most recent and successful formations have been the 4-3-3 including the following:

Butt,

Lahm, Van Buyten, Babstuber, Pranjic/Braafheid
,
Müller, Tymoschuk, Schweinsteiger,
,
Robben, Ribery
,
Olic/Gomez,

Ibime:

The fact is that whether they advertise that they are playing 4-4-2 on the tactics board, the players roles are 4-2-3-1.
I would believe your bullcrap if Robben and Ribery were actual 4-4-2 wingers.

So what are they?
Are Nani and Valencia 4-4-2 wingers? Ronaldo n Nani?

Lemme guess. . . . if you take a 4-4-2, push the wingers [b]up high, then push one of the strikers back into AM, then it automatically becomes a 4-2-3-1[/b]

If you push the wingers high up and push one of the strikers back into AM then it becomes 4-2-1-3/4-2-4 NOT 4-2-3-1.

The line-up is 4-4-2, Mr Ibime.
If you go to any Sports-site as we speak. . . . .Bayern's line-up would be written as 4-4-2.
No team plays a static formation throughout a match. . . . .It will change when teams are attacking and will also change when they are defending.
I have seen United start games with 4-4-2 and ended up with 4-6-0.

It is how they start that matters!

               Olic

Ribery   Muller      Robben

     Schweini  V.Bommel


Nothing more to add, just go and call Dayo to settle this.

Wrong!!!

                       
Ribery            Olic             Robben
                     
                   Muller
       
     Schweini        Van Bommel

I love when people use their own mouth to defeat their own argument.

So now you have put Muller as AM and Ribery and Robben as wing-forwards.


I said this:

Ibime:

Manchester United remain possibly the only big team left who still employ the 4-4-2 formation.

And you couldnt wait to tell me that:

~Sauron~:

Bayern Munich play 4-4-2
4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers. . . . .

Now you are telling me that Bayern's formation is:

~Sauron~:

Ribery            Olic             Robben
                     
                   Muller
       
     Schweini        Van Bommel

Please tell me who are the 4 midfielders and who are the[b] 2 strikers[/b] in your formation.


So do you agree that:

Ibime:

Manchester United remain possibly the only big team left who still employ the 4-4-2 formation.

hmmm. . . . Bros Sauron, I troway salute o! 

Ibime:

I love when people use their own mouth to defeat their own argument.
So now you have put Muller as AM and Ribery and Robben as wing-forwards.

You are a consummate retard. . . .
When players interchange and fill different roles n positions, the formations change for a moment and then it reverts back.
Muller can play anywhere across the midfield and the attack department. . . . .depending on where LvG decides to use him, it will tweak the formation.

In spite of this, Bayern's formation is FOUR-FOUR-TWO.

Now you are telling me that Bayern's formation is:
Please tell me who are the 4 midfielders and who are the[b] 2 strikers[/b] in your formation.

Stop twisting facts and stop creating your own argument. . . . You are not a toddler here.
When Carrick, Fletcher and Evra played in the defence against Wolfsburg. . . .Should we conclude United played 1-7-2 because Fletcher and Carrick are midfielders playing in the defence?

Can one use that single match to say United play 1-7-2 against teams?
I know you can be daft during the summer but you are hitting a new low with your royal daftness here.
U argued only Man Utd still play the 4-4-2 and i was quick to correct you [b]Bayern play 4-4-2 and Fulham also played 4-4-2 in their run in the Europa League. . . . . .[/b]If there's any incorrect FACT in the emboldened, clearly state your case or tape it shut FOREVER.

So do you agree that:
hmmm. . . . Bros Sauron, I troway salute o! 

Man Utd alter their formation. . . .it depends on the level of the opposition they are playing.
Same goes for Bayern Munich. FACT remains both clubs still play the 4-4-2 formation more than any other formation.

If you are not a lummox, you wouldn't be asking me if i agree United are the only club left playing 4-4-2 even when they have deployed Rooney as the lone striker in their important games. If we go by your moronic logic, United don't play 4-4-2 system cos you are doing the same for Bayern.

i prefer 4-2-3-1 formation.

All these formation systems rotate over many years time. It is almost like a trend. Once upon a time, in the 80s, 4-3-3 was the in thing. Then as time went on, 4-4-2 took over as the modern formation. People were saying then that the 4-3-3 was dead, but what do we see these days? That "dead" formation is back in use again. In the 90s, it was the 3-5-2 in vogue, but that has been placed on ice for the time being. Now, it is the 4-2-3-1 that is in vogue. In the future, sometime down the line, it will get out of vogue and another formation will replace it.

My point here is, no formation ever dies, they are just placed on ice till they are recalled at a future time. It is now the turn of the 4-4-2 system to go on a sabbatical, but it will be back again in the future to replace the favored system of the day. Everything rotates.

Jenwitemi:

All these formation systems rotate over many years time. It is almost like a trend. Once upon a time, in the 80s, 4-3-3 was the in thing. Then as time went on, 4-4-2 took over as the modern formation. People were saying then that the 4-3-3 was dead, but what do we see these days? That "dead" formation is back in use again. In the 90s, it was the 3-5-2 in vogue, but that has been placed on ice for the time being. Now, it is the 4-2-3-1 that is in vogue. In the future, sometime down the line, it will get out of vogue and another formation will replace it.

My point here is, no formation ever dies, they are just placed on ice till they are recalled at a future time. It is now the turn of the 4-4-2 system to go on a sabbatical, but it will be back again in the future to replace the favored system of the day. Everything rotates.

changes is the only constant thing in life

[img]http:///aXNSz1[/img]