25 Aug 2016 09:22:01
I've always felt that football has "trends", and that most, if not all, managers follow these trends.
When I was growing up, the trend was 4-4-2, with 2 strikers that clicked together, hunted in pairs. And 2 pacy wingers. It was attack down the flanks, then whip in a cross, and the strkers were there to finish.
Then it was the time of the attacking wingers/ strikers. They had pace and skill, but wanted the glory, so they had to score the goals. And eventually we didn't know if they played on the wings, or if they were strikers.
Formations changed a lot during this time.
Then, these strikers wanted to move central, and the new term of attacking mids came aboard. And they played just behind the striker.
Now, between these changes, we went from 2 strikers, to just 1 out and out striker.
And some teams didn't even play with a striker, they just went with midfielders that could score.
Now, we seem to be in the era of attacking mids running the sport, and fullbacks offering the width, and defensive midfielders now slotting in to defense. Its all gone to hell, in my opinion.
At school, we were bluntly told by our coaches, that the difference between profesional teams (the ones we watched on tv) to the way school kids play, is that profesionals play in positions, and that the whole team doesn't all run behind the ball, like we kids at school did.

1.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 09:38:24
I'm a footballing traditionalist and believe that the 4-4-2 formation was handed down to us by our footballing forefathers.

I've got a theory that formations are cultural.

2.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 09:43:08
I'm a 4-4-2 fan I'll be honest. Fullbacks that defend first and attack 1 at a time. Old fashion wingers that get to the byline and whip it in. Box to box midfielders. And a big man, small man combination up front. Nothing wrong with lumping the ball into the mixer if you ask me. Balls into the box terrify defenders.

3.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 09:46:10
@Andy, Professionals DO play in positions haha.

4.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 09:56:51
Atletico Madrid still plays a decent 4-4-2 as well Leicester city. It's all about personal. If you have two brilliant wingers with pace and crossing abilities and CM's who could defend a lot lot better than what we have atm, you could always play this system. Kenny wanted to implement this system with Downing and Carroll which never took off while we never had a half decent winger on the right hand side ( Often Kuyt occupied that position ) . I don't even remember a positionally sound CM before or after Xabi Alonso. There lies the issue.
It's not the System, It's the players.

5.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 12:30:42
Don't quote me on it but Positions mean nothing, if you score more goals than the other team, normally you win the match?

6.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 16:13:59
I did quite you DBol and the missus disagreed 😉.

7.) 25 Aug 2016
25 Aug 2016 18:27:53
I understand that some players are more attacking, and some more defensive but it seems we are loosing balanced CM's they wither have to be CAM and CDMs the old 442 your CM had to do both jobs.

8.) 26 Aug 2016
26 Aug 2016 09:58:41
The bit I don't get is how many people want to play wing backs as part of a back 4, using wing backs who can't really defend; when that only really seems to work when you have 3 at the back and the wing backs playing slightly further forward with defensive responsibilities higher up the pitch. Surely the part of scoring more than the opposition is an equation with 2 sides, you score more, they score less, rather than the simplistic Keegan ball view of just slugging it out and trying to have 1 more goal at the end.

9.) 26 Aug 2016
26 Aug 2016 10:06:10
I'd find it interesting to know how many managers ever succeed when they come in with that "I play football this way, my teams play this way" mentality and how many more or less succeed who look at what they have available to them first and build their team around playing that way. For me (as an impartial obvserver on both counts) it was interesting to watch that Leicester knew exactly how to use a man with pace and finishing ability and England, with the same man, couldn't get anything even decent out of him and looking at the opposition I don't buy that it was the level of opposition that changed. Just my opinion but the must find space for big name player caused England to fail whereas must gel as a team is why Leicester worked.

10.) 26 Aug 2016
26 Aug 2016 10:36:02
Formations don't matter as nothing is ever set in stone.