I've been swearing by this formation for a very long time and I've broken my defenders out of the habit of kicking the ball long. I've always been about playing out from the back, getting my DM to drop deep and to be the deep-lying playmaker that can dictate play and control the middle.
But having read this article, it makes me think... is 4-4-2 the way to go? The 4-4-2 formation has been the backup option for many football managers, due to it's robustness and accountability in the backline.
The 4-2-3-1 formation has allowed me to create fantastic distribution from behind and all around the pitch. Yet, I have found time and time again that once my boys lose the ball, that hunger and desire of winning the ball back is somewhat lost. Look, I'm all about playing attractive football and playing the opposition off the park, although football is predominantly results based and its shown in the premier league that the fans don't necessarily care about the brand of football played. It's all about that three points!
Stoke City
Boring yet effective?
As we all know, Stoke City are well renowned for playing a bland, outdated and boring style of football. Although, Tony Pulis has found himself still in a job! Why?
As we see time and time again, Stoke find a way to get a result. Even though they've been outplayed in every facet of the game. Their defence, led by Stoke captain Ryan Shawcross, has been so difficult to break down in recent years, AND teams actually focus on an away fixture to Britannia stadium due to the difficulty of getting the three points there.
Is one formation better than the other? Who knows?
In my opinion a 4 2 3 1 formation can only work with a very talented striker who knows how to play with less support than if he had a partner.
ReplyDeleteWell said young man! Would have to agree 100%!
ReplyDelete