4-4-2 And Its Closest Variations. Why Are They So Strong? -- Some Quick Thoughts

[kebess]

Hi guys,

Here're some quick thoughts, aimed at trying to figure out the 4-4-2 formation in Top Eleven, including its closest and obvious variations like; 4-4-1-1, or 4-1-4-1, and even the less obvious ones like the popular flat 4-5-1, and the rather defensive 5-4-1.

I've come to notice that all those formations have one thing in common, and are really a simple and similar alteration to their "parent" formation: the Classic 4-4-2.

--x--x-- (area 5)
-------- (area 4)
x-x--x-x (area 3)
-------- (area 2)
x-x--x-x (area 1)


But, before we get into those alterations, let's first try to understand the strengths and weaknesses of this classic 4-4-2, and why it's viewed among most as one of the best balanced formations.


THE 4-4-2

4-4-2, with its 4 symmetric Defenders, can cover nearly the entirety of the defensive and defensive midfield area of the pitch (area 1 and 2, on diagram). Its DR an DL can handle any of the opponent's offensive winger, and support the defensive area (area 1), when need be. Its 2 DCs are perfect to handle up to 2 ST from the opponent's formation, and can even do great, with the help of its DR and DL, against a 3 ST formation.

Its midfield is also one of the strongest one can wish for, simply because of its high 80% complete coverage of the area 3. This allows the game to be decided and, in most cases, even "won" there, and thus permit a better pressing against the opponent.
In Top Eleven, this usually results in a higher possession percentage, and more total shots, free-kicks, and corners.
Its MCs, ML and/or MR, can also be "arrowed" to support area 4, and create a better link between Midfield and the Attacking area (area 5) of the pitch. This can help improve, furthermore, offense and pressing.

For example by arrowing the ML/MR, one can increase the offensive flanks of the pressing, and act as if AML/AMR were placed there. Similarly, by arrowing the MC, one can mirror this same effect, and improve the pressing through the middle, again as if there were an AMC on the pitch. This makes the 4-4-2 midfield quite flexible and balanced overall.

Regarding its Attack and Striking area, only a 3 ST (or 1-2) formation can better it. The 2 symmetric ST facilitates the reception of passes made by the midfield -- be it from the flanks (ML/MR), or directly through the middle (MCs).
Thus once again, this area appears to be rather quite balanced and flexibility friendly.

All of this make the classic 4-4-2, as said earlier, one of the best go-to formations when one isn't really sure what to play.

Now that we know a bit about its advantages and pros, let's stir a bit towards its weaknesses, and why despite its great balance, it still isn't perfect and foolproof.

[kebess]

THE WEAK SPOTS

The first weak spot of the Classic 4-4-2 formation, is found in the area 2 of the pitch (DM section). Since there's no DM in this formation, a formation can take advantage of this and strengthen its pressing directly through the middle, and use a "free" AMC as a true game maker.
One of those formation is the popular Narrow Diamond (4-1-2-1-2), which has close to the best through the middle pressings in the game (if not the best).
By taking advantage of the AMC (and even the red arrowed DMC) in this manner, the Narrow Diamond, really makes the 4-4-2 DL and DR close to useless, and put almost all the pressure on the 2 DCs, whom eventually do fall under that pressure.

Here's where the first variation of the formation comes into play. In order to prevent this, one can decide to bring in a DMC to exactly counter the opponent's AMC (and arrowed DMC), and rebalance things.
Since the least alteration one can think of, in order to stay as close as possible to the classic 4-4-2, is the removal of one Striker (since the game is really made in the midfield most of the time), it seems logical to allocate that Striker spot to the new DMC, and yield a 4-1-4-1 -- a close "relative" to 4-4-2 thus.

Notice that one can reallocate the Striker's position to a 3rd DC instead of the DMC (5-4-1, another 4-4-2 variation, but less obvious), to have a similar effect, but increase defense (and decrease offense) a bit more in the process.

Yet another weak spot, of the initial 4-4-2, can be found in the AM area of the pitch (area 4).
Against a formation that has 4 Defenders but no DMs, using only 2 STs against it, without AMs, can make one find himself being countered quite a bit, simply because the midfielders passes aren't getting through to the 2 ST, whom are being closely guarded by 4 "die hard" defenders... The easiest way to score then becomes having your midfielders take long shots 25/30 yards away, which will limit your chances if those MFs are weaker than your opponent's defenders and GK. A quick solution is to put red arrows on some of your MFs, in order to cover a bit better the area 4, and facilitate your pressing.
However, an even better solution is simply to have a free AMC in that area to "fully" make the link, between MFs and STs. This is even more effective since the opponent has no DMC to counter him, and thus he'll be free to seal the deal right there.
Again, the best position to reallocate is the 2nd ST for the same reasons as discussed above, and thus yielding a 4-4-1-1, the closest "relative" to classic 4-4-2.

Notice that one can reallocate the ST's position to a 3rd MC instead of the AMC (4-5-1, another 4-4-2 variation, but less obvious), and increase midfield dominance to 100% coverage, and use red arrows to cover as much as possible the area 4.
Which one is the best, is dependent on various factors, like how strong is your opponents own midfield? If he has 4 symmetric MFs there, then a 3rd MC is indeed more interesting in order to conserve the midfield domination. If he has less than 4, then an AMC would be more useful in that case, since you already have the midfield dominance.

[kebess]

CONCLUSION

I'll end these "thoughts" here, as it's starting to get a bit longer than what I initially wanted... The conclusion is thus as follows :

Classic 4-4-2 is possibly the most flexible and balanced formation in Top Eleven, as once its variations and alterations are allowed (4-4-1-1 ; 4-5-1 ; 4-1-4-1 ; 5-4-1), made possible by a "swinger player" (the reallocation of the 2nd ST), it and its various variations, together, do have the potential to counter every formation you can think of, simply because of their capability to cover rather nicely every single position on the pitch.

This is mostly important because the variations made to obtain this somewhat "unbeatable" effect are really small and easily done in a live match, most of time by a single sub, or none at all.

So there. That's really all that comes in mind right now. In any case, let me know in the comments below what you think of it ! Why you disagree or agree ! And anything else that could be added to it !

If most people agree with the content, and find it accurate and revealing enough, I'll be glad to polish it a bit more, and make it a guide for any that can learn from it.

Thanks for reading.

[Calimac Catalin]

Great infos kebess. I made you something to tune this thread up.

[kebess]

Thanks for the diagram Calimac, it's really awesome ! : )

[Adam Marszał]

Great read but one question from me.
I have problems with solid ML or MR (doesn't have 2 of them or 2 high quality). Can I play asymetric formation when one of the wings is replaced with AML or AMR. If yes than do I have to give them blue arrows? Or maybe it's better to put a player not on natural position and give red arrow to go to his primary one?

Of course it doesn't work always but I'm trying to use it or variation (I'm thinking for example about 4-LM CM CM-AMC AMR-ST) of it against 4-3n-2w-1 formation.

[kebess]

Hey Adam, glad you liked it !

Usually, it's always worse to play a player on a wrong position. You'll always get more from him on his natural one, so suggest you avoid that.

Concerning the asymmetric Wingers, you can if you have no other choice. But depending on the formation you're going up against it could be less effective. Using AML/AMR and blue arrows to replace ML/MR, is surely doable, but those AMs won't give you as much midfield control as true Midfielders.
Often, the difference is very slim though, so sure, if you have no other options, go ahead and use them as such !

You might also consider simply playing your AML/AMR at their full strength on that position (meaning with red arrows instead) an orienting your passes on the flanks to attack from there. That can work as well, depending on what you're up against.

[FlorinBihor]

This topic can be more helpfull if you can sugest some advice about : passing, mentality , pressing , etc.

[kebess]

This topic can be more helpfull if you can sugest some advice about : passing, mentality , pressing , etc.

Agreed. I'm planning on doing just that. I want to gather a bit more data though, against same/high quality teams first, before getting into that. I might have something decent in a few days.

[memer]

wow so great your analisis