Agree completely. We've seen 451 a lot this season and we generally suck at it.
We suck at it because we don't have the personnel for it. We also don't have the personnel to effectively play a rigid 4-4-2 either. In any case, I'm never in favour of a formation, whether a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-4-2 which promotes rigidity in formation of the attacking four.
As far as formations go, I'm really concerned only about having a core of a strong back 4 and a midfield two. The attacking four should be as fluid and interchangeable as possible. Of course, this is contingent on the kind of personnel you have, and that's exactly why I was opposed to signing a player like Downing (who was bought with the idea of sticking to a flank and crossing the ball into the box), or indeed any sort of player bought for a particular kind of skillset requiring others to play to his strengths. This idea of having two out wide who can cross the ball in is often ridiculously misunderstood. Very simply, good attacking play is about creating time and space advantages in the final third, and getting as close to the opposition box to try and score goals. It isn’t rocket science then to figure out that the best attacking teams are those who have the ability to penetrate through the middle with the ADDED ability to go out wide if teams park the bus in the middle. The rigid 4-4-2 formation is built on the completely different premise, that the focus of your attack should be get the ball out to wide areas, and then ping in early balls into the box. It’s a system that was probably perfected by the United side of the 90s and the early 00s, but I’ll come to that later. As a fundamental point though, it isn’t difficult to figure out that any sort of system which relies on the accuracy of a player pinging the ball in from a considerable distance, and also the consistent ability of your central players to get on the end of such crosses is a whole lot more inefficient than a system which relies on passing, movement, and pace through the centre to get closer to the opposition box and try and score. I’ll use a basketball analogy, and tell you that teams relying on a primitive ‘get early crosses into the box’ philosophy are akin to jump-shooting basketball teams, whereas teams relying on a penetrative pass and move philosophy are akin to post-playing basketball teams. It’s well-established that scoring off jump shots is considerably more inefficient than feeding the ball into the post and trying to do the bulk of your scoring down low. It’s simple logic, it’s much easier scoring the ball from under the basket, rather than consistently launching it from 25 feet away. Likewise for football, you’ll be a better attacking side if you ensure penetration through the middle and get closer to goal, not by basing your attack from launching the ball into the box from wide areas. That said, I’m not suggesting in the slightest that a team shouldn’t have width. As is the case with basketball (i.e. a good offensive team is one which has strong post-scoring ability, with the added ability to spread the play with consistent and accurate shooters), a good attacking football team is one which penetrates well through the centre, with the ability to spread the play if required (say when opposition teams park the bus in the middle).
This really brings me back to Ross’ original point, and my earlier point about trying to replicate United’s Giggs and Beckam 4-4-2. Why that system was incredibly successful was not because it followed a traditional philosophy of getting early and accurate balls into the box (which they of course did thanks to the impeccable quality of Giggs and Beckam), but also because they had for the entire breadth of the time of their dominance, absolute world class quality in the centre of the park in Keane and Scholes (and also some fantastic attacking footballers who excelled at individual skill and intelligent movement). While the formation might have been a traditional 4-4-2, the implementation of it wasn’t rigid in the slightest, and was in fact characterized by fluidity and movement. In fact, in later years Ferguson’s shown a lot more adaptability in formation as well – the Rooney, Ronaldo era was hardly ever a 4-4-2; if anything it was a more continental, fluid formation they often deployed. It’s thus worth ensuring that if we’re trying to replicate United, we aren’t caught up in trying to replicate the ‘formation’ but rather the style and the personnel. Which included movement and skill up front, and quality and strength in the middle. Which is why Ross’ point is extremely valid, though I tend to think that it’s a little more nuanced. I do believe that the central two are the tactical basis for a team’s solidity in defence and pace of attack, which is why I’m disinclined to have players in central midfield who may be good footballers (like Gerrard) but who might not be inclined to sit in midfield, and more importantly, might not have the ability to play at a more controlled tempo than what is required further up the pitch.
