Tweet
by: Gabriele Marcotti
As footballing creeds go, it is entrenched. It is what most play when they first engage in organised football. It is the first option in most video-games. And there is even a football magazine by that name. But the 4-4-2 formation is in serious danger of going the way of telephone booths, VCRs and shops that repair electric kettles. Obsolescence beckons.
Of the eight quarter-finalists in the Champions League, two employ a 4-4-2 formation: Schalke 04 and Arsenal. I am being generous in the case of the North London team: it is the formation that they would have used all season if Robin van Persie had been fit. In fact, with Van Persie out they have often used Emmanuel Adebayor on his own up front.
Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, once told me that it was the most “rational” scheme because “it is the most efficient way of covering the greatest percentage of the pitch”. Most of his counterparts evidently do not see it that way. At Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard uses three up front.
Chelsea and Liverpool employ a lone striker with two wide men. Zico, the Fenerbahçe coach, uses a variation of the one-striker system, with the support men being more central. AS Roma and Manchester United (even when Carlos Tévez and Wayne Rooney play together down the middle) effectively have no fixed front men, relying on constant movement to attack from different areas of the pitch.
However you want to define the varying systems, one thing is clear: the old footballing bread-and-butter of two fully-fledged strikers (usually one big and strong, the other quick and agile) down the middle is getting more difficult to find at the highest level.
Obviously, there is no “right” formation in football. It all depends on the players at your disposal, their characteristics and how well they execute and understand the manager’s system. And so it would appear to make sense that part of the reason we no longer see many teams attacking with two strikers is that forwards have changed.
Exhibit A seems to be the gradual disappearance of the traditional target man: tall, strong, good in the air and a fixture in the opposition’s penalty area. The “gold standard” today are players such as Didier Drogba, Ruud van Nistelrooy, David Trezeguet and Luca Toni. All of them are 30 or older. With a few exceptions, such as Mario Gomez, of VfB Stuttgart, who is 22, there are no heirs apparent.
True, there are still tall, strong strikers, but they are more in the mould of Adebayor or Fernando Torres, players who are also mobile and quick. Because they provide pace and power, they are comfortable playing up front on their own, unlike the players cited above, most of whom (with the exception of Drogba and perhaps Van Nistelrooy) are more productive with a teammate nearby.
The genetic development of players is probably what has done most to eradicate the two-striker scheme. As players become bigger and quicker, they fill more of the pitch. Teams defend higher up and as a result the space in which to play shrinks. A side-effect is that it is easier for midfield players to get into the penalty area as pace and stamina improve.
It is not a coincidence that players such as Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and Cristiano Ronaldo are so prolific; they have the physical tools to get into the area far more than their counterparts a generation ago.
And so, if your midfield players can effectively double as strikers when you have possession, many managers reckon that there is no point playing two up front. Better to have an extra man in the middle of the park, where games are won and lost. This is especially true when it comes to strikers who are one-dimensional and do not offer much in terms of workrate, movement or creativity (which is, largely, the case of the frontmen cited above).
Best to hand a slot to an attacking midfield player instead.
All of this heralds a new frontier and, taken to its logical conclusion, it raises the question of why have strikers at all. Why not, rather than three banks of players, employ only two: defence and midfield? Carlos Alberto Parreira, the former Brazil coach, foreshadowed this in a memorable speech some years ago. You could argue that United and Roma are leading the way in that direction. Two strikers are (nearly) dead as a concept. Some are turning their back on even the lone striker. Football continues to evolve. Until the next big idea surfaces.
As footballing creeds go, it is entrenched. It is what most play when they first engage in organised football. It is the first option in most video-games. And there is even a football magazine by that name. But the 4-4-2 formation is in serious danger of going the way of telephone booths, VCRs and shops that repair electric kettles. Obsolescence beckons.
Of the eight quarter-finalists in the Champions League, two employ a 4-4-2 formation: Schalke 04 and Arsenal. I am being generous in the case of the North London team: it is the formation that they would have used all season if Robin van Persie had been fit. In fact, with Van Persie out they have often used Emmanuel Adebayor on his own up front.
Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, once told me that it was the most “rational” scheme because “it is the most efficient way of covering the greatest percentage of the pitch”. Most of his counterparts evidently do not see it that way. At Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard uses three up front.
Chelsea and Liverpool employ a lone striker with two wide men. Zico, the Fenerbahçe coach, uses a variation of the one-striker system, with the support men being more central. AS Roma and Manchester United (even when Carlos Tévez and Wayne Rooney play together down the middle) effectively have no fixed front men, relying on constant movement to attack from different areas of the pitch.
However you want to define the varying systems, one thing is clear: the old footballing bread-and-butter of two fully-fledged strikers (usually one big and strong, the other quick and agile) down the middle is getting more difficult to find at the highest level.
Obviously, there is no “right” formation in football. It all depends on the players at your disposal, their characteristics and how well they execute and understand the manager’s system. And so it would appear to make sense that part of the reason we no longer see many teams attacking with two strikers is that forwards have changed.
Exhibit A seems to be the gradual disappearance of the traditional target man: tall, strong, good in the air and a fixture in the opposition’s penalty area. The “gold standard” today are players such as Didier Drogba, Ruud van Nistelrooy, David Trezeguet and Luca Toni. All of them are 30 or older. With a few exceptions, such as Mario Gomez, of VfB Stuttgart, who is 22, there are no heirs apparent.
True, there are still tall, strong strikers, but they are more in the mould of Adebayor or Fernando Torres, players who are also mobile and quick. Because they provide pace and power, they are comfortable playing up front on their own, unlike the players cited above, most of whom (with the exception of Drogba and perhaps Van Nistelrooy) are more productive with a teammate nearby.
The genetic development of players is probably what has done most to eradicate the two-striker scheme. As players become bigger and quicker, they fill more of the pitch. Teams defend higher up and as a result the space in which to play shrinks. A side-effect is that it is easier for midfield players to get into the penalty area as pace and stamina improve.
It is not a coincidence that players such as Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and Cristiano Ronaldo are so prolific; they have the physical tools to get into the area far more than their counterparts a generation ago.
And so, if your midfield players can effectively double as strikers when you have possession, many managers reckon that there is no point playing two up front. Better to have an extra man in the middle of the park, where games are won and lost. This is especially true when it comes to strikers who are one-dimensional and do not offer much in terms of workrate, movement or creativity (which is, largely, the case of the frontmen cited above).
Best to hand a slot to an attacking midfield player instead.
All of this heralds a new frontier and, taken to its logical conclusion, it raises the question of why have strikers at all. Why not, rather than three banks of players, employ only two: defence and midfield? Carlos Alberto Parreira, the former Brazil coach, foreshadowed this in a memorable speech some years ago. You could argue that United and Roma are leading the way in that direction. Two strikers are (nearly) dead as a concept. Some are turning their back on even the lone striker. Football continues to evolve. Until the next big idea surfaces.
Comment