Tactics: Why is a 4-4-2 considered more defensive than a 4-3-3?

[pingudoDELETED]

Back in the early 80s(?) there was a big fuzz about the "new" 4-4-2 being more defensive than a 4-3-3. Why is this considered as such?

In a 4-3-3 I see 5 defensive players (4 defenders plus 1 defensive midfielder) and 5 attacking players (2 midfielders plus 3 forwards)

...............................goalkeeper
right back ....center back ....center back ....left back

........................defensive midfielder
...........central midfielder ...central midfielder

.........right winger .......striker .......left winger


In a 4-4-2 I see 5 defensive players (4 defenders plus 1 defensive midfielder) and 5 attacking players (3 midfielders plus 2 strikers)

...............................goalkeeper
right back ....center back ....center back ....left back

.........................defensive midfielder
.........right winger ...central midfielder ....left winger

...........................striker .....striker


If anything in a 4-4-2 we've got rid of one midfielder and added an extra striker! So one shouldn't be more defensive than the other, they're just different. Please explain why I'm wrong.

[Ombak]

goalkeeper
right back ....center back ....center back ....left back

defensive midfielder
right winger ...central midfielder ....left winger

striker .....striker


If anything in a 4-4-2 we've got rid of one midfielder and added an extra striker! So one shouldn't be more defensive than the other, they're just different. Please explain why I'm wrong.Not everyone plays the 4-4-2 as you've laid it out.

Brazil's typical 4-4-2 has a midfield of: d-mid, d-mid; o-mid, o-mid.

[Bertje]

Both 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 can be played in many different ways. But the country who always use a 4-3-3, the Dutch, play very attacking football. Most other countries play a 4-4-2. Which doesn't mean the 4-3-3 is always more attacking then the 4-4-2. The Portugese also play a variant of the 4-3-3 but they play more defensive. An attacking example of the 4-4-2 would be Brazil.

[Aguante Bielsa]

A typical 4-4-2 formation has two defensive midfielders, while a three men midfield usually has only one defensive player.

But really, none of them is necessarily more offensive / defensive than the other. For instance, there are other things that you should take into account, such as how often the fullbacks actually join the attack, etc.

[JuveleoRules]

Both 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 can be played in many different ways. But the country who always use a 4-3-3, the Dutch, play very attacking football. Most other countries play a 4-4-2. Which doesn't mean the 4-3-3 is always more attacking then the 4-4-2. The Portugese also play a variant of the 4-3-3 but they play more defensive. An attacking example of the 4-4-2 would be Brazil.


The Portuguese Actually play a 4-2-3-1 which is a hybrid of the 4-4-2 but they substitute a forward with def midfielder.
Thus using 2 def mids which play in front of the CB's this giving freedom to the RB and LB to make runs up the flanks. This formation gives you the ability at times to attack with 8 men while still maintaining defensive shape....

[Paddster]

It just depends how you lay it out. You could a 4-3-3 with 2 defensive mids, and a normal centre mid, or a defensive mid, and 2 normal centre mids, or a defensive mid, and two attacking mids, it just depends how you want to play it, and same goes for the 4-4-2.

[argentine soccer fan]

It is impossible to generalize, because the numbers don't tell the whole story. But the 4-4-2 was devised as a more defensive formation to clutter the midfield, and it was first popularized by Sir Alf Ramsey, who won the World Cup with England using the system. It evolved from the 4-2-4 by withdrawing the two wings. In the typical 4-4-2 there are no wingers, just two strikers, and four midfielders (two of them primarily defensive mids) who complement each other.

Of course, If you have a system in which the lateral defenders and/or the wide midfielders are free to go on the attack, you can turn the 4-4-2 into a very offensive formation. But that is not what the 4-4-2 was originaly designed for.

[nowayjose]

Meaningless question. Surely 0-0-10 is the most defensive.

[Ombak]

Meaningless question. Surely 0-0-10 is the most defensive.Offensive.

Defensive would be a 10-0-0

[nowayjose]

Offensive.

Defensive would be a 10-0-0


Ever heard of the best defense is offense?

[Neo¹]

I consider the 4-3-3 formation more of a 4-5-1 formation. Wingers are NOT strikers, they are midfield players playing in an advanced postion. So your right.. this 4-3-3 formation that is so popular nowadays (Chelsea, Barca, ect) is more defenisve then a 4-4-2 formation.

p.s. I think it should be called 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-2-1 instead of 4-3-3.

[depu_d7]

p.s. I think it should be called 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-2-1 instead of 4-3-3.

i agree, even PSV's recently heralded 4-3-3 is more of a 4-4-2, with park or beasey/farfan sliding from a striker to a winger and back with one fulltime striker in the middle.

[Bertje]

I consider the 4-3-3 formation more of a 4-5-1 formation. Wingers are NOT strikers, they are midfield players playing in an advanced postion. So your right.. this 4-3-3 formation that is so popular nowadays (Chelsea, Barca, ect) is more defenisve then a 4-4-2 formation.

p.s. I think it should be called 4-3-2-1 or 4-1-2-2-1 instead of 4-3-3.

Not when Ajax plays it. But then again, Ajax plays always attacking. Even when we defend we go forward.

[Ray Luca]

Back in the early 80s(?) there was a big fuzz about the "new" 4-4-2 being more defensive than a 4-3-3. Why is this considered as such?

In a 4-3-3 I see 5 defensive players (4 defenders plus 1 defensive midfielder) and 5 attacking players (2 midfielders plus 3 forwards)

...............................goalkeeper
right back ....center back ....center back ....left back

........................defensive midfielder
...........central midfielder ...central midfielder

.........right winger .......striker .......left winger


In a 4-4-2 I see 5 defensive players (4 defenders plus 1 defensive midfielder) and 5 attacking players (3 midfielders plus 2 strikers)

...............................goalkeeper
right back ....center back ....center back ....left back

.........................defensive midfielder
.........right winger ...central midfielder ....left winger

...........................striker .....striker


If anything in a 4-4-2 we've got rid of one midfielder and added an extra striker! So one shouldn't be more defensive than the other, they're just different. Please explain why I'm wrong.

It all depends how you play a 4-4-2. But yes most consider it a defensive formation. Well it is a 4 back formation and you do play with a defensive mid, and you expect the 1 or both of the wing mids to get behind the ball when you lose the ball. You also may expect the far side wong mid to get back and become a defensive back if your team does an over lap ball side.

In 80's and before you played with a diamond defense a stopper and a sweeper. Both were more defensive then offensive. Plus during that time and before teams plaed man defense using it.

[Ray Luca]

Not when Ajax plays it. But then again, Ajax plays always attacking. Even when we defend we go forward.

This is how Ajax plays and I am talking about all Ajaxes teams not just the adult team.

All play a 4-3-3. They have left side players on the left side, central players,and right footed players on the ride side. The central players have the most freedom.

Next time you watch them play see if you ever see a left sided play ever be on the right side of ther field or a right sided player ever be on the left side? I don't think you will might see them in the center of the field but not on the opposite side of the field from where they normally play. You can see a left side player be in the cenreal part of the field but not on the other flank

Another interesting thing about Ajax lets say the left sided striker is considered the best in the world. Lets also say the sub for him is the second best in the world. Now lets also say the right striker gets hurt you won't see the 2nd best player in the world replace him because he is a left sided player.

Ask a dutch fan who really knows Ajax if I am wrong or not.

As good as they are you could be locked in a flank position which personally I don't like it at all.

[Bertje]

It depends. Some Dutch coaches actually like to play a left sided winger on the right and a right sided winger on the left. This way they will cut inside more often and can shoot at the goal with their best foot. If a team plays like this most of the time they will also use wingbacks who can cover most of the flanks and 2 central defenders who will defend the opposing team's strikers. The defensive mid will play as a sweeper and will also reinforce the attack sometimes. You cannot play with a number 10 either, because the wingers will cut inside a lot and that way their will be no space for the number 10. Cruijff is a big fan of playing his wingers like this.

I prefer to play with a number 10, 2 backs to defend the opposing strikers, 1 central defender as sweeper, 1 central defender to reinforce the attack(often called the number 4) and no real defensive midfielder but instead 2 midfielders who can cover most of teh midfield. For this to succeed the attack and defense will have to play very close behind each other because otherwise you players will be catching for breath after 20 minutes. The Ajax of '95 did this very well.

[Ray Luca]

It depends. Some Dutch coaches actually like to play a left sided winger on the right and a right sided winger on the left. This way they will cut inside more often and can shoot at the goal with their best foot. If a team plays like this most of the time they will also use wingbacks who can cover most of the flanks and 2 central defenders who will defend the opposing team's strikers. The defensive mid will play as a sweeper and will also reinforce the attack sometimes. You cannot play with a number 10 either, because the wingers will cut inside a lot and that way their will be no space for the number 10. Cruijff is a big fan of playing his wingers like this.

I prefer to play with a number 10, 2 backs to defend the opposing strikers, 1 central defender as sweeper, 1 central defender to reinforce the attack(often called the number 4) and no real defensive midfielder but instead 2 midfielders who can cover most of teh midfield. For this to succeed the attack and defense will have to play very close behind each other because otherwise you players will be catching for breath after 20 minutes. The Ajax of '95 did this very well.

I was talking about the Ajax system not what some coaches like to do after they leave it or are not in it. I like running a wing completely across the field but that's not Ajax is it?

[Neo¹]

I was talking about the Ajax system not what some coaches like to do after they leave it or are not in it. I like running a wing completely across the field but that's not Ajax is it?


I havent watched Ajax in a while so Where does Van Der Varrt play in this formation? Hees like a Number 10.

[Bertje]

No, we have 10 positions on the field and we want to have a player at each position for 90 minutes. So their will always have to be 2 wingers, a striker, a number 10, 2 midfielders, 1 upcoming central defender, 1 sweeper and 2 defenders. So we do not like players to come of their position to reinforce another part of the field. So no wingers in the center of the field. The player who can do this a bit is he number 10, the striker and wingers will keep the field as large as possible so their defenders will have to cover more space. This way their will be gaps for the number 10 to run into.

Players can however switch positions at any given time. So a right midfielder could become a winger and vice versa. This makes it harder for the other team to defend whle their still is a player at every position.

But when the opposing team has the ball we will try to keep the field as small as possible. Wingers will come very close to the center. The striker will still have to defenders with him most of the time so that leaves only the defensive midfielder to distribute the ball. Our number 10 will try to get the ball while our wingers will constantly be between the opposing wingbacks and that defensive midfielder. This way the defensive midfielder cannot give the ball to another player. Our 2 midfielders will constantly defend the opposing team's midfielders so their is only one option left for the defensive midfielder: Try to kick the ball trogh the air to his attackers. There our defenders will have their attackers constantly with them with a sweeper giving cover. Their attacking midfielder will be defended by our upcoming defender and because the field is made so small it is a lot easier for us to give cover to our players.

Meanwhile during the defendng our players will constantly ry to move forward so their team get's locked up on their on half of the field.

Just felt like typing that :D

[Bertje]

I havent watched Ajax in a while so Where does Van Der Varrt play in this formation? Hees like a Number 10.

Lately he isn't playing at all, because he is terrible. But if he plays he could be a left midfielder or a number 10. The number 10 position suits him better because it involves less running.