Tactics and the 4-4-2 box (unbalanced)

[poobah_1]

Tactics and the 4-4-2 Box (unbalanced)

It has been several weeks since my last topic. I have been watching a lot of games and doing some research. Since my last topic was so well received and some good discussion came about, I decided that my next formation would be the 4-4-2 box (unbalanced).

So first some basics;

The 4-4-2 Box is used like an attacking 4-4-2 when your midfield is lacking natural width. The compensation is to pack the midfield (like a 4-5-1) but use the fullbacks in the attack. That is why this formation is considered very offensive minded. The use of two forwards and two A-mids lends itself to a very forward minded mentality. Conversely, the lack of a true d-mid can have devastating consequences when playing a team with true natural width. The classic 4-4-2 with good wingers can crucify the box.

So without further ado: The US 4-4-2 Box (unbalanced)

-------------Keller-------------
Dolo – Gooch –Boca – Lewis
------------Reyna -----JOB-----------
----------Donovan----DMB---------
------------GAM------BMB----------

So this looks like a 4-2-2-2….well in essence it is, but the style of play is very similar to the 4-4-2.

Strengths,
We get out best players on the pitch
Donovan and Beasley are playing advanced roles.
Tactical Flexibility- move Beasley back a bit and you have a 4-3-1-2 (a bit narrow and the defenders are not that optimized) useful to attack through the middle if your fullbacks are getting no joy on the wings.

Weaknesses
Defensively this is not a great style for us and the defenders we have will be asked to run a lot
Putting Reyna and Donovan in the midfield at the same time has caused us problems. Donovan tends to get lost and wants to counter quickly, while Claudio want to act like a D-mid at time, constantly checking back to the CB

So how about the unbalancing part? Well if you are really strong on one side (our left) and you want to cover the fact you don’t have a natural RWM, you unbalance the formation by pushing DMB to the left, bringing Lewis up a bit (thus Boca at CB and not Gibbs, Boca can cover LB) and have Donovan play more of an a-mid role solo, his job is to feed DMB on the counter and push to the left. Reyna is a R defensive midfielder and JOB is a pivot.

I was very happy with the tone and professionalism of the last topic. I will need lots of input. I suspect the SFS will can some better insights to this flexible and potentially exciting formation.

Regards,

Poobah

[sidefootsitter]

... I was very happy with the tone and professionalism of the last topic. I will need lots of input. I suspect the SFS will can some better insights to this flexible and potentially exciting formation.... Yes, after seeing Liverpool yesterday, I am convinced that Bruce will go 4-5-1 against the seed. :D

As to the Unbalanced Box, it's the best US formation ... if Arena can talk JOB into not getting hurt. But, if reality hits the fan, Bruce has a tough choice to make. He's likely go with Mastroeni and that could make the US transition game very slow. All the opponent would have to do is to mark Reyna quickly.

My second choice for that spot then would go to Bobby Convey, who has to be given time to get used to his responsibilities in the very likely event that JOB can't go.

Also, Donovan can't disappear from games. He has to be able to have 60-70 touches on the ball with 40-45 completed passes.

Finally, Eddie Johnson has to be able to play off McBride. In many games where Eddie scored, he could count on the US midfield dominating the lesser C-CAF opponents, so he could just loiter around the penalty box and cherry-pick passes. Against a WC competition, he will have to make runs into the empty spaces and read off Brian where they are playing 2 vs. 4. Slacking off for long periods won't get it done.

FWIW, John Wolff does the running part better than GAM. Unfortunately, Josh's finishing can be a problem. Otherwise, he works very well with BMB.

Just a few individual player thoughts here ...

[nobody]

Yup, this is the one that gets our best guys out there and what I would expect Bruce to go with in a perfect world. Problem is all that has to happen is to see the laughably fragile O'Brien (not meant as a slam or anything, he's one of my favorites but the odds of his being healthy at any given time are pretty long) get hurt and you're gonna have to mix things up since we have no direct replacement for him and the next midfielder in line is Pablo, who will play a much more defensive role and slide more into the middle, crowding Reyna either forward or to the right...

Then, we have to have Eddie Johnson healthy, or we end up pushing Donovan up front, letting Reyna fill the middle and have to plug in god-knows-who as a right mid, unless we wanna play Beasley on the right where he's not been as effective for the US.

The only other weakness I see in the setup is a lack of grit in the center of the park. Reyna and O'Brien both cover defensively quite well and Claudio has become much more of a battler over the years, but he's gettin older and O'Brien has never been a hard tackler. So, I could actually see Bruce wanting to get Pablo out there even with everyone healthy, which may push Donovan up top and then we'd see a real battle between Eddie Johnson and McBride for the other forward spot.

[Metrogo]

Enjoyed your post, but I have one preliminary question...isn't anyone concerned about being exposed in the back with Eddie Lewis at left back?

[nobody]

I prefer Spector as the possibility back there, but really he's still young and has looked up and down so far for the US, we're not gonna get much quality out iof that spot in 2006, I'm afraid. I might even slot Boca in there and just tell him to stay home and let Beasley handle the left sided attack. Who else ya gonna go with? Convey...even more defensive problems than Lewis...or Frankie...etc...?

[VOwithwater]

the United States in few (2) games leading up to the WC played with a box midfield. Which was a 4-4-2 without true wingers on attack.

There was a discussion about it a year ago on another board. It looks like you could leave the flank open to a counter attack if you lose the ball out there. It also looks like you can use it inside if you have a close inside game like the Brazilians have. It also leaves the flanks open for any player with the ball or without the ball to use whenever they want.

Here is a post discussing it tactically by a coach who has spent time in both Germany and Argentina and now the US retired. Someone asked another poster how he would use this "Box midfield."

"Some complicated tactical issues come up here. I hope you find some of these issues interesting.

I do not change tactics at a drop of a hat. I do it over time, sometimes a lot of time over seasons. Also when it comes to expanding our game it is done over time. The goal for me is for the team to play a "good game" and win.

That is my biggest weakness as a coach. I need time to get our overall game to what I consider is a "good game". I admire coaches that can get new players to play a good game in a short period of time I can't do that. But, what I consider as a good game most soccer people consider what we play as a great overall game.

I would not use the box midfield because I can always open space on the flank if we need it. Just by having a wing mid move inside, and let someone else hit the flank space if we need it.
-------------------------------------
However, the interesting thing about the box midfield to me is the extra time you get to play in that flank space.

My way we could lose time in the flank space if our inside the field dribbler moved into the flank from the inside of the field because the ball kills space on the flank. In this situation the box can provide immediate space to dribble into the flank because you don't have to wait for the wing mid to move inside first. (that is an important tactical point)
---------------------
But our normal game is when we pass into the flank the receiver can move up in it if we have space or if he beats the first defender. Otherwise, we use the flank then immediately get out of that flank space.

A lot of reasons to do that if your playing against a zone defense.

You have the double team, it is used more on the flank.

Another reason to move out of the flank is you only have forward and back and one out side angle passing option from the flank. Inside the field you have all 4 options. You get the other side pass option if you pass from the middle of the field.

Plus beat the first defender on the flank, and there is support very hard to beat that second defender if he is in a good support position. So move inside after taking on the first defender your losing the second defender, and opening up the passing game more. Remember? You now have that extra passing option.
---------------------------
I love the inside game. I like to use the square passing game horizontal and vertical passes, and I like inside combination play any way. Every practice is in part devoted to it. Our warm-ups before practice and before games has inside play built into it as well.

So we normally do very well moving the ball up field using the inside of the field. However, we always have wings with that so we have the angle pass option if we need it.
-----------
When we get close to goal apx 25 yards out, and have the ball in the center of the field. We set up to use inside combination play near our attacking goal.

We bring in the wing mids to a more inside position. The inside the field dribbler can use them on give and goes or not their options, and we use a post up player as well. The post up player gets one or two touches to pass or shoot then he leaves to create more space, and someone else moves to fill the space he left maybe that someone is the dribbler.

If the ball is knocked away to the side then that wing space is used by someone a back for example to retrieve the ball.

The ball can also be passed to the back, and he crosses or he can back pass to the middle and we are ready for another inside attack.

So, if the ball is knocked outside the back also is ready to move into that space to retrieve so our inside wing player does not have leave the inside to get that lose ball.
--------------------------
I like my mids positioning on defense to be very similar to their position in support like when our team has the ball. It all depends where the ball is at a particular time and space. If the ball is on a flank with a wing mid? Positionally the rest are spaced and behind (staggered), the next behind him and spaced staggered, etc. That leaves no gaps in our offensive support. It also means no gaps for the opponent to attack if we should lose the ball. That is the key on not allowing the counter attack.

We cover space from the flank to just after the middle of the field doing that because besides the backs, the far side wing mid also falls back behind the last back in the middle when the ball is lost. It takes practice and player discipline to do that.

So the only space to counter is the far side space. If they try that we just overshift to that side.
---------------------------
Long post I know, but as far as an inside attacking game we like to attack inside. If we lose the ball we leave no exposed space to exploit unless it is far side of the field.

Counter needs space. We close that space by narrowing the spacing between players before we lose the ball

[Caspar0]

No question Lewis gets exposed on the left in this formation, however 'Dolo will get exposed just as much on the right. With the amount of responsibility (both offensively and defensively) placed on the wide backs in this formation, teams will be able to attack us down the flanks on the counter. But, what makes this a viable formation for us is the strength of our CBs (Gooch, Boca, Gibbs) in the air. If we line up against a team who likes to play in crosses from the flanks, I think we'll be ok in this formation.

Also what I like about our box midfield is it actually opens up more space for our fast players to run into. If we have a striker who will check back to the ball, and is dangerous enough to occupy a central defenders thoughts, (Why I actually prefer Wolff in this formation) diagonal balls played from our wide backs to onrushing LD or DMB, would be sweet murder. Speed Kills!

[Fire-Chop]

Tactics and the 4-4-2 Box (unbalanced)

It has been several weeks since my last topic. I have been watching a lot of games and doing some research. Since my last topic was so well received and some good discussion came about, I decided that my next formation would be the 4-4-2 box (unbalanced).

So first some basics;

The 4-4-2 Box is used like an attacking 4-4-2 when your midfield is lacking natural width. The compensation is to pack the midfield (like a 4-5-1) but use the fullbacks in the attack. That is why this formation is considered very offensive minded. The use of two forwards and two A-mids lends itself to a very forward minded mentality. Conversely, the lack of a true d-mid can have devastating consequences when playing a team with true natural width. The classic 4-4-2 with good wingers can crucify the box.

So without further ado: The US 4-4-2 Box (unbalanced)

-------------Keller-------------
Dolo – Gooch –Boca – Lewis
------------Reyna -----JOB-----------
----------Donovan----DMB---------
------------GAM------BMB----------

So this looks like a 4-2-2-2….well in essence it is, but the style of play is very similar to the 4-4-2.

Strengths,
We get out best players on the pitch
Donovan and Beasley are playing advanced roles.
Tactical Flexibility- move Beasley back a bit and you have a 4-3-1-2 (a bit narrow and the defenders are not that optimized) useful to attack through the middle if your fullbacks are getting no joy on the wings.

Weaknesses
Defensively this is not a great style for us and the defenders we have will be asked to run a lot
Putting Reyna and Donovan in the midfield at the same time has caused us problems. Donovan tends to get lost and wants to counter quickly, while Claudio want to act like a D-mid at time, constantly checking back to the CB

So how about the unbalancing part? Well if you are really strong on one side (our left) and you want to cover the fact you don’t have a natural RWM, you unbalance the formation by pushing DMB to the left, bringing Lewis up a bit (thus Boca at CB and not Gibbs, Boca can cover LB) and have Donovan play more of an a-mid role solo, his job is to feed DMB on the counter and push to the left. Reyna is a R defensive midfielder and JOB is a pivot.

I was very happy with the tone and professionalism of the last topic. I will need lots of input. I suspect the SFS will can some better insights to this flexible and potentially exciting formation.

Regards,

Poobah

Good post. I think this is the best way to get out best XI on the field. I would probably chose a healthy Gibbs over Boca as Gibbs can cover left as well and I think he is a little faster.

I was interested in the unbalanced part. I like the idea of allowing more attacking flow by letting Bealey float from wing to wing. He is a very good attacking option from either wing, just not the middle. For this reason, I think this formation can adjust for a lead or adjust if we are behind and need a goal.

When talking about the fullbacks being exposed, I think the twin D-Mids can help out. The D-Mid on either side should be able to go out to the wing and help Lewis and Delo.

If JOB is not healthy to play, I Mastro should be able to step into his spot. If both Reyna and JOB are not healthy, then we could be in trouble.

[Maximum Optimal]

Yeah, the unbalanced box fits our personnel best. A couple wrinkles need to be considered, as some of the prior posters have noted. JOB and Reyna don't give us much defensive bite. Against the top teams we'll need Mastroeni in there. This will cause some reshuffling, but then one of our Big Six is likely to be out for one reason or another. It was also noted that a team with strong play through the wings would cause problems to the box. I agree with this and would shift to a 3-5-2 against such a team. Cherundolo and Beasley would be the wide midfielders and would be instructed to play defensively. Lewis would be replaced by another centerback.

[Dr.Phil]

It is a hard decision because you want the best players on the field and with the box you get that but in defending it might hurt us. We defintly need the LB to be able to get into the attack and also defend World Class strikers and we would need LD to concentrate for all 90 min and EJ to work with McBride which he has but has he really gone against a Euro team.

The diamond may be safe but the box would be the best

[Shackleton]

Is there a good source on the internet that discusses the pros and cons of different formations?

[eljewe]

I was just thinking about our best eleven today and that is the exact same formation and players. The lack of a right sided midfielder makes the Cherundolo overlapping more important. Stay healthy steve.

[Rowray]

I don't think many of you understand how hard the 4-2-2-2 is to play. It is by far the most difficult formation to master.

First of all, I don't think Lewis will be ready for it and unless Pearce proves an awful lot over the next few months, we don't have a LB to play it properly. It's a formation that relies heavily on the outside backs joining up on the flanks and I don't think Lewis will develop the timing it takes in picking his runs before the WC starts. It's a new position for him so his first priority is to make sure the other team doesn't get down his flank.

Secondly, Beasley and Donovan aren't the right fit for the two attacking mids. Some posters are saying that this formation opens up space on the flanks for their speed to be used but in reality, you want the space for them to run into to be towards goal. What good does it do having two of our most dangerous players running away from goal? Also, the attacking mids in a 4-2-2-2 must be able to hold the ball and turn in tight spaces. Neither one of these two players are good enough technically nor strong enough to do this against the world's best.

Finally, the chemistry must be near perfect. This is a formation that takes getting everyone on the same page at all times and one slip up could cause a loss of possession or a goal against. Maybe in 2010 we will have developed the chemistry with the younger guys to make it work but we don't have it yet.

There's one exception I would allow against my above points and that would be if we were playing on a narrow field. But as we all know, the WC fields are regulation.

[freisland]

Bruce has used the unbalanced box a lot because it is Reyna's best formation - the one Dickie used quite a bit at Gers. But if we look at it with currently healthy players, you probably line up:

Dolo - Gooch - Boca - (Lewis/Heydude/Spector?)
__________Pablo
_____Reyna______________DMB
_________(Convey/LD?)
______(LD/Wolff?)___McBride

In this formation, DMB tends to be a "pure" winger mid, your "non-McBride forward has some right side responsibilities and Dolo has a lot of work to do.

Some of the issues for the US playing this way - your Amid, your forward - if it's lando and McBride - and even Bease a bit, esp. with Convey will have a tendency to drift into the same space. You've got push McBride forward on the last defender a good bit of the time to draw a double team and use LD/Wolff, Convey/LD and Bease's speed running off him.

This is similar to the line-up we used in Holland, which, result and Dickie A's comments to the contrary, I don't think was that bad a showing. Obviously Heydude was exposed by the 25 million dollar man and I don't think that Convey was playing well enough to drive the offense, but it is a formation that suits us well. It also allows Heydude, if he is the LB, to be a stay at home frisbee dog defender, which is what he does best.

[Rowray]

Dolo - Gooch - Boca - (Lewis/Heydude/Spector?)
__________Pablo
_____Reyna______________DMB
_________(Convey/LD?)
______(LD/Wolff?)___McBride

Please tell me how that is a box and not a diamond.

[Maximum Optimal]

In the interview he gave ahead of his debut at left back, Eddie Lewis used the term "skinny diamond" to describe the type of formation they were shooting for. The nominal outside mids pinch to the middle, opening space for an offensive-minded outside back like Lewis to get forward. Freisland's formation looks like something like that. Of course it would be an "unbalanced skinny diamond" because Reyna and DMB are quite different players. But it is another idea for how to get our best players on the field at the same time and in roles they are comfortable in.

[VOwithwater]

Not many people has mentioned Johnson. If Johnson for some reason injuries does not start for us in Germany and play well, and we lose that speed as a starter and player were done. We would not have improved our player situation from the last world cup. It might even be step back Sanneh played fantastic in the last WC we are not getting that in Germany.

What is happening with Johnson? He is the missing piece of speed to our team puzzle.

[swedust]

Oh yea, I remember that "skinny diamond" comment. Good call.

As far as the difficulty of the 4-2-2-2 or unbalanced box, I agree that it puts a big fat load on LD and DMB. As I see it, the strategy in the middle third is that the danger posed by our AMs take a lot of the heat off the other two middies. Either that or they're doing a hell of a lot of chasing. Not impossible to imagine for those two track stars but hardly a sure bet. I think Eddie Johnson would have to be willing to come back and pressure quite a bit as well.

However, I thought that what Bruce described as ideal in that interview with an LA paper was a formation something like this:

KEEPER + BACK FOUR

--- Reyna ----- JOB ----

----------------------DMB

---------- LD ------------

--- Johnson ---- McBride--


It looks more like a squished box than a skinny diamond, but whatever.

[freisland]

Please tell me how that is a box and not a diamond.

DMB plays between pure winger and moving inside. Reyna will play square to Pablo a lot of the time as a result. If it is LD at the AM he slides to the right more. If it is Convey it plays more like a diamond (that is what happened in Holland and that is why the left (our right) was so exposed. You could easily call it a "chipped diamond" or something as well. If JOB happens to be healthy and plays instead of Pablo, then it is a bit more boxy then diamondy. (edit: just saw swedust's post which suggests this.)

The main thing is that we have midfield wing play on the left, not on the right. Reyna can square up with either pablo or our "a-mid" - But I won't argue if you think it plays more diamond than box. What the shape will actually hold will usually depend on the opponent.

[russ]

Oh yea, I remember that "skinny diamond" comment. Good call.

As far as the difficulty of the 4-2-2-2 or unbalanced box, I agree that it puts a big fat load on LD and DMB. As I see it, the strategy in the middle third is that the danger posed by our AMs take a lot of the heat off the other two middies. Either that or they're doing a hell of a lot of chasing. Not impossible to imagine for those two track stars but hardly a sure bet. I think Eddie Johnson would have to be willing to come back and pressure quite a bit as well.

However, I thought that what Bruce described as ideal in that interview with an LA paper was a formation something like this:

KEEPER + BACK FOUR

--- Reyna ----- JOB ----

----------------------DMB

---------- LD ------------

--- Johnson ---- McBride--


It looks more like a squished box than a skinny diamond, but whatever.
Basically,the "Stewart" formation,which we used a lot in the 2001 qualies.We didn't have a strong right wing then either



What makes this go is an aggressive right back,Cherundolo will be integral to the success of this formation.We did play a pure box in Houston in against Mexico.We scored late off a set piece,but LD and DMB controlled the attack very well in that game.Mexico had a solid selection,but were pinned back all game.