Formation review ♯1: 4-4-2

With murmerings that the changes to formation may be coming to the end and Corey having to resign himself to playing an Alves type role, just what is the best formation for the Stallions? Like anything in life it won't work if you haven't got the personnel, however different formations do have different strengths and weaknesses.

This is the start of a series of three where different formations will be analysed. In the series the Stallions traditional 4-4-2 will be put up against the more attacking 4-3-3 and the more defensively secure 4-2-3-1. Each will get a brief overview of how it's played on attack and defence (according to what i think based on how realistically we could implement what top flight teams can do) and pro's, con's, and personnel to make it work.

Hang on you might say why not put up a 4-1-3-2? The reason is I can't be stuffed and looking at articles from the font of all tactical wisdom (i.e. zonal marking) there is no way we could realistically play this which tends to have a narrow midfield and full-backs overlapping on the outside to provide width (whatever Corey). First up - the 4-4-2

4-4-2
The Stallions bread and butter formation. We know how to play it (sort of), the roles are relatively obvious and we got promoted last year using it - but what is it?

Attack
Width is provided by the wide midfielders who, when we've got the ball, will be close to the touchline. For the most part they are looking for balls down the wing to run onto. With only 2 central midfielders there is a lot of space in the centre of the park and passes directly from defenders to strikers should be relatively common. Strikers then have the option to lay off to wide midfielders taking off down the flank or back to central midfielders to switch the play. When the ball does go through the centre midfield it doesn't stay long with the majority of ball passing quickly towards the strikers or distributed to the wide midfielders where the space should be
Defence
When playing against other 4-4-2's the opposition strikers tend to be marked by one centre-back and the wide back which is closest to the side with the ball. The other centre back is cover and the wide back on the opposite side keeps an eye on the wide midfielder. This of course may change with the most obvious being the wide back on the opposite side of the field to the ball being the free defender, with the centre backs taken up with the strikers. Central midfielders mark central midfielders and, theoretically, this leaves one wide midfielder free to either support the central midfield or remain a presence further forward. To bolster the centre midfield a striker can also, fitness permitting, help out making the formation more like a 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 in defence.

Pro's
It is a relatively simple formation to play - because it is so common. Defenders defend, midfielders run box to box, and strikers make themselves available and score goals. With most other teams also playing 4-4-2's it is fairly obvious who your opposite player is and this turns the game into a series of 1-on-1's. Also if we assume each team wants 1 more defender than striker then the spare man, based on a man marking strategy, will be a defender, who is less likely to cause trouble on attack.
Con's
There is a lot of space in the centre midfield and whoever owns the ball can make the opposition do a lot of running and hence tire them out. It is no exagerration that the centre midfield is the engine room of the team. This formation puts a lot of emphasis on the centre midfield winning their individual battles with their opposite number. Win the battle and everything is sweet, lose and we'll be running around like tired headless chickens chasing our own tails.
The next issue is not really a con but it does raise a question - how do we address the central midfielder that sits just behind the strikers? Last season the games when we were under serious tactical pressure (as opposed to just being off our game) there was often an opposition player that would operate centrally between the midfield and defence. Where the player came from differed, it may have been a striker dropping off, it might have been a team playing an extra central midfielder instead of a wide player, or it might have been a wide midfielder making central runs, or a central midfielder that didn't track back and defend. Whatever the reason this player would often cause problems , not get picked up and have enough time to make simple short passes either to the corners or direct to strikers. How does the 4-4-2 deal with this when a central midfielder may not be present to pick this player up?

Personnel
The crucial aspects for this formation to be successful is fitness and speed - at least more so than the opposition. The wide midfielders are box to box players - fit and fast(ish). Getting to the box to make a cross or looking to be at the back door to receive the cross when on attack, then getting back and marking the wide man when defending. The central midfield have to be as fit, not as fast, but also strong on the ball. With more space in the midfield chances for interceptions are reduced and winning the centre midfield will be about winning tackles against the opposite number and stopping them from doing the same to you.

Check out this zonal marking link regarding the 4-4-2 formation http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/13/teams-of-the-decade-20-sevilla-2005-07/