How was Alex Ferguson's 4-4-2 so successful?

Theafonis

In love with @Eboue
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
7,702
Location
British Columbia
Supports
Chelsea
I was playing football manager the other night and I was trying to create a 4-4-2 formation for my league championship side. But it almost was an impossible task, it's hard to counter a 3 men midfield or a playmaker exploiting the holes, its also hard to stop attacking full backs when your wingers are caught up high. Theres issues with the gaps that appear in midfield due to the spaces between attack and the middle/defense and the middle.

Can someone help me understand how his formation was so successful? Looking back to a few years ago with Hernandez and Rooney up front, they usually stayed forward. I always wondered why teams were unable to exploit them due to lack of numbers in the middle or why his teams were never caught out on the flanks because I don't recall wingers like Nani tracking back. With all the furor about defensive responsibilities from attacking players these days, it seemed like his attackers played without defensive restrictions but just kept their shape instead. Even Simeone's 4-4-2 tends to be defensively solid as the wide players are more like wide midfielders.

How exactly was he successful with a 4-4-2 with regards to player instructions, and how did he overcome a 4-3-3 (or any variation of it)?

How would his 4-4-2 stand up to a 3-5-2?
 
For the bigger games, we adapted to a system much closer to a 4-3-3 during his latter years. He only swore to a classic 4-4-2 in a time when most teams did.
 
Football was not so obsessed by ball possession as it is now + there was some top quality dms back then
 
Successful domestically but not at European level.

Shit changed in 2007.
 
Theafonis said:
I was playing football manager the other night and I was trying to create a 4-4-2 formation for my league championship side. But it almost was an impossible task, it's hard to counter 3 men midfielders or a playmaker exploiting the holes, its also hard to stop attacking full backs when your wingers are caught up high. Theres issues with the gaps that appear in midfield due to the spaces between attack and the middle/defense and the middle.

Can someone help me understand how his formation was so successful? Looking back to a few years ago with Hernandez and Rooney up front, they usually stayed forward. I always wondered why teams were unable to exploit them due to lack of numbers in the middle or why his teams were never caught out on the flanks because I don't recall wingers like Nani tracking back. With all the furor about defensive responsibilities from attacking players these days, it seemed like his attackers played without defensive restrictions but just kept their shape instead. Even Simeone's 4-4-2 tends to be defensively solid as the wide players are more like wide midfielders.

How exactly was he successful with a 4-4-2 with regards to player instructions, and how did he overcome a 4-3-3 (or any variation of it)?
Click to expand...


Things have gone more tactical since. Even a few years ago you would be mad to suggest playing 3 at the back yet this season 15 different teams have played it at one point.

For a long time a lot of teams went like for like or were 4-4-1-1 and even then that was unusual. Any variation of 4-3-3 we struggled with for a while-look at the problems we had against Chelsea from 2005 onwards.

Also a reason why we struggled in Europe at certain points in the 90s, playmakers especially gave us a tough going.

*EDIT* Europe in general especially early 00's.
 
Theafonis said:
I was playing football manager the other night and I was trying to create a 4-4-2 formation for my league championship side. But it almost was an impossible task, it's hard to counter a 3 men midfield or a playmaker exploiting the holes, its also hard to stop attacking full backs when your wingers are caught up high. Theres issues with the gaps that appear in midfield due to the spaces between attack and the middle/defense and the middle.

Can someone help me understand how his formation was so successful? Looking back to a few years ago with Hernandez and Rooney up front, they usually stayed forward. I always wondered why teams were unable to exploit them due to lack of numbers in the middle or why his teams were never caught out on the flanks because I don't recall wingers like Nani tracking back. With all the furor about defensive responsibilities from attacking players these days, it seemed like his attackers played without defensive restrictions but just kept their shape instead. Even Simeone's 4-4-2 tends to be defensively solid as the wide players are more like wide midfielders.

How exactly was he successful with a 4-4-2 with regards to player instructions, and how did he overcome a 4-3-3 (or any variation of it)?

How would his 4-4-2 stand up to a 3-5-2?
Click to expand...

There's a lot of things to pick on there but not enough time to go into detail. First I would say that in recent years we never played a classic 442 of two strikers playing up top. Rooney, Kagawa or Welbeck always dropped off and took position in from of the 4 in midfield. Also, every winger always tracked back except for Ronaldo - which was tactical also.

Defensively, we were relatively similar to Atletico or Leicester but we played a higher line. We rarely pressed teams inside their half of the pitch, but we focused on getting our shape first whilst still maintaining a relatively high line. This kept the gaps between the lines small so the opposition would struggle to find space (of course, some good teams used to this - David Silva in particular was a nuisance). When the opposition reached our half then we'd start pressing.

Our players also don't get enough credit from our recent eras. Michael Carrick positioning in midfield was almost flawless every game for a few seasons. This obviously helped our defensive structure. Scholes obviously was phenomenal as well - positioning wise he never got enough credit. The work rate, passing tempo and intensity of our teams was immense - players like Rooney, Tevez, Hargreaves, Fletcher, Park, Valencia, Evra etc were crucial for it.

I think Fergusons best attribute was the confidence he put in our players. He got the maximum out of nearly every one of our players. The determination, tempo and aggression of our sides usually meant the opposition was half defeated before the game even began. Winning the mental battle 95% of the time gave us our edge I think. It should be noted that we usually played a 451 in most champions league games, and when we had tough games against Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenal.
 
Leicester won the league last season playing 4-4-2. Juventus beat Barcelona comfortably with a 4-4-2 system. Atlético have had much success with it. We just beat Chelsea playing a version of it, albeit a much different version.

What you need are two wingers that do a lot of defending and at least one MC that's tireless but can also pass a ball properly. One of the forwards does a lot of off the ball work that the other forwards utilizes. That's Rooney, Okazaki, Dybala. The whole team needs to defend as a unit. You can't have a single player slacking off. If the winger is caught out then the forward needs to fill in defensively (look at Griezmann just yesterday).

On attack the tempo is high. On defense you're looking to slow it down. When you are used to the frequent tempo changes and your opponent isn't, you've got the advantage. But they overall key is that you can't have a single player having his weight pulled by someone else. That's why Zlatan or Martial didn't start against Chelsea. Defensively they don't cut it like Young or Lingard/Rashford. It's not something you can implement in Football manager. That game is mostly about individual talent above all else and managing match fitness.
 
Atletico Madrid won La Liga and went to 2 CL finals with inferior team to the big two in Spain with 4-4-2. It's not like the formation itself is archeological. A lot depends on personnel and instructions as the formation itself is not so important nowadays with the pace and tempo of the football.
 
Ferguson might argue that he often played a 4-4-1-1 when it was perceived to be a 4-4-2. That he typically used split strikers (eg Cantona/Cole or Sheringham/one other). And it was basically abandoned in Europe after the 2000 defeat to Real Madrid, hence the Veron signing and the 4-5-1/4-3-3 model that came to the fore up to 2008.

But before 2000, the possession-based control of the centre of midfield was not as critical to winning the match. It wasn't just United that found success with 4-4-2, Brazil won the World Cup in 1994 and both Sacchi and Capello's Milan sides were successful by employing the same formation. Ball retention wasn't such a dominant feature of the game and often couldn't be because the pitches were not universally consistent enough to use it as a reliable game-plan every week. Teams played much more direct, more vertically into the feet of the strikers. The offside trap was easier to run (before the changes in the attackers' favour) and it helped the best teams like Milan and Cruyff's Barcelona to push high and play more compactly. And 4-4-2 is a great formation for picking up any second balls.

Theafonis said:
How would his 4-4-2 stand up to a 3-5-2?
Click to expand...
I think the tidy Liverpool side of the mid-1990s played a 3-5-2. In those games, quite often Liverpool would gain control of midfield, and United would spend a fair amount of time under the cosh, but Liverpool would usually be let down by a soft defence and a general lack of ruthlessness.

It's probably worth highlighting that Ferguson's United were good at exposing the limitations of a 3-5-2 - particularly on the flanks. Neville and Beckham were effective at doubling up on a wing-back, and Beckham could hurt teams without needing to engage the side centre-half in the attacking third. And then in the middle Roy Keane was often such a force that he could make a two-man midfield duo compete with a trio.
 
the answer, of course, is that he had the right players
 
If you watched the Neville brothers interview, Gary said it played more like a 4-4-1-1 or something like that. He said their tactics were so fluid that it really wasnt an old school 4-4-2 as you'd imagine.
 
World Class wingers and great balance in central midfield. Great strike partnerships and full-backs. The simple answer is he had the right players.
 
Offside said:
World Class wingers and great balance in central midfield. Great strike partnerships and full-backs. The simple answer is he had the right players.
Click to expand...
in his last few years he had pretty shit wingers and an almost non existent midfield (Carrick aside) and he was still winning titles.

the man was just ridiculous, really.

he knew how to make the squad far more than the sum of its parts.
 
There's no such thing as 'modern football'. Only good players in setups that suit their skillsets. That could just as easily be 4-4-2 as any currently fashionable system.
 
The OP is asking about tactics. Not sure many of you read the post and not just the title. To play 442 you simply need the right players to do it. Especially the back 4 as they will be doing alot of 1 v 1 defending if caught on the break. The players just have to read the game and know when is the right time to make runs. You also need very good all round CMs that have a little of everything defensive nous / creativity / stamina. The strikers need to have a good first touch speed and good passing ability. The wingers need to track back the full back but also stay wide to make the pitch bigger to relive pressure from the midfield. Scholes isnt going to play ticky tacka football with a numerical disadvantage. As soon as he gets the ball in midfield hes looking for a direct pass to the right winger who will already have targets in the box waiting for a cross. The winger cant just stay up field waiting though. The winger needs to see when certain players are in possession and are not under pressure. When out of possession one of the wingers should keep narrow or a striker drop deep to help out. The 4 4 2 we played was always about keeping the pitch wide so being out numbered in midfield wasnt a problem. If you are out numbered somewhere that simply means u have an advantage somewhere else. Find the space and use it.
 
Your wingers have to work very very hard and one of your strikers must be willing to do the dirty work and sit back on occasion. That's how Juve did it the other day, they made themselves very compact and Manzukic/Cuadrado worked their asses off.Dybala stood just ahead of Pjanic and Khedira and he covered the gaps.
 
Massive Spanner said:
in his last few years he had pretty shit wingers and an almost non existent midfield (Carrick aside) and he was still winning titles.

the man was just ridiculous, really.

he knew how to make the squad far more than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...

Nani and Valencia pre-2012 were not shit wingers, both were actually very good.
 
I think it was as much Ferguson getting inside players heads as tactical. Thats what all the great managers do: Get inside players heads.
 
Massive Spanner said:
in his last few years he had pretty shit wingers and an almost non existent midfield (Carrick aside) and he was still winning titles.

the man was just ridiculous, really.

he knew how to make the squad far more than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...
Valencia and Nani were not pretty shit wingers. Although they weren't Giggs and Beckham that is true. I agree about the midfield but in a lot of the bigger games in his latter years he wasn't even playing 4-4-2.
 
Snow said:
Leicester won the league last season playing 4-4-2. Juventus beat Barcelona comfortably with a 4-4-2 system. Atlético have had much success with it. We just beat Chelsea playing a version of it, albeit a much different version.

What you need are two wingers that do a lot of defending and at least one MC that's tireless but can also pass a ball properly. One of the forwards does a lot of off the ball work that the other forwards utilizes. That's Rooney, Okazaki, Dybala. The whole team needs to defend as a unit. You can't have a single player slacking off. If the winger is caught out then the forward needs to fill in defensively (look at Griezmann just yesterday).

On attack the tempo is high. On defense you're looking to slow it down. When you are used to the frequent tempo changes and your opponent isn't, you've got the advantage. But they overall key is that you can't have a single player having his weight pulled by someone else. That's why Zlatan or Martial didn't start against Chelsea. Defensively they don't cut it like Young or Lingard/Rashford. It's not something you can implement in Football manager. That game is mostly about individual talent above all else and managing match fitness.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading that
 
Fergie himself, his motivation and leadership and the quality of the players made 4-4-2 such a success in England and in Europe in 99

at the same time and Fergie would agree I think in the period 94-2002 we looked naive at times and funnily enough a bit like Leicester this year - we more than matched Europe's best but didnt keep the ball well or were caught out

remember frustrating nights against Juve, Monaco and Dortmund where we fast, exciting but ultimately we failed.....we were fine in England for the reasons I mentioned but also due to teams we played playing 4-4-2 also

the treble was one of those seasons where the stars aligned but even that year we outplayed Munich and Barca in the group stages but drew with them

Fergie's best team was 07-09 anyway where we played a 4-3-3...4-5-1 hybrid...... we had an amazing record in Europe and completely controlled games
 
I remember the criticism he got in 09-10 or whatever it was, after Ronaldo and Tevez left, when he played 4-5-1 in most of the big games and in Europe.

Anyway, he was more flexible with the formations than people tend to remember. It was hardly ever a flat 4-4-2 in the big games, ever since Cole and Yorke left. One of the strikers always dropped more than the other, one of the wingers was often moved up as a third attacker, while the other tucked in in midfield etc. There was some depth to it.
 
As mentioned by previous posters, Fergie didn't always play a traditional 4-4-2. Yorke and Rooney were at times 9.5s who dropped deeper than the CF.

Truth be told, the 4-4-2 isn't dead. It's just that there is much more variation to the formation than you would expect. For instance, you can conceivably look at a 4-2-3-1 and say that with little adaptations that it could be a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2. What's more important though is the fact that the 4-4-2 has evolved into many derivatives. Atletico have had great success in the last few years relative to their resources and they play a 4-4-2. Leicester won the PL last season playing a 4-4-2. Monaco almost always play a 4-4-2. Real played in a 4-4-2 when the won La Decima in 2014. However, none of these formations are the same, even though they are all nominally 4-4-2 formations. Atletico tend to be very narrow and compact, with wide midfielders as opposed to wingers/wide forwards e.g. Koke. Leicester were a counter-attacking side who had two attackers who contributed immensely in defensive situations e.g. Okazaki and Albrighton. Monaco are also more of a counter-attacking side, with real creativity on either wing and speed right throughout the side. That Real side of 2013/2014 was more of a pragmatic approach from Ancelotti in order to get Ronaldo, Di Maria, Benzema and Bale all into the same side (Although they were a very clinical counter-attacking side in Europe).

What all these sides have in common is that they are predominantly counter-attacking sides. Intuitively, this makes sense as a 2-man midfield is likely to be over-run by a 3-man midfield, ensuring that the best way for the team with the 2-man midfield to win in on the counter-attack. So the 4-4-2 is these days a predominantly counter-attacking formation. Back in the '90s and early '00s when the 4-4-2 was near ubiquitous (especially in England) however, the 4-4-2 was not a counter-attacking approach. Funnily enough, it wasn't really a possession-based approach either. Teams in England tended not to emphasise the finer points of tatctical nous, instead focusing on motivating players as the best way of improving a team's fortunes. When I think of the old-school 4-4-2, I think of box-to-box midfielders flanked by up-and-down wingers (Who always crossed and never really tended to shoot consistently). With the success of Barca under Guardiola from '09 to '12, the footballing landscape changed. It now became distinctly unfashionable to eschew tactics, be they possession-based or a more counter-attacking approach. Therefore, the 4-4-2 had to adapt. Midfielders could no longer make box-to-box runs because this would expose gaps in the defensive structure. Midfielders have also been encouraged to be more patient on the ball and have become less likely to charge down the pitch when in possession. All of this has contributed to the death of the traditional 4-4-2.
 
Last edited:
At its most basic, you don't really have a midfield two in a well-functioning 4-4-2, but rather a midfield four that functions as a coherent unit. The wide midfielder in a 4-4-2 has a completely different role to that of a winger in a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. Generally, you will have the two most central midfielders split vertically, with the wide midfielders contracting centrally, making it look more like a compact diamond which is far more difficult to run through than if it were a flat line. And, then, one of the most important aspects of it working is that the midfield diamond works as a linked unit when moving horizontally to follow the movement of the ball, often leaving a lot of the space on the other side of the pitch, with the assumption being that it is difficult for the opposing team to move the ball from right to left faster than the midfield unit is able to move.

And then, as mentioned above, you generally don't press high in a 4-4-2 shape. You will often see one hard-working striker trying to harass the defensive line of the opponent, while the midfield and back line focuses on connecting and finding its shape. I would say, based on my own experiences as a player, that a functioning 4-4-2 is a more compact shape than the 4-5-1/4-3-3 alternatives, but the capacity of the wide midfielders is essential: If they don't cover enough ground, and do it quickly enough, you will suffer both defensively and while attacking. I've found that most tend to "rest" after winning the ball, making it hard to counter attack in sufficient numbers, leaving the strikers too isolated.

I could write a 10,000 word post on this, but personally I believe the point I've mentioned above is the most fundamental aspect of a functioning 4-4-2.
 
Jed I. Knight said:
At its most basic, you don't really have a midfield two in a well-functioning 4-4-2, but rather a midfield four that functions as a coherent unit. The wide midfielder in a 4-4-2 has a completely different role to that of a winger in a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. Generally, you will have the two most central midfielders split vertically, with the wide midfielders contracting centrally, making it look more like a compact diamond which is far more difficult to run through than if it were a flat line. And, then, one of the most important aspects of it working is that the midfield diamond works as a linked unit when moving horizontally to follow the movement of the ball, often leaving a lot of the space on the other side of the pitch, with the assumption being that it is difficult for the opposing team to move the ball from right to left faster than the midfield unit is able to move.

And then, as mentioned above, you generally don't press high in a 4-4-2 shape. You will often see one hard-working striker trying to harass the defensive line of the opponent, while the midfield and back line focuses on connecting and finding its shape. I would say, based on my own experiences as a player, that a functioning 4-4-2 is a more compact shape than the 4-5-1/4-3-3 alternatives, but the capacity of the wide midfielders is essential: If they don't cover enough ground, and do it quickly enough, you will suffer both defensively and while attacking. I've found that most tend to "rest" after winning the ball, making it hard to counter attack in sufficient numbers, leaving the strikers too isolated.

I could write a 10,000 word post on this, but personally I believe the point I've mentioned above is the most fundamental aspect of a functioning 4-4-2.
Click to expand...

This, or: "Lads, it's Tottenham."
 
Excellent wings who are fast and can cut inside and score a lot + 2 strikers who are very good in the ball and not just a scoring machine, so one can drop to help in building up the attack while the other is upfront to score and the 2 are exchanging between each others + a very good midfield in attacking. These are the necessary things for a good 4-4-2 formation and SAF all got this. Especially the wingers.
 
Scarecrow said:
I remember the criticism he got in 09-10 or whatever it was, after Ronaldo and Tevez left, when he played 4-5-1 in most of the big games and in Europe.

Anyway, he was more flexible with the formations than people tend to remember. It was hardly ever a flat 4-4-2 in the big games, ever since Cole and Yorke left. One of the strikers always dropped more than the other, one of the wingers was often moved up as a third attacker, while the other tucked in in midfield etc. There was some depth to it.
Click to expand...
We'd played 4-5-1 in the big games in Europe for about 10 years by 2010. Are you sure you are thinking of the right thing? And if anything we weren't using 4-5-1 so much by then, as we had Hernandez and Rooney in a 4-4-2

We played 4-5-1 against Arsenal in the FA Cup final in 2005, and destroyed them, but lost.
 
Gio said:
Ferguson might argue that he often played a 4-4-1-1 when it was perceived to be a 4-4-2. That he typically used split strikers (eg Cantona/Cole or Sheringham/one other). And it was basically abandoned in Europe after the 2000 defeat to Real Madrid, hence the Veron signing and the 4-5-1/4-3-3 model that came to the fore up to 2008.

But before 2000, the possession-based control of the centre of midfield was not as critical to winning the match. It wasn't just United that found success with 4-4-2, Brazil won the World Cup in 1994 and both Sacchi and Capello's Milan sides were successful by employing the same formation. Ball retention wasn't such a dominant feature of the game and often couldn't be because the pitches were not universally consistent enough to use it as a reliable game-plan every week. Teams played much more direct, more vertically into the feet of the strikers. The offside trap was easier to run (before the changes in the attackers' favour) and it helped the best teams like Milan and Cruyff's Barcelona to push high and play more compactly. And 4-4-2 is a great formation for picking up any second balls.


I think the tidy Liverpool side of the mid-1990s played a 3-5-2. In those games, quite often Liverpool would gain control of midfield, and United would spend a fair amount of time under the cosh, but Liverpool would usually be let down by a soft defence and a general lack of ruthlessness.

It's probably worth highlighting that Ferguson's United were good at exposing the limitations of a 3-5-2 - particularly on the flanks. Neville and Beckham were effective at doubling up on a wing-back, and Beckham could hurt teams without needing to engage the side centre-half in the attacking third. And then in the middle Roy Keane was often such a force that he could make a two-man midfield duo compete with a trio.
Click to expand...

In that great guardian article, it is stated that Ferguson did tweak his 4-4-2 to handle Liverpool's relatively continental approach in that mid-90s timeframe.
 
rcoobc said:
We'd played 4-5-1 in the big games in Europe for about 10 years by 2010. Are you sure you are thinking of the right thing? And if anything we weren't using 4-5-1 so much by then, as we had Hernandez and Rooney in a 4-4-2

We played 4-5-1 against Arsenal in the FA Cup final in 2005, and destroyed them, but lost.
Click to expand...
We had Berbatov and Hernandez but we went with 4-5-1 with Rooney up top and it was seen as too conservative, especially since a lot of people at the time were starting to talk about Rooney's best position being as a second striker or further back.

I might be talking bollocks, in fairness, it's just something that has left a lasting impression, for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow said:
We had Berbatov and Hernandez but we went with 4-5-1 with Rooney up top and it was seen as too conservative, especially since a lot of people at the time were starting to talk about Rooney's best position being as a second striker or further back.

I might be talking bollocks, in fairness, it's just something that has left a lasting impression, for some reason.
Click to expand...
No I do remember that, Berba being left back whilst we play 4-5-1. We did 4-5-1 in both legs against Bayern Munich in 2010 (we didn't have Hernandez then either).

It was when we got Hernandez we really switched back to 4-4-2
 
rcoobc said:
No I do remember that, Berba being left back whilst we play 4-5-1. We did 4-5-1 in both legs against Bayern Munich in 2010 (we didn't have Hernandez then either).

It was when we got Hernandez we really switched back to 4-4-2
Click to expand...
Yeah, sounds right. I wasn't sure about Chicha.
 
Defence

Narrow
Two banks of four
Deep defence
Wingers tracking back

Attack

Counter
Flood the box
Wing play
Switch play
Long passes
Hard working forward(s)
 
Monaco play 442 and they'd beat every team in England.

You can play any formation as long as you have the players for it.
 
Bwuk said:
Monaco play 442 and they'd beat every team in England.

You can play any formation as long as you have the players for it.
Click to expand...

I actually think this Monaco team captures the spirit of SAF's 442 playing style more than almost another side I've seen for a long time - lightning quick wingers who can cut in and score or play the final ball, two strikers who play well together, and a central midfield duo that is tactically very astute and marries a distributor with an energy/runner. Naturally, there are also differences but it similarly produces a very exciting style of football that is counter-attacking but not afraid of taking risks.

I'd love Jardim to coach Arsenal. But we'll have Wenger for two more years I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.