Himannv
Full Member
I agree with your team being a fair one, but this post seems like you're just trying to make a case for yourself without actually considering the tactical differences. I made 4 changes to the side that started the previous game so firstly it's not 90% the same personnel.yeah, this was another reason why I stuck to my decision to withdraw. 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 with a withdrawn striker with 90% the same personnel is practically just a phase of the game rather than different formation altogether.
How is Atletico's low block 4-4-2 in anyway similar to 4-2-3-1 medium block? In the defensive phase, Atletico's setup concedes the flanks and the entire team clusters together more in the center of the pitch with a deeper press - as such the wide players are basically operating as AMs or even CMs (although I didn't take it that far). The 4-2-3-1 does not concede the flanks at all and actually operates with wide players defending the way traditional wingers would do. Zico plays as an AM for most part in the 4-2-3-1 setup, not a withdrawn striker - you may argue that it isn't his best position but that's a debate for the match thread.
The way the two setups function in the attacking phase is vastly different as 4-2-3-1 shifts to 3-2-5 (see Man Utd under Ole with Matic as the DM for example) or 3-3-4 in my case since Azpi had some custom defensive orders. Atletico does no such thing and does not operate on the basis that they will have loads of possession to approach the attacking phase of a game this way.
As such, I'd say the tactical setups and formations are totally different. The fact that the players are able to play in both setups is a credit to their versatility.