PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Old Enough to Remember the 4-4-2 System?



MB62
19-12-2011, 12:15 PM
Ok, obviously Jonnyboy will remember this, he is defo old enough :wink: but I remember away back in the days when Hibs used to score goals in games, we used to play a system called 4-4-2. It is probably quite alien to Hibs managers of recent times but it involved playing TWO strikers and they both used to play off each other, one would maybe win the ball and try to give it to his playing partner who would be in close proximity to him, then go look for it again.
Most of you probably wont remember this, it was around about the same time when left footed wingers played LEFT wing and right footed wingers played RIGHT wing, a bit of a strange thing to do I know but it seemd to work at times as they were often able to cross a ball into the box from the bye-line to the TWO striker who sometimes managed to score.

Ah, those were the days.

Hibercelona
19-12-2011, 12:22 PM
My recollection of a 4-4-2 was this...

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
..MID........MID...........MID.........MID..
...............ATK...........ATK...............

:aok:

A 4-4-2 these days is something like this....

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
.......................MID........................
...............MID.............MID...... ........
.......................MID........................
...............ATK...........ATK...............

:boo hoo:

MB62
19-12-2011, 12:37 PM
My recollection of a 4-4-2 was this...

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
..MID........MID...........MID.........MID..
...............ATK...........ATK...............

:aok:

A 4-4-2 these days is something like this....

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
.......................MID........................
...............MID.............MID...... ........
.......................MID........................
...............ATK...........ATK...............

:boo hoo:


And you're only 21 years old! well done :thumbsup: Although I think your present 4-4-2 has the two strikers a bit close to each other, it is more like this :wink:

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
.......................MID........................
...............MID.............MID...... ........
.......................MID........................
..............................................ATK. .
......................ATK...............

Hibercelona
19-12-2011, 12:42 PM
And you're only 21 years old! well done :thumbsup: Although I think your present 4-4-2 has the two strikers a bit close to each other, it is more like this :wink:

........................GK........................ .
..DEF........DEF...........DEF.........DEF..
.......................MID........................
...............MID.............MID...... ........
.......................MID........................
..............................................ATK. .
......................ATK...............

Ah yes! Thats the one! :agree:

Still.... its a vast improvement over the increasingly more common 4-2-1-2-1 formation. :greengrin

Lucius Apuleius
19-12-2011, 12:43 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

surreyhibbie
19-12-2011, 12:48 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.


NOW you're talking!

:agree:

Hibercelona
19-12-2011, 12:49 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

Would make sense in the current Hibs team. We'd simply remove Hart and O'Hanlon from the back and stick an old man and his dog up front. :aok:

Hibbyradge
19-12-2011, 12:49 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

I heard that there's someone who likes the 6 - 4 - 0 system. Honest.

patlowe
19-12-2011, 12:59 PM
I heard that there's someone who likes the 6 - 4 - 0 system. Honest.

Talk of going back to 4-4-2 was silly but surely no-one would try 6-4-0 when the objective of football is to score goals, would they?

MB62
19-12-2011, 01:00 PM
I heard that there's someone who likes the 6 - 4 - 0 system. Honest.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSH, FFS, don't put ideas into our management teams heads, things are bad enough :greengrin.
Right wingers playing on the left and vice versa, I'm just waiting on Lewis Stevenson playing centre half, Stack at left back and griffiths in goal.

Hope somebody knicks Calderwoods tactics book from wee Pat's drawer before it's too late :greengrin

To be fair, I have thought we have looked a good bit more organised and more solid since Pat has arrived.

DC_Hibs
19-12-2011, 01:01 PM
I prefer the 442 system as well BUT most in football are now following the elite who favour one up front with two others supporting.
Spain do this, Germans likewise....Bartha also?

Read back to John Hughes slaverings on his preferred system and its clearly a bandwagon that is full of wannabe top managers.

It helps if you have the players of course.


1 up front can obviously work if you play the ball into feet and have players up supporting. High balls to O'Connor stood on his jack arent the most effective though.

MB62
19-12-2011, 01:03 PM
Talk of going back to 4-4-2 was silly but surely no-one would try 6-4-0 when the objective of football is to score goals, would they?

[B]WHAT!, SINCE WHEN?B]

Now there's a new concept that's yet to be tried.

silverhibee
19-12-2011, 01:04 PM
Ok, obviously Jonnyboy will remember this, he is defo old enough :wink: but I remember away back in the days when Hibs used to score goals in games, we used to play a system called 4-4-2. It is probably quite alien to Hibs managers of recent times but it involved playing TWO strikers and they both used to play off each other, one would maybe win the ball and try to give it to his playing partner who would be in close proximity to him, then go look for it again.
Most of you probably wont remember this, it was around about the same time when left footed wingers played LEFT wing and right footed wingers played RIGHT wing, a bit of a strange thing to do I know but it seemd to work at times as they were often able to cross a ball into the box from the bye-line to the TWO striker who sometimes managed to score.

Ah, those were the days.



Your just getting old like Jonnyboy, MB, get with the modern 4-5-1 formation, it makes us hard to get beat, but with that makes it more dificult for us to score, so if we keep it tight at the back we may scrap a 0-0, it would be an improvement i suppose.

Playing Gaz upfront on his own is just not working at the moment, our options are, drop Gaz and give Sodge a run in the team in that position, or get someone to play along side Gaz and maybe we would see some goals but that would mean reverting back to that old formation you talk about which is a bit dated for Hibs nowadays.

Hibercelona
19-12-2011, 01:08 PM
4-5-1 = Drawing or losing a game.

4-4-2 = Winning, drawing or losing a game.

So lets just stick with the 4-5-1.... :greengrin

MB62
19-12-2011, 01:38 PM
4-5-1 = Drawing or losing a game.

4-4-2 = Winning, drawing or losing a game.

So lets just stick with the 4-5-1.... :greengrin

Aye, you're right, we can't have any of this, maybe scoring goals and possibly winning games nonsense eh! it's just not the Hibs way.

Sherlock Jones
19-12-2011, 01:50 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

Hear hear! All for goals and glory :aok:

Golden Bear
19-12-2011, 01:57 PM
Ok, obviously Jonnyboy will remember this, he is defo old enough :wink: but I remember away back in the days when Hibs used to score goals in games, we used to play a system called 4-4-2. It is probably quite alien to Hibs managers of recent times but it involved playing TWO strikers and they both used to play off each other, one would maybe win the ball and try to give it to his playing partner who would be in close proximity to him, then go look for it again.
Most of you probably wont remember this, it was around about the same time when left footed wingers played LEFT wing and right footed wingers played RIGHT wing, a bit of a strange thing to do I know but it seemd to work at times as they were often able to cross a ball into the box from the bye-line to the TWO striker who sometimes managed to score.
Ah, those were the days.

:agree:

A point I made in another thread. Sproule on the right and Galbraith on the left is surely the way to go if they're to figure in the same team again.

MB62
19-12-2011, 02:07 PM
:agree:

A point I made in another thread. Sproule on the right and Galbraith on the left is surely the way to go if they're to figure in the same team again.

And possibly with O'Connor and Griffiths playing directly through the middle?
Surely not! We might start scoring goals then and people might, just might, want to go back to the games!
That just wouldn't do now would it?
Far to radical a system that IMO.

I'm liking Hibbyradge's system more and more, 6-5-4-4 with a midfield of 10 and forward line of 0-0 playing behind each other.:greengrin

Septimus
19-12-2011, 02:28 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

And Tommy Younger in goal behind them. These certainly were the days.

Thecat23
19-12-2011, 02:36 PM
When the elite teams started this is was mainly when they were playing away from home and hope they could pick up points as the pressure of losing was just to much in this day and age.

This then became the "norm" and adapted by other teams who also just tried not to lose the game. It can be affective but you need the right players to play that system. It also depends how the other team line up. Just playing a 4-5-1 for the sake of playing it doesn't work. Managers need to stop over thinking the set up of how they play and try and get the best out of the players. If it means a switch do it. To many managers tend to stick to a formation because they may be to stubborn or not clever enough to change it.

Either way i'm not a big fan and i like 2 strikers up front close together. That way they can hassle the Centre Half's. But thats just me.

jacomo
19-12-2011, 02:39 PM
I prefer the 442 system as well BUT most in football are now following the elite who favour one up front with two others supporting.
Spain do this, Germans likewise....Bartha also?

Getting sick and tired waiting for Pep Guardiola to wake up and smell the coffee. Barcelona NEVER play 4-4-2 and just look how gash they are?!

Posh Swanny
19-12-2011, 02:48 PM
The reason for the demise of the "flat" 4-4-2 is that it is often too lightweight in the centre against a half-decent "diamond" 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1.

Paisley Hibby
19-12-2011, 02:56 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

Spot on - we used to score 7 goals in one match playing that :wink:system

HFC 0-7
19-12-2011, 03:01 PM
4-5-1 formation works great when there is someone in there that can link midfield to attack. we dont have that tpe of person so we will continue to struggle. We are focussing on being tight and compact as a defensive unit which is causing a large gap between midfield and attack. Bring in a player with a bit of ability and an eye for a pass and they can hold onto the ball and make a telling pass to spring us into attack. When that happens 4-5-1 can become 4-3-3 quickly.

sambajustice
19-12-2011, 03:17 PM
I think what we need is...



.........GK.........
..DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF... DEF...DEF

Hibercelona
19-12-2011, 03:19 PM
I think what we need is...



.........GK.........
..DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF... DEF...DEF

:agree:

All 8ft 5 and standing on the goal line.

MB62
19-12-2011, 03:45 PM
I think what we need is...



.........GK.........
..DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF...DEF... DEF...DEF

This is not a bad idea.
Mogadon Miller tried this tactic and it nearly paid off. With the game approaching the 85th minute, the opposition keeper collapsed with hypothermia and as all his players gathered around him on the edge of the penalty box, our keeper took a goal kick and hoofed the ball up the park toward their goal. Just as it looked as though it might be going in, it hit the parademics bag and bounced on to the post. The rebound saw the goal gaping wide open but as a HIbs defender made a bee-line towards the ball, Lexo screamed at him to get back in position. We did end up with a creditable 1-0 defeat though, after the paramedic lost the head because his surgeical kit had been spilled open and in exasperation thrashed the ball towards Hibs goal and in to the net. Lexo subsequently fined and suspended that idiot defender who had left his position to go for the ball as he blamed him for being out of position and ultimately cost us a point.

PeeJay
19-12-2011, 04:44 PM
Ok, obviously Jonnyboy will remember this, he is defo old enough :wink: but I remember away back in the days when Hibs used to score goals in games, we used to play a system called 4-4-2. It is probably quite alien to Hibs managers of recent times but it involved playing TWO strikers and they both used to play off each other, one would maybe win the ball and try to give it to his playing partner who would be in close proximity to him, then go look for it again.
Most of you probably wont remember this, it was around about the same time when left footed wingers played LEFT wing and right footed wingers played RIGHT wing, a bit of a strange thing to do I know but it seemd to work at times as they were often able to cross a ball into the box from the bye-line to the TWO striker who sometimes managed to score.

Ah, those were the days.

Just realised how "old" I may be - we played 2-3-5 at school, I can remember Brazil and 4-2-4 and then there was the introduction of the new-fangled 4-4-2...:faint:

nortonhibby
19-12-2011, 04:53 PM
Just realised how "old" I may be - we played 2-3-5 at school, I can remember Brazil and 4-2-4 and then there was the introduction of the new-fangled 4-4-2...:faint:


Why cant we try 4-3-3 cant be any worse than what we are doing now ?

lapsedhibee
19-12-2011, 04:55 PM
I can remember Brazil and 4-2-4 and then there was the introduction of the new-fangled 4-4-2...:faint:

:agree: 442 is just a poxy version of 424.

SquashedFrogg
19-12-2011, 05:18 PM
Have to say I liked the old 3-5-2 /5-3-2 McLeish had us playing.

Obviously we had Le God in the sweeper role and wee Russ creating the magic in the middle but I always thought it had a good balance to it.

Aldo
19-12-2011, 05:37 PM
The best team I have seen TBH

Colgan
Fenwick Le God. Smith
Lovell Jack O Neill Wee Russell Uli
Mixu. Zitelli

Team was very well balanced but they all did their jobs extremely well. For me our team at the back is calling out for a Smith and Fenwick type player.

The thought of a Franck or a wee Russell would do our team the world of good.

If we had that team now I reckon we would be sitting quite near the top and giving the OF a very good run for their money.

I can only but dream. :-)

GG

SquashedFrogg
19-12-2011, 05:46 PM
The best team I have seen TBH

Colgan
Fenwick Le God. Smith
Lovell Jack O Neill Wee Russell Uli
Mixu. Zitelli

Team was very well balanced but they all did their jobs extremely well. For me our team at the back is calling out for a Smith and Fenwick type player.

The thought of a Franck or a wee Russell would do our team the world of good.

If we had that team now I reckon we would be sitting quite near the top and giving the OF a very good run for their money.

I can only but dream. :-)

GG

Ah, them were the days :agree:

snooky
19-12-2011, 06:20 PM
2-3-5. The ONLY formation that made sense to me.

W M formation it was called was it not?

Jonnyboy
19-12-2011, 08:04 PM
Ok, obviously Jonnyboy will remember this, he is defo old enough :wink: but I remember away back in the days when Hibs used to score goals in games, we used to play a system called 4-4-2. It is probably quite alien to Hibs managers of recent times but it involved playing TWO strikers and they both used to play off each other, one would maybe win the ball and try to give it to his playing partner who would be in close proximity to him, then go look for it again.
Most of you probably wont remember this, it was around about the same time when left footed wingers played LEFT wing and right footed wingers played RIGHT wing, a bit of a strange thing to do I know but it seemd to work at times as they were often able to cross a ball into the box from the bye-line to the TWO striker who sometimes managed to score.

Ah, those were the days.

Ah the good old days, I remember them well MB (just dinnae ask me to remember anything I did yesterday :greengrin)

My love for 2-3-5 was made all the easier by the fact that we had players capable of playing in a formation and a manager that encouraged them to do so :wink:

I see Miller's name mentioned which as ever sent a cold shiver down my spine. Who can forget his formation in trying to beat Hearts? Not me unfortunately. His best was surely the 6-3-1 set up with Mickey Weir as the target man :greengrin

Marinello on the right, Duncan on the left - they were real wingers :aok:

Takes me back MB, takes me back :greengrin

Ray_
19-12-2011, 08:32 PM
Ah the good old days, I remember them well MB (just dinnae ask me to remember anything I did yesterday :greengrin)

Marinello on the right, Duncan on the left - they were real wingers :aok:

Takes me back MB, takes me back :greengrin

Marinello & Stevenson took us to top of the league, winning at Tynie, Darkhied & Ibrox, all before November & then, being Hibs, the wheels come off, Marinello gone by the end of December [with Duncan in] & Peter Cormack gone the following March. At least it was a mixture of delight & pain in dhem dam days & not just the pain & more pain of today!

Even losing those two terriffic players, we still had the likes of Blackley, Black, Stanton, Stevenson, McBride, Johnny Graham, O'Rourke & Hammy in the team & the makings of the TT's coming through, Alex Cropley, Shades & Brownlie were about to emerge & we just needed ET three astute signings & that was us. Of course Gordon Marshall departed for Celtic & Jimmy Herriot joined, while Johnny Graham and a little later Eric Stevenson departed for Ayr, while Alex Edwards joined & that just left Alan Gordon & that gave us, without doubt, the bestest 4-4-2 [or whatever combination] I've ever seen in a Hibs jersey.

Eyrie
19-12-2011, 09:01 PM
Regardless of the formation, you have to have the right players to make it work. O'Connor is nowhere near as good when played as the lone striker for example.

Jonnyboy
19-12-2011, 09:19 PM
Marinello & Stevenson took us to top of the league, winning at Tynie, Darkhied & Ibrox, all before November & then, being Hibs, the wheels come off, Marinello gone by the end of December [with Duncan in] & Peter Cormack gone the following March. At least it was a mixture of delight & pain in dhem dam days & not just the pain & more pain of today!

Even losing those two terriffic players, we still had the likes of Blackley, Black, Stanton, Stevenson, McBride, Johnny Graham, O'Rourke & Hammy in the team & the makings of the TT's coming through, Alex Cropley, Shades & Brownlie were about to emerge & we just needed ET three astute signings & that was us. Of course Gordon Marshall departed for Celtic & Jimmy Herriot joined, while Johnny Graham and a little later Eric Stevenson departed for Ayr, while Alex Edwards joined & that just left Alan Gordon & that gave us, without doubt, the bestest 4-4-2 [or whatever combination] I've ever seen in a Hibs jersey.

Some great memories there Ray :thumbsup: When it used to be exciting watching Hibs :wink:

bigkenny
19-12-2011, 10:03 PM
W M formation it was called was it not?

Afraid not. The 2-3-5 evolved into the W-M effectively when the inside rights pulled back and they moved from two backs to three backs. The 2-3-5 was however a radical improvement from the old school 1-0-9 (effectively) that Association Football used at the foundation of the game in the 1860'/1870's.

Regarding the McLeish Sweeper system of the 6-2 era, I agree, it was one of the best systems of recent times at Easter Road, built completely around "converting" Sauzee to a roaming sweeper/playmaker combined with the pace of Agathe (then Laursen) and Archie up each wing. It was a superb system in the 2000/2001 season, I remember we tore Dundee to shreds with it at the start of the season, humiliated Hearts and put in a decent few results against Rangers. It all started to crumble IMO, when they pushed Laursen to CB to accommodate young Nid as Left Wing Back, sold Archie (why????) and replaced him with Orman/Useless de-la_Cruz.

Hibs have always been blessed with full backs playings as wing backs. It's no coincidence, I believe, that success returned when one T. Mowbray signed David Murphy and settled Whitticker at Left and Right back respectively and gave them a license to sprint up the wing.

spike220
21-12-2011, 06:25 AM
Who was it who said. "All formations are the same, when you haven't got the ball every team is playing 9-1'. When you have the ball it's 1-9"

GGTTH

Andy74
21-12-2011, 03:47 PM
Afraid not. The 2-3-5 evolved into the W-M effectively when the inside rights pulled back and they moved from two backs to three backs. The 2-3-5 was however a radical improvement from the old school 1-0-9 (effectively) that Association Football used at the foundation of the game in the 1860'/1870's.

Regarding the McLeish Sweeper system of the 6-2 era, I agree, it was one of the best systems of recent times at Easter Road, built completely around "converting" Sauzee to a roaming sweeper/playmaker combined with the pace of Agathe (then Laursen) and Archie up each wing. It was a superb system in the 2000/2001 season, I remember we tore Dundee to shreds with it at the start of the season, humiliated Hearts and put in a decent few results against Rangers. It all started to crumble IMO, when they pushed Laursen to CB to accommodate young Nid as Left Wing Back, sold Archie (why????) and replaced him with Orman/Useless de-la_Cruz.

Hibs have always been blessed with full backs playings as wing backs. It's no coincidence, I believe, that success returned when one T. Mowbray signed David Murphy and settled Whitticker at Left and Right back respectively and gave them a license to sprint up the wing.

Yep, I still maintain as well that the beginjing of the end of that team was accomodating Murray and messing up the system and team that had been working well.

He started using Laursen and Sauzee as a centre back pairing as well and Sauzee was no proper centre half.

The 352 went out of fashion though when people starting playing wide players high up the park to get in behind the wing backs and left one up front for three central players to pick up.