PDA

View Full Version : When did 4-4-2 die?



H18 SFR
31-12-2017, 05:04 PM
When did the 4-4-2 formation die? I grew up watching the Blackley/Miller teams, every team played 4-4-2, sometimes 4-2-4, what years did all this 1 up front start?

IlDiavola
31-12-2017, 06:02 PM
1930

Italy weren't too shabby with this.

WoreTheGreen
31-12-2017, 06:08 PM
Because is not team now it’s a group a diamond formation , zonal marking, a false number 10 etc

Onceinawhile
31-12-2017, 06:12 PM
I thought we started 4-4-2 yesterday before stokes dropped into midfield to make it 4-5-1?

IlDiavola
31-12-2017, 06:22 PM
I thought we started 4-4-2 yesterday before stokes dropped into midfield to make it 4-5-1?

The great Stokes debate again.

He needs to be upfront at all times.

-Jonesy-
31-12-2017, 06:31 PM
I still use it on FM half the time

Hibernia&Alba
31-12-2017, 06:49 PM
I seem to recall it was Mourinho who first took 4-5-1 to England as a standard formation, and after his Chelsea team worked so well with it, every manager in England seemed to adopt it. Before that two strikers was the norm.

hibbyfraelibby
31-12-2017, 06:54 PM
Give me the good old 4-6-0 or even the 6-4-0

TRC
31-12-2017, 07:01 PM
Give me the good old 4-6-0 or even the 6-4-0

Its a real fluid formation which when you need to park the bus can change to a 8-2-0

jodjam
31-12-2017, 07:05 PM
Too many football fans see 1 up top as negative. If the midfield setup is right it’s very attack minded

wookie70
31-12-2017, 07:26 PM
Too many football fans see 1 up top as negative. If the midfield setup is right it’s very attack minded

I think it is more that Hibs fans recognise we don't get enough players in the box. The formation doesn't bother me too much but I don't think we have anyone that can play up front on their own, or as part of a 3 with two wingers. We lack balance in attack and I think that shows when Lennon keeps swapping personnel and formations as nothing seems to work consistently. Much of my frustration with Stokes is the position he is playing in. That of course could be down the Lennon's instructions but when you listen to Gary Parker's interview I think the coaches recognise Stokes could be in dangerous positions more often.

NORTHERNHIBBY
31-12-2017, 07:31 PM
Could be wrong but I think that Ivano Bonetti was the first to try that in the top flight with Dundee. Sure that I can remember them changing to 4-5-1 in some games where they had taken the lead.

Smartie
31-12-2017, 07:34 PM
Like Cummings was, Stokes is clearly one of our best players, on his day is superb and should play every week.

But like Jason he's never really hit it off with any strike partner and doesn't really seem to be a natural fit for any of the positions in any of the formations we play.

I actually wasn't too upset when Jason moved on, as I thought we'd now be able to solve this problem, but instead we've replaced it with an identical one.

Our best run of results and form came when Stokes was out of the team.

I don't know what the answer is, although I do think that Stokes looks better for having Shaw in the team.

I've been very impressed with Shaw.

wookie70
31-12-2017, 08:44 PM
Like Cummings was, Stokes is clearly one of our best players, on his day is superb and should play every week.

But like Jason he's never really hit it off with any strike partner and doesn't really seem to be a natural fit for any of the positions in any of the formations we play.

I actually wasn't too upset when Jason moved on, as I thought we'd now be able to solve this problem, but instead we've replaced it with an identical one.

Our best run of results and form came when Stokes was out of the team.

I don't know what the answer is, although I do think that Stokes looks better for having Shaw in the team.

I've been very impressed with Shaw.

Far from being identical. I can't see Stokes bagging 20 goals year on year. Jason is the exact type of player we need, always was in my book. So hard to find 20 goal strikers regardless of their link play but Oli Shaw looks like he could become one. I don't see any kind of partnership with Stokes and Shaw. Stokes isn't really involved enough to form good partnerships at the moment. Let's hope the break get him in Ross County form most weeks rather than once a season.

hibsbollah
31-12-2017, 08:50 PM
442 has had a renaissance of sorts. Ranieris Leicester, Simeones Athletico off the top :dunno:

Hi Heid Yin
31-12-2017, 11:41 PM
Before my time, but the good old up-and-at-em 2 3 5 for me!
It didn't do the Famous Five any harm and got us 3 league championships!
:flag::flag:

whiskas
31-12-2017, 11:56 PM
There’s an interesting book called “Inverting the pyramid” which explains the evolution of formations and how/why formations like 2-3-5 died out.

jgl07
01-01-2018, 01:27 AM
Craig Levein's patented 6-4-0 formation killed it off.

Tornadoes70
01-01-2018, 01:32 AM
Craig Levein's patented 6-4-0 formation killed it off.

I'm now beginning to think the infamous Levein on Hogg assault was facilitated by Hogg's desire to push up out of defense ever so slightly, Levein panicked and instead decked Hogg.

:greengrin

Forza Fred
01-01-2018, 03:29 AM
Before my time, but the good old up-and-at-em 2 3 5 for me!
It didn't do the Famous Five any harm and got us 3 league championships!
:flag::flag:

Remember it was the standard...and the line up in the Hibs programme was laid out in this formation, when there were no individual squad numbers.

Haymaker
01-01-2018, 03:35 AM
It didn't. Leicester city won the league playing it.

basehibby
01-01-2018, 04:14 AM
4-4-2/4-2-4 is not dead - it's just not the fashionable formation at the moment. the 4-5-1 is not necessarily defensive either because it can easily be switched to a 4-3-3 if the wide mids have enough attacking instinct (big if).

Maybe that's why 4-5-1 has become popular - it gives coaches an easy option if they want to switch tactics.

Got to say though - it's good to see your team playing two outright attackers working with each other in the middle - makes for more attacking football - assuming of course the midfield is strong enough to give them enough ball - which is why you see 5 man midfields - and so the circular argument continues :cb

Tyler Durden
01-01-2018, 09:42 AM
I think it is more that Hibs fans recognise we don't get enough players in the box. The formation doesn't bother me too much but I don't think we have anyone that can play up front on their own, or as part of a 3 with two wingers. We lack balance in attack and I think that shows when Lennon keeps swapping personnel and formations as nothing seems to work consistently. Much of my frustration with Stokes is the position he is playing in. That of course could be down the Lennon's instructions but when you listen to Gary Parker's interview I think the coaches recognise Stokes could be in dangerous positions more often.

I agree with you re Stokes and this suggests that he is given a free pass too often by Lennon. If he's not following instructions then don't play him.

In his Celtic days he spent most of his time playing left wing and he had to be disciplined in tracking back and doing his bit for the team. Why have we never seen him in this role for us? He ends up drifting out there anyway

The bottom line for me is that Stokes doesn't contribute nearly enough

Treadstone
01-01-2018, 10:23 AM
It didn't. Leicester city won the league playing it.

I liked Craig Shakespeares definition. "We play three in the middle (midfield) Drinkwater Central and ****e either side"

K a n t e oh come on hibs.net hardly inappropriate

ancient hibee
01-01-2018, 10:44 AM
Going back to the 1960s Hearts were the first team to play 4-2-4 and call it that.Their fans and some newspapers were very critical as it was considered an over defensive formation.

Forza Fred
01-01-2018, 10:59 AM
Going back to the 1960s Hearts were the first team to play 4-2-4 and call it that.Their fans and some newspapers were very critical as it was considered an over defensive formation.

I always thought it was Kilmarnock who pioneered it.

SirDavidsNapper
01-01-2018, 11:05 AM
Give me the good old 4-6-0 or even the 6-4-0

Its great for clean sheets

O'Rourke3
01-01-2018, 11:52 AM
I always thought it was Kilmarnock who pioneered it.And Celtic claiming all the credit....

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Winston Ingram
01-01-2018, 12:17 PM
The 1987 Spurs team killed it

Hibernia&Alba
01-01-2018, 12:59 PM
The 1987 Spurs team killed it

That's random, Winston. Not being an expert on the 1987 Spurs team, could you tell us more?

--------
01-01-2018, 04:27 PM
The team that won the League Cup in 1972 didn't play 4-4-2.

They played a back four, right enough, but the midfield wasn't a line of four, the full-backs were more like wing-backs, and Stanton played wherever he could do the most damage - I've seen him hitting the byline like a winger before crossing inside for AG with Cilla making a late run into the box in support and Sloop going bananas because he was the only defender staying back ...

Was Jimmy a striker or a midfield player? Crops and Mickey often dropped deep with Arfur cutting inside as the second striker, and Arfur was another who could play in midfield with Crops or Shades outside him.

It was never a 4-4-2 - much more fluid and terrific to watch than that.

ancient hibee
01-01-2018, 05:36 PM
Total football Doddie.:greengrin

IlDiavola
01-01-2018, 06:02 PM
The team that won the League Cup in 1972 didn't play 4-4-2.

They played a back four, right enough, but the midfield wasn't a line of four, the full-backs were more like wing-backs, and Stanton played wherever he could do the most damage - I've seen him hitting the byline like a winger before crossing inside for AG with Cilla making a late run into the box in support and Sloop going bananas because he was the only defender staying back ...

Was Jimmy a striker or a midfield player? Crops and Mickey often dropped deep with Arfur cutting inside as the second striker, and Arfur was another who could play in midfield with Crops or Shades outside him.

It was never a 4-4-2 - much more fluid and terrific to watch than that.

Great post Doddie :top marks