• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
40,949
Location
London
You may have seen the new feature on the club web-site about Elvis' World XI, probably the most interesting thing to come from this will be the formation. Elvis, a product of our youth system, chose 4-2-3-1 as his formation.

It will be interesting to see how many players choose formations other than 4-4-2. Popular wisdom has it that L1 players aren't comfortable with fancy formations (e.g. anything other than 4-4-2). Might it now be the case that whilst some fans may still struggle with non 4-4-2 formations, the current crop of youngsters are actually more comfortable playing such formations and it is 4-4-2 that is foreign to them?
 
I think it depends on the squad. I'd have said Dave Martin and John Cornwell were defensive mid's, so at that time we were a sort of 4-2-2-2.
 
If you have a Bilel in your side then the formation could be
3 +1,
3 +1
3+1
Who knew if bloke was centre back, midfield or striker?

Lennie often filled 2 positions with his pace and strength.
 
Always an interesting discussion because it reflects the continued evolution of football, something which will always make it the best tactical sport in the world.

4-2-3-1 is basically the evolution and upgrade of 4-4-2; fewer straight lines, more room for cohesive passing and movement. So it's highly likely that those of Elvis's generation have been brought up with a different concept to us fans. The numbers 9 and 10 used to mean - in this country at least - two centre forwards playing side by side, whereas the number 10 is now the link man between the midfield and attack.

Uncannily I watched a re-run of England's win over Argentina in the 2002 World Cup (still on the BBC iPlayer) the other day, where England lined up with a 4-4-2 and in the first half it was largely kick and rush with the underrated Emile Heskey being a great foil for Michael Owen. Then Teddy Sheringham came on in the second half as a withdrawn striker and suddenly there were more options on the ball in midfield.

Around that time a conventional 4-4-2 was gradually dying out anyway with the likes of Wenger, Mourinho, Benitez introducing variations. Even Fergie, who played 4-4-2 for years, said in his second book that he had to bin it because some teams, especially in Europe, were exploiting United's two-man central midfield by outnumbering them, and instead he reverted to a tilted 4-4-2 with one of the wide players tucked in, a system that of course Tilly and Brown used with us as well.

Without wanting to bore everyone I played for many teams in many areas at various levels throughout my childhood, teenage and adult years (when I spent quite a few seasons playing Saturdays and Sundays).

During my youth in the 1980s, every team I played for played 4-3-3. Back then full-backs didn't really attack so wingers (I was one) played very high up the pitch. In the early 90s I played in a 4-4-2 for the first time ever at school and I didn't really like it because I wasn't sure whether I was still a winger or now a midfielder and the concept of an attacking full-back was creeping in. And this of course made 4-3-3, as it used to be, largely redundant; it has become 4-5-1 - my most hated formation.

Formations are not an exact science of course. Most teams I played for played with a regular flat back four but there were a couple who played with a marker and a sweeper, meaning that one of the full-backs had to tuck in and the wide midfielder had to track back with the opposition's winger, so it was almost 1-3-4-2.

At one point I played for two teams who both played 3-5-2. It worked brilliantly with one team and disastrously with another. The former had several players who were both comfortable on the ball and could also play in more than one position, and 3-5-2 was perfect for that. The other team just didn't have the players to do that; we were a 4-4-2 team wanting to play simple football and we massively underachieved due to that because our manager couldn't see beyond the system he wanted to play.

The success of football clubs on the pitch is based on managers who are open-minded in terms of how to play, plan Bs and keeping an eye on how the game is evolving. Football moves on and I'm glad our young players seem to be adapting.
 
Back
Top