4-5-1 v 4-4-2: Formations and Goalscoring

[William Henry Foulkes]

A debate started elsewhere that I thought might be worth a thread of its own.

This is the way I see it. Hopefully others who know a bit more can chip in. 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 might even be worth its own thread. If there isn't one already. Foulkes Jr Sr is raving about 4-3-3 atm.

Depending on how you play it, the role of the centre forward in a 4-5-1 is not just, or even mainly, goalscoring. You link up play and spread the goals around the team. The 1 is in some sense a very advanced midfielder with no responsibility to recover.

Some teams have gone as far as 4-6-0. I think, with qualifications, this is how Bergen described us at Walsall and to a lesser extent Bristol City .

I'm no expert but my understanding is that the 1 was the role sometimes played by Fabregas for Barcelona. Hardly your typical centre forward. He'd chip in with goals but it was more about linking play.

I don't watch Division 1 but Man Utd's top scorers are: Rooney 14, Mata 10, van Persie 10.

I know they're 4th and teams above them have players who've scored 20, or even 30 but it's some indication. Thought tbh I don't know what system Man Utd play.

In Division 3 Bristol City's top scorers are 18, 14, 14. Which is surprising but again perhaps indicative of the fact that you can be very successful without a 20-goal striker.

We clearly need more goals and it'd be handy if Davies could chip in more - he missed two very costly sitters against Swindon at home, but, as always, the players we can attract will have good and bad points. On the plus Davies links very well with Done and he's a great team player. And he didn't cost anything in transfer fees (yet).

Who'd be a manager?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Revolution's response:

I've been banging on about this for years, but when I am told that the main role of the 1 man up top in 4-5-1 or the central forward in 4-3-3 is not goalscoring, I say "fine. Who's going to score them instead then?" This is one of the many areas where what works in the EPL with the best players in the country may not be right for league one.

The central midfielders on the books at the moment are not natural goalscorers. Last season Reed and Basham did not score in the league and Scougall scored once. Davies can link all day to these guys and they aren't going to get many goals. Baxter got 3 or 4 from open play if you want to count him as a central midfielder.

On the flanks, Murphy got 11 and that's terrific, but Flynn scored once only in the league. So hopefully there will be room for JCR at his expense.

To me, it still does not add up to enough goals to go up unless we truly do play 4-3-3 and have the likes of Done and Adams and McNulty further forward. Otherwise it's going to be a repeat of this season.

 

[pommpey]

I thing 4-5-1 is a great formation to neutralise a team like Swindon where they had the midfield packed out with their 3-5-2. It also enables the defence to be not put under too much pressure, maintaining the 'across the line' formation at the back as cover. But this is only when you have to play it. We played this at Crawley against a pretty pedestrian midfield when Kennedy went off injured and Basham dropped into his place, using Doyle, Coutts and Flynn/Freeman as the central three. Although the penetration was above average on the flanks, Done - the one - was left isolated because none of the central three pushed on or got into positions where they could play him in. The central three need to be flexible enough to change shape as a triangle to either defend or support the attack. We are far too flat when we play that formation.

I'm okay with 4-4-2, but it's a bit dated and easy to play against these days even in div three. The central two may have their hands full if the opposition midfield is agile and mobile and this prevents 'Brownian Motion' where one of them pushes on as an auxiliary goal threat or keeps the play in their half. I am in favour of two up front, at all times except if you are under the cosh or down to ten men. I think last season we gave opposition defences far too much of an easy time with one up front, even with Flynn and Murphy cutting inside from the flanks. You always need a 'second ball option' in their final third and looking at the last game, more often than not that wasn't there.

My ideal formation is still 4-1-2-1-2 in a midfield diamond. Still a bit old school, but very attack-minded even if it morphs into 4-3-1-2 or 4-1-3-2 as the game progresses.

pommpey

 

[jt64]

The point of 4-5-1 is that you can always have one CM sitting deep, allowing at least one of the other CMs to get forward, and your fullbacks to push high up to provide width - i.e. you have Basham sitting ahead of two new CB's, allows Reed +1 to get forward and Harris/Brayford/Brayford injury replacement to put balls in and allow Murphy/Flynn/Adams/Done etc to cut inside and help the central striker. It isn't rocket science, people looking at the 1 in 4-5-1 should watch Real, Bayern etc and see how many goals come from people who aren't Benzema/Lewandowski

 

[pommpey]

The point of 4-5-1 is that you can always have one CM sitting deep, allowing at least one of the other CMs to get forward, and your fullbacks to push high up to provide width - i.e. you have Basham sitting ahead of two new CB's, allows Reed +1 to get forward and Harris/Brayford/Brayford injury replacement to put balls in and allow Murphy/Flynn/Adams/Done etc to cut inside and help the central striker. It isn't rocket science, people looking at the 1 in 4-5-1 should watch Real, Bayern etc and see how many goals come from people who aren't Benzema/Lewandowski

With those clubs though, you watch when the ball changes posession. The central three do exactly that, two push on to support the attacker who is already charging up toward the penalty area, whilst one drops into the hole in front of the defence, in the 'Nicky Butt' position, just in case the team loses posession back. His role is to go out and attack the player on the ball as it crosses the centre line, either forcing him to play it, go backwards or go sideways, whilst the other two recover to mark or join the challenge. They effectively change from 4-5-1 (the basic line up) to 4-1-4-1 which (as long as you retain possession) puts the opposition right on the back foot. Against Crawley (where we played 70 minutes of 4-5-1) the central three barely passed the centre circle, save for Flynn interacting with Brayford and Freeman on the right which did see some limited penetration. Done just ran around into space with his arm up, feeding off fuck all and when the ball did eventually come across the box, there wen't enough advancing United players to capitalise.

pommpey

 

[Revolution]

The point of 4-5-1 is that you can always have one CM sitting deep, allowing at least one of the other CMs to get forward, and your fullbacks to push high up to provide width - i.e. you have Basham sitting ahead of two new CB's, allows Reed +1 to get forward and Harris/Brayford/Brayford injury replacement to put balls in and allow Murphy/Flynn/Adams/Done etc to cut inside and help the central striker. It isn't rocket science, people looking at the 1 in 4-5-1 should watch Real, Bayern etc and see how many goals come from people who aren't Benzema/Lewandowski

You've proved the point I made above. that's Real and Bayern. As Pommpey says, the League One reality is that Reed + 1 either did not get forward or couldn't hit the target (the number of times Baxter and Scougall blazed over or wide when in good positions this season was criminal). And Flynn cuts inside once every 2 months.

That's why our 1 in 4-5-1 has to score a bit more.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

You've proved the point I made above. that's Real and Bayern.

Generally this I disagree with.

When examples such as Real and Bayern are held in any context up it's bc those are teams people may have seen, not because we are trying to emulate their standards.

I don't think the point that This is Division 3, we can't play like that holds up.

It's more like This is Division 3, we can't play like that as well as they do. (Also our opposition can't defend or counter as well as their opposition can.)

If a system relies on an exalted level of technical ability then it might not transferable, but generally I think we can play a Division 3 version of most systems against Division 3 opponents.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

With those clubs though, you watch when the ball changes posession. The central three do exactly that, two push on to support the attacker who is already charging up toward the penalty area, whilst one drops into the hole in front of the defence, in the 'Nicky Butt' position, just in case the team loses posession back. His role is to go out and attack the player on the ball as it crosses the centre line, either forcing him to play it, go backwards or go sideways, whilst the other two recover to mark or join the challenge. They effectively change from 4-5-1 (the basic line up) to 4-1-4-1 which (as long as you retain possession) puts the opposition right on the back foot. Against Crawley (where we played 70 minutes of 4-5-1) the central three barely passed the centre circle, save for Flynn interacting with Brayford and Freeman on the right which did see some limited penetration. Done just ran around into space with his arm up, feeding off fuck all and when the ball did eventually come across the box, there wen't enough advancing United players to capitalise.

pommpey

This is really interesting. It's the stuff we/teams do when we've/they've not got the ball that I find hardest to get my head round.

I like the point about 4-5-1 becoming 4-1-4-1. I've been having this conversation with Foulkes Jr Sr about formations changing depending on whether or not you have possession. Identifying a system as purely 4-5-1 (or anything else) might be outmoded?

I'd be really interested to know what can Done or McNulty reasonably be expected to do in a 4-5-1? We lump it up to Davies which is fine and works ok, but we also lump it up to Done who's got no chance and McNulty who gets muscled out of it too. We concede possession very very easily when we play like this.

Can you play 4-5-1 with a middleweight (or even lightweight) 1? And if so how?

 

[Esablade]

All these formations fall apart when your players can't make basic passes to each other, the tackling and shooting are powder puff, you can't defend set pieces and don't have a leader on the pitch who is able to take a game by the scruff of the neck...that being said, 4-5-1 is fairly solid with those deficiencies... You rarely get hammered!! Lol!

 

[jt64]

You've proved the point I made above. that's Real and Bayern.

It's true that Scougall and Flynn aren't Schweinsteiger and Müller. They're also not playing against Jordi Alba and Biscuits - they're playing against third division midfielders and defenders. The principles are the same - you have enough men in midfield that you're solid when not in possession, and not likely to get hit on a counter as you've got three players back (and can just foul high up the pitch if there's a real dangerous break developing), and you get plenty of men forward. Do that and you don't need to be brilliant technically, just keep giving players options to play an easy ball or get a cross in.

Sure, if we can't complete simple passes, then we have a problem, but that's a problem whatever formation you play.

 

[pommpey]

This is really interesting. It's the stuff we/teams do when we've/they've not got the ball that I find hardest to get my head round.

I like the point about 4-5-1 becoming 4-1-4-1. I've been having this conversation with Foulkes Jr Sr about formations changing depending on whether or not you have possession. Identifying a system as purely 4-5-1 (or anything else) might be outmoded?

I'd be really interested to know what can Done or McNulty reasonably be expected to do in a 4-5-1? We lump it up to Davies which is fine and works ok, but we also lump it up to Done who's got no chance and McNulty who gets muscled out of it too. We concede possession very very easily when we play like this.

Can you play 4-5-1 with a middleweight (or even lightweight) 1? And if so how?

The answer is, you can't. Or at least we can't.

I have seen United gain possession in their defensive third too many times and lump it long (it's like a Bramall Lane infectious disease that hits every player as soon as he pulls on the shirt) Thats ace once or twice in a match. But all the opposition has to do is anticipate and close down the recipient which, in the case of McNulty the other day, he has nowhere to go, even if he manages to control the lofted pass to his feet. The midfield fails to open up passing angles to move the ball into. The only time I saw United do this was vs Notts County at the beginning of last season with McDonald. It was a joy to watch because for the second goal, the ball hardly left the deck. It went through the midfield, out wide, down the flank and into the box. Just, in fact, how we used to play under Woodward/Currie and Deane/Agana. This why two up front work so much better when you don't have such an agile midfield (like we have had for three seasons now) who have been instructed or can't forge creative outlets up in their third zone. The only real creative outlet this last season has been Jamie Murphy stopping the ball, drawing the defender and getting round him to change the numerical advantage. We just don't (and haven't for some years) play through the midfield on the deck, so 4-5-1 is a bit redundant.

pommpey