1984

Posted in Articles, Tactics | On April 14th, 2008 | By Kazzy

I do it. Fabio Capello does it and Sir Alex Ferguson swears by it. José Mourinho hates it, Wenger would prefer to avoid it and Rafa Benitez sticks his fingers in his ears at the thought of it. Of course I’m not describing our mutual love or detest of dolphin based pornography, which coincidentally is true, but this is actually a list of people who love or hate the 4-4-2. I will be looking at the current standing of the most tried and tested formation in the world and how it stands against the new school of thought, the 4-5-1 and the way the pedestal it has been placed on has completely altered the characteristics a manager wants in players they coach.
The premise starts simply. We begin with the 4-4-2, created by Alf Ramsey to deal with England’s lack of out and out wingers and to also create a balanced formation that was able to place emphasis on attack or defence without jeopardising one or the other. Since 1964 tactical advances seemed to have petered out, it almost appeared, barring Terry Venables brief flirtation with the monster that was the Christmas tree, the tactical school reached its zenith with the 4-4-2. It’s key to note that the argument for or against is not closed at this point, but by moving on to the 4-5-1 it doesn’t suggest that the 4-4-2 is the thing of the past. But the next probing steps have been the 4-5-1, the continent has brought it to our sunny shores, along with a significant number of money hungry Johnny Foreigners and their clown-pocketed agents.

The 4-5-1 was birthed from the so-called ‘great’ Dutch side of the seventies; I say that because to be great you have to actually win something; a key point for any smooth skinned Romans attempting to revive a flagging nation’s fortunes. But the aforementioned Dutch side did create the precursor for the philosophy behind the 4-5-1: Total Football. The Dutch, as I’m sure you know, invented Total Football, the ideology that every play should be able to do everything, to switch from position to position to allow fluid movement on and off the ball and to protect the goal from wherever you stand on the pitch. It is this ethos that inspired coaches all over the world, particularly on continental Europe, that has finally in the later stages of the nineties and in the 21st century led to the birth of the modern footballer.

For those of you who are unaware, there is a series on SKY One that goes around the country trying to find a young player to play for Chelsea, through a series of trials and tests. It is your usual SKY affair, bright lights, flashy images and a voiceover by Tim Lovejoy, so I’ll forgive you if you turned it off and began a life of voluntary bulimia. However if you did catch it you will have noticed the rigorous tests the youngsters have to undertake merely to go onto the Chelsea Academy. They have to pass a ball thirty times at different targets whilst staying in the same zone, hit ten balls into small nets under thirty seconds, dribble through some cones backwards, all whilst under the glare of Ray Wilkins’ chrome dome. Now I don’t profess to being a FIFA registered coach, although apparently that didn’t stop Gareth Southgate so I think I’m therefore qualified to pass judgement. If I was running an academy, I of course would emphasise the key attributes in football, aspects such as technique, athleticism, fitness, strength. But if I wanted a centre half, I wouldn’t bother caring if he can hit a ball forty yards to the by-line, but apparently this is a minimum standard for any player who is considered for the Chelsea set up. By my reckoning, players like Peter Beardsley and Matt Le Tissier, players with outrageously large amounts of skill and little finesse would be turned aside before they were even able to strike a ball in anger. If you want to look at what the footballer of the future is, look at Arsenal.

Wenger arrived from the J-League with big ideas. Clearly cooped up in his space pod in Tokyo had given him a lot of time to reflect on where modern coaching needed to go, he wanted to see footballers benchmarked, to have a standard from which to work with.. It is ironic, in hindsight, that he ended up at Arsenal, a club that was so archaic in its coaching methods that a pint and a spin of the roulette wheel before kick off were an everyday occurrence. Chief in the decadence was Tony Adams, a Billy Wright style fifties throw back who drank hard, played hard and probably got hard at the thought of a night down at the Rat and Parrot sinking yards of ale and attacking women. In fact, one might call Adams the absolute opposite of the kind of player Wenger imagines as perfect. To put this in perspective, before Wenger arrived you’d never see Adams cross the halfway line unless there was a corner, Adams lacked fitness, and he lacked ability with a football beyond reading the game and marking. Something he held in common with Bobby Moore, revered as the greatest centre half England has ever produced. Place Moore next to Maldini, Baresi, Beckenbauer, hell even Rio Ferdinand and Jonathan Woodgate are more complete as defensive players compared to Adams and Moore. But apparently that didn’t make the players any less effective. So where does the merit lie? Upon specialisation, upon knowing exactly what your role is and being able to execute it majestically? Or upon having the skills to fit into a role your manager dictates to you as and when he deems you are fully enriched with all footballing skills? It’s a difficult question…

One of my fondest memories of the Wenger renaissance is the sight of Tony Adams, in the FA Cup semi-final against Manchester United, driving through the final two thirds of the pitch before driving a shot in the direction of the keeper and forcing a corner. I saw this recently on ESPN Classic and a day later my eyes have conjunctivitis, a coincidence or a reaction to the profuse rubbing that followed my bewilderment? Who knows, but it makes a good story. This is no coincidence; Wenger instilled this ideal in the players he inherited. He placed his trust in players who had not been coached in this continental manner, but he knew that it was only through a lack of choice. Given the time and the money he has rid himself of these burly Englishmen, rid himself of players who fit a position and are inflexible. One only has to look at the current batch of players that Wenger can call upon to see where he believes the future lies: they all look the same. Now before anyone decides to call upon my house with a pitchfork and torch, no it is not because he has a large amount of African players, but because they all possess the same physical attributes, even Nicklas Bendtner, a Dane, the polar opposite of an African. All of these players are tall, fast, and strong. If they walked up to you in a tracksuit you could be forgiven for assuming they could be a goalkeeper, defender, midfield or striker. But what is even more frightening is that when you watch these players on the pitch, they do it all. They defend, they attack, they contain and they pursue. No more is this exemplified than in Kolo Touré, a player I believe Wenger wishes he has five hundred of. Not as physically imposing as a traditional manager would like a centre half to be, he has a fascinating array of talent, is fast, is strong and is justifiably one of the best in the Premier League. But he drives forward, you see him play as a full back, gun forward on the wing, get in the box and generally be involved in all facets of play, yet at the same time Arsenal manage to maintain a rigid structure that belies a seriously large amount of tactical nous. And this is where the supposed next step in the tactical evolution comes from and where it is also found lacking. This is also where I can finally apply what has been written to a working ideology for anyone wanting to experiment with 4-5-1 in Football Manager.

This piece would be completely obsolete were it not for Roy Keane and Sunderland. Whilst putting up an admiral fight in the Premier League, often Sunderland have been an utterly uninspiring side. Why? Because they play 4-5-1 with players who are not able to offer the formation its truest representation. As you’ve already read, 4-5-1 relies on truly modern footballers, players who can fit in to any role, within reason, and work for the greater good of the team. Sunderland attempt this formation with players such as Andy Reid, an insipid and disinterested Irish left winger who reminds you of a less talented version of Stan Collymore: if he hasn’t got the ball then he doesn’t care. Now 4-5-1 almost entirely requires that players be flexible, however it can be difficult to break down with mediocre players anyway because the midfield is flooded, it proves difficult for the opposition to find space and ultimately makes the team using it, even to a very mediocre standard, hard to beat it. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why teams like Sunderland and Derby have used it this season. However there is one reason Sunderland have found some joy with the formation, one man and one man only: Kenwyne Jones.

There is much one could argue for and against the 4-5-1, but it is of my opinion that the key to succeeding with the formation is having a striker who is able to play alone well. Kenwyne Jones is a player who can do this, he prompted Roy Keane to say he was worth forty million pounds, a figure many people laughed at, but in all seriousness, Premier League survival is worth at least that. If they do survive it will all be thanks to him, thus the forty million will be justified. It is interesting to note quality footballers who are unable to operate alone. Wayne Rooney is currently being forced by our smooth skinned Roman friend to operate up front alone on the international stage. Now we all know there is no question of Rooney’s ability, but by himself he is wasted. He isn’t and never will be a thirty goals a season man. He is a Dennis Bergkamp, a Beardsley, he feeds the goat so he can score. The current way England is trying to play is a product of lack of time from coaching, an inability to play possession football and most importantly a player with the ability to go it alone. Not a lack of coaching, because all our players are schooled in the best academies in England. This harks back to memories of Didier Drogba when he arrived in England. Highly priced, highly expected of, but for some reason he could not recreate his scintillating form for Marseille in England. Why? Well it must be obvious now, he couldn’t play by himself. He was shit, for lack of a better word. But the kind, gentle and brilliantly moisturised Mourinho knocked him into shape and look at him now; he is the lynchpin of that team. Look at Adebayor, he has been crucial to Arsenal’s success, but since his form dropped mid February so has Arsenal’s, coincidence? You should know by now that it isn’t

Speaking of Adebayor, we should definitely mention Thierry Henry. Henry was viewed as the epitome of Arsenal. He was the way they played, fast, free flowing and gloriously effortless to watch. But we now know, from hindsight, how limited Henry was without a player who could unlock his talent. That player was Dennis Bergkamp and he was the foil that made Henry the goalscoring phenomenon he was. And I use the word ‘was’ with maximum effect. Look at Henry after Bergkamp retired, he was lost up front, he lacked a dynamic edge. He was sold without prejudice for the greater good of the team. But this is no slight on players like Rooney or Henry, they need to play as a strong partnership in order to excel, something that is dying out in the modern game. With players being cast into the same mould it is becoming rarer and rarer to see Beardsley and Lineker type partnerships roaming the green rectangles around the world, replaced by single minded, outrageously talented players who aren’t taught how to effectively work as a twosome.

What it comes down to, when you are managing your own team, and you’re considering either a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-2 is what your strikers can do. It’s all well assuming that because your striker has a high finishing stat and can run fast that he can dig his heels in and get you thirty goals on his own, but he needs more than that. You need a guy who can do everything. You are looking for a player who has the stats of Gerrard. He needs to be able to run for days, to not get a sniff of the ball for ninety minutes and then net with his only chance of the game in injury time. Which is why my advice to any manager is to only go for a 4-5-1 if he can get players all over the pitch, but particularly the striker, who have the ability to work harder than they would normally have to. Players who can work in a fluid manner. But most of all, you need more quality than most teams can afford. Unless you want to watch draws and slim victories I wouldn’t recommend it. My view of Sunderland this season is that I empathise with them wanting to protect their precarious position, but play 4-4-2, go out and attack teams. If the players aren’t good enough you won’t ultimately succeed, but playing 4-5-1 without the required quality sets yourself up for a very nervous season.

My parting advice for you is the old chestnut to suit the tactic around the players. It’s tried and tested and requires only a decent amount of tactical skill to ascertain how to approach a game. You can build a team, but you must never force a team to do something it can’t (wow is that another lesson for our smooth skinned Roman friend?) Look at what you want, players who are amazing in a single role or players who suit a wider bill of positions and go from there. It’s a personal judgement and one you should test out to see which you would enjoy the most.

Written by Oysters Rockefeller

2 Responses

Leave a Comment