4-2-2-2

I didn't get to see the Brighton game, but I read that we played Hasenhüttl's preferred 4-2-2-2 formation for the first time.

Can someone explain what was different and how 4-2-2-2 works?

With the amount of off the ball pressing that's trendy at the moment and the fluid nature of most teams with the ball, I'm not even sure that formations exist anymore.

I didn't get to see the Brighton game, but I read that we played Hasenhüttl's preferred 4-2-2-2 formation for the first time.

 

Can someone explain what was different and how 4-2-2-2 works?

Whatever formation we played, I thought we struggled with a back four. The fullbacks didn’t give us the width they usually do and were repeatedly caught out of position. Bednarek’s limitations on the ball were exposed while Yoshida had shaky first-half.

I didn't get to see the Brighton game, but I read that we played Hasenhüttl's preferred 4-2-2-2 formation for the first time.

 

Can someone explain what was different and how 4-2-2-2 works?

It wasn't the first time. We've played that formation away at Cardiff and against Derby, off the top of my head.

It's good when you win the ball and break but you look vulnerable down the flanks. Against a good team we'd probably get stuffed playing like that.

It was basically a traditional 442 but the two outside midfielders play much further up and a bit more narrow and the wingbacks provide more width.

It was described as 4-2-2-2 on my phone app before the game, but MoTD had it as 4-2-3-1. Who knows what formation was intended.

Most formations are pretty fluid these days. Even when we played with three centre backs against Cardiff, Jack Stephens stepped up into midfield whenever we had the ball, so that went from a 5-2-2-1 without the ball to 4-3-2-1 in possession.

I think Saturday looked like the most representative of the 4-2-2-2 we know Hasenhüttl likes to play, we played a lot through the middle of the park (taking advantage of Brighton being exceptionally sloppy in that part of the pitch) and left the wide areas relatively vacant. Bertrand and Valery got forward a fair bit in the first half, but we tended to operate more defensively once we took the lead - looking at the average position map here (scroll down and click the "Player Positions" tab), Bertrand's average position was basically in midfield, while Valery was a very orthodox full-back, with Ward-Prowse operating quite deep in front of him, which I guess was a result of Bernardo and Knockaert instigating most of Brighton's attacks down that flank in the second half.

With the amount of off the ball pressing that's trendy at the moment and the fluid nature of most teams with the ball, I'm not even sure that formations exist anymore.

This is kind of my feeling, although in the games I've seen, I've definitely thought we played better with three center backs. In his post match comments, Hasenhüttl made a big deal of it. He seemed to be saying that it worked well against teams that sat deep and were hard to break down. I expect we'll see something different against Liverpool.

think you have to ensure you dominate possession to be comfortable in this kind of formation for me, otherwise the defence can get very exposed and let's face it, the backline isn't always the strongest even when well protected.

Would suspect that we see this formation more and more next season once RH has a few new signings to work with and hopefully the team continues to improve.

But for Liverpool this week, i'd be amazed if we set up like that

This is kind of my feeling, although in the games I've seen, I've definitely thought we played better with three center backs. In his post match comments, Hasenhüttl made a big deal of it. He seemed to be saying that it worked well against teams that sat deep and were hard to break down. I expect we'll see something different against Liverpool.

Yes, we're stronger defensively with three at the back simply because there's another body there however what I mean is that is there really much difference between a 4-2-1-2 and a 4-4-2 with wingers cutting inside and making up the midfield and then fullbacks going on the overlap and then CBs pressing into the midfield.

Yes, we're stronger defensively with three at the back simply because there's another body there however what I mean is that is there really much difference between a 4-2-1-2 and a 4-4-2 with wingers cutting inside and making up the midfield and then fullbacks going on the overlap and then CBs pressing into the midfield.

Yes there is, you sneakily used your full allowance of outfield players.

Time change it for a game or 2?

22 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

Time change it for a game or 2?

Wouldn’t mind seeing us go 433 push the wingers higher up and get an extra man in the midfield, but realistically a formation change isn’t going to change the fact we struggle to create and struggle to defend.

26 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

Time change it for a game or 2?

Should be... but it won't.

1 hour ago, SuperSAINT said:

Time change it for a game or 2?

We do change it in game especially when one of the strikers drops deeper, we already use tactical variations but most of you are too thick to notice it.

9 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

We do change it in game especially when one of the strikers drops deeper, we already use tactical variations but most of you are too thick to notice it.

Maybe we should change more than a “striker dropping deeper” then.

On 03/04/2019 at 08:52, saint-crinny said:

think you have to ensure you dominate possession to be comfortable in this kind of formation for me, otherwise the defence can get very exposed and let's face it, the backline isn't always the strongest even when well protected.

 

Would suspect that we see this formation more and more next season once RH has a few new signings to work with and hopefully the team continues to improve.

 

But for Liverpool this week, i'd be amazed if we set up like that

‘Continues to improve’ ?????

After 93 games where is this ‘improvement’ ? 
 

I cannot see any ‘automisation’ even after 93 games unless you count automatically being crap after 30 minutes of most games.

Ralph is a nice guy in interviews though if that helps .....
 

I think more important is that we find players who fit the system in the close season.

KWP needs back up. We need a fourth DM.

The problems don't come from the system, but the lack of ability to remove tired legs.

1 hour ago, captainchris said:

‘Continues to improve’ ?????

After 93 games where is this ‘improvement’ ? 
 

I cannot see any ‘automisation’ even after 93 games unless you count automatically being crap after 30 minutes of most games.

Ralph is a nice guy in interviews though if that helps .....
 

 

That message was from 2019...

It's just hipster 4-4-2. Only our wingers are too shit to actually do any wing play, so they all congregate towards the middle and instead do fuck all there in amongst the traffic.

The trouble with hiring a "philosophy" manager is, what if his philosophy is a complete joke? Or so simplistically wafer thin that even a 29 year old caretaker manager who has never taken charge of a side before can figure it out in 45 minutes? Where do you go from there?

48 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

It's just hipster 4-4-2. Only our wingers are too shit to actually do any wing play, so they all congregate towards the middle and instead do fuck all there in amongst the traffic.

The trouble with hiring a "philosophy" manager is, what if his philosophy is a complete joke? Or so simplistically wafer thin that even a 29 year old caretaker manager who has never taken charge of a side before can figure it out in 45 minutes? Where do you go from there?

 

This post is very amusing, its like saying a 343 is a 433 where the DM is too shit to not be further up the pitch, no mate, that's the point. A 4222 is just a 442 except the two wingers are playing centrally because they are shit? The point of a 4222 is that they play centrally and interchangeably with our two strikers. For simplicity, don't compare a 4222 to a 442 as it doesn't have wingers, its basically a 4231 but with the CAM position pushed up to be a secondary striker.

The 29 year old didn't "figure it out" he had a squad at his disposal worth three times ours that was in a CL final a few years back.

As for changing formation, we kind of did last game, we were playing more of a 442 diamond with Armstrong as a 10 and Walcott and Tella deeper and wider. Was ruined by the Ings injury though.

On 31/03/2019 at 21:40, benjii said:

 

It wasn't the first time. We've played that formation away at Cardiff and against Derby, off the top of my head.

 

It's good when you win the ball and break but you look vulnerable down the flanks. Against a good team we'd probably get stuffed playing like that.

I was right!

4 hours ago, stevy777_x said:

We do change it in game especially when one of the strikers drops deeper, we already use tactical variations but most of you are too thick to notice it.

Our tactical changes are so subtle and slight the opposition aren't hurt by it. Tell me when Ralph last made a tactical switch on game that had a positive outcome.

Our changes can hurt us though. Take the semi final. Ralph's big tactical switch (before the mess at the end) was to push the full backs higher and press harder. What happened? Rogers clocked it, got his strikers to split and push into wide areas or the channel between CB and FB. Pretty quickly they got on behind, exposing Bednarek in the RB are and scored. Game over. 

Other than the above, our changes aren't much more than a striker dropping off, or Bertrand tucking in making it a kind of back 3, or the 10's either going wider or more narrow. The shape essentially stays the same though, as does our way of playing. No going to a 3 up top, or 3 in the middle with a central runner, nothing. It's shit. 

People can see the changes, and can see that they're not helping us. Our tactics are simple and Ralph has been found out.

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Our tactical changes are so subtle and slight the opposition aren't hurt by it. Tell me when Ralph last made a tactical switch on game that had a positive outcome.

Our changes can hurt us though. Take the semi final. Ralph's big tactical switch (before the mess at the end) was to push the full backs higher and press harder. What happened? Rogers clocked it, got his strikers to split and push into wide areas or the channel between CB and FB. Pretty quickly they got on behind, exposing Bednarek in the RB are and scored. Game over. 

Other than the above, our changes aren't much more than a striker dropping off, or Bertrand tucking in making it a kind of back 3, or the 10's either going wider or more narrow. The shape essentially stays the same though, as does our way of playing. No going to a 3 up top, or 3 in the middle with a central runner, nothing. It's shit. 

People can see the changes, and can see that they're not helping us. Our tactics are simple and Ralph has been found out.

You explained it well but the majority of the people don t see this, they just see the 4-2-2-2 formation when in game we sometimes play 4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 or variations.

It s not all about formations though its about balance in the team, that gives us solidy defensively, lets us play with attacking numbers and to be able to counter what the opposition is.

Its not all that simple, that s why you need tactically aware players that know to push and when not to. The managers can t call all the shots all the time from the touchline.

Playing Ralph's 4-2-2-2 relies on the players all being in top shape and top form, and when that's the case it's brilliant.  You get lots of concentration of attacking options, slick movement and lots of opportunities.  When players are not fully fit or in form it falls apart dramatically because it's essentially Keegan-esc all out attack.

We need to have a conservative alternative we can shift to when it's not working, a traditional 4-3-3 is the easiest shift as mentioned above.

On 22/04/2021 at 20:34, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Playing Ralph's 4-2-2-2 relies on the players all being in top shape and top form, and when that's the case it's brilliant.  You get lots of concentration of attacking options, slick movement and lots of opportunities.  When players are not fully fit or in form it falls apart dramatically because it's essentially Keegan-esc all out attack.

We need to have a conservative alternative we can shift to when it's not working, a traditional 4-3-3 is the easiest shift as mentioned above.

There's no way on this earth our style of play can be described as "all out attack".

It's more: run around so much trying to get the ball back that we're all knackered once we regain possession

13 hours ago, supersonic said:

There's no way on this earth our style of play can be described as "all out attack".

 

It's more: run around so much trying to get the ball back that we're all knackered once we regain possession

I think the premise is very attacking but when it doesn't work out attack is incredibly blunt and our defence remains vulnerable.

All in all it's a very unbalanced strategy which can work brilliantly but when it isn't working pretty much guarantees we lose.  The fact we very rarely draw reflects this.

2 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I think the premise is very attacking but when it doesn't work out attack is incredibly blunt and our defence remains vulnerable.

All in all it's a very unbalanced strategy which can work brilliantly but when it isn't working pretty much guarantees we lose.  The fact we very rarely draw reflects this.

We also rarely win and also rarely have shots at goal. 

21 hours ago, supersonic said:

We also rarely win and also rarely have shots at goal. 

Because we're crap.  When we were on form earlier in the season we were scoring for fun.  I don't think the approach has changed just the form has plummeted. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Because we're crap.  When we were on form earlier in the season we were scoring for fun.  I don't think the approach has changed just the form has plummeted. 

Because teams know our strengths, know our weaknesses and know how to play against us. 

Were 1 dimensional, nothing changes, we go into every game with roughly the same 15 players playing the same way every time. 

Just now, SKD said:

Because teams know our strengths, know our weaknesses and know how to play against us. 

Were 1 dimensional, nothing changes, we go into every game with roughly the same 15 players playing the same way every time. 

I wonder if it's a very clever strategy to make the opposition managers think doing exactly what we've done in the previous 32 matches is the last thing we'll do this time? Surely sooner or later it'll work.

The thing I’ve noticed is that we barely play a 4222 anymore, it’s more a standard 442. 
 

Under our more successful periods under Hassenhuttl we managed to create overloads by having the 10s tuck in far more central and the strikers drifted further out wide to try and get into the pockets of space vacated by the FBs. We played far more direct and quicker football as a result: scoring goals and creating chances was far less of a problem.

Since the start of the year, that shape has fallen apart, the 10s now stay far out wide and the football has really suffered as a result of it: instead of getting into pockets of space we now just always play sideways in front of the opposition’s defence, and as a result we’re as toothless as we are. I can barely remember the last time we scored a goal (disregarding goals scored after tackling on a high-press) which haven’t come from the wing. I personally think it’s also why we look so exposed in midfield - Romeu and JWP aren’t physical enough to do it alone, and I think this is also why Diallo has struggled.

For me, our only hope is if we actually return to a 4222, with more central playing 10s - our full-backs are good enough to cover the wings themselves. I guess a big issue is that a lot of our wingers want to drift wide, so personally I’d line up something like this (when players are fit):

GK

Back 4

Romeu, Diallo

JWP, S Armstrong

Adams, A Armstrong

I think we need to push Ward-Prowse further forward (his biggest strength is winning the ball back high up the pitch and this would enable him to have more freedom in that, while giving more cover in CM). I don’t think we’ll solve the issue by playing Livramento further up as that will only continue with us focusing too much out wide. On top of that A Armstrong don’t look to have much aerial threat so what’s the point? We’re better off trying to release him quickly from the centre.

Everyone criticised Hasenhuttl for being too stubborn and playing the same way, but in my opinion his biggest problem as a manager has been failing to play in his preferred way. Hopefully, he can rediscover those tactics, because the football and the results were far better.

2 hours ago, Nemi said:

The thing I’ve noticed is that we barely play a 4222 anymore, it’s more a standard 442. 
 

Under our more successful periods under Hassenhuttl we managed to create overloads by having the 10s tuck in far more central and the strikers drifted further out wide to try and get into the pockets of space vacated by the FBs. We played far more direct and quicker football as a result: scoring goals and creating chances was far less of a problem.

 

Since the start of the year, that shape has fallen apart, the 10s now stay far out wide and the football has really suffered as a result of it: instead of getting into pockets of space we now just always play sideways in front of the opposition’s defence, and as a result we’re as toothless as we are. I can barely remember the last time we scored a goal (disregarding goals scored after tackling on a high-press) which haven’t come from the wing. I personally think it’s also why we look so exposed in midfield - Romeu and JWP aren’t physical enough to do it alone, and I think this is also why Diallo has struggled.

 

For me, our only hope is if we actually return to a 4222, with more central playing 10s - our full-backs are good enough to cover the wings themselves. I guess a big issue is that a lot of our wingers want to drift wide, so personally I’d line up something like this (when players are fit):

GK

Back 4

Romeu, Diallo

JWP, S Armstrong

Adams, A Armstrong

I think we need to push Ward-Prowse further forward (his biggest strength is winning the ball back high up the pitch and this would enable him to have more freedom in that, while giving more cover in CM). I don’t think we’ll solve the issue by playing Livramento further up as that will only continue with us focusing too much out wide. On top of that A Armstrong don’t look to have much aerial threat so what’s the point? We’re better off trying to release him quickly from the centre.

 

Everyone criticised Hasenhuttl for being too stubborn and playing the same way, but in my opinion his biggest problem as a manager has been failing to play in his preferred way. Hopefully, he can rediscover those tactics, because the football and the results were far better.

I'd give this a try. It's not like playing with two banks of two central midfielders could make us any more turgid in possession than we already are.