4-6-0: the future of football?

[shaun.lawson]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/08/the_end_of_forward_thinking.html

 

Fantastic in depth article, well worth a read; and I'll certainly be buying a copy of his book when it's published next week!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Ten years ago, 3-5-2 was regarded as the tactic of the future. Now it is redundant.

 

Teams will figure out the best way to play against 4-6-0 and then it will become yet another formation. That's why football retains its position as the number one sport in the world. No matter what tactics you employ, it is 11 v 11 and whoever scores most goals wins, irrespective of the tactical genius.

[Spellczech]

All very well for ManU but Hearts have proved themselves that when players are not of the calibre of Totti, Rooney, Drogba and Tevez then 4-5-1, let alone 4-6-0 is hopelessly ineffective.

[portobellojambo1]

Ten years ago, 3-5-2 was regarded as the tactic of the future. Now it is redundant.

 

Teams will figure out the best way to play against 4-6-0 and then it will become yet another formation. That's why football retains its position as the number one sport in the world. No matter what tactics you employ, it is 11 v 11 and whoever scores most goals wins, irrespective of the tactical genius.

 

Agree with what you say Geoff, you may get a situation where two teams will line up in this 4-6-0 formation but they will not play it that way, because the basic rule of football has not changed, and that is that if you score more goals than your opponents you defeat them. If lining up in a certain way was to guarantee how a game would finish there would be no need to play the games, they could announce the fixtures, declare all the matches as draws and the season would effectively last for about 30 minutes in total.

 

How you line up is irrelevant, the important factor is how your formation unfolds and expresses itself as the game progresses, and the best means of expressing yourself in football is by outscoring the opposition.

[Charlie-Brown]

For decades the Dutch have played a system that began as 3-4-3 then became 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 as football became more defensively minded however the feature of all their teams over the years is 2 wingers + a central striker + at least 1 attacking midfielder (support striker)........however in the era of total football and particularly at the 1974 World Cup not only would the players all interchange positions but they also played without any central striker or support striker as Cruyff & Neeskens basically played wherever they liked and however deep they needed to be to pick up the ball to start attacks leaving opposition central defenders and defensive midfielders bewildered as to where they themselves should actually be playing & marking etc........nobody could solve this problem until the final when West Germany decided 'Der Terrier' Bertie Vogts should simply man-mark Cruyff and shadow him anywhere on the pitch which he did and ultimately effectively but not after first conceding a penalty for bringing down Cruyff in the box.

[scott herbertson]

It's only natural

 

It's a little know fact that n the Figgate park (or figgy park to those in the know) in the early 1960s we played this system despite being managerless and untutored.

 

there were slightly more players so it tended to be 0-0-25 against 0-0-24 or 0-0-26.

 

But the basic principles were the same as adopted by Man United today - if you are a crap player you pass to the best player. The best player either goes for goal or passes to one of his mates (but never back to you).

[shaun.lawson]

All very well for ManU but Hearts have proved themselves that when players are not of the calibre of Totti, Rooney, Drogba and Tevez then 4-5-1, let alone 4-6-0 is hopelessly ineffective.

 

Mmm... as I see it though, it's not so much about systems as about movement. 3-5-2, properly deployed, turns into 5-4-1 without the ball - "get through this if you can!" - and 4-5-1 converts into attacking 4-3-3 too. Arsenal played 4-5-1 en route to the 2006 Champions League Final, of course.

 

And surely any football team, properly coached, are capable of intelligence and movement, aren't they? So it probably goes back to how youngsters are coached while they're growing up, as well as the pathetic lack of innovation and outside-the-box thinking of British coaches and managers, even at top level. England's obsession with 4-4-2, for example, is an utter embarrassment: especially given it was actually 4-3-3 we used in 1966, and when we shifted to 3-5-2 at Italia 90 and at times during Euro 96, we looked a much more fluid, dangerous side: precisely because it gave us a much more secure defensive base, and didn't leave us outnumbered in midfield against technically gifted opponents too. So what did we do? Go straight back to 4-4-2; and even managers throughout the First Division post Italia 90 failed to implement 3-5-2 either.

[shaun.lawson]

Ten years ago, 3-5-2 was regarded as the tactic of the future. Now it is redundant.

 

Teams will figure out the best way to play against 4-6-0 and then it will become yet another formation. That's why football retains its position as the number one sport in the world. No matter what tactics you employ, it is 11 v 11 and whoever scores most goals wins, irrespective of the tactical genius.

 

I agree. And precisely because it's eleven v eleven, there's no perfect solution: every system has its strengths and weaknesses. It'll be like this until the end of time.

[Charlie-Brown]

The Italians perfected football in the 1960's and 0-0 was the 'perfect' scoreline....1-0 or 2-1 etc meant somebody had made a 'mistake'........

[shaun.lawson]

For decades the Dutch have played a system that began as 3-4-3 then became 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 as football became more defensively minded however the feature of all their teams over the years is 2 wingers + a central striker + at least 1 attacking midfielder (support striker)........however in the era of total football and particularly at the 1974 World Cup not only would the players all interchange positions but they also played without any central striker or support striker as Cruyff & Neeskens basically played wherever they liked and however deep they needed to be to pick up the ball to start attacks leaving opposition central defenders and defensive midfielders bewildered as to where they themselves should actually be playing & marking etc........nobody could solve this problem until the final when West Germany decided 'Der Terrier' Bertie Vogts should simply man-mark Cruyff and shadow him anywhere on the pitch which he did and ultimately effectively but not after first conceding a penalty for bringing down Cruyff in the box.

 

It's a sad reality that sides playing with this level of midfield fantasy - Holland '74, Hungary '54, Brazil '82 and Argentina '06 - all came a cropper against sides who man marked and chopped off space. Defence has largely been beating attack in football for over half a century now: of course, there have been notable exceptions (Hearts' runaway title success in 1958, for example), but as more and more nations have become proficient, so the importance of tactical innovation has only increased, even though stalemate invariably results when everyone else cottons on.

 

The reason I love international football more than any other version of the game, though, is that tactics are everything. They're much less relevant in club football, where rich CL clubs can buy up the best players, and make anything work for them (while 4-4-2 was making England look static and predictable, Arrigo Sacchi's Milan were conquering the world with the same system), but it's a very different story at the World Cup or European Championship. And the general lack of real tactical debate and knowledge in the UK is, surely, a big reason why all the national teams of these islands have a glass ceiling at big tournaments: you can't go beyond the quarter-finals of either unless you have something extra.

[shaun.lawson]

The Italians perfected football in the 1960's and 0-0 was the 'perfect' scoreline....1-0 or 2-1 etc meant somebody had made a 'mistake'........

 

Which is precisely why Brazil's victory in 1970 - and even Celtic's in 1967 - were so important for the future of the game. Without the former, maybe Total Football (pioneered initially by West Germany in 1972, taken to new levels by the Dutch two years later) would never have even developed.

[Charlie-Brown]

If a team plays negatively & resolutely defends then they can get quite far in tournaments provided they can a) nick a crucial goal or win penalty shoot outs.......Greece 2004 & Rangers 2008 are recent examples of that - thankfully the Dutch inspired creativity of Zenit triumphed over defensive organisation in Manchester.

[shaun.lawson]

If a team plays negatively & resolutely defends then they can get quite far in tournaments provided they can a) nick a crucial goal or win penalty shoot outs.......Greece 2004 & Rangers 2008 are recent examples of that - thankfully the Dutch inspired creativity of Zenit triumphed over defensive organisation in Manchester.

 

Sure - and actually, I see no problem with this. I think it's great that a team of limited players can still do very well with inspired management and tactical organisation; and Greece's triumph four years ago, based on keeping the ball, was fully merited. If more celebrated opponents (Spain, France, the Czech Republic, Portugal twice) were unable to beat them, that says a lot for their cocky over-confidence and lack of ideas, and even more for Otto Rehhagel's utter brilliance. It's very strange that he doesn't receive more recognition for his achievements: with Werder Bremen and Kaiserslautern as well as Greece.

 

The problem arises, though, when negativity seems to block out all hope of any alternative, as appeared to be the case for a time during the 1960s; and especially if it's of a wholly destructive, cynical variety, as was especially the case in Argentina in the late '60s, and again with their shocking side at Italia 90. Their success there, as well as that of Ireland, played a very big part in FIFA outlawing the tackle from behind, insisting on referees dishing out yellow and red cards much more frequently, and bringing in the backpass law - and while the big cheeses in Zurich have got a heck of a lot wrong under Blatter, Havelange and co, I'd say these changes have been almost entirely for the better.

[Charlie-Brown]

You could argue that relative 'minnows' or unfancied teams beat traditionally stronger competition by simply being much better footballing teams than them with examples being Ajax 1995, Porto 2003 & 2004, Zenit 2008 ..... Rangers did very well with their 4-5-1 'defensive' style as did Scotland using a similar system under W.Smith however this relative success is in danger of becoming self re-inforcing as Rangers in trying to sign Kenny Miller are moving towards trying to 'perfect' that system as their preferred strategy rather than using it to overcome their limitations against superior / more creative opponents.

[shaun.lawson]

You could argue that relative 'minnows' or unfancied teams beat traditionally stronger competition by simply being much better footballing teams than them with examples being Ajax 1995, Porto 2003 & 2004, Zenit 2008 ..... Rangers did very well with their 4-5-1 'defensive' style as did Scotland using a similar system under W.Smith however this relative success is in danger of becoming self re-inforcing as Rangers in trying to sign Kenny Miller are moving towards trying to 'perfect' that system as their preferred strategy rather than using it to overcome their limitations against superior / more creative opponents.

 

We'll see. I genuinely anticipate Rangers becoming bolder in their approach once they have the players who'd be suited by it; but as Fergie commented on the eve of the UEFA Final, Smith, thus far, has had to adopt a horses for courses approach given the huge amount of rebuilding he's had to undertake.

 

As for the examples you've given: it's still hard to see how Porto would've done so well without an extraordinary motivator behind them, and Zenit have spent tons. The saddest aspect of modern, post-Bosman football, though, is when a selling club develops a freakishly gifted group of young players, they can no longer fully reap the on-field rewards: Ajax of 94/5 were sensational (unbeaten throughout the Dutch season as well as European Champions), but we'll never see their like again...

[Charlie-Brown]

We'll see. I genuinely anticipate Rangers becoming bolder in their approach once they have the players who'd be suited by it; but as Fergie commented on the eve of the UEFA Final, Smith, thus far, has had to adopt a horses for courses approach given the huge amount of rebuilding he's had to undertake.

 

As for the examples you've given: it's still hard to see how Porto would've done so well without an extraordinary motivator behind them, and Zenit have spent tons. The saddest aspect of modern, post-Bosman football, though, is when a selling club develops a freakishly gifted group of young players, they can no longer fully reap the on-field rewards: Ajax of 94/5 were sensational (unbeaten throughout the Dutch season as well as European Champions), but we'll never see their like again...

 

Rangers appear to be struggling to compete financially for players they'd ideally like to sign even Kenny Miller is being asked to take a hefty pay cut (reported as ?30K->?20K per week) to sign for them, similarly their reported interest in Velicka suggests they're having to look at more cost effective alternatives as they can't or won't compete with the salaries on offer by Premiership, European or even some aspiring Championship competitors.

 

The sad thing about modern football is the plundering of talent by the wealthy. Previously huge talents like Cruyff & Platini took Ajax & St Ettiene to the summit of European club football for a couple of years but now they'd be snapped up by Barca or Man Utd or Arsenal before they reached their 20th birthday.

 

Ajax in the period 1994-96 did build a sensational & mostly home grown team, Mourinho moulded a team that took successive UEFA & CL trophies and Zenit assembled a quality team with players not on the radar of the giant clubs in Western Europe - I think it is still possible to build a team to beat the giant clubs over a season (or two at most) however once they've proved themselves capable they will be devoured & broken apart by the usual suspects in the major leagues. Barca & Chelski bought the best of Porto in 2004 - who will buy up Zenit if they show well in this years Champions League?

[shaun.lawson]

Rangers appear to be struggling to compete financially for players they'd ideally like to sign even Kenny Miller is being asked to take a hefty pay cut (reported as ?30K->?20K per week) to sign for them, similarly their reported interest in Velicka suggests they're having to look at more cost effective alternatives as they can't or won't compete with the salaries on offer by Premiership, European or even some aspiring Championship competitors.

 

The sad thing about modern football is the plundering of talent by the wealthy. Previously huge talents like Cruyff & Platini took Ajax & St Ettiene to the summit of European club football for a couple of years but now they'd be snapped up by Barca or Man Utd or Arsenal before they reached their 20th birthday.

 

Ajax in the period 1994-96 did build a sensational & mostly home grown team, Mourinho moulded a team that took successive UEFA & CL trophies and Zenit assembled a quality team with players not on the radar of the giant clubs in Western Europe - I think it is still possible to build a team to beat the giant clubs over a season (or two at most) however once they've proved themselves capable they will be devoured & broken apart by the usual suspects in the major leagues. Barca & Chelski bought the best of Porto in 2004 - who will buy up Zenit if they show well in this years Champions League?

 

Probably whoever Advocaat moves to. The Sunday Express have linked him with Newcastle...

[Charlie-Brown]

Probably whoever Advocaat moves to. The Sunday Express have linked him with Newcastle...

 

Are Newcastle prepared to spend big? does Ashley have the money? They seem to talk a lot about achieving 'value' and not actually being able to complete as many transfers now Shepherd - W.Mackay are off the scene.

[shaun.lawson]

Are Newcastle prepared to spend big? does Ashley have the money? They seem to talk a lot about achieving 'value' and not actually being able to complete as many transfers now Shepherd - W.Mackay are off the scene.

 

This is the big question. Ashley certainly has the money, but it's not at all clear he's willing to spend it - which is already creating trouble with Keegan, and would certainly prevent any chance of someone like Advocaat joining them. So we can only wait and see - but if he doesn't spend, then as Newcastle fans gradually cotton on, I can see there being much unhappiness ahead.

[Charlie-Brown]

This is the big question. Ashley certainly has the money, but it's not at all clear he's willing to spend it - which is already creating trouble with Keegan, and would certainly prevent any chance of someone like Advocaat joining them. So we can only wait and see - but if he doesn't spend, then as Newcastle fans gradually cotton on, I can see there being much unhappiness ahead.

 

Well the inherent assumption both at Newcastle & almost everywhere else is that you need to spend big to improve, this is probably true to achieve a short term but significant improvement or even competitiveness in terms of the English Premiership but as Newcastle like almost every other team in the UK are NOT at the top of the 'food chain' the only way they will improve long term is by becoming better at what they do, actually improving & developing their existing players & team, better coaching & tactics, better preparation etc.

[shaun.lawson]

Well the inherent assumption both at Newcastle & almost everywhere else is that you need to spend big to improve, this is probably true to achieve a short term but significant improvement or even competitiveness in terms of the English Premiership but as Newcastle like almost every other team in the UK are NOT at the top of the 'food chain' the only way they will improve long term is by becoming better at what they do, actually improving & developing their existing players & team, better coaching & tactics, better preparation etc.

 

Sure - and this is certainly what they're endeavouring to do. It explains the appointment of Wise as DoF (or as near as dammit), and their apparent strategy of buying 'em young and cheap to sell them and reinvest later on. Arsenal are the model for huge amounts of clubs; trouble is, a genius like Wenger is seriously thin on the ground, and almost no-one has a scouting system to compare either.

 

At the same time though, some level of significant investment has to happen too. Remember the enormous amounts EPL clubs receive from SKY now: as a result, ?30m-?40m might sound a lot, but actually, it isn't in EPL terms really. And given their competitors (Tottenham, Man City, Villa, Portsmouth, even Sunderland) will clearly be spending serious amounts, Newcastle have to either do the same... or fall ever further behind.

[Charlie-Brown]

Sure - and this is certainly what they're endeavouring to do. It explains the appointment of Wise as DoF (or as near as dammit), and their apparent strategy of buying 'em young and cheap to sell them and reinvest later on. Arsenal are the model for huge amounts of clubs; trouble is, a genius like Wenger is seriously thin on the ground, and almost no-one has a scouting system to compare either.

 

At the same time though, some level of significant investment has to happen too. Remember the enormous amounts EPL clubs receive from SKY now: as a result, ?30m-?40m might sound a lot, but actually, it isn't in EPL terms really. And given their competitors (Tottenham, Man City, Villa, Portsmouth, even Sunderland) will clearly be spending serious amounts, Newcastle have to either do the same... or fall ever further behind.

 

Yes but if every EPL competitor team spends their ?30M+ then relatively they are all standing still although of course the quality of their spending & selling will dictate how well they do - but to make a leap above (quickly) requires significantly bigger spend over & above the Sky money - how much additional spending are EPL teams actually making?

 

Bolton under Allardyce & Blackburn under Hughes were two Premiership teams who made gradual but significant real improvement.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Maybe there is something in the 4-5-0 formation we played for most of the season then.

[Gigolo-Aunt]

I wonder if 442 will ever come back in fashion.

[Charlie-Brown]

I wonder if 442 will ever come back in fashion.

 

What kind of 442 GA? 4 midfielders (ie camazzolla brellier hartley skacel) or 2 wide players / wingers & 2 central midfielders and are these central midfielders both holding players or 1 attacking / 1 defensive etc etc.

 

Depends how successful 4-5-1 or 4-5-1/4-3-3 variants or even 4-6-0 formations are.......

[Tazio]

I just watch the game.

[Gigolo-Aunt]

What kind of 442 GA? 4 midfielders (ie camazzolla brellier hartley skacel) or 2 wide players / wingers & 2 central midfielders and are these central midfielders both holding players or 1 attacking / 1 defensive etc etc.

 

Depends how successful 4-5-1 or 4-5-1/4-3-3 variants or even 4-6-0 formations are.......

 

 

442 have a shed load of different ways of playing. Its horses for courses, but I prefer....

 

One holding player who can break the play, has a great engine and can find a pass when in possesion. Knows when to take his ear rings out ;o)

 

One pushing forward making runs to support or beyone the front two.

 

One winger with excellent pace and distribution.

 

One holding wide man who is adaptable to swapping sides with the wiger if he is getting little joy our of his fullback.

 

 

Dont like playing with two wingers, its suicide away from home IMO.

[Hearts of Vladland]

2-2-6 formation is the way forward i'm tell you.

[Marmeladent?rtchen]

2-2-6 formation is the way forward i'm tell you.

 

Seen that on the TV the other night,,,,,,,,,,

 

its called the 6 pack; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZEfydBlTM

[Jarhead]

442 have a shed load of different ways of playing. Its horses for courses, but I prefer....

 

One holding player who can break the play, has a great engine and can find a pass when in possesion. Knows when to take his ear rings out ;o)

 

One pushing forward making runs to support or beyone the front two.

 

One winger with excellent pace and distribution.

 

One holding wide man who is adaptable to swapping sides with the wiger if he is getting little joy our of his fullback.

 

 

Dont like playing with two wingers, its suicide away from home IMO.

 

I'm not very keen on our use of wingers.

When things are going against us I feel they are too light weight and especially, as you said, an unafordable luxury away from home.

The only plus side with our wingers is their ability to swap wings therefore, in theory, keeping the opposing defences on the back foot.

However, all too often the reality does not match the theory.

[scott herbertson]

 

Dont like playing with two wingers, its suicide away from home IMO.

 

The cause of most of our misfortunes in the last two years (other than our forwards inability to score). Even at home it makes it easy for the opposition when they are in possession

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/08/the_end_of_forward_thinking.html

 

Fantastic in depth article, well worth a read; and I'll certainly be buying a copy of his book when it's published next week!

 

CHEERS FOR THAT SHAUN!

[bigandy]

Its funny that by saying playing 4-6-0 it sounds defensive and negative yet Man Utd are used as an example and they are one of the most attack minded teams in the world. I can see where the guy is coming from saying it is a 4-2-4-0 system as they dont have a genuine centre forward but when they play with Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez and Giggs/Nani I see it more as a 4-2-4 line up. I dont like the growing trend for one striker up front (especially at Hearts as we have neither the frorwards OR midfielders to play it effectively)

[Mac_fae_Gillie]

seen that lower teams in the spl play 10-0-0 it don't sound so bad....

[shaun.lawson]

Yep.

[bighusref]

Mmm... as I see it though, it's not so much about systems as about movement. 3-5-2, properly deployed, turns into 5-4-1 without the ball - "get through this if you can!" - and 4-5-1 converts into attacking 4-3-3 too. Arsenal played 4-5-1 en route to the 2006 Champions League Final, of course.

 

And surely any football team, properly coached, are capable of intelligence and movement, aren't they? So it probably goes back to how youngsters are coached while they're growing up, as well as the pathetic lack of innovation and outside-the-box thinking of British coaches and managers, even at top level. England's obsession with 4-4-2, for example, is an utter embarrassment: especially given it was actually 4-3-3 we used in 1966, and when we shifted to 3-5-2 at Italia 90 and at times during Euro 96, we looked a much more fluid, dangerous side: precisely because it gave us a much more secure defensive base, and didn't leave us outnumbered in midfield against technically gifted opponents too. So what did we do? Go straight back to 4-4-2; and even managers throughout the First Division post Italia 90 failed to implement 3-5-2 either.

 

[JamboBen]

Yeah but Spain look good when they play with that system and no forwards, Scotland don't as we do not have the players.

[southside1874]

This is what we done when we had Nade up front.

[shaun.lawson]

 

More proof I've been on about this for a long, long time big man.

[Bert Le Clos]

4-6-0 requires having almost an entire team who are capable of playing multiple positions and can dribble, pass, tackle, finish, have the vision and intelligence to realise where the space is in both attack and defence, to know when to burst a gut to move and to know when to stay still.

 

For that reason, I can't ever see it becoming standard practice in football.

[Smoked-Glass]

Does this mean the Craig Levein is a genius? haha

[bighusref]

More proof I've been on about this for a long, long time big man.

 

As someone once said about me (to the extent it was added to my profile for ages) all that demonstrates is belligerent idiocy.

[Dr. Sheldon Cooper]

The thing that gets me is that most people just look at 4-6-0 and think: "there's no striker, so it's boring and negative". We've seen that line rolled off many times over the course of the tournament but at the end of the day, it plays to Spain's strengths. They have numerous ball-playing midfielders and the only way they can fit them all in is by adopting this formation. Tonight it worked an absolute treat and they played some fantastic stuff. The Italians just couldn't deal with it.

 

Any good manager will set out his side to play to their strengths. Over the course of an SPL season, we see countless posts on here asking for Hearts to play 4-4-2, but it doesn't suit our squad and playing a variation of 4-5-1 works much better for us and our last three managers have realised that.

 

Managers all over the world will look at this Spain side and think that 4-6-0 may well be the way to go, but you need to have the players to make it work. When Levein deployed it in Prague, the Scottish defenders punted the ball long at every opportunity and as there was no outball, it just came straight back to us. We didn't use it correctly. Spain do and they have reaped the benefits of it.

[colinmaroon]

Bertie Auld's Partick Thistle were the first to play without a forward - or a midfielder - 10 - 0 - 0!

 

 

 

 

And it was boring and negative.

[skinnybob72]

If you have the ability to control the ball first time every time, and have team mates moving into space all around like Spain do you can quite probably play whatever formation you want. It's like watching a different sport when you watch Spain compared to the British 'up and at em' style.

 

England still think that 'guts' and 'passion' are a requirement to compete at tournaments like the Euros but those days are long gone. I'll not bother mentioning Scotland as we're as far away from being half decent as we've ever been. We used to be feared and teams would want to avoid us at all costs but now we're the team that others want to be drawn against.

[IMA MAROON]

Does this mean the Craig Levein is a genius? haha

 

 

It means he was right.

[davemclaren]

4-6-0 is as much the future of football as betamax was the future of video.

[Optimus Prime]

4-6-0 is not the future.

 

4-6-0 is the system of an exceptional team who have taken ball retention to a new level and the extra midfielder plays to their strengths.

 

4-6-0 cannot be deployed by teams who can't keep the ball as well as Spain/Barcelona (basically no one).

 

4-6-0 in this form is a one off for a one off crop of players.

[Flimsy]

Until the final 4-6-0 wasn't even working for Spain, the best team in the world. I hope I never see it again.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Until the final 4-6-0 wasn't even working for Spain, the best team in the world. I hope I never see it again.

 

 

Until the final.

 

With those three words you prove that it did work, regardless of how horrendous it can be to watch.