Questions About the 4-4-2

During Manchester City's first match of the season, versus Swansea, the commentators were once again shouting their typical refrain: "Mancini needs to be more positive. He needs to play two up front. He needs to play 4-4-2!"

This annoyed me more than usual, though, because City clearly were playing more attacking football. They made 19 shots on goal in the first half alone. That they didn't score in the first half owed much to an incredible performance by Swansea's goalkeeper, Vorm, and more than a bit of luck.

This perplexed me as well because City were, at that moment, playing with only one holding midfielder, something that I at least associate with a 4-4-2.

This left me with some burning questions. What do they even mean by a 4-4-2? And why do they associate it so strongly with attacking football?

Below, I will do my best to try to answer these questions.

Is the 4-4-2 a more attacking formation than 4-2-3-1?

Clearly not. Just consider some of the other teams that play a 4-2-3-1:

• Arsenal: 72 goals, 2nd most goals in the EPL.
  
  
• Bayern Munich: 81 goals, top in the Bundesliga. They scored 14 more goals than Borussia Dortmund, the 2nd best scoring team (who also play 4-2-3-1, by the way).
  
  
• Real Madrid: 102 goals (!!), top in La Liga. They scored 7 more goals than Barcelona, the 2nd best scoring team.
  

These are all teams that play attacking football. Indeed, the criticism of both Arsenal and van Gaal's Bayern Munich has been that they are weak at the back. van Gaal's team was described as "recklessly" attacking. I suppose some might note Mourinho's penchant for defensive play, but Real Madrid demands an attacking team, and the statistics above speak for themselves.

What is the 4-4-2?

It's hard to come up with a precise definition of the 4-4-2. Indeed, coming up with precise definitions for even ordinary things is a lot more difficult than you might think. (What is a chair? It's something with four legs that you sit on. Ummm, that's also not a horse.)

Let me instead say that the 4-4-2 is a formation that often has with the following properties:

1. Two strikers playing in the center-forward position.
   
   
2. Two natural wingers. (As opposed to "inverted" wingers. A natural winger plays with his strong foot on the outside, which means he can hold the ball by the touchline and deliver crosses easily. An inverted winger plays with his strong foot on the inside, which means he can cut inside and shoot on goal easily.)
   
   
3. Only one holding midfielder.
   

Of course, a given 4-4-2 need not have all of these properties. But actually, it's not clear that the 4-4-2, as played by the top teams, has any of these properties.

Does any top team play a 4-4-2?

Of the top teams in the top 4 leagues, only two write 4-4-2 on their teamsheet: Manchester United and Liverpool. Let's consider how well these properties apply to their 4-4-2 formations.

1. Two center forwards ("two up front") is perhaps the most commonly associated feature of the 4-4-2. And yet, neither of these teams plays with two traditional center forwards.
   
   Manchester United's Wayne Rooney is often called a "false nine". He has long spent much of his time between the lines, rather than up against the central defenders, but last season, he was often seen dropping even deeper, adding creativity to the midfield. Indeed, against bigger teams, he would often drop into midfield in order top prevent United from being overrun in that area of the pitch.
   
   Liverpool's Luis Suarez is another non-traditional striker. Like Rooney, he drops deep, but Suarez also likes to move out wide, i.e., he likes to play everywhere except in the usual center-forward position.
   
   
2. Neither of these teams play with two natural wingers.
   
   Last weekend, Manchester United played Ashley Young as a natural winger but Nani (as usual) played inverted. Liverpool played Stewart Downing out side, but Jordan Henderson was moving inside.
   
   
3. Both of these teams have played with two holding midfielders.
   
   It may be the case that United have a general tendency to use one holding midfielder. (Indeed, this impression is the reason that 4-4-2 and "one holding" were associated in my mind.) However, United have used two holding midfielders against bigger teams. For example, they have played Carrick and Fletcher together.
   
   United have also played Carrick and Anderson together, as well as Carrick and Scholes. These are all players that have been used as holding midfielders in recent times. Indeed, United have a large group of midfielders — Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson, Scholes — none of whom seem to be great attackers. (Of course, Scholes was in the past, but he was widely described as being a defensive midfielder last season.)
   
   Liverpool frequently played Lucas and Jay Spearing together against the bigger teams last season. Both are considered holding midfielders.
   

If Ferguson can play one center-forward, only one natural winger, two holding midfielders, and call it a 4-4-2, perhaps Mancini should write 4-4-2 on his teamsheet and play his usual formation just to get the commentators off his back.

Again, what is the 4-4-2?

Based on the discussion above, one might be be tempted to take a weaker definition of the 4-4-2, say one traditional striker, one traditional winger, and a tendency to use one holding midfielder. Unfortunately, this definition fails to distinguish the 4-4-2 from the 4-2-3-1.

For example, Arsenal plays with one center-forward (van Persie), one traditional winger (Walcott or Gervinho), and one holding midfielder (Wilshere liking to attack). Similarly, Manchester City plays with one traditional center-forward (Dzeko); they have on occasion used Adam Johnson as a natural winger; and they can play with one holding midfielder: Milner loves to attack and Gareth Barry showed in the last match that he can do this as well.

Perhaps there is some way to draw a line between these 4-4-2s and 4-2-3-1s. For example, we could try to argue that Rooney is a striker even when he plays in midfield, and Yaya Toure is a midfielder even when he plays as a striker. But it seems to me that we are really splitting hairs at this point.

The reality is the 4-4-2s used by top teams are very similar to 4-2-3-1s. No top team plays a real 4-4-2 anymore. And the commentators who are calling for Manchester City to play a 4-4-2 simply don't know what they are talking about.