Euro-bollox

A lot of teams play in a 4-2-3-1 system these days and that is extraordinarily defensive. You have one forward then you have three people going to support him.

This is effectively an adapted 4-2-4 format but the difference being the two in that system are extremely defensive whereas in a 4-2-4 the two tend to go forward a wee bit.

When you employ a 4-4-2 system, all four in the midfield go forward to an extent and I am really hoping for some good attacking football in this tournament.


Otto Rehhagel employed strong defence to win Euro 2004

If it is going to be a tournament that exists with most teams playing four defenders and two sitters in midfield, then I am going to be asleep for most of it but I just do not see that because not too many teams are doing it.

We can look back at Greece and their success but football changes really quickly and what system did the new champions of Europe use? Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson put out a 4-4-2, which is extraordinary, almost unthinkable.

It was a 4-2-4 set-up with Patrice Evra, a full-back, bombing forward and one of those midfielders bombing forward. It is almost Brazilian in its offensiveness.

I think there is a nudge towards more positivity than there was three or four years ago. The Dutch will be more positive, as will the French - who are positive even when they play one up front. There are more positive teams out there so let's hope we see that reflected in the football we see in Austria and Switzerland.

BM wrote:Stupidity.

" 4-2-3-1 system these days and that is extraordinarily defensive."

Watch a Roma match fuckface.

Khadrim wrote:

But 4-2-3-1 is defensive as you have 6 players whose main job is to defend. It does give the fullbacks license to attack though.

Khadrim wrote:

BM wrote:Stupidity.

" 4-2-3-1 system these days and that is extraordinarily defensive."

Watch a Roma match fuckface.

I thought Roma played 4-6-0. But I bow to your superior knowledge.

But 4-2-3-1 is defensive as you have 6 players whose main job is to defend. It does give the fullbacks license to attack though.

Khadrim wrote:

BM wrote:Stupidity.

" 4-2-3-1 system these days and that is extraordinarily defensive."

Watch a Roma match fuckface.

I thought Roma played 4-6-0. But I bow to your superior knowledge.

But 4-2-3-1 is defensive as you have 6 players whose main job is to defend. It does give the fullbacks license to attack though.

Hlebadinho wrote:Man Utd played a 4-4-2 (they didnt) witha 4-2-4 set up (how)...

Also, France are not attacking. You *can't* have a more defensive mdfield than what France will employ if playing a 4-4-2.

Khadrim wrote:

Hlebadinho wrote:Man Utd played a 4-4-2 (they didnt) witha 4-2-4 set up (how)...

Also, France are not attacking. You *can't* have a more defensive mdfield than what France will employ if playing a 4-4-2.

But France have two defensive inclined midfielder in the centre. And as I think of it that would be how to counteract 4-2-3-1 as you don't lose grip of the midfield and can overload the wings.

Khadrim wrote:

Hlebadinho wrote:Man Utd played a 4-4-2 (they didnt) witha 4-2-4 set up (how)...

Also, France are not attacking. You *can't* have a more defensive mdfield than what France will employ if playing a 4-4-2.

But France have two defensive inclined midfielders in the centre. And as I think of it that would be how to counteract 4-2-3-1 as you don't lose grip of the midfield and can overload the wings.