Originally posted by Dean97
View Post
different schemes can have tactical nuances - such as overlapping FB or both FBs on 'chalk on boots' wingers in a 4-4-2, a big/small duo at CF, one runs to 1st post, other runs to 2nd post, which CM covers which FB when that FB makes a run...on and on it goes.
the 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 both create space, due to the wide players. the smartest person i learned football went on and on about 'h ekmetaleush kevou xwpou'. later, the italians taught me the same. well, who would take advantage of the empty space provided by those schemes? THE 2 CMs. runs into the box, especially late runs, can devastate a defense, if not, for sure break their shape - all it takes is one tired CM not to track a run.
the 4-2-3-1 also has wide players. space is artificially created? correct??
ok, with only 1 actual CM that has a realistic chance to score from open play, you can immediately see the 4-2-3-1 is a negative bastardization of the 4-3-3. asking the one of the two in a double pivot to make runs from 50 yards all match is not optimal due to confusion and stamina. i supposed it may work if the ACM is wolrd-class. a luxury for big sides, not all clubs or nations have a world-class #10.
i never liked this scheme and greece utilizing this is tantamount to banging your head on barbed wire and concrete.
Leave a comment: