I was thinking the other day about the time my grandad, a football fanatic, explained to me the genius of the famed 4-4-2 formation- don’t ask me why. He went on for what felt like hours explaining why the 4-4-2 was such a marvellous invention. It really was, in his eyes, the ultimate English export.
Sadly, upon some extremely light research it turns out that grandad’s assertion was ever so slightly warped. In fact, this timeless classic may not have originated from blighty in the early 1960s as promised, but the Soviet Union under one Viktor Maslov.
Alternatively, by some small margin the 4-4-2 could have developed in England and the USSR at the same time, each party unbeknownst to what the other was doing. A sort of football arms race if you like. I would think this is incredibly unlikely, but I like the sound of it nonetheless.
It is often Alf Ramsey who is accredited to inventing this style of play as he led England to their isolated 66’ trophy parade, however, Viktor Maslov would have said otherwise.
Maslov, during his profitable stint at Dynamo Kyiv in the 1960s, astutely adapted the Brazilian 4-2-4 formation to a 4-4-2, bolstering up the midfield to a flat four, thus creating more control in the centre of the park where it mattered. The direct, physical style of play it produced inundated the English game for decades with Ramsey’s world cup success applauding this robust formation on the biggest stage of them all.
Alf Ramsey and Viktor Maslov- both considered to be pioneers of the 4-4-2
Split strikers up top, crossing wide men, two workhorses in the middle and an unimaginative back four was, give or take, how it was to be done. The resultant width, imposing attacking threat, enhanced midfield and newly found high press, similar to the Gegenpress we see today, allowed for the glorious 4-4-2 to prevail.
England’s obsession with the symmetrical 4-4-2, however, started to hinder their chances at success as teams started to develop and evolve this system throughout the 80s and 90s. As clubs started to experiment with new, unorthodox ways of playing, dear old England refused to budge. Its rigidity stymied the golden generation in the early 2000s, whilst in Spain a new beast was emerging: tiki-taka.
‘This tippy-tappy stuff’, to quote the fine Sam Allardyce, characterised La Masia’s grip on the game through the 2010s as the likes of Messi and co. toyed with opponents and dominated European football. This fine-tuned patient game was reliant on relentless possession immobilising opponents. Short, precise passing was the mantra. Captivating to watch, this Barcelona dismantled opponents with extraordinary effect.
Pep Guardiola's 2010-2011 Barcelona team- renonwed as one of the best in history and beneficiaries of tiki-taka
In the current game ‘Pep-ball’ is the equivalent. Trends such as the inverted full back, quarterback defensive midfielders and lumbering box-to-box centre backs are setting the gold standard for how we perceive the game should be played.
And this is where my objections come in. I think I am cast from the small Sean Dycheian discipline when I say I find this obsession with playing an overcomplicated system rather boring, not least detrimental to teams who aren’t good enough to reap its rewards.
My problem lies with the overly systematic and regimented nature of this style of play. Players are expected to bottle their personal flair for the efficiency of the system, like cogs in the machine.
Pep-ball, or whatever you want to call it, is built on players sacrificing their intuition and instincts to make way for an incredibly well-thought-out playbook. This egalitarian style of play is both abundantly successful and thoroughly monotonous at the same time. Playing a possession game around the oppositions box, to me, is taking it all a bit too seriously.
This is not to say that it is not worthwhile. Manchester City, and the handful of teams who can successfully replicate them, play a game where ingenious phases of play discombobulate opponents and the ball is simply passed into the net.
The problem is that these passages are littered with extended periods of droll foreplay that simply aren’t good to watch. This is my first qualm.
My second aversion to Pep-ball is the contagious influence it’s had on the game. This season we have seen the likes of Burnley try to play out from their own box, rely on their keeper’s passing ability, or lack thereof, and play through a pivot. The refusal to shed such risqué tendencies under pressure have led to a sorry season for the likes of Burnley with avoidable mistakes costing them valuable points. Teams that do not have limitless cash can’t execute this style of football to the level required, contributing to frequent mishaps throughout the season.
The want to emulate Pep is certainly admirable. You can’t fault the ambition of Vincent Kompany for wanting to play ‘nice football’ but perhaps some pragmatism is needed. If mistakes are occurring frequently, the line between admiration and carelessness soon becomes blurred.
There is a reason we have ‘survival specialists’ within football management. These specimens are often more English than St. George and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. Sam Allardyce, Neil Warnock and Sean ‘the butcher’ Dyche, to name a few, take a practical approach to management where getting the ball in the box is the chief concern.
Survival specialists: Sam Allardyce, Neil Warnock and Sean Dyche- known for preferring a more direct style of football.
They play long-ball, nick a goal when they can and ultimately disrupt leagues late on in the season. Defensive robustness and quick, counter-attacking football is hastily assumed often with astounding results.
This long-ball philosophy is reminiscent of the 4-4-2 era and seldom produces a dull moment. Constant crossing bombardments and abnormally long throw-ins characterise these un-predictable, goal heavy fixtures. What’s more, this playing style is underpinned with the physicality that is increasingly leaving the professional game.
This is not to say it is always preferable. Manchester City, Arsenal and, more recently, Bayern Leverkusen all thrive off the intricacies of the modern game and have the players to make this possible.
But old-school, more direct football has merits of its own and should not be looked down upon nor patronised, especially by managers whose teams struggle to retain the ball for extended periods of time. Managers who deploy this vintage playing style have tactical intricacies of their own where creatives are accommodated, a point that is often forgotten. Jay-Jay Okocha’s exceptional term at Bolton Wanderers under Sam Allardyce in the early 2000s is a case in point. Long-ball merchants have consistently been a headache for more established clubs, dispelling the narrative that ‘nice football’ is always right.
Jay-Jay Okocha: Bolton Wanderers and Nigerian cult hero
Over the years, countless styles of football have had their influence on the game, each flaunting their own versions of success. Total football, tiki-taka and long-ball have all had their time. We are now watching an era where it is tacticians and positional masterminds who are in command of the space.
I wish to take nothing away from modern football as we see it today and Pep Guardiola’s ethos as, above all else, it works. It should, however, be implemented with varying degrees of pragmatism with long-ball being a more entertaining and, in some instances, more effective alternative- while remaining fine on the eye.
Comments