Which one is best 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 and you why?

Answer 1

I disagree with most of you.

If you had the right players, 4-3-3 would be unbeatable. For most of you out there, this does not often mean there are 3 strikers. There is one central striker, like Drogba, and two awesome wingers, like Messi and Robben. And with 3 fantastic midfielders with high work-rate you can be demolishing big time. Plus, your attacking wingers could fall back and provide a total of 5 mids for you.

In 4-4-2, strikers ALWAYS or almost always stay in front and do not fall back, meaning you have 4 midfielders all the time.

Answer 2

I prefer attacking flair. Of these two, I feel 4 - 3 - 3 is my liking. It is a balanced attacking formation which is very effective if the team using this plays wide. Four good, solid defenders should watch your back while your forwards get you those goals!

But my personal favorite is the 3-4-1-2, a variant of the 3-4-3, which has a player in the hole (the '1') to push it forward to your strikers to make a break. Milan play Kaka there.

Answer 3

id probably go for a 4 4 2 formation, as in a lot of games midfield is where its won and lost, and if you have a couple of attack minded midfielders in your midfield, then it makes 4-3-3 kind of superfluous. With 4 4 2, compared to 4-3-3 it throws more caution to the wind, and when the time comes, the attacking midfielders can push up.

Answer 4

As a spectacle I prefer to watch 4-3-3, 3 attacking players ought to make more goals.

As a tactic 4-4-2 is more likely to beat 4-3-3. Greater numbers in mid-field, where possession is won, and in defence 4-3-3 wastes 4 players defending against just 2 attackers.

4-3-3 works against a mirrored line up, or if you have a quick, mobile defence.

Answer 5

It depends who you are playing and what job you are going out to do really. To be honest i prefer 4-4-2 as the midfield has to be strong as this is where the ball is mainly won and these are the people who can distribute the ball across the pitch. The more in the middle the better really. There is no point in having 3 strikers if you cant win the ball in midfield first.

Answer 6

Depends on who you'll play against and the players you have with 100% fitness. 4-4-2 is so fair, 4-4-3 is awesome to see three strikers specially if they are great strikers;)

Answer 7

4-4-2 is too rigid. A Manchester United-style 4-4-3, with two wingers, one of whom moves in whilst the other provides crosses, is an easy recipe for sex football.

Answer 8

4-4-2. Its a great formation in order to have good ball possession and it focuses more on the midfield defence.

Answer 9

well just depends how your team plays in each formation personally i prefer the 4-4-2

Answer 10

Apples and oranges. Depends on your players and the opposition.