How To Coach 4-2-4 Formation In & Out Of Possession Like Jürgen Klopp & Pep Guardiola – Tactical Theory

The Shift To 4-2-4 Formation

In recent times, certain formations have become the convention for deployment, as they are conducive to meeting the tactical demands of modern football.

The 4-3-3 formation, for example, somewhat phased out the regular 4-4-2 formation due to its numerical superiority in midfield.

By extension, the 4-3-3 is actually an ideal formation to deploy for teams who favour a positional play (Juego de Posicion/JDP) approach.

And this appears to be the essence of why formations come into and out of fashion; they are simply a means for a team to access structures and shapes that are suitable when adhering to certain over-arching principles.

A three-at-the-back formation is typically helpful for a very rigid, automatism-heavy tactical makeup.

The use of only one nominal wide player on each wing, along with three nominal centrebacks makes lateral rotations very difficult to deploy, and the team is less fluid in that regard as a result.

With great interest, a handful of elite teams have begun to adopt the 4-2-4 formation.

This formation induces a refreshingly exciting style of play – quite the move away from disciplined JDP systems and rigid three-at-the-back structures.

The 4-2-4 encourages fluidity, ambitious front-foot possession play, attacking overloads, and physically intensive pressing.

This tactical analysis article will primarily refer to Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool side as a case study, while also aiming to discuss some key distinctions between various 4-2-4 formations.

This tactical theory piece will be an analysis examining the 4-2-4 formation and how top coaches like Manchester Citys Pep Guardiola have implemented their tactics within this structure.

The build-up phase in 4-2-4 Formation

The build-up phase in a 4-2-4 is an interesting case study because the sequential manner of building with the ball, in conjunction with the notion that the 4-2-4 is generally a move away from a rigid possession style, seems somewhat counterintuitive.

In short, one can interpret that statement as follows: a 4-2-4 in build-up offers ideal positional and spatial advantages without the limitations of rigid positioning.

Build-up versus a mid-block

It is essential to distinguish the build-up shape of the 4-2-4 formation versus a mid-block and versus a press – the two defensive set-ups are certainly distinct.

The two centre-backs, with support from a ball-playing goalkeeper, form the central and deep base of the build-up.

The midfield double-pivot are another component, strongly linked to each other for a number of reasons; not least to offer a compact rest defence and a strong central core.

The fullbacks are the other relevant component in this build-up scenario – they generally move in a vertical plane to offer progression angles, as well as providing width that can disrupt the first line of the oppositions defensive structure.

While it is easy to break down the different build-up components into “centre-backs, double pivot, fullbacks”, the other way of viewing the build-up is as a right side and a left side.

Lateral passes are generally discouraged in both positional play systems and overly fluid systems, such as the ‘classic’ Red Bull 4-2-4 / 4-4-2 system.

For exam