It’s a question that many Sunderland fans have been asking themselves for a while now; 4-3-3 or 4-4-2?
When Regis Le Bris first came into the club, the understanding was that the answer, more often than not, would be the former. The Frenchman’s de facto approach during the early stages of his time on Wearside was to deploy a midfield trio with two wide man capable of cutting inside from the flanks and a central striker around which to build the whole enterprise.
Then, one day and somewhat unexpectedly, Le Bris rolled the dice and gave Wilson Isidor an accomplice in the form of Eliezer Mayenda. In the short term, the effect was unleashing a front line that looked rejuvenated and frighteningly sharp. In the mid to long term, the legacy has been to spark a debate over which system is more conducive to achieving their lingering promotion hopes. When things go wrong for the Black Cats, as they did against Hull City at the weekend, the tendency in some quarters is to immediately call for an alteration in shape, to parachute Mayenda in for Chris Rigg (generally speaking), and to square up to the next fixture in this long and winding season with a renewed, gung ho attitude.
But is it as simple as that? Well, according to stats database Wyscout, sunderland have utilised either a 4-4-2 or a 4-4-1-1 formation in 20% of their matches so far this season, and the comparison between those outings and the 62% in which they have adopted either a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 make for intriguing reading.
But, as you might have guessed, those figures only really tell part of the story. Because while sunderland may not be as effective at putting teams under the cosh when they move away from their usual 4-3-3, they do carry a much more pronounced counter-attacking presence.
To that end, when the Black Cats play with two through the middle, they create 1.27 counters per game, compared to just 0.96 with Isidor operating on his own, and some 71.7% of those breakaways result in shots on goal.
Similarly, Sunderland deliver 4.25 fewer crosses into the penalty area when they opt for a centre forward partnership, and while an initial reading of that stat would suggest a diminished sense of creativity, the reality is that it is because they focus more of their efforts on the front foot on playing through the heart of teams, rather than trying to work the ball wide and getting in behind that way.
Which brings us back to our initial question; 4-3-3 or 4-4-2? Well, as non-committal as it may seem, the blunt answer is that it depends. Against opposition who are willing to come out and have a go at Sunderland, there are obvious advantages to employing the blistering pace and directness of Isidor and Mayenda in tandem. Conversely, against sides who are intent on sitting in and frustrating Le Bris’ men, the greater control afforded by a three-man midfield and more established width feels like a wiser blueprint.
Either way, one thing is fairly clear, lining up in a 4-4-2 is not some kind of magic, fix-all solution – even when Sunderland have faltered in their tried and trusted 4-3-3.
Read more at;https://sportupdates.co.uk
Leave a Reply