4-4-2 Is Not Dead. It Was Never Ill.

The pundits buried the 4-4-2 formation about fifteen years ago. Funny — nobody told the teams that keep winning with it.

Here's why I rate it for grassroots, and it's got nothing to do with fashion. Everyone has a partner. Two centre-halves, two in the middle, two up top, full-backs tucked beside. Nobody's stranded wondering what they're for. For a team that trains once a week and you can't drill complicated rotations into, that simplicity isn't a weakness. It's the whole point.

People forget Sir Alf Ramsey won England a World Cup in '66 by binning the orthodoxy of the day — the "Wingless Wonders," everyone called them, and they meant it as an insult. A "boring" shape, played by men who knew their jobs cold, beat prettier teams. Boring wins more than romantic ever will.

The trade-off? Two banks of four can get over-run in midfield against a side playing three in there. You'll feel outnumbered in the centre some weeks. You accept that for the clarity it gives nine-year-olds who are still learning where the ball's meant to go.

Monday: teach the two banks by shadow — no ball first, just move them left and right as a unit so they learn to shift together. Then add a ball. The job is "stay connected to your partner," nothing fancier.

If you've got a kid or two who could handle something braver, you might fancy a back three instead — but only if the players are there. Ask the Gaffer what your lot can actually carry. We go again.