You are confused about what formation means, but I think by accident you are correct (to a degree).
A formation does not dictate the manner in which you play and in real life is far more flexible than how it appears on a video game. A 4-4-2 does not mean that you have to play with a creator and a poacher and it does not mean you have to play hoof ball football up to a big guy.
It's why I said 'tends', I was speaking generally, and that is usually your types of partnerships, am I wrong? You can play fast quick passing football in a 4-4-2 system
Based on passing down the line of the midfield 4 or full back to winger, there's rarely any penetration down the middle, and being quite direct as well, which doesn't really promote possession football. the same way that you can through any other system. This weekend Manchester United played 4-4-2 against Chelski, they still played passing football and with Hernandez and Rooney up front you cant argue that either of them is not a complete footballer.
Hernandez and Rooney is a typical 'poacher & creator' partnership, also, Rooney plays quite deep for CF and helps out with the midfield sometimes too much. You can also look at Liverpool, one of the leading passing sides in the premier league thanks to Brendan Rodgers, who also started 4-4-2
(4-2-3-1, Suarez in the '10' role) and won against a Tottenham side that played 4-5-1. Man CIty also played 4-4-2
How well are theey doing this season compared to last? Didn't they get slaughtered in Europe when other teams didn't play 4-4-2? (btw, creator (Aguero) + poacher (Dzeko) partnership again 
) As did Southampton, Qpr, Sunderland, Reading and Villa. None of whom play a particularly ugly style of football, except Villa who seem to have adopted the tactic of lump it up to Benteke.
Bar Villa, they don't play hoof ball... But they play direct football, which lends itself to my argument.
Just because in recent years 4-5-1 has become synonymous with passing football thanks to Barcelona, Spain and to a lesser extent Swansea does not mean that such a philosophy cant be applied to different formations. S
hapes of a formation go some way in determining the way you play and those formations allow them to play that style, they pass in triangles, 4-3-3 has natural triangles and 4-2-3-1 has interlocked triangles in the formation, 4-4-2 is '2 banks of 4', there's no triangles for the free flowing football to occur.
You also criticise England and almost blame the lack of success recently on the 4-4-2 system
I said it was a big factor and it was holding England back, which it is, and I don't think there's an argument here, because it's obvious that is the case. Quick example, because we played 4-4-2 for years, we played Scholes and Gerrard on the WING! Had we played that, our midfield would no doubt been better. , I think that is almost entirely due to the poor standard of players
Pretty sure we've produced good enough players to qualify for Euro 08 and to have got past the 1/4 finals in a major tournament since 1996. produced by this country in recent years when compared to the likes of Xabi, Iniesta, Villa, Pique etc that form the backbone of the Spanish side. They are world class players, the best players in the world, the closest we come is that scouse twat Rooney who is good yes, great no. Anyway I digress.
Gerrard (Zidane said he was the best in the world), Lampard, Hart (top 5 GKs in the world atm, easily) Terry (not any more, but had been thee best CB in the world for years), Ferdinand (was one of the best CBs in the world a couple of years back), Beckham (do I need to explain?), Scholes (Xabi Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta appreciate how he plays: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ew-Paul-Scholes-best-midfielder-20-years.html - also, what did I say about Xavi being slated if he was injured, well, we had our 'Xavi'.)
The formation we play needs to be dictated by the quality of the players we have in specific positions, should we have 2 quality strikers why would you not play 4-4-2 and include both of them?
I've said on a number occasions that I wouldn't mind playing 4-4-2 if we had the strikers to do so... We don't. If you have 5-7 quality midfielders, why would you play 4 in midfield? Even if McG had stayed, I think we should've kept 1 striker, because we were doing so well at that point. Currently we only have 1 striker of note which is why for me 4-5-1 is the best formation for us at the minute,
There's my logic. but should we sign another prolific goalscorer or Cody etc hit form
I'm not holding my breathe. I would have no hesitation in adapting the shape we play.
