Much of the time he was Waaaaaaayyyyyy higher than that 
And the “Hand of God” made him about six feet tall.
Having talked to the Palo Alto High soccer coach, it appears that the 4-4-2 is the most common alignment for high schools in the United States. He said it wasn’t because it was particularly superior or easy to learn, but that everyone was using it in 1994 and coaches just latched onto that.
So, what are some other hallmarks of the 4-4-2?
One word: catenacio. Now if only I wasn’t thinking it might correctly be catenaccio or cattenacio…
From be it from me to correct DSYoungEsq on the topic of football, but the correct spelling is catenaccio
It sort of means “chain”.
Snooooopy said:
Mike Arzabal? I’m not playing this year, but the Palo Alto HS teams I played on had lots of speed but were a bit lacking in dribbling and passing ability.
The very same. He came pretty close to getting himself tossed on Friday, yakking at the refs.
Thanks, Bob! I knew my Italian was rusty as to spelling. I’d venture it’s worse as to pronounciation. 
More precisely catenaccio means “bolt” or “padlock”.
I’m not well-versed in association football techniques but a soccer playing friend of mine described that defensive scheme as one where “all the defenders go after the guy with the ball and kick him in the shins until he drops down to the ground in pain.”
He wasn’t a big fan of the Azzurri.
I asked a native Italian for the pronunciation. My best estimate of its pronunciation is “cat - AY - nach - yo”. The “cc” is sort of like the English “ch”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by BobT *
**More precisely catenaccio means “bolt” or “padlock”.
From the long-winded earler post of mine that some of you appeared to have missed:
pan
Snooooooooooooooopy - 4-4-2 can come very unstuck against a free-flowing 3-5-2, but the 3-5-2 side must be good. As stated earlier, a lot depends on the wing-backs. It also helps if you have a great attacking midfielder.
Other that that - well 4-4-2 is probably the easiest system to play, because it is the most structured and readily explained to the players. Roles tend to be more easily grasped. You know that whoever you are playing you’ll have a solid defence, midfield and attack. I think that most amateur teams tend to play this system (although not necessarily in mainland Europe?)
pan
Excellant thread guys, I learned a bit and confirmed many of my thoughts.
I have this nasty habit of watching US Women play alot. I remember a year or 2 ago when they weren’t dog-tired from playing too much (like they were yesterday when they drew with Japan I think) that most every team was in pursuit of that most dreaded of moral victories, the 0-0 draw. While they encountred the “bunker defense” all over the place, a few sides employed the “flat back 3” scheme. Could I get some enlightenment on this particular tactic? I assume the basic fundamental is to make your opponent want to kick you in the head by trying to draw offsides calls all day. Any other insight as to this tactic?
Was Renaldo (spelling?) overhyped? I imagine the pressure to find the next incarnation of Pele can get opinions out of hand.
Alantus
Sounds like a variation of the 5-3-2. Basically it’s like 4-4-2 but with an extra centre-back and is a very defensive formation. Instead of the extra defender operating in a creative sweeper role, he/she actually simply acts as another version of the already present two centre-backs.
It can actually be harder to pull the offside trap however since you have more defenders to organise. It’s normally more used as an attempt to stifle all play coming through the middle.
A flexible attack can cause it problems due to the lack of defined roles for the three centre-backs. It’s possible for all three to be pulled out of position by a couple of carefully placed runs by the strikers/midfielders. However the unimaginative defence that has been told to sit there and block the penalty area can have an attacking side pulling its hair out alright.
Trouble can arise if the team concedes a goal, since sustained attacking will require an adjustment of tactics. However there have been some successful Italian teams who could switch between 3-5-2 and 5-3-2 with ease (push the full-backs into a wing-back role and spread your three centre-backs a little). Also if your third defender can also function as a defensive midfielder and if your midfield is not otherwise too defensive you can switch between 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 by moving your extra centre-back into midfield.
And Ronaldo was and is a superb player. The new Pele? Well, that’s harder to say. Today’s football environment is much tougher than the seventies. Players have less time and space on the ball. (Note for those who will understand - I once saw a well-written column that suggested that even Carlton Palmer was a better player than Pele, for similar reasons). Pele dominated in his game, but that kind of domination is harder to sustain these days. Ronaldo could probably wear the tag pretty well. But then again, so could Rivaldo (Brazil). And, for that matter, Zinedine Zidane of France and Luis Figo of Portugal. None of them are players I’d refuse to have in my team.
pan
A “bunkered defense” can frequently seem very much like a 4-5-1, a 4-6-0, or even more behind the ball. The strategy behind such a defense is to clog up your defensive zone with so many bodies that there’s no way the other team can string together enough play to score. Teams use this method when they’re playing against an opponent that is capable of running up very big numbers. They’re not playing to win, but merely to survive. They’re happy to escape with a 0-0 result, and if they’re lucky enough to score, it’s usually because the attacking team has committed so many players to the attack that they’re vulnerable to the counter attack.
As for the US women, IMHO, we’re seeing that they’ve succeeded in the past not because of superior tactics, but because they had superior athletes on the field. Now that other countries are fielding more and more skillful players, the tactical shortcomings of the American squad are becoming more evident, particularly on defense.
Part of the problem with the us women now could be the new coach? Just a thought. At any rate there are still plenty of attractvie and fit ladies on the pitch. Watching Mia and friends lose 3-0 isn’t that bad when your watching Mia and friends
Alantus