FeriAtsHere I picked 3-5-2 as I believe it is the most flexible among 3 men defense formations. My points apply to all.

1)The red arrows show the runs that wingers have to make. This literally 100 yards of running space each. The wingers must not only be able to run more than other players but also have explosive speed in case they are caught in a break.

2)The blue arrows on the flanks show the runs that might be made by fullbacks and wingers of a 4-4-2 playing opposition. There's a very good chance that the wingers will often get caught 2 on 1. So defensively, they must be very good.

3)The blue arrows in the middle show the runs forwards might make. The defender in the middle might need to deal with 2 forwards at the end of a cross. This is especially tricky when the opponent breaks.

14.01.2009

nvrFair points. Yet some of them may be irrelevant if the team plays posession football.

15.01.2009

RedrebelIt's a good thought, but remember in football there is no right and wrong and playing with a 3-4-3 is as good as playing with a 4-4-2 if you know how to do it.

15.01.2009

FeriAtsGranted. You can play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 quite well with Ashley Cole and Daniel Alves in your squad. But how many teams do have such talent? Maybe the title should have read "On what's wrong with 3 men defense formations with average squads".

15.01.2009

Robert O'CarlosI think the key with a back 3 is to be flexible and disciplined. Teams usually detail a wing back not to commit to going forward if the other wing back does. This way you can effect a back 4 if caught on the break.
You make some very good points though, FeriAts.
:-)

17.01.2009

jmancubsfanThe main thing that is being overlooked is the way the five midfielders line up. Nobody plays all five straight across. In fact if there are two defensive midfielders then the outside midfielders probably wouldn't have to come back so much. The full backs on the outside can go after plays on the wing knowing that they have a defensive midfielder pulling back to fill in the gap. I do agree that a three man back is almost certainly more difficult to learn and play effectively and your example is exactly how they get exploited.

05.02.2009

williejmancubsfan has a point. In the 06 World Cup, Argentina lined-up with a 3-4-1-2. Cambiasso & Mascherano acted like defensive mids, behind Riquelme. Sorin & Maxi would be the two wingers who would track back. But Sorin as a defender could easily make the formation into a 4-3-1-2 again. So typically one of the outside mids is a wingback/fullback.

But Argentina is an immensely talented team, sio an average team would have to be really careful. But I believe Napoli plays with 3 defenders. Not that they are fantastic but they are functional & play it well.

18.02.2009

FeriAtsTo be honest, I haven't watched a full Napoli game since Maradona was there. Could they be better off with a 4 men defense? How about their squad? Do they have proper backs?

19.02.2009

willieI watch them occasionally ( my team of serie A is lazio though). But currently they lie in 10th place, at one point I believe they were 4th. They've scored 32 & conceded 28. One reason for playing a back 3 is simply that their squad does not contain many defenders. They have an abundance of midfield, so might as well play to your strengths right?

19.02.2009

RoberticusInteresting discussion, thanks for bringing it up FeriAts!

As J Mancubsfan points out, practically nobody plays 3-5-2 so flatly like so in midfield. Unless they are English teams (from mid-table Prem downwards), so used to playing a rigid flat 4-4-2 and then make a clumsy transition to 3-5-2; no wonder such experiments caused coaches difficulties.

For me, Roy Hodgson, who has coached all over Europe, summarised it best. He said that there were two preferable ways and one dubious way to play a zonal back three (he didn't even mention the sweeper system which is a chapter apart).

The first example he gives was Terry Venables'Plan B at Euro 96 when- instead of using three centre-backs he used just one (Tony Adams) plus two conservative full-backs (Pearce and Neville), with Paul Ince as an anchor in front of them who occassionally dropped in alongside Adams whenever one of the wide defenders went out to the flanks.

Hodgson also pointed to the Dutch, noting that Cruyff's Ajax (mid-80s) basically took a standard back four, but with only one stopper (Danny Blindt) and Frank Rijkaard as a defensive screen just in front. Cruyff even gave the full-backs licence to bomb forward (though only one at a time)..when this happened, Rijkaard would drop into central defence, and Blindt would move slightly wider to cover the vacated flank. Ergo, it could be a back three or back four depending on the nature of the game.

Hodgson said these would be the only circumstances under which he would ever play a back three again. But never with three big centre-backs, because they tend to be uncomfortable defending in wide areas.

24.07.2009

nvrArsenal Column has an interesting write up about the topic:

http://arsenalcolumn.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/use-of-wing-backs-will-only-put-teams-in-a-flap/

Some very good points, recomnended reading.

08.09.2009

RoberticusNvr,

thanks for that link.

There was an incorrect assumption in the artice as to Bielsa's 3-3-1-3 system. It tries to give the impression that wing-backs are a distinctive feature of this system; not necessarily. Bielsa took the shape from Van Gaal's Ajax teams of the 90s and has refined it. Basically a 3-1-2-1-3, with a flexible midfield in which the 'wide' players can tuck in to assist the defensive mid (forming a bank of three)..or indeed can spread out to assist the wingers ahead of them...or can even launch diagonal runs through the middle (whenever a winger keeps the field wide high up the pitch).
The system really has nothing to do with 3-5-2 and such.. it was born out of the Dutch school (1-3-3-3 until the 1970s, and 4-3-3 thereafter).

08.09.2009

Roberticus...effectively, I'm saying that the wide(ish)midfield positions in Bielsa's system are open to interpretation; he can put one or two wing-backs there, one-or two box-to-box midfielders there.. but there will always be variety to their movement. It really is a flexible system- which requires excellent technique to pull it off. In the Barca academy they teach a variantion of this by alternating it with 4-3-3; though VanGaal and Bielsa wanted to develop the formation by taking it to further extremes./

08.09.2009

nvrI have to take your word for Bielsa. It's time I watched a Chile game, I guess. I came across them too often to ignore.

08.09.2009

ArsenalColumnHi. Yes, you are right Roberticus about Bielsa's system (I wrote the article by the way). It is like Cruyff's 3-4-3 during the late 80's where there were less wing backs and more midfielders to help mark/control the zones

27.09.2009