Sweeper5Using a zonal back 3 with wingbacks and a stout spine the opposition is invited to attack down the sides. The arrows show the adjustments to press the opposition once they have started down the right side. Useful formation for defending a lead, or if you have fast attackers that prefer to surge forward into space on the counter attack.
The right and left central defenders need to be capable of playing as fullbacks and defending the sidelines. See comments made by Roberticus in this thread.
http://www.this11.com/topics/show/2166
If ball is switched the defensive adjustments are all made "facing" the ball. In attack the AM/W can get wide, wingbacks move forward, and CM move forward into 3-4-3.
23.10.2009
jmancubsfanWould this formation be able to get enough players forward in attack? How would that look? I'm assuming the back three and the defensive mid would stay back for cover. It seems that a team starting a game with this formation would almost be forced to play possession football and attack with a great deal of patience. The CF and AM/W types could be forward for a quick counter but as you said they would need to wait for the CM to get forward to distribute.
25.10.2009
Sweeper5I suggested this primarily as a way to keep a lead. But, to answer your question, this actually plays just like a 4-4-2. Most of the time the spacing of the players relative to each other is lined up with 2 players up top, 4 in the middle, and 4 in the back. The difference is in who goes where to adjust to the opponent switching the point of attack and how the defense covers for fullbacks running into the attacking third.
As always, kind of depends on the team and how the opponent plays. But they way I learned it was like this. Please excuse all the comments on defense prior to answering your question about attack, but since I've always been a defensive player I tend to think of attack only as the thing you do after stealing the ball.
The front 3 basically stay up top and play more like a target man with two drop forwards playing off of him. They stay central when defending until the opponents commit to a side with their attack. Then the AM/W on the side they attack down presses the fullback on that side inside out, blocking any pass angles that would penetrate diagonally into the midfield. This leaves two passing lanes - back to the center backs (sweeper/stopper) or down the sideline to some sort of wide mid. The CF tries to anticipate and intercept any passes back to the middle, and the WB steps up to pressure the first widest passing option. The weakside AM/W drops in to cover the backside of the two CMs who are sliding over towards the strong-side wingback. His main job is to watch for long passes trying to switch the point of attack, and intercept the pass or pressure the fullback. By dropping off a little he can't get surprised by the fullback suddenly running past him and can always pressure the man without facing his own goal and giving chase.
The back three will always play zonal and slide over towards the side being attacked with the three CBs being the first 3 defenders in a line of 4. The weakside WB fills the last spot in the backline, sliding over to a spot probably even with the backpost. At this point, the formation is a 4-4-2. If the other team manages to switch the ball, the AM/W and WB on the side with the ball push forward to pressure, the AM/W and WB on the side that had the ball drop back to cover, and the players in the middle slide across without changing shape.
By defending like this you force everything to a side mid, surround him on all sides and pressure the ball. Let's assume the WB wins the ball. At this point he has two deep options, a CF and a AM/W. He also has a lateral option, the DM and a couple of drop options, the two CBs on his side. At this point the adjustments that happen to get more players forward all occur on the opposite side of the field from the ball. The AM/W, CM, and WB all move forward. This has the advantage of retaining numbers up around the ball during the initial transition into attack, because if the ball is lost there is still plenty of defensive cover.
25.10.2009
Sweeper5Once in attack I like for the front three to play pretty much free, interchanging positions. The WB's can get forward without worrying too much about defense. Three CB's and a DM are plenty of cover - but the two outside CB's have to be mobile enough to defend the flanks. If they can't, this won't work. So, the wingbacks are moving up and playing a support role from about 20 - 30 yards out from the goal. The CM aims his runs for the space in front of the CF, and the weakside AM/W aims for the farpost, hopefully arriving late (if you're early, you get marked) to the space, just as a cross or penetrating pass gets to these places.
If faced with a counter-attack, the recovery is easier. The DM always goes to the side being attacked, and the CM drops in on his backside, so he has a little more time to get into position. The WB on the side getting attacked only needs to drop into the middle band of players to be in his defensive spot, and the WB on the other side has a long run, but should have more time to get there.
This also allows a little more specialization in defense. It is common with a back 4 for 1 fullback to be more attacking and one to be more defensive, with the attacking fullback getting forward and the defensive one sliding over to cover. Problem is, this is predictable. With this system both sides have a player getting forward.
I would think that the "smokebreak" trio might have fun in a system like this. And I don't think this is "the best" system, but it can be a good one for some teams.
Been drinking - sorry if I'm a little wordy.
25.10.2009
jmancubsfanFirst off, I have to point out that our fall season just ended with a first round playoff defeat, but now is the best time to formulate new ideas on tactics. I'll probably start an entirely different topic on the players I'll have coming back and what positions I should look to recruit, but I'll save that for another time.
My main concern so far is with the "defensive screen." This season showed me why the back four is certainly better than the old stopper/sweeper system that just won't go away in American soccer. At first glance, I have to say that this 5-2-2-1 may be a nice compromise and surprisingly similar to what most of the other teams in my league play. I found that in every game that we fielded a full team with our slanted 4-1-2-1-2 (all but one game) we didn't give up a single breakaway goal or allow any of the talented forwards and play-makers to break through our defense for a 1v1 with our goalie. However, with our center defensive mid often trying to win the ball back in the attacking third, we found ourselves with a nice tight slightly arced back four with nobody to pressure the ball. Luckily most teams struggled to play the necessary through pass past our defense once I coached our goalie into playing off his line more to come out and pounce on the longer through balls. But without that screen in front of defense the opposition's play-maker could wait for a forward to make a run past the outside back and play the pass between the full back and the center back to either corner. So as a result we gave up goals on free kicks, corner kicks, and some sloppy goals off of crosses and weak shots right in front of the goal.
I agree that this would be a good formation for defending a lead and I think I may incorporate it in our next season in the spring. I think if I build a team with the players I have coming back geared towards a 4-2-3-1 I can always just pull the CAM for another CB when we have the lead. Without even starting the new topic I know that this mean I need to recruit more defenders to accommodate the 6 defensive positions and their subs/rotation players in the 4-2-3-1. I have to admit that I'm considering starting a separate topic about the concept of the center forward though. I recently saw a quote about how a forward is more dangerous making a run diagonally towards goal as opposed to running for the corner and it really made sense to me and I struggle with the purpose of having one at all. I keep thinking take out the center striker in the 4-2-3-1, replace him with another defensive mid and play a withdrawn 4-3-3. Clog the central midfield in defense and use the outside backs for width. I've really started to envision a combination of the death of long ball counter attacks and the death of true high strikers. They're being replaced with players that can defend and start their runs from in front of the opponents defense rather that staying up high with on the offside line waiting.
26.10.2009
Sweeper5Right now I'm trying to switch my team from flat 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 with a defensive triangle in midfield. Like a 4-2-3-1, but with the center AM dropping back more than the wing AM's. The very problem you describe of the CDM playing too far forward and allowing attackers to slip between the midfield and the back line is exactly the problem that plagues my team. I'd rather defend with 2 CB's and 1 DM than 4 defenders in a flat line.
About forwards attacking outside-in: I assume you are referring to Sir Alex's comments. And I agree with the concept - for the Premier League. The thing is, these striker less formations still stretch the back line. The point is to have 3 or 4 different players stretching the back line by making alternating runs into the spaces along the offsides line. If you don't do this, the withdrawn 4-3-3 becomes a regular 4-3-3 - only in your own half. And, since you face mostly sweeper systems, the lack of a center forward plays into most sweepers' comfort zones. This:
X Sw X
O X O
O
is exactly the situation the sweeper system tries to create. A better way to attack it is:
Sw
X O X
O X O
and have that center forward make diagonal runs behind the side backs, hopefully pulling the sweeper out of the middle and opening space for the CAM to run into.
30.10.2009
Sweeper5That didn't turn out right. I meant:
-X---Sw---X-
O----X-----O
-----O------
and
----Sw-----
-X---O---X-
O----X----O
30.10.2009
