Interesting how effective this system is. I’ve never really been a fan of 3 at the back, but this system is rising rapidly in popularity. Why is it so effective?
I first noticed the system when Martinez was scraping Wigan out of relegation with it about 5 years ago. Then Rodgers reverts to it in 2014/2015 and when he does we sort of get our act together that season and go on a bit of a run. The following year he goes back to 4-3-3 and we’re terrible. Now Chelsea, since Conte has changed to this system they’ve gone on this ridiculous winning run. And it doesn’t end there. Other teams are now trying this out. Never thought I’d see a back 3 come back into fashion, but it is.
On the surface there isn’t much that makes the system superior. In fact one could argue that its inferior to the better balanced 4-2-3-1. Without the ball the 2 central midfielders and the wide forwards create a sort of midfield four across the middle, much like a 4-4-2, but with the 5 behind them. The striker is still pretty much a lone striker. You don’t have a numeric advantage in the middle, with just 2 central midfielders. In theory a 4-2-3-1 with decent wingers should be able to overlap and pin the wing backs in their own half, yet this doesn’t seem to happen. The 4-2-3-1 also has 3 central midfielders rather than 2, and you have 3 players supporting the striker rather than 2.
So why does 3-4-3 work?
I first noticed the system when Martinez was scraping Wigan out of relegation with it about 5 years ago. Then Rodgers reverts to it in 2014/2015 and when he does we sort of get our act together that season and go on a bit of a run. The following year he goes back to 4-3-3 and we’re terrible. Now Chelsea, since Conte has changed to this system they’ve gone on this ridiculous winning run. And it doesn’t end there. Other teams are now trying this out. Never thought I’d see a back 3 come back into fashion, but it is.
On the surface there isn’t much that makes the system superior. In fact one could argue that its inferior to the better balanced 4-2-3-1. Without the ball the 2 central midfielders and the wide forwards create a sort of midfield four across the middle, much like a 4-4-2, but with the 5 behind them. The striker is still pretty much a lone striker. You don’t have a numeric advantage in the middle, with just 2 central midfielders. In theory a 4-2-3-1 with decent wingers should be able to overlap and pin the wing backs in their own half, yet this doesn’t seem to happen. The 4-2-3-1 also has 3 central midfielders rather than 2, and you have 3 players supporting the striker rather than 2.
So why does 3-4-3 work?
