Football Formations: Part 3 – ‘The 4-3-3 formation – Imminent or Flashy?’
After much debate with the real world examples of the formation, it’s time to assess the setup on technical grounds.
Some believe that the 4-3-3 is nothing less than an attacking version of the 4-5-1. The latter allows a team to flood the midfield with 5 players. This enables them to be able to hold onto possession and makes them difficult to
break down, which is why it is regarded as a rather defence minded approach.
Coming back to the 4-3-3 formation, another advantage offered by the system is that it enables a team to circulate the ball at a high tempo. Also, it enables them to press on possession. The shape enables a rather level spread
of personnel to all parts of the field.
However, there are a few drawbacks of the style of play as well. Since there are a total of 3 players in midfield, deemed more or less as ‘central midfield players’, the setup becomes rather narrow. The three strikers up front
often need to pitch in to make a wider midfield. This often sees the formation lose shape which gives the impression of a 4-5-1 at times. Also, with limited crossing opportunities, sometimes the three men up front have little to work with to the extent that
they feel useless waiting for a cross that would rarely come. This takes away half the charm of the 4-3-3. While the conventional 4-4-2 sees midfield players on either flank to provide service to the front two strikers, having three in the setup in question
doesn’t pay off if it comes at the price of losing a spot in midfield.
Secondly, to make up for the narrowness, the full backs often have to bomb forward. The overlapping runs from the back often make the formation look like a 5-2-3. This can be argued as the full backs act like wing backs leaving
the two central defenders at the back. The holding midfielder tucks in with the centre halves to feature as the third centre back which leaves the midfield sporting 2 players. However, on the downside, the attacking full backs often make the defence rather
narrow and make the team sensitive to a counter attack. Few could even argue that these attacking exploits are neither truly helpful going forward nor are they beneficial for the defence - a recognised winger could provide better service on the flanks and
still be able to track back to help out his full back.
Further commenting on the apparent fluidity of the system, there is little identification of a player’s role with respect to the setup. Are the wider players up front strikers? Are they wing forwards? Or are they merely wingers
able to play up high up the field at times, only to revert back to make it 5 in midfield when the team is defending? With defence in mind, the front three often believe that due to their position as high up the field as a conventional striker, it is not their
headache to track the opposing team’s full backs. This makes the already narrow team more likely to be exploited in wider positions.
Most importantly, while a formation might seem to be a 4-3-3 on paper, it is rather different in the real world. Practically, things are a lot more dynamic with players switching roles on a regular base. No system could sustain
the same shape for the entire 90 minutes.
This brings us to the main question – Is the 4-3-3 formation flashy or a requirement of the present. The answer is perhaps down to a team’s subjectivity. A formation merely sees a direction of a team’s attack, players are still
supposed to have a certain skill set to be competitive. Every formation has its pros and corns. A defensive formation might be solid at the back and might even be enough to register a 0-0 draw in a regular scenario; however, it does become handicapped while
attacking. An attacking setup might fetch the same goal difference as the team scores more, but on the other side, concedes an equivalent amount.
Tags: