The 3 Man Back Line - Was Rafa on to Something?

After watching Rafa Benitez use the 3-man back line against Sunderland last weekend, I got to thinking about whether his tactical choice was the problem or if his players just weren’t used to playing that specific formation. His three defenders looked a little unsure how to support each other and the front 3 looked like all of them wanted to play in a support role, but none had the right combination of skill and physical presence to be the lone center forward.

Formations don’t win games, but they need to be selected for the right match ups and to fit the talents of the players at the manager’s disposal.

Formation Match ups

There appear to be two main reasons that teams abandoned the 3 man back line. The first was the move to lone striker formations meant that teams were essentially committing 3 markers to 1 attacker, leaving them short-handed in other areas of the pitch. The second reason was that the wing backs tended to be overwhelmed down the flanks against teams that played the 4-4-2. These teams essentially had a midfielder and a fullback down the flank to battle against a wingback.

I think that Benitez may have a solution to these problems with what was essentially a 3-4-3, rather than the more traditional 3-5-2 formation.

This first comparison I’d like to show is the 3-5-2 vs the popular 4-5-1 formation.

As you can see, the 3-5-2 doesn’t have enough width on offense to stretch out the back line, unless the left and right mids (or wingbacks) jump into the attack. Unfortunately, if they do, it leaves the wingers of the 4-5-1 unmarked and able to completely out man the 3-5-2 on the break. If the wingbacks drop back to defend the wingers, the fullbacks in the 4-5-1 have endless space in front of them. To top it off, it’s very easy for the 2 defensive midfielders in the 4-5-1 to counter the playmaker behind the forwards.

Now look at how the 3-4-3 matches up against the 4-5-1.

The width and numbers of the forward line ensure that the entire back four will be needed to defend, while it allows to the midfield to jump into the attack and ensure that the 2 defensive midfielders of the 4-5-1 have to defend. It also forces the wingers in the 4-5-1 to play a more defensive game against the wingbacks, which many teams have already started to do against the 4-4-2. On defense, the 3-4-3 isn’t as easily overwhelmed down the flanks because the wide forwards can occupy the fullbacks. If the wingbacks mark the wingers, then the 3-man back line only has to mark the center forward and the man in the hole, leaving a free player to fill gaps or double the ball carrier. The 3-4-3 matches up fairly neutrally against the 4-5-1.

Finally, take a look at the 3-4-3 versus the 4-4-2.

I believe this is where the biggest benefit of the 3-4-3 lies. With the midfields mirroring, they cancer each other out. The team employing the 3-4-3 is then left with 3 attackers versus a 4-man back line while defending 2 attackers with a 3-man back line. The 3-4-3 is the more offensively equipped formation in this case.

Personnel Needed

As with any formation, the right players are needed to make it work, just like a manager should tailor the formation to meet the talents of his players. The 3-4-3 looks to be a solid match up for both the 4-5-1 and the 4-4-2, so which personnel makes it a likely choice?

The most obviously personnel choice is for teams with decent depth at the center back position but with poor fullback talent. The other is for teams that have good full-backs but poor wide midfielders for the 4-4-2. Much like Liverpool did, the full backs can be pushed up to the wing back position.

The midfield requires much the same talent as the 4-4-2 and can be used more as a center of creativity or as a ball-winning, defensive unit – based on the talent available.

The other personnel consideration would be for teams that lack the two big forwards needed for the 4-4-2 or the three creative players needed behind the forward in the 4-5-1. The 4-3-3 only requires 2 secondary strikers/wingers, instead of the 3 needed for the 4-5-1.

Main Advantages

Against the 4-4-2, the 3-4-3 has an inherent attacking advantage while still being quite neutral versus the ever more popular 4-5-1. It gives team managers another tactical option versus teams that play these formations while possibly being a better fit for the talent on their rosters.

With only 3 defenders, the 3-4-3 will often have the possession advantage versus other midfields, especially if the 2 wide forwards drop off to aid the midfield.

Main Disadvantages

I believe that the 3-4-3 may have a tough time matching up with a trident attack (4-3-3) given that the 3-man back line could get stretched too much and the centrally dominant 3-man midfield of a good 4-3-3 team could overmatch the 2 central mids of the 3-4-3. In this case, the manager might want to drop the wide midfielders back further and play a counter-attacking 5-2-3.

Teams that should consider the 3-4-3

Liverpool could actually be on to something. They have 3 good center backs in Carragher, Agger and Skrtel, while Glen Johnson and Aurelio looked very comfortable as wing backs. If Gerrard was one of the central midfielders, he would add creativity, while Torres is perfect to lead the forward line with Kuyt, Babel and Benayoun all capable of playing at the wide forward positions. Benitez could employ the 4-5-1 or the 3-4-3 depending on his opponent.

Milan is another team that could benefit from such a formation. Huntelaar could lead the forward line with Pato and Ronaldinho as the wide forwards. The 4-man midfield could be filled by a combination of Ambrosini, Pirlo, Flamini, Seedorf, and Abate with Zambrotta even stepping in as a wide mid at times. The defense could be a combination of Nesta, Thiago Silva and one of Favalli, Onyewu or Kaladze. This would help a Diavolo team with poor talent at fullback.

In the end, I think too many critics in the media were quick to dismiss Rafa’s deployment of the 3-man defense without properly thinking through the tactical nuances it provides.