What is the point of a 352/532/343 in the defensive phase in the modern game?

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
9,568
Brain picking time. What is the point of a 352/532/343 in the defensive phase in the modern game? I just can't see the point.

If the wing-backs stay high and make it a 3 at the back then 4 in midfield there is lots of space behind the back 3. Against a 442 it isn't as much of a problem as the wingers will tend to be deeper but against a 433 there's lots of space.

If you go 5 at the back you then have 3 in midfield but they have to constantly shuffle from side to side at lot which opens up space. Clearly in a midfield 2 in a 343 this is even worse.

The only option then is to make it a 541 out of possession with the LW and RW coming into midfield. The problem with this is isolating the striker making it difficult to attack.

Supposing you had the following side:

..................Pele......MVB........................
........................Kopa..................................
Marcelo..Voronin.....Bastian..Dani Alves...
...........Maldini....Baresi...Thuram.............
.......................Neuer....................................

Wouldn't it make more sense to take this shape in the defensive phase?

................................MvB.......................
...................Pele....................................
Marcelo..Voronin......Bastian......Kopa
Maldini...Baresi.......Thuram....Dani Alves
..........................Neuer...............................

Then in the offensive phase become more of a 325 which is what a 352 becomes when you have a lot of possession.

The only advantage to setting up as 352 in the defensive phase seems to be to keep your best passer (the 10 typically) in the middle to provide excellent transitions (Platini did this IIRC). You do though seem to defensive solidity.

I had thought this for a while but watching Utd vs Chelsea where Chelsea's midfield 2 with a back 3 was dominated before switching to a 442 diamond.
 
I think it depends on who you have in your team.

A 3-5-2 with the full-backs pushed high off the ball can help to mitigate the threat caused by talented opposition full-backs, but also relies on side CBs who can step forward and across, as well as CMs who have good positioning to nip counters in the bud. Spurs did this well under Poch when he wasn't playing a 4231.

A 5-4-1 where the FBs drop into the defensive line and the no9 stays high is very hard to break down, but works well if your supporting attackers can drop into a midfield unit. Good example would be Conte's Chelsea.

I get your point about the 4-4-2 though, a few elite teams like PSG and City have used it off the ball in recent seasons because it's simple and straightforward to drill with players who aren't used to not having the ball.
 
There are defensive advantages. 3 CBs give extra cover while defending central areas, which means you're forcing play away from central areas when the opposition attacks high up the pitch. Also, when everyone is back, the back 3 helps to defend against attacks from the flank, since you have the WBs and the CBs supporting. The downside is obviously that you're taking players out of midfield or attack for this tactic so your presence and impact in those areas might be less.

Having said all that, there are coaches who have found ways to make a back three have attacking advantages as well (Atalanta, RBL, and Wilder's Stoke for example). Generally, the idea is to aid in creating overloads at certain parts of the pitch and for certain passages of play.

Regarding Utd vs Chelsea, you really need to play to your strengths and Chelsea actually have some very good midfielders in their ranks, while their defence is a bit meh in comparison and that team is still coming to terms with the tactics the manager wants to implement there. The better comparison for the tactic is actually Brighton vs Chelsea where both teams lined up the same way, but one team is suited to the tactic and is more aware of how to maximize the system to get the best out of the players they have and how to use the tactic in both phases of the game.
 
Gio said:
I think it depends on who you have in your team.

A 3-5-2 with the full-backs pushed high off the ball can help to mitigate the threat caused by talented opposition full-backs, but also relies on side CBs who can step forward and across, as well as CMs who have good positioning to nip counters in the bud. Spurs did this well under Poch when he wasn't playing a 4231.

A 5-4-1 where the FBs drop into the defensive line and the no9 stays high is very hard to break down, but works well if your supporting attackers can drop into a midfield unit. Good example would be Conte's Chelsea.

I get your point about the 4-4-2 though, a few elite teams like PSG and City have used it off the ball in recent seasons because it's simple and straightforward to drill with players who aren't used to not having the ball.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. Did Poch play with a 10 or a DM when he played 352? I don't remember him playing this style, it sounds like it could be defensively shaky if the winger gets in behind.

The 541 makes entire sense, just very defensive in my eyes and may make transition difficult as the striker could be isolated.
 
Himannv said:
There are defensive advantages. 3 CBs give extra cover while defending central areas, which means you're forcing play away from central areas when the opposition attacks high up the pitch. Also, when everyone is back, the back 3 helps to defend against attacks from the flank, since you have the WBs and the CBs supporting. The downside is obviously that you're taking players out of midfield or attack for this tactic so your presence and impact in those areas might be less.
Click to expand...

You're right it makes the opposition go wide, I just think it just makes it more difficult for the midfield three who have to keep shuffling from side to side. Also with to banks of four you can easily double up out wide when defending. the 541 makes sense to me but is uber defensive.

Himannv said:
Having said all that, there are coaches who have found ways to make a back three have attacking advantages as well (Atalanta, RBL, and Wilder's Stoke for example). Generally, the idea is to aid in creating overloads at certain parts of the pitch and for certain passages of play.
Click to expand...

I have no objection to that. In attack either a 325 or 235 work. I just think in many cases it would work better to defend as in a 442 then transition to 3 at the back in possession like in my example above.
 
Physiocrat said:
You're right it makes the opposition go wide, I just think it just makes it more difficult for the midfield three who have to keep shuffling from side to side.
Click to expand...
Remember you bringing that up earlier too - but isn't that simply part of the job for a CM?

Often when I see a wide attacker advancing on, say, the left flank, it's a defensive triangle of LB, LCB + 1 CM closing down that space together. LFW is probably involved too in some way, but generally speaking: isn't collectively shuffling from side to side just a necessary part of team defending?
 
Physiocrat said:
You're right it makes the opposition go wide, I just think it just makes it more difficult for the midfield three who have to keep shuffling from side to side. Also with to banks of four you can easily double up out wide when defending. the 541 makes sense to me but is uber defensive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the tactic leaves you short in other areas, be it attack or midfield. I'm not sure how a midfield 3 might be negatively affected here. In general, they'd do no more defending that a midfield 3 in a 4-3-3 (I'd argue it is more work for a 4-3-3 midfield if the wing-forwards don't track back, while you'd probably rely more on wingbacks to do defensive work).

I agree with you regarding two banks of 4 being able to deal with the wide threat - the central areas will typically get more cover with a back 3 tactic.

Physiocrat said:
I have no objection to that. In attack either a 325 or 235 work. I just think in many cases it would work better to defend as in a 442 then transition to 3 at the back in possession like in my example above.
Click to expand...
It probably depends on a few things. As a manager considering implementing the tactic from a purely defensive standpoint, you'd probably look at multiple aspects like the relative strengths of the players at your disposal, the methodology used by the opposition (whether they are more likely to attack centrally, etc.), and possibly the way in which you would like to deal with pressing from opposition attackers. So two banks of 4 would be fine but wouldn't congest the central areas much and it doesn't always give as many options in the buildup. It also may not be ideally suited to your team if you have 3 great CBs and only two good midfielders/forwards or one good winger.
 
Synco said:
Remember you bringing that up earlier too - but isn't that simply part of the job for a CM?

Often when I see a wide attacker advancing on, say, the left flank, it's a defensive triangle of LB, LCB + 1 CM closing down that space together. LFW is probably involved too in some way, but generally speaking: isn't collectively shuffling from side to side just a necessary part of team defending?
Click to expand...

It is but when I have seen it done eventually the wide CMs are pulled out of the position due to the constant need to shuffle quite a large distance. A bank of four covers the space much more efficiently IMO.
 
Couple of thoughts. Firstly as a general point, just because something is sub-optimal in one particular phase doesn't mean its worse overall. No formation, or set of formations, gives you total coverage of the pitch. This is part of the reason football is so fun.

In terms of the particular point you make - if you play with two wing backs who fall deep in the defensive phase, the presence of 3 centre backs means the full backs can come out and engage much higher. In a back four a full back can't often risk leaving their position to take on a winger, because if they're beaten, the centre back on their side has to come out and deal with the winger and that leaves the back line undermanned. At that point you need a midfielder to drop in and play centre back, and in all that change there's a risk that gaps appear or players get unmarked etc.

On the other hand, if its 3-5-2 then the full back can push right up and engage with the same winger as soon as they're on the ball, knowing that if they're beaten, the centre back on their side is free to come out and engage and not leave a huge gap on their side. In that quick moment you end up as a de facto back 4 anyway.

Whether this ends up being better or worse depends on other factors - the personnel involved, what you intend to do when you get the ball back, how good the opposition are etc.
 
You are focussed too much on the formation as it appears on paper and not what players roles are in different situations. For example defending a fast counter attack requires different defending choices than defending a long ball attack.
 
Himannv said:
Yeah, the tactic leaves you short in other areas, be it attack or midfield. I'm not sure how a midfield 3 might be negatively affected here. In general, they'd do no more defending that a midfield 3 in a 4-3-3 (I'd argue it is more work for a 4-3-3 midfield if the wing-forwards don't track back, while you'd probably rely more on wingbacks to do defensive work).
Click to expand...

Yes, but that becomes a problem in a 433 if neither of the wide forwards drop back. Against poorer sides you can, but against good sides PSG can't just leave Neymar, Messi and Mbappe upfront. That's why they switched to a 442 to defend (well they did when Di Maria was there, he went to right mid with Neymar and Mbappe up front). In the press a 433 is fine but when you have to drop deeper one of the forwards really needs to drop too,.


Himannv said:
It probably depends on a few things. As a manager considering implementing the tactic from a purely defensive standpoint, you'd probably look at multiple aspects like the relative strengths of the players at your disposal, the methodology used by the opposition (whether they are more likely to attack centrally, etc.), and possibly the way in which you would like to deal with pressing from opposition attackers. So two banks of 4 would be fine but wouldn't congest the central areas much and it doesn't always give as many options in the buildup. It also may not be ideally suited to your team if you have 3 great CBs and only two good midfielders/forwards or one good winger.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the bolded type but the side can switch pretty quickly to another formation on the ball so I don't think it will limit the build up options that much. I do agree though the way I am suggesting setting up requires a good passing CM which was not the typically way of the 3412, Davids and Tacchinardi at Juve.
 
Stack said:
You are focussed too much on the formation as it appears on paper and not what players roles are in different situations. For example defending a fast counter attack requires different defending choices than defending a long ball attack.
Click to expand...

I was possibly not as clear as I could have been. The situation I have in mind is when the opposition is when you are facing an opponent who is in a clear possession (non-transition) phase and what is the optimal way of setting up against that. Clearly against a fast counter you would be in a different shape here, something like a 325 ish, which might need a press, or the wide CBs drifting to wide etc.
 
largelyworried said:
In terms of the particular point you make - if you play with two wing backs who fall deep in the defensive phase, the presence of 3 centre backs means the full backs can come out and engage much higher. In a back four a full back can't often risk leaving their position to take on a winger, because if they're beaten, the centre back on their side has to come out and deal with the winger and that leaves the back line undermanned. At that point you need a midfielder to drop in and play centre back, and in all that change there's a risk that gaps appear or players get unmarked etc.

On the other hand, if its 3-5-2 then the full back can push right up and engage with the same winger as soon as they're on the ball, knowing that if they're beaten, the centre back on their side is free to come out and engage and not leave a huge gap on their side. In that quick moment you end up as a de facto back 4 anyway.
Click to expand...

That seems to be similar to what Gio mentioned Poch did when playing 3 at the back with Spurs. With more of the 532 setup I whislt it is true teh wing-back can be more aggressive than in a back 4, with an left mid or right mid in front of him there is less need to do this anyway. Although thinking about what you said 532 can become more 442 like in that say the LWB is more aggressive to match the winger, if the winger beats him the rest of the back 5 shuffle across making a four at the back for a time. I'll watch out for this more. In most case I remember though the wing-backs are as aggressive at defending as normal full-backs.
 
Physiocrat said:
Interesting post. Did Poch play with a 10 or a DM when he played 352? I don't remember him playing this style, it sounds like it could be defensively shaky if the winger gets in behind.

The 541 makes entire sense, just very defensive in my eyes and may make transition difficult as the striker could be isolated.
Click to expand...
These are worth a read - shows how good Spurs became when they switched from 4231 to a 3421.

https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnati...mauricio-pochettino-development-tactics-guide
https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnati...tspur-tactical-analysis-vertonghen-dier-3-5-2
 
Physiocrat said:
I was possibly not as clear as I could have been. The situation I have in mind is when the opposition is when you are facing an opponent who is in a clear possession (non-transition) phase and what is the optimal way of setting up against that. Clearly against a fast counter you would be in a different shape here, something like a 325 ish, which might need a press, or the wide CBs drifting to wide etc.
Click to expand...
I understand, sorry I didnt read it very well
 
3-5-2/5-3-2 and 3-4-3 are very adaptive formations, especially in the defensive phase. It could go in a lot of several ways depending on the players on their teams. For example, Simone Inzaghi always uses 3-5-2 on the team sheet but in the defensive phase. Inzaghi sometimes uses a makeshift back4 in progress play against smaller teams. The reason is he wants to make progressive attacking plays or attack for the goals. Against better teams or similar levels on paper like Bayern or Barcelona, Simone tends to use more middle block/low block defending, and more compactness and the shape could go to a discipline 5-3-2 shape.

Screen-Shot-2022-01-23-at-5.40.44-PM.png


The left fullback stays high to join the attacking phase, and the right fullback makes an organized back4, it could create an asymmetric 4-4-2 like in this picture.

A 5-3-2 defensive shape needs compactness and should be defended in low or mid-block situations. This formation is great for defending against central overload(protecting the central area). So, the gap between defenders and midfielders isn't that much( due to horizontal compactness). Like @Himannv said wide CB and covering CB help to defend against attacking from the flank.

I understand your point about 4-4-2. Sometimes teams that play a 3-5-2 formation must also defend in a 4-4-2 formation because it provides better coverage, especially in wide areas. So it's better to defend against wide overloads and still provide a high level of compactness in the midfield area. 4-4-2 in the defensive phase also makes your life a lot easier in terms of dividing zones in a defensive shape.

maxresdefault.jpg


3-5-2 also can be transformed into 5-4-1 too. The back 3 formations are very adaptable, so it could go to 4-4-2 and 4-5-1, 5-4-1, or 5-3-2, it's one of the kinds of back 3 strengths.
 
Physiocrat said:
Supposing you had the following side:

..................Pele......MVB........................
........................Kopa..................................
Marcelo..Voronin.....Bastian..Dani Alves...
...........Maldini....Baresi...Thuram.............
.......................Neuer....................................

Wouldn't it make more sense to take this shape in the defensive phase?

................................MvB.......................
...................Pele....................................
Marcelo.Voronin......Bastian......Kopa
Maldini...Baresi.......Thuram....Dani Alves
..........................Neuer...............................
Click to expand...

It depends on the opposition's style of play, formations, and team shape. For example, if my second strikers are Boniek, Gullit, or Blokhin who have tremendous work rates and stamina against the relentless over-lappers combo with the beast wingers/forwards like Alves-Messi, Trent-Salah, Leao-Theo Hernandez or Marcelo-early 2010s Ronaldo. I would trust them tracking to help the fullback to defend in the wide area against 2 on 1 situation or wide overload. Boniek did it regularly at Juventus in the early 1980s( he had a lot of freedom in terms of movements in both phases).
 
Good posts @General_Elegancia

My general view now is you need to pull off the more offensive 352 with aggressive LCB and RCBs to quickly take out a winger. Or you really need to end up as a 541 (I suspect with Boniek it ended up something like this although I haven't watched to see specifically). 532 can work for a time but I think it puts a crazy amount of stress on the midfield 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.