It seems to me that there are growing numbers of people who seem to think that the 3-4-3 is TFC's "new" formation, effectively replacing the 4-3-3 (Is this not so?). I say this because I've read several times now people suggesting that we should/will make moves in the off season for players that fit into our "new" 3-4-3 formation. The reason I'm bringing this up is that I believe that the 3-4-3, in the form that we currently use it, is nothing more than a temporary fix to our defensive problems. -------------3-4-3----------------------------4-3-3 Note: The positioning of the fullbacks doesn't really change all that much, but they get called midfielders in the 3-4-3. The basis of the 4-3-3 is the use of triangles to circulate the ball and maintain possession . When you drop a midfielder into the defense one of the attacking midfielders has to drop back behind the other, and as you can see in the diagram, this makes almost all the triangles disappear. With the two midfielders in a vertical line, and the fullbacks pinned to the touchline, it becomes nearly impossible to break the other teams' attacks from the midfield. I noticed this particularly against New York. in the 4-3-3 the fullbacks jobs are to defend, and make overlapping runs to get crosses into the box. Our current fullbacks are very good at this. The problem is that when you switch to a 3-4-3, your asking the fullbacks to get involved in the midfield play which involves one touch passing which they shouldn't be expected to be able to do (and they can't). Now you're probably wondering what the heck I'm getting at right? Well my point is that for a real 3-4-3 to work you need four real midfielders, not two midfielders and two fullbacks. Fullbacks become useless. If we were building on the 3-4-3 formation the parts we would have to pick up this off season are: at least two more creative midfielders, a backup sweeper, and we would still need to get a quality CB. Sadly, there would also be no place for Morgan or Eckersley in the lineup. Last of all, it would be almost like starting over AGAIN. To make the 4-3-3 work, the parts we need to pick up are: better CBs. That's it. That would eliminate the need for a sweeper, thus sending Frings back to the midfield, thus eliminating the need for new wide midfielders, and would let the fullbacks play like fullbacks. YAY : ) in conclusion: the 3-4-3 was a temporary fix to our defensive problems (that made the midfield suffer), not a new and improved formation for the future. If you have any objections to points that I made, please bring it up.
Not to take away from anything you were saying, as I think you know your stuff and Im not trying to sound like a know it all being like your wrong. Just think your a bit off with the 3-4-3 being deployed. Usually it was a back line of Iro-Harden-Henry with Frings sweeping behind them in defence, and receiving the ball to move forward on offence. Cool animation, wish i could duplicate it. I do agree the fullbacks that Winter talked about at the beginning of the season, how they are so important would all be to waste. Eckersley could be deployed in a back 3, not morgan tho. The only player who really benefits (front 3 rnt affected) in my mind is Stinson, as he excels in the set and is the perfect wide out semi fullback/wide mid. it looked like this with a 3-4-3 Offensively: Plata Koev Soolsma Avila Morgan/Stinson JDG Frings Iro Harden Henry Defensively: Plata Koev Soolsma Avila Morgan/Stinson JDG Iro Harden Henry Frings Frings kinda was a sweeper but with the lack of passing from Harden as a stopper, Frings would then move up. I do not see a permanent change in TFC's 4-3-3, though I feel like, with a weak D or not, the 3-4-3 will appear, and would have this season. Winter's system used "3 strikers", thats the prerequisite. If we'll gain a tactical advantage by using a 3-4-3 hell do it, as in the system he expects versatility. I do agree tho, as it stands now those outside midfielders in 4 man midfield would pose a big depth risk.
Talking formations- That set up with your animation, looking at the 4-3-3 flipped backward. A 3-2-3-2 or a 3-4-1-2 (however you see it) looks like a very solid formation. Just by definition what your looking for in a set. The triangles involved ect.. Any thoughts? Ive seen junior teams deploy it before.
3-4-3 or 4-3-3, I'm not a particular fan of either to be honest! In all my history of football watching, I always remember a team with a 4-4-2 formation much better than a team with 3 attackers. It may just be personal preference, but I always remember a "pair" of strikers working together, and to me its always more exciting. Even Chelsea when they blew away the premiership with a 4-3-3 formation wasn't very exciting football. The isolated central striker means that you can only really play a slow build up and pick your pass to the striker. A pair of strikers working in tandem is easier to pick a pass to, and they can work together to hold the ball up to bring in other players. This new formation for TFC may bring better results, but its not particularly exciting to watch! As I said, it may just be personal preference to me, but I always remember the team with a pair of attackers (Sutton and Shearer, Yorke and Cole, Sheringham and almost anybody he played with!) more than a team that has played 4-3-3 or 3-4-3.
Yes and I don't think there's really any doubt amongst the technical staff at the club that 3-4-3 (or 5-2-3/5-4-1) was nothing more than a short term solution to the lack of appropriate centrebacks. 3-4-3 had the advantage of lining up well (defensively) against the diamond 4-4-2 used by many MLS sides and, because they don't often see it, gave the first few teams we played against with it a few problems. It's not, as you say, a long term answer though because it just gives up way too much in midfield or attack depending on how you organize yourself. There's a reason sweeper systems are rarely used in modern football. They saw their heyday 20 to 30 years ago but are almost never seen anymore. The last successful side to use one regularly that I can think of was Martin O'Neill's Celtic and even that was nearly a decade ago now. Finally, it's also worth noting that our best performance of the season and most comprehensive victory was achieved playing conventional (point forward) 4-3-3 in Dallas. That is the system they want to use, particularly at home, but to be successful we're gonna need better CBs, another pacey and dangerous (real) winger to pair with Plata (or two if we can't keep him), and maybe even an upgrade at AM depending on how Avila grows into the role. Johnson, much to my surprise, has turned into a highly useful player who can play all four attacking positions in the 4-3-3 but I still think he's a naturally a centre forward and is clearly behind Koevermans in that position on our squad. Soolsma, who's return seems more likely, has certainly redeemed himself compared to his pre and early season performances through earning a starting position by the end of the year but can't really be seen as an every game starter on an upper quartile MLS team.
Mourinho's Chelsea almost exclusively played the more defensive "point back" - he called it "inverting the pyramid" and claimed it as a tactical innovation IIRC - variant of the 4-3-3. It was a flexible formation though made possible by the excellence of the Makelele in the holding role. His single minded commitment to defense and playing the simple ball essentially made him a sweeper in front of the defense and allowed more freedom to the CMs ahead of him. That said, Mourinho expected his wingers to drop back and assume a more 4-5-1 (or 4-1-4-1) like shape out of possession and his whole team was more than happy to sit deep to wait to counter on the break so it was hardly an ultra attcking Dutch style 4-3-3. Because they're not perceived as a sexy team and too few people watch much MLS beyond their own side it's escaped much popular notice that Sporting Kansas City has quietly become one of, along with Seattle, the most exciting teams to watch in MLS. Peter Vermes has arranged an abundance of attacking talent in a VERY attack minded 4-3-3 that just flies forward at the opposition at home and simply tries to overwhelm them. KC regularly plays 3 true strikers with Bravo, Kamara, and Bunbury (backed up by RotY candidate C.J. Sapong) in the attack supported by the creative Graham Zusi from midfield and a relatively attacking young fullback Chance Myers who's given lots of freedom to get forward down the right. I've seen them at the end of games have 6 (or even 7) players I'd describe as "attacking" on the field at the same time. Trust me: that's exciting football when they're really going for it and nothing like the team that showed up at BMO in the spring. Our problem is that we don't have good enough defenders to make that possible without getting blown out at the back or good enough attackers (in depth) to make it worth it (and cause the opposition problems). And two of our best players, in whom we've invested a lot of money, are actually more defensive midfielders themselves. That's not a team that's going to be able to be too exciting too often no matter what formation you put them in. IF we can find another real winger (or two) it'll start to look a lot different though. Sadly, they don't grow on trees and are one of the most difficult positions to recruit at throughout global football. There's a reason 4-4-2 and other more defensive formations largely replaced the 4-3-3 over time. Which is great if you want to punt balls up to them for the big man to knock down or hold up but not what we're trying to achieve. It still can be a relatively succesfully strategy in a lot of cases (outside of the top levels of the game) but our leadership has decided to be more ambitious than that. We'll see if they can successfully recruit or develop the players necessary to make it work.
for defense guus hiddink likes to switch to a 4-5-1 where the two wingers just move back and then when back in attack they get back into a 4-3-3. it takes some talented wingers to do it tho. the dutch have been doing 4-5-1 for decades.