The A-League now has a majority – six of 11 – of teams whose usual formation involves three centre backs and two wing-backs.
The sudden shift to a back three in Australia is strikingly similar to what happened in the 2016-17 English Premier League season when Antonio Conte’s Chelsea won the league.
Following a 3-0 hammering by the hands of Arsenal, Conte decided to shift to a three at the back defence and found great success. The best way to counter the Blues’ formation, other Premier League teams found, was to replicate it.
By the end of that season, 17 of the 20 clubs had started the game with a three-man defence at least once.
Australian football is now going down a parallel route.
Antonio Conte’s tactics caught on quickly when he was at Chelsea. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
The main reason teams mirror the formation is because the roles are more clearly defined. Wing-backs can cause mayhem if the defenders are not sure whose responsibility it is to track him between the wide midfielder, the winger, and the fullback.
Bruce Kamau proved exactly that against Adelaide United’s four-man defence where he ran amok, with Gertjan Verbeek failing to provide a solution to halt the winger-cum-wing-back.
Take a look at the space Kamau enjoys in both these moments, which directly led to two goals. There’s no way that if Kamau was playing as a traditional winger, as he has previously, he would have been given the opportunity to run down the centre of the pitch like he did for that first goal in the video.
To counteract being exposed like Adelaide were, most teams have realised that they need to match them man for man.
The back three has other benefits too, especially when playing against two strikers, something which Sydney FC and Wellington Phoenix have incorporated into their own structure.
With a three-man defence, you will always contain a numbers advantage against the strikers, meaning that there should be enough support to prevent forwards from creating opportunities – theoretically at least.
As you can see from the clips above, strikers are generally starved of service in these types of games and, try as they may, eventually lose the ball to the defensive pressure.
That same advantage helps in possession as well, where teams looking to play out from the back can do so comfortably as even if they are pressed with three opposition forwards, there will always be an option because of the goalkeeper.
It’s important to remember that although it’s called a back three, without possession the formation essentially becomes a five-strong defence. Even if both sides’ wingers get involved in attack, there is still a numerical advantage for the defending side.
There is an assumption that the defensive advantages mean the formation is inherently anti-attacking. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
More and more, formations are being played in two very different segments. There is the defensive formation – which is also generally what people refer to when they use examples like 4-4-2 or 3-4-3 – and also the offensive one.
On the attacking end, movement is key to disrupt and penetrate opposition defences, so these formations sometimes have no resemblance to what they look like defensively. A 3-4-3 might look like a 2-3-5 in attack.
So to attribute defensive football to a back three/five is misleading at best and outright wrong at worst.
Having said that, there are examples of Australians teams playing with the back three who are happy to control space and attack on the counter, such as Perth Glory and Western United.
Glory coach Tony Popovic. (AAP Image/Gary Day)
While the style of football might not be attractive on the eye, Perth’s success in particular shows the very clear advantages it has, especially in contrast to earlier in the season when they started with a back four.
While playing with a three-man defence might be a solution to some problems, it still has its own weaknesses. The major issue is it makes it hard to control the middle of the park, where oppositions can have a numerical advantage and have freedom to control play with the ball at their feet.
This is why most teams with three at the back play with deep defences, as they are fearful of balls from midfield attacking the area behind them. Three-man defences are unstuck if the ball is not always in front of them.
The deviation to this formation shows how Australian football’s understanding towards tactics has grown in the past few years.
There was once a time when many in the Australian football community were outraged that the Socceroos were playing with a back three as it was apparently an insult to our own footballing culture.
Times have changed, and the A-League continues to adapt and provide solutions for the everchanging tactics within the league.
Maybe we aren’t too far from the Socceroos returning to a back three of their own.
Footyball
Roar Rookie
Watch Western Utd's 3 @ the back and see how to concede goals with vast spaces to run into because of this formation, including the Ange Socceroos which struggled to achieve success with it.
Buddy
Roar Rookie
I can’t really respond to that as I don’t claim to know much about the origins. I was under the impression Mr A’s money was oil based as is Man City these days.
Buddy
Roar Rookie
I’m not sure that Kamau is relieved of defensive duties but he and Georgevski are regularly Mia! and particularly on the left side, there are holes that get exploited.
Fadida
Roar Rookie
Chelsea's money is unquestionably morally dirty, as was both Man City's Thai and current ownership.
Waz
Roar Rookie
For the reason you mentioned it’s more common now to play with a single CB, a RB and a LB.
Shabab Hossain
Expert
Definitely nothing new with 3 at the back, as you said it dates back to many, many years ago. But it was still a bit unusual until very recently for teams to play with 3 CBs, as the A-League's adaptation has shown.
Shabab Hossain
Expert
Thanks Franko, glad you liked it! Yeah a key part of the 3 at the back is that you do need a lot of depth, probably 5 CBs. That's probably why Rudan stocked heavily on them when he was recruiting for United, but even then he's struggled with injuries.
Shabab Hossain
Expert
WSW's 3 at the back formation is interesting because Kamau is like a hybrid wing-back that doesn't really defend. He's more of a winger from a deep position, but when they defend he is usually ahead of the defensive line. But yes, there are spaces on the wide areas which are there to be exploited, but as Waz said, most are OK to surrender that area. Some do push their CBs out wide like Melbourne Victory, too.
Shabab Hossain
Expert
Of course you need wing-backs that are able to run the flanks consistently, but you could probably say that about most modern full-backs too given the requirements of the role, such as Sydney's full-backs.
Matthew Boulden
Roar Guru
While simplifying defensive responsibilities by matching the opposition structure can be very helpful it can come with the potential drawback of turning games into a contest of which team wins the majority of their individual duels across the pitch. You can often see this happen during games between two opposing 4-4-2s, or when Marcelo Bielsa decides to aggressively tightly mark each opposition player on the pitch. Those kind of contests are often eventually decided in the end by the differences in individual player skill and fitness across the pitch. Sure can be fun to watch though when Bielsa decides to boldly go at stronger opponents. Bielsa's strangulation of Arsenal during the first half of their FA Cup tie was intriguing to witness, couldn't survive the whole game though unfortunately for Leeds and eventually Arsenal started breaking through.
Matthew Boulden
Roar Guru
That varies depending on the positioning and movement of the players within the overall structure of the team. While typically the wingbacks are the players designated with providing attacking width that is not always the case. Disregarding that formations often change shape depending on the area of the pitch and the phase of the game, attacking width can also be achieved through the two wide forwards\wingers in the 3-4-3. Depending on the movement and structure the coach wants to see in the attacking phase you might even have the left wingback and right wide forward\winger provide the width. The less utilised concept of "inverting" your wingback and playing them as auxiliary midfielder within your structure is an option when your attacking width is supplied via the wide foward\winger. You see Marcelo Bielsa commonly attributed with popularising this during the modern era with Chile and several club teams, often having the wide foward\winger create the width while the wingback supplements the midfield by playing narrower. Depending on the instructions given to the 'inverted wingback' they can either hold position to help protect the middle against counter-attacks and recycle possession or act aggressively by making "underlapping" runs beyond the wide foward\winger. In terms of physical characteristics the demands of playing as a wingback and as a "box-to-box" midfielder aren't that dissimilar, as both have to cover a lot of ground. Which is one of the multitude of reasons why you often saw Arturo Vidal listed at left wingback, deployed as an "inverted wingback", for Chile when they lined up in the 3-4-3. What really matters for the player is do they have the necessary characteristics to play the role being asked of them. Again, Marcelo Bielsa's teams can offer countless examples for this, such as redeploying Javi Martinez from midfield to centreback while managing Athletic Bilbao due to Bielsa desiring his central defenders to be mobile, have a 360-degree awareness of the game, comfortable on the ball, and able to play out from the back. The salary cap and squad restrictions of the A-League are what they are, a creative challenge to work around when assembling a squad but nothing more. For all the talk of Antonio Conte popularising three at the back in the Premier League, it is oft forgotten that Roberto Martinez regularly successfully employed a hybrid 3-4-3/3-5-2 at Wigan Athletic to help them avoid relegation from the Premier League. All this several years before Conte was even managing in the Premier League and was forced to try changing things after that disastrous result against Arsenal in the league. Wigan Athletic are hardly a financial powerhouse of English football yet they still managed to shrewdly assemble a squad suited to that playstyle despite the financial disparities the club faced. The most interesting, and maybe scariest, recent development for opposition clubs is just how savvy many of the Bundesliga squads are at adapting their tactical structures from game to game. While the formations may change to counter the opposition the underpinning principles and instructions remain consistent. They are some incredible tactically versatile players graduating from those club academies, to go along with the tactically astute coaches gracing the Bundesliga.
chris
Guest
If done correctly 3-5-2 is really difficult to defend against. It's one of those formations that has a lot of fluidity about it and interchanging roles, that makes it difficult to mark up against. Conversely, it only works well if you have the personnel and character of player to play in that shape. The wing backs have to be super fit and super committed. Rhyan Grant and Zullo for example.
Buddy
Roar Rookie
I’m often quite amused by the small jibes and digs concerning money at various clubs and what they have to spend. In the EPL there is Arab money, Chinese, Russian, Thai, USA, Irish, Jewish, even some English - at least they are the ones that roll off the tongue. Considering The TV deals alone, whoever owns Sky and Bt sports these days Also adds millions to the coffers. Does it really make any difference where it comes from or are there varying degrees of dirt or something similar? All I understand is that you’d rather have the money than not have it. I’d love to see 10% of that come into the A League - it would change the landscape forever - and I believe in a positive way.
Para+Ten ISUZU Subway support Australian Football
Roar Rookie
Correction (Basic 3 – 2 – 2 – 3).
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Part of the reason Sydney is going so well. its fashionable lets do it while Sydney cleans up.
Para+Ten ISUZU Subway support Australian Football
Roar Rookie
Good comment Nemesis, absolutely agree 100% with that. And there is nothing new about playing 3 at the back---it was a lineup which dates back to the 50s where it was 2 fullbacks either side of a centre half - a left half and right half - an inside left and inside right - outside left winger and outside right winger - and a centre forward. (Basic 3 - 2 - 2 - 4).
Nemesis
Guest
Formations need to be analysed as part of a whole game of football, not just the video game of football. As Ange often said when questioned about 3-4-3. That's just the way the teams line up at the kick off. Once the ball is in play, formations tend to be fluid depending on which stage of the play it is for each team. So, if the opponent has the ball in the attacking third, the opposition might have a formation of 5-4-1. But, when the same team is attacking the formation might be 3-2-2-3. Certainly 3-4-3 doesn't mean the team defends with 3 players. More likely it means retains only 3 players in the defensive half, when they're attacking.
Franko
Guest
Thanks Shabab, another good piece. Generally, I'm not a fan. Relies on the wingback too much for width. A squad would need 3 to 4 quality CB's, and coverage for these wingbacks is hard to find. For Conte's Russian funds, no prob but in a salary capped league, no chance. If you have that cattle great, most a-league clubs dont. Reminds me of England 98WC. Great playing LeSaux at LWB, he was made for it, but Beckham on the right, no chance....
Jack George
Roar Guru
My main problem with teams such as Melbourne Victory who play a 3-4-3 with two 6's in midfield is that it leaves a high burden on the front three to produce. I know Poulsen isn't the best of midfielders, but I'd like to see them incorporate a 6 and 8 into their midfield because Lesiotis definitely isn't a box to box midfielder.
Buddy
Roar Rookie
Yep...agreed. Trouble is some has to tell and sell that story to the number 6! Sometimes it is hard to have this sort of conversation in this form. It requires a more personal setting like one of the local breweries near Suncorp - I’ll be up there next week to see the third meeting this season! When I was talking about wide, I should have emphasised that where they leave too much room is from behind the keeper to the edge of the penalty area. You could argue that is not really wide but the space is often taken up by two marauding forwards; one actually wide nearer the sideline and one tucked inside for an interchange of passing, what was once referred to as the inside right(or left) channel. It is that area that has been exposed on numerous occasions using this system. To me, the plug should come from the 3 central defenders sliding across. When Poppa was at WSW he always allowed space out wide and offered the opposition that option by compressing 4 defenders into space often occupied by 3. He didn’t always rely on the midfield players tracking the run either; as I recall it was more a sliding defence. Still, every system has its shortcomings, often accentuated by having players in a role they are not necessarily suited to.