The art of the overlapping centre-back

Semantics time, so what is the difference between a three-at-the-back and a five-at-the-back system in the modern game? Jose Mourinho would argue that every three-at-the-back system is actually five-at-the-back, because if you pin the wingbacks back then every nominal three-at-the-back system becomes a five-at-the-back system. Because very few modern teams defend with a true back three during the defensive phase, or when made to respond to being stretched apart by the opposition wide forwards/wingers during the transitional phases. The delineation between three-at-the-back and five-at-the-back is arbitrary. Most people denoted Antonio Conte's league winning Chelsea team as a 3-4-3, but the two wingbacks were part of the defensive line in terms of organisation despite their freedom to get forwards. So you could just as accurately call it a 5-2-3, or any other number of nominations (e.g. 3-2-2-2-1) depending on how many strata you want to use, the phase of play, and any number of other factors.

Cool - I did not miss your point. You have been reading someone's opinion on how modern systems are set up. Obviously I'm a bit older than you and have had the benefits of watching live ,many of the teams that have "thrust" their versions of system line ups on to the game For your info, Arsenal are credited with moving the central half back back into the back line, thus altering the world wide accepted 2-3-5 to a 3-2-5. This was in the late 1920's. If we move to pre war Austria we find a "Wunderteam" that played with a deep lying centre forward with 2 strikers , a 3-2 -1 -4 system while at the same time in Switzerland another Austrian coach lined his team up in a 1-3-3-3- formation and it is widely thought that 2 Italians involved in Swiss football at this time took that formation back to Italy where it became the cornerstone for 'catenaccio' which actually changed the system to 1-4-3- 1-1. Meanwhile in South America the Brazilians had developed a 4-2-4 formation which, due to having a workhorse left winger, they switched to a 4-3-3 when in defensive mode. This team won the WC in 1958. So as you can see over the last 100 years we have seen many changes in formations and there is little to suggest this constant development will cease in the immediate future. cheers jb

I have a book that talks about Beckenbauer. In his youth days as a Bayern player. In one match they beat the opposition 17-1. Beckenbauer says "we beat them 17-1 and I was lucky enough to score all 17". "And all from the sweeper position" Amazing.

Okay, if not seriously, you can called them whatever. That is for sure. "the main point is that they play a back three which becomes a back two when one of the three defenders overlap or attack" Then, why you write a page about "overlapping" as "overlapping" has been used for decades. The title is "The art of the overlapping centre-back". However, the players you mentioned are not centre-backs. Refer at least to this webpage: http://gdfra.org.au/formations.htm Regardless of 4-defenders or 3-defenders, overlapping means the strategy used by the LB or RB. In your essay, the players you mentioned about are LB or RB, They are not center-backs.

You have missed the point. The point is the definition of those players. You probably have not read the conclusion. You form feeling before reading. http://gdfra.org.au/formations.htm Referring, the link above, the three defenders are called LB and RB. You should read carefully the webpage.

Cool'n' Cold -Your descriptions as to how differing systems are applied on the field of play is more than just a little tongue in cheek. When using a recognised "back three" it is quite common to have two wingbacks playing in the system as well. Depending on the players at your disposal you can use three centre backs while programming both wingbacks to return to their wide position as soon as the team loses possession. You also diversify into what I term the "numbers game" which again is a dangerous ploy for again the numerical plan depends heavily on the ability of the players at your disposal, You mention 1-3-3-3 as a way of incorporating your selected eleven. It may surprise you to learn that the 1-3-3-3 system was first used in Swiss football before World War 2 and was given the name "verrou", which translated into English means "sliding bolt" (as in locking a door). Cheers jb.

Warren - As one obviously interested in tactical football I could advise you to research a system called "verrou", introduced into Swiss football by an Austrian coach from the "Vienna school" called Karl Rappan. It is widely recognised in tactical circles that he was the first manager to incorporate a "sweeper' playing behind his back 3. It is also widely accepted that he devised this system (basically a defensive move) because he did not have the players who could match the skills of players from other countries, namely Germany and Austria. It is also widely accepted that it is a tactic used by Uruguay when beating the up to then unstoppable Brazilian team in the 1950 World Cup final. Cheers jb.

For a 4-3-3 formation, or a 4 defenders formation, there are 2 full backs two center backs. The 2 full backs are left-back and right-back. For a formation with 3 defenders, like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 etc, there is only one centre back who is supported by a right-back and a left-back. There cannot be 3 center backs in a 3-defenders-formation. How can one being center while he/she is not adjacent to a right and left-back? No left or right, where comes center? Your perspective is a bit obscured. So far, not so many would call over-lapping-centre-back, but rather attacking-centre-back. For this, Jb below has mentioned Beckenbaur and Stefan Orcwik. But sadly, the best description of one of the best footballers ever in history, Beckenbaur, is “attacking sweeper”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUTFKvrjN_Q Ah…., in Beckenbaur’s best time, there was still a sweeper. A sweeper is the last player in the 4-3-3 formation. But would it be better to call it 1-3-3-3. Refer to one of the website http://gdfra.org.au/formations.htm. But there is a formation really in 1-3-3-3, referring https://www.sportplan.net/drills/Hockey/Roles-and-Responsibilities/1-1-3-3-3-formation-HockRoles5.jsp I am not a qualified soccer coach, so I do not find in detail the difference between a 4-3-3 (with a sweeper) and a 1-3-3-3. I would rather describe “two-number-6” as quoted by one of the prominent bloggers here in this website. In conclusion, they are not center backs.

Hello Jack George, Would you quote a reference? A webpage! Or a link, if they are centre backs.

Plenty of people thought Anges Roar were boring in the early days.

Bahahahahahahaha

Warren - As you say Germany has always been open to changes in football team structures and mostly have kept up with the times. However the myths continue around the subject and I note you have obviously fallen under the spell of that other football journalistic gaffe when the term "total football" is applied to Cruyff and the Netherlands. The man who coached the early 70's Dutch team, and Ajax, Rinus Michels always denied vehemently ever having used that terminology to describe how his teams played, and it is widely believed it was a term invented by overkeen Dutch journalists. What has happened over the years is that the worldwide system begun in England was 2-3-5 ,That is 2 "full" backs,3 "half backs" and 5 'forwards". In the late 1920's an Arsenal manager ,no doubt recognising it is easier to defend than to attack, moved his "centre-half" into a "back three". This continued to be the "in' system for many years until the Brazilians started to use a very successful 4-2-4 in the early 1950's and actually morphed that into a very fluid 4-3-3 when defending, and changing to their 4-2-4 when in possession ,and thus attacking. That was in the late 1950's and since then we have witnessed all sorts of numerical systems being born as coaches struggle for results. You really hit the mark when you suggested a system is only as good as the players who are instructed to play it. Cheers jb.

Some of the better uses of the back 4 becoming a fluid 3 are the Germans with Beckenbauer and Matthaus. The Dutch teams with Koemann and Rijkaard as the 2 centre backs were also different. Rijkaard was a virtual midfielder with the engine to then be a central defender as needed. Most systemic changes can only be successfully implemented with the right personnel. The Germans have always been forward-thinking with this and Cruyff and total football is also relevant.

Regardless, it's still a very uninspiring/boring team compared to the Roarcelona days.

How much more exciting to watch is a 5 - 0 and 3 - 0 hammering at your home ground?

Are they centre backs or they are full backs?

sheffield utd and brisbane roar are very similar in that there brand of boring football is actually quite effective, its not pleasant at all for the neutral to watch; but its proven to be very effective when teams don’t know how to counter it

Jack- No worries, like many around you are encouraged by today's commentators to think that these changes in formations are the work of deep thinking coaches , when in fact "the back three" now being employed by many is not new, in fact the first appearance of a" back three" goes back to a manager of Arsenal FC , back in the late 1920's. when he moved what was then his "central halfback" into a back three changing the widely accepted 2-3-5 formation of those days into a 3-2-5 and it was this move that is widely recognised as the beginning of the many different systems used today. cheers jb.