For the longest time I felt that the proper way, in almost all cases, to set up a defense was a back 4. To be more exact, I never felt comfortable with a back 3, despite the fact that the system I grew up in was closer to a back 3 than a 4. This gets to the heart of the issue for me; the way I understood the nomenclature of formations, and the way I processed what position (Defense, Midfield, Forward) players fit into was if not wrong, certainly incomplete.
The reason I say the system I grew up in was closer to a back 3 than a 4, is that it isn't always that simple, the way a player interprets a position, the way a coach sets the team up, and the blending and intermingling of some positions beyond the simple labels of "Defender" or "Midfielder."
In reality what we played was originally set up as a sweeper or libero who was first set up in the classic Italian way of a libero (literally "free") who was "free" in the sense that they had no set opponent to mark, but was almost purely a defensive player. Beside the sweeper were 2 marking backs, not really center backs, but certainly not fullbacks playing in the wide spaces. The basic job of the markers was to mark the two center forwards, and there were almost always 2 opposition center forwards.
The reason the system was understood by most of us as a back 4 was the "stopper" not really a term used anymore in the sense we used it; he was probably meant to be a physical presence breaking up the play before it got to the forwards. Basically a purely defensive midfielder in modern terminology.
Enough of my preteen years though. Long story short, the "stopper" became the driving force of the midfield, bringing the ball forward and really playing like a box-to-box midfielder. Eventually the system became a pure back 3 for half a season, before being replaced by a back 4 with two center backs and two fullbacks playing a zonal rather than man marking system, the player who used to be the stopper was moved permanently into midfield, eventually ending up as a purely attacking midfielder playing just off the forward line.
End Ramble about my past.
So what does all that have to do with my current thoughts on a back 3 and why I now see it as a viable option? It's all about how the team is set up as a whole. The two main problems I had with a back 3 are the obvious problem of having 3 people cover the width that 4 people could be, and the more complex problem when facing only 1 center forward: a back 4 has 2 center backs to cover 1 center forward which works because 1 CB can stay tight to him, 1 can cover any space he leaves open. when 3 CBs are left to cover the 1 center forward, it leaves two players covering, which is essentially a waste of a player; similarly the 2 wider defenders can be drawn out wide to pick up wingers or wide forwards, leaving the most central of the 3 defenders stuck without much help.
So those were my problems with a back 3, so why have I changed my mind? 4 teams essentially showed how to deal with the problems pro-actively. The first two teams share a common DNA and dealt with the issue in a similar way: keep a very high level of ball possession. The first team to start to change my mine was the Barcelona side of the last few years under Pep Guardiola, a team I could watch winning in modern times at the highest level; the second was the Ajax side of the mid 90s, especially 95. Obviously I couldn't watch the Ajax side, not really much was even available online, I could however read about the thoughts behind the system as it had been studied for close to a decade and had dominated Europe as well as producing some of the greatest names of that generation.
Both Barca and Ajax played a 3-4-3 with the 4 in midfield being played as a diamond, one defensive midfielder, two central midfielders, and a fairly classic "#10" attacking midfielder. Ajax played the system as a rule, Barca played it as a change of pace, or simply to fit an extra midfielder on the field. The key element, in terms of formation, was a highly skilled defensive midfielder who could slip into the back line to create a 4, but was also supremely gifted on the ball, Ajax had Frank Rijkaard, Barca have Sergio Busquets. Of course one player doesn't make the system go,and having star players willing to work extremely hard to win the ball back and then keep it in every position is fundamental to this style, but somebody able to be just as comfortable playing as central defender and a deep-lying playmaker of a midfielder, with the positional knowledge to know when to do each really makes everything run smoothly.
The other 2 teams that convinced me are both modern, both Italian, and both shared a high number of defenders. The Juventus team of last season, undefeated champions, and the Italy team of Euro 2012 who went on to finish runners up. The Italy team only briefly used the back 3, but Juventus used a 3-5-2 (more precisely 3-1-4-2) for the majority of their games, switching to it fairly early in the season and largely sticking with it. Both teams did usually have more possession of the ball than their opponents, but this was largely a result of better quality players rather than the high emphasis placed on possession as a goal to itself of Barca and Ajax. The Juve team made the system work with 3 key elements: first they had 3 cultured, skilled defenders, all relatively good passers, all natural central defenders but with experience playing as fullbacks, so they never were uncomfortable if the wide areas needed extra cover. Point 2 is the way those wide areas rarely needed to be covered, because of the wingbacks; a wingback being neither truly a wide defender like a fullback, or an attacker like a winger. They are usually counted as part of the midfield, but at times could just as easily be counted as part of the defense. Juve had wingbacks who were incredibly hard working, even for a position in which being the hardest workers is basically what is expected of you. Point 3 of the Juve system was Andrea Pirlo, put simply the best and most elegant passer of long, accurate balls forward and starting the offense. He is not a particularly gifted defender, he didn't drop into defense like Rijkaard or Busquets, but he always dropped deep to collect the ball from the defense, and always seemed to find a great pass forward. The Italy team is more of a footnote, but what a footnote they were. Italy essentially used 2 of the 3 defenders from Juve, along with Pirlo in front of them, but the center of the 3 was Danielle De Rossi, who was free to bring the ball out of defense himself. De Rossi is naturally a midfielder, one who can cover almost all positions in midfield, but known for being a high energy, all energy player capable of both bursting forward and physically dominating from a more defensive position. What Euro 2012 showed in De Rossi was special though, he showed that he is not just an adequate passer of the ball who shines more through his running, he showed he is a fantastic, sophisticated, technical, great passer of the ball who just also happens to be a fiery force of nature, at times he even showed up Pirlo himself, the master of the elegant long pass out of defense.
So those are the main reasons I am totally convinced a 3 man defense is absolutely a legitimate tool in building a team. I don't think it's really better or worse than a back 4, but both are tools that have slightly different qualities.
In terms of the elements that I most enjoy in a back 3 system, there are 2 that really provide the opportunity for the little moments of magic that make the game so enjoyable: wingbacks bursting up and down the sidelines, hitting in crosses, and the ability the system provides to play 2 strikers, in any configuration you want, without having to relay on 2 central midfielders (I don't like being outnumberd in central midfield, and a back 3 allows either 3 or 4 central midfielders, width from the wingbacks, and still the use of 2 strikers. Whereas a back 4 and 2 strikers requires either having only 2 central midfielders in a 4-4-2, or a lack of width in a 4-3-1-2 (4-4-2 diamond).
So there it is, my first try.
No comments:
Post a Comment