What are some plusses and minusses to playing the 4-3-3? What are some good training tecniques for playing this formation?
First you put a poll to this question with a yes or no answer? Ok yes and no, but more no. ------- The strength is it is easy for new young players to play and understand. A good first formation when first moving to 11 on a side for the first time. It's other strenghts are? Some might say it is a strength because less movement for the players envolved. Is that a strength? I don't think so. Also your strikers can rest when you lose the ball. But that is a weakness and not a strenght lose the ball you have to fall back and play defense even if your strikers. ------------- Weaknesses less movement within this formation. Players who move less disappear within the game more. Less confusion for the team your playing against. Less up top space for your strikers to use because there are three of them. If you were a striker you would prefer to play with one other striker, and not two. Less space to attack for the striker if you play with 3 strikers. On three mids you can be numbers down in the midfield. I believe you need that extra mid the fourth mid in the midfield to kill space especially further away from the ball when your team loses the ball especially during transition immediately to defense. Also need that extra mid in support especially when moving the ball across the field while playing away from defensive pressure as you are moving up the field. Richie
I absolutly agree with all that Ritchie said. The problem I have with rigid formations is that 1) They give too much definition to positional roles and stifle creativity, and 2) They can vary as to be virtually unrecognizable depending on the individual roles assigned. For example, Striker plays back and you have a 4-4-2, Stopper plays offensively and you have a 3-4-3, both things happen and you have a 3-5-2. I found ( on my best teams ) that learning multiple formations was helpful in adjusting play during a match. If I wanted to change the tenor of a match, it was easier to communicate this as a formation change. We even played a 2-4-4 occasionally. Changes went smoothly b/c we had not only discussed the formations but also discussed the manner in which we would communicate the change, which was generally non-verbal. For example, to change from a 3-5-2 to a 2-4-4, I would call out the central back while a forward quietly entered, when the team saw the change, they switched their play. Usually the other team thought that we had switched defenders and became thoroughly confused. In emergencies, I would verbally switch a player to the position necessary and the team would adjust. On my most creative team, we played positions for kick off and changed with game. Once in a match, I sent our GK in to play field. I told him to play CM, he said left or right, I told him that we didn't have left or right, so go where the ball told him he should be. That was a fun team.
For a young team, I would exclusively use the satndard 4-4-2. I'd teach them how wings attack, and if they were quick to learn, I'd teach them how to use one inner midfield as an attacking midfielder and the other as a defensive midfielder. But overall, it would still be a very basid 4-4-2. For older players -- high school -- I like a 3-5-2 with a flat back, two defensive midfielders, two wings, one central midfielder, and two attackers. The central defenders would need to learn how to man-mark. The defensive midfielders would be skilled tacklers and distributors. The wings would be the best crossers and the most fit players. The center mid would be my playmaker and would hopefully have a decent shooting range.
Another question, Is the defensive mid allowed to attack? Or, is he really a disguised defender. I think that it is best to teach the game; and the game doesn't limit roles - coaches do.
I'll echo Richie's post regarding the simplicity and reduced movement in a typical 4-3-3. I suppose it can be played more dynamically, but I have not seen that much. It's strengths are that new, less experienced players or slower, less athletic players can play it more easily. All the basic zones of the field are filled most of the time by a specific player, so there are not the gaps and spaces you will see in something like the 4-4-2. Without the gaps and spaces, REQUIRED movement is reduced, and REQUIRED switching of positions is reduced. That makes the game simpler for inexperienced or less athletic players. The 4-3-3 is probably also easier for new, beginner coaches to understand and teach. Youth soccer still has an abundance of inexperienced coaches, and that may never change. It is a fact of life, not something I am complaining about too much. The 4-3-3 also makes it simpler for the opposing team to defend, if players are in predictable spaces and move less. That is one weakness. I like using the 4-3-3 with beginner 11v11 teams or less talented, less athletic 11v11 teams. I also like using it with my men's Over-35 team, where the fitness level has slipped a few notches! For youth players with good athletic and skill potential, I prefer the 4-4-2 (zonal "flat" back; flat or diamond mid). The gaps up front FORCE the players to think, communicate and move more, which helps promote better soccer. The midfielders and the backs get more chances to join the attack. So, as a teaching formation for advanced players, the 4-3-3 has weaknesses in that it may stifle the thinking, moving, creative aspects of the game. In other words, the 4-3-3's strengths are also its weaknesses.
I think MR Martin and Richie offer sound info and I too prefer a four three three with recreational teams and placing people as units together. In youth soccer at the beginning level I try and play strength down the middle the sweeper and keeper rotate and work them into a centre or mid position at some point. I have them TALK and DIRECT the three in front. I generally advance each row of three from defence to mid to forward in succession as substitutions are three at a time. This allows most to experiance playing the entire field. Exposure is at least as important as finding what position we lock a player into his career. I find the kids enjoy playing different positions for the MOST part. And the effort to incorperate all players into the actual scoring opportunities is well recieved. When playing divergent positions I ask the players to remember by playing in another position you will learn to adapt to your eventual position with more understanding. If the team is developing well or is a select group rather than recreational inter house then we can be more specific in objectives and positions. Young kids on a full sized field at 11 aside can generally still manage to bunch up but the three abreast does sneak into their thinking caps somewhat. I have the outside players really thinking about the entire width of the field and staying right to the touchlines The kids abilities will dictate how you set up eventually as will the need to be effective in competition.
Re: Another question, And it's a good thing that they do or the game would be chaos. Children don't understand the idiosyncracies of the game -- that's something that has to be learned from experience. It's like the old adage about the child telling his teacher that Ernest Hemingway used "ain't" in his writing, to which the teacher replies "when you understand the English language as well as Hemigway did, then you can use 'ain't' in your writing, too."
To limit or not to limit.... How will the children get " experience " if you limit their expectations? I would suggest that you consider teaching your players how to properly choose between defensive support and offensive support. Believe me, they will sort it out. " Offensive midfielder " is a coach's invention. When kids grow up playing back lot soccer, they just learn to play.
i disagree that a 4-3-3 leaves little room for attacking creativity. if the 3 forwards stay together and roam to the side where the ball is, its a great way to get numbers to the ball, have ready made triangles up top, and consume defenders and leave openings for mids to run into. the problem i have with the 4-3-3 is that there's to many defenders to get any kinda pressure in the other teams half without pushing a defender or 2 up. like richie said, your almost surely gonna be playing numbers down in the mid. the 3 forwards should be able to press and cover any defenders helping the attack but there's going to be open mids to releave the pressure. and your going to have defenders back there marking no one since most likely you'll have 4 defenders marking 2 forwards. i say just push one of those defenders into the mid and make it a 3-4-3.
Offense I agree with m-chill. It is possible to have a creative attack with three forwards. It is possible to have a creative attack with any number of forwards. It all depends upon the skill and creativity of the forwards and the skill and creativity of their supporting players. My point is that it's counterproductive for coaches to focus too directly on a system of play. You may play very differently within the same formation depending upon your opponents and the players who are available to you. Formations are useful in defining an initial system of play and in changing the disposition of players during a match. It is more important that you train your players to make good point of attack and supporting decisions within your team's system of play.
You can find some good insight into this question in Rinus Michels book Teambuilding. One major consideration is, can you hold the ball in the opponents half? If so 4-3-3 is a good system. If you're going to be forced to counter attack then it isn't practical. Check out the book for a more detailed explanation.
