I love you guys, but 4-3-3 is a terrible counter-attacking formation. It is designed for possession and attacking play. Most counter-attacking formations employ five midfielders, the opposite of the 4-3-3. You can counter-attack out of a 4-4-2, it is more versatile. But the only way to counter-attack out of a 4-3-3 is to drop the wingers back into a 4-5-1. We saw that 4-5-1 with Chelsea, especially during the Mourinho/Drogba days, that's why they came under so much criticism for an ugly style of play, while stylish teams like Barca and Arsenal play the 4-3-3.
What could have been... The Rev's nearly could have had Charlie Rugg ( LA Galaxy first round pick) as a homegrown player. He was selected for the u18 Rev's DAP team the first season. He wanted to play a tournament with his old club team (either Bolts or Blazers). The Rev's couldn't/ wouldn't release him so he left the Rev's without ever having played a game. We could have had Caldwell, Rugg and Farrell, all first rounders in this years draft.
haha 4-3-3 is one of the most commonly used counter attacking formations today. Arsenal has been counter attacking out of base 4-3-3 for years.
1.) You shouldn't limmit your examples to the EPL. Tactically, the league is extremely homogeneous. The Dutch league is known for end to end counter attacks in 4-3-3 formations. 2.) Barca is capable of scintillating counter attacks. That's why everyone bunkers against them. The 4-3-3 is the best formation for counter attacking IMO. It transitions from offense to defense faster than any other formation.
Counter-attacks occur in any formation throughout the course of a game. It is a natural part of soccer. But there are certain formations which are specifically designed to gain advantage through winning the ball in the midfield and bursting forward on a counter-attack. These are defensive-minded formations that generally employ five midfielders. Perfect example of a counter-attacking formation being employed successfully would be the semis in the WC, Germany vs. Argentina. Maradona went on the attack with a 4-3-3 and Germany hung back and defended, using a 4-4-2 in that situation, then sprung forward on the counter-attack. That was an instance where a defensive, counter-attacking strategy was very successful. The US National Team faces a lot of counter-attacking teams from the Caribbean in qualifiers. The Caribbean teams have fast runners and tend to play a counter-attacking 3-5-2 where they win the ball in the midfield and then sprint forwards into the attack. It is a common strategy, but it is generally known as a defensive one.
That is simply not true at all. You don't need to bunker and spring to be able to counter attack. Teams like Arsenal and Barcelona use their counter attacking to force defenses to sink deep into their own end. It's a contributor to their possession, not a function of it. 4-4-2 has become such a hard formation to counter attack in, even in MLS, because the speed of the flat back 4, as well as its organization, will usually stop fast strikers from playing thorugh over the top., and outside mids from making the 70 yard run, because the outside backs only have to track back 30-40 yards. In the 90's, when the sweeper was pushed in front of the back 4, it all but eliminated the #10 in a 4-4-2 from being the quick transition outlet for defenders to be able to use to start the counter. In the 4-3-3, instead of having that second striker, there are two winger options on either side that give the defense quick options to transition out. You are talking about a game that was played 30 years ago, with a heavier ball, crappier fields, slower and less skilled players, and the referees allowed much more physical contact. The game is not the same, so comparing it a game like that is almost pointless. No one has said that you can't counter out of a defensive position. But if you are building a professional team in that mold, you are basically already admitting defeat. It's a system that can work in 1-off tournaments, but over the course of a season, you will be exposed, and you will drop points. Planning to play a bunkering system will never get you anywhere but a top 5 draft pick in MLS.
I'll let you believe whatever you want to believe. 4-3-3 is not a counter-attacking formation and never will be. It is an attacking formation, end of story. I have never even heard anyone even suggest it is a counter-attacking formation before. You are way off base. It is okay, as you learn more about the game, you will better understand the formations what they are designed and intended to do. Good luck to you and the Revs. Later.
Counter attacking is attacking. If you set off to burn the other team on the counter, that's a proactive "attacking" approach to the game of soccer. This is really what all the best continental European teams do. They press high and win the ball in the middle third and then try to spring counter attacks. Often the weaker teams counteract that by not sending players forward and playing 11 men behind the ball. The latter is bunkering, not counter attacking. I think you're confusing the "bunker and counter" approach with the "high press and counter" approach. Bunker and counter is what the Carribean teams do. High press and counter is what teams like Dortmund do.
100% correct. And by moving the counter closer to the opposing net you rob the opponent of any ability to set its defense (unless it constantly maintains a tightly packed defensive formation in the back third, which means roughly 7-8 players behind the ball at all times). Not sure the Revs have the pivot in the middle of a 4-3-3 to make the formation work. The time to build around that formation was when Shalrie was at his apex. Simms can't handle that job. I think it's probably a bit too much of an ask for Cisse. As an aside, it kills me that Real Madrid doesn't play it with Xabi Alonso on the team. Madrid's 4-2-3-1 is driving me batty.