Talking Tactics

Central Midfield Defending
A Tactical Look At The 4-3-3 Formation

With many permutations out there (semantics, mostly, distinguish the 4-1-4-1 from the 4-2-3-1 and the 4-1-2-3, etc.) the 4-3-3 is rapidly gaining favor at many levels of the game.  Haverford runs a basic 4-3-3 with two holding central mids, and is the general inspiration for the discussion below; many pro teams use similar set-ups, as do a great many college programs.  Not only are there many basic decisions to be made when two teams in a 4-3-3 (or 4-2-3-1, etc.) meet, but those decisions must be made at such high speed (with low occurrence of error) things can go from perfectly fine to total defensive breakdown in the blink of an eye.

For the LMSC readers, it is obvious that U12 players struggle with the team shape defensively.  Some of this is due to a total lack of confidence in the ARs...who wants to hold a shapely line when the AR may well blow every offside call?  Some of it is the comfort level of holding a line together; players feel safer if they have a bit of space in front and some time to see what's coming at them...though this comfort may quickly evaporate when it turns into a 2 v. 1!

College watchers will recall that most college back lines are too anxious to drop off as they are attacked, leaving easy spaces for the opponent to possess or switch play left and right in front.  Additionally, such deep lines of defenders make the subsequent attack upon regaining possession that much more difficult as the move must be built from so deep a location, and under the added pressure of any turnover being far too close to goal to survive.

At the end of the day, having been around plenty of amateur soccer, the main concern prior to teaching group defending is ensuring that you can find 11 players who can defend individually.  And given that every college team I've worked with does the same 1 v. 1 defending work (whether I'm in charge or not) as my U12s, we can safely say that youth soccer is not teaching effective defending at the individual level.  It doesn't matter if they stand in the right shape/spots...if the opponent can run past, the rest is moot.  Bottom line, putting the cart before the horse hasn't worked since they invented the wheel, and it won't work now.  Players must master the 1v.1 aspect before there is any point in addressing the team facets.


Here's a very quick (surface-scratching, really) look at how players must manage the central area when two 4-3-3 formations match up.  Never mind what to do about those marauding wing-backs, or how to juggle marking 3 forwards with four backs, or what to do if an extra player pops up in the center of the park making it 4 v. 3, or in moments of transition, or on set pieces, or if one team sits back to defend and attacks via the counterattack...this is basic, functional defending with no discussion of the countless other permutations which the defenders may need to handle.

Here are the basic options...but consider with each one how much communication must happen in each case ahead of the movements so that the entire defensive group remains balanced and coordinated.  Remember, defending without the ability to turn that effort into a concerted attack is futile- defending must leave a team a method of attack and most attacking moves require balance among the players and predictability in terms of where to find a given teammate/option.

The basic formation match up in this image.  Of course, no battle plan survives the initial engagement with the opponent, but generally players will stick to their roles and use the team's organization to orient themselves as the game moves along; great players can make clever adjustments to counter the tendencies of the opponent.

The main concern is that four are marking two in the red area...which is very safe, but also means the black team has two one versus one situations with two covering players.  Normal soccer defensive practices only require a single extra player - if they attack with three, we defend with four.  So there is a defender in this block of four who could most likely be better used elsewhere.  The obvious match-up problem, of course, is in the opposite area (yellow box) where the lone black attacking center mid must chase the two holding mids of the blue side.  So while we might see this as a very secure central defense, it is also highly likely the opponent will be able to keep possession for long stretches, wearing down the front four of the black team

The blue and white team have the ball, in this case, with the right back in possession, but under pressure from the black team's left winger.  The right wing is ignored for all intents and purposes in this series; some top teams can defend more tightly because their outside backs can attack so effectively.  At the amateur level, the wingers typically must defend from a slightly wider position for two main reasons: First, the outside back is less capable of offering attacking width upon regaining possession, and, second, if the winger tucks in tightly, most amateur sides lack the ability to then play out of such a tight space packed with as many as four or five attackers (eg. black would not be able to transition to a orderly attack after winning the ball).

Thus we see that the most reasonable option is for a holding mid (HM) to step up and mark his opposite number (red arrow on the left) while the attacking center mid (AM) covers the other holder (red arrow in center of pitch).  The issue now becomes how to handle the obvious run to be made by the blue AM (yellow arrow).

The obvious option is to simply mark him 1 for 1 with the remaining HM, but this has two major weaknesses: First, the HM is now badly out of position upon regaining possession, and the team is unbalanced (even with the right winger being of no regard) with 9 of the 11 spread across the central and left-most thirds of the park.  Even if they win it back, it will be easy to repossess for blue as there is almost nowhere for black to go.  Second, should this HM be even a little late arriving, the left back is now in a daunting 2 v. 1 situation and should a center back come to offer cover, the other center back is left 1 v. 1 with the central forward, and no cover at all.  Now, a center back ought to be able to handle a 1 v. 1 marking job, but there is no sense in simply inviting that situation upon oneself.

So, another more palatable option might be to allow the attacking center mid of blue to be viewed as a striker, and therefore the responsibility of a center back.  Certainly there are advantages to this, as the center backs can see all that is transpiring, and could easily step up to match up with the ACM.  The black holder, then, could drop into the gap behind the second center back, and maintain cover and numerical superiority at the top of the 18.  Two issues arise here, primarily, as well.  First, the backs must then be able to hold a line sufficiently high enough that the center backs can mark the ACM.  Too deep and the ACM is unreachable.  Second, with the HM dropped into the back 4, the attacking options upon repossession are equally difficult.

Presuming two things (fairly large presumptions, to be fair), the black team can match up better, keep a spare man in the back to cover the others, as well as a spare HM in the midfield to float and pick up marks, cover and offer an immediate "out" upon repossession.  Those two things are: the back line can be held high enough to pick up the ACM with a center back, and, the pressure applied to the ball carrier (in red) is sufficient to prevent either a long cross-field pass (rare and difficult at the amateur levels) or a ball over the top (ideally into the space just vacated by the left center back).  If this is the case, the right back for black can tuck across tightly, the left center back can pick up the ACM and the black HM can stay higher, central and in a better position to help the left center back, and establish possession/spark an effective attack once back in possession.

In reality, there are no hard and fast answers.  A team might simply opt, if they expect to have less possession, to invert the midfield three and simply go man for man in the center of the park.  This does clog up the offensive end, so spacing is crucial, as is shape - get too flat across the field and when dispossessed, one pass will eliminate five attacking players.  If the front four can defend effectively (a massive IF at the amateur level) the two holding players can sit back as the central forward and ACM of black force blue to play on one side of the field; the strong-side HM would not need to go forward to defend.  Or, a la Napoli, a team might simply cede possession, invite the opponent into their half, and hit on the counter out of set defensive patterns...none of which might include having a HM step up the field to defend!

The variations go on and on, especially at the professional level.  But at the end of the day, players must understand the numerical advantages and disadvantages presented at any time, in any part of the field.  Similarly, they must know where space is likely to appear after they win the ball back...and if that sounds simple enough, do bear in mind that not only does  the player with the ball need to know this, each teammate who would support him must also have the exact same thought.  Lastly, in defending in this scenario, consider the amount of communication needed to account for all the little unpredictable things; a slip in the mud, a cramp, a poorly timed run, a simple oversight.  Any little aberration forces adjustments by virtually every defender involved in the play, and those adjustments must be communicated effectively.  GKs should study such situations in great detail so that they can assist as air traffic control - enough already with the shouts of "no shot," "no turn," "don't dive in," and other obvious (to a properly trained defender) bits of "information."  Letting defenders know where runners are, or to cover the first defender more/less tightly, adjust the shape of the line, establish the line higher or lower are much more useful, team-oriented and composed than cheerleading.

If you thought this was boring, I might add, imagine being 11 years old and having to learn this stuff.  All of this is to say, simply, here's one more reason to teach the game in an age-appropriate setting.  Teach the topics best-suited to the age, keep the cart behind the horse and be patient, slowly evolving a player's understanding.  Then, someday, perhaps college coaches won't have to teach 1v.1 defending every year!