Switching from back 4 to back 3 mid season

Oscar Bonavena

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
2,515
Location
Ireland
By all accounts Amorim is heavily wedded to 3 at the back, so much so that other clubs reputedly didn't go for him because he would not agree to move from this principle of his.

This sounds like he will definitely try to implement 3 at the back at United. What I'm wondering is:

1. Is Amorim likely to switch to 3 at the back as soon as his foot is in the door, or is he going to wait until next season? Is it a change that can be made overnight or does it take weeks of preseason?

2. If he changes it straight away, how common is it for a team to switch from 4 to 3 at the back mid-season, has it ever been done before and to what level of success?

3. How easy is it for a defender to go from a back 4 to a back 3 or does it entirely depend on the player? Do certain types of defenders take to it straight away whereas other defenders are like a fish out of water?
 
We build up with 3 at the back anyway, one of the fullbacks tucks into midfield, so I can’t imagine it being that hard to transition. The actual wingback role is what is very different for us.

I’m wondering if he implemented this change at Sporting immediately as that was also mid season after moving from Braga.
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
By all accounts Amorim is heavily wedded to 3 at the back, so much so that other clubs reputedly didn't go for him because he would not agree to move from this principle of his.

This sounds like he will definitely try to implement 3 at the back at United. What I'm wondering is:

1. Is Amorim likely to switch to 3 at the back as soon as his foot is in the door, or is he going to wait until next season? Is it a change that can be made overnight or does it take weeks of preseason?

2. If he changes it straight away, how common is it for a team to switch from 4 to 3 at the back mid-season, has it ever been done before and to what level of success?

3. How easy is it for a defender to go from a back 4 to a back 3 or does it entirely depend on the player? Do certain types of defenders take to it straight away whereas other defenders are like a fish out of water?
Click to expand...
Just on your second point, Conte's Chelsea won the league with a three at the back having started the season with a different system. Though they probably switched to it in maybe September/October as opposed to end of November.
 
It'll be absolutely fine. Like someone here who supports Sporting (can't recall who) said, he'll start off with full-backs/wing-backs as wing-backs, and once (if) this collection of players gets what he wants, he'll select more attack minded options. It will suit quite a lot of the players. The question marks are around the left-wing back option and the two behind Hojlund.
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
By all accounts Amorim is heavily wedded to 3 at the back, so much so that other clubs reputedly didn't go for him because he would not agree to move from this principle of his.

This sounds like he will definitely try to implement 3 at the back at United. What I'm wondering is:

1. Is Amorim likely to switch to 3 at the back as soon as his foot is in the door, or is he going to wait until next season? Is it a change that can be made overnight or does it take weeks of preseason?

2. If he changes it straight away, how common is it for a team to switch from 4 to 3 at the back mid-season, has it ever been done before and to what level of success?

3. How easy is it for a defender to go from a back 4 to a back 3 or does it entirely depend on the player? Do certain types of defenders take to it straight away whereas other defenders are like a fish out of water?
Click to expand...


1. Looks like from the reports, its his formation and he will be utilising that formation at United too.

2. We have seen it happen, Conte changed from a 4-3-3 to a 3-4-3 after 4/5 games and won the league. Glasner changed it last season too.

3. We have seen players play this formation before, Maguire, Shaw, De Ligt all play 3 at the back with the international teams. We have 2 weeks from when Amorin takes over to Ipswich, so he has some time to work on the formation.

Will be interesting to see, will the players that go on international duty start his first game?
 
Struggling to get past the idea that clubs would refuse to appoint a manager on the basis they don't like the formation he would use.

I call bullshit on that which means no guarantee he'll use a back 3, and if he does its really not the seismic shift its being made to sound like. ETH changed our defence on a weekly basis and usually several times during each game anyway. Ole used to swtich from a 3 to a 4 from one game to the next.

It'd be a nice change to actually know what our system is and what we are actually trying to do.
 
I think he'll go to a 3-4-3 straight away. This season is the closest to a free hit he'll get as a manager, and the invariable wobbles adjusting to a new formation will be easier for the fans to swallow this season. He'll also want to start next season well, since top 4 will be the bare minimum target next season, so that would be a bad time to start testing out a new formation.

Its also worth bearing in mind that, as a coach, he will be used to coaching a 343. With all the other adjustments he'll have to make, changing his coaching methods to allow for a back four would be an added difficulty. I expect he'll go with what he knows.
 
Didn't Palace do this last season when Glasner came in, and immediately looked like a much better side?
 
We have players who should be comfortable enough with a 3 at the back, I don't think that should be a huge issue.

We have rather shite wide options, though - but that's another discussion.
 
Bumping this thread I started before Amorim took over, where I asked when switching from 4 to 3 at the back had previously happened mid season, and if so, how successful had it been.

The most common example I got was that of Conte at Chelsea, who switched to 3 at the back early on in the season and went on to win the league.

Why was that Chelsea team able to switch to 3 at the back practically overnight and go on to be successful, whereas with our players it's like we're asking them to split the atom?

Can someone with more tactical nous than I, or more familiar with that Chelsea team, give me the differences. Was their squad simply better quality, or did they have specialist wing backs? Did they still play a 3 man midfield and just left 2 attacking players?

I know people are blaming the current formation for our bad results. But it can't be just the formation if Chelsea won the league with that same formation!
 
The system does not play to strengths of barely any of our players. As a result, we are in a situation where we need a new team of players before we can assess it.
 
Rozay said:
The system does not play to strengths of barely any of our players. As a result, we are in a situation where we need a new team of players before we can assess it.
Click to expand...

Yep, because the previous system of 4 at the back played to all our players strengths and we were...... 13th...
 
Rozay said:
The system does not play to strengths of barely any of our players. As a result, we are in a situation where we need a new team of players before we can assess it.
Click to expand...
Our players had us in 13th playing 4-2-3-1 as well. We need some new players irrespective of what formation we play. Let us all remember that a lot of this squad was bought by Murtough and EtH. The new signings have been OK.
 
romufc said:
Yep, because the previous system of 4 at the back played to all our players strengths and we were...... 13th...
Click to expand...

Your post literally has no point, just words for the sake of typing words.
 
This would be awful. We hired Amorim because among other things, his tactics and style of play. He's only just begun his work with a squad that has proven time and again to down tools when held accountable. The rest of this season will be rough and it will be rough cleaning through the rot of the past decade plus of club mismanagement.

There are no quick fixes here.
 
Rozay said:
Your post literally has no point, just words for the sake of typing words.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't been watching us play.

I will explain so it makes a point.

Pre 3 at the back, we did not play any better, so was the system the problem for the players?

Post 3 at the back, the players are still making the same mistake?

This is not about formations and systems, its about player quality.

Do you think Onana would make more saves in a different system?
 
343 said:
Our players had us in 13th playing 4-2-3-1 as well. We need some new players irrespective of what formation we play. Let us all remember that a lot of this squad was bought by Murtough and EtH. The new signings have been OK.
Click to expand...

There are such clear and obvious flaws with this 1+1 logic. But I’ll point out anyway - just because our team was underperforming (across a sample of about 10 games) in positions we know and have seen that the majority can perform better in, doesn’t mean that the solution is to change to a formation that requires them to perform roles that they have never played and do not have the skill set to play.

Needing a new manager doesn’t mean you need a new position as a player! The team also had a number of performances under Ten Hag this season where they performed very well and didn’t get what they deserved. Like Brighton away, Palace away and most of all - West Ham away where they were robbed by the ref. These small details conspired to have us 13th or wherever we were when Ten Hag left, but whatever we are doing now requires an entire new squad to even have a chance. By the time we get that squad, we may well have sacked our manager or the confidence might be completely on the floor due to getting battered repeatedly.
 
Rozay said:
There are such clear and obvious flaws with this 1+1 logic. But I’ll point out anyway - just because our team was underperforming (across a sample of about 10 games) in positions we know and have seen that the majority can perform better in, doesn’t mean that the solution is to change to a formation that requires them to perform roles that they have never played and do not have the skill set to play.

Needing a new manager doesn’t mean you need a new position as a player! The team also had a number of performances under Ten Hag this season where they performed very well and didn’t get what they deserved. Like Brighton away, Palace away and most of all - West Ham away where they were robbed by the ref. These small details conspired to have us 13th or wherever we were when Ten Hag left, but whatever we are doing now requires an entire new squad to even have a chance. By the time we get that squad, we may well have sacked our manager or the confidence might be completely on the floor due to getting battered repeatedly.
Click to expand...
10 games? More like 48. We finished 8th last season.
 
romufc said:
Clearly you haven't been watching us play.

I will explain so it makes a point.

Pre 3 at the back, we did not play any better, so was the system the problem for the players?

Post 3 at the back, the players are still making the same mistake?

This is not about formations and systems, its about player quality.

Do you think Onana would make more saves in a different system?
Click to expand...

Not playing well, and not being suited to the role you are asked to play are two different problems. One (the first one) problem is not about formations and systems, and the other one, is. The other one also makes it virtually impossible for most individual players to overcome the first one, because they are not going to improve their form playing in positions that don’t suit them.

Needing a new manager and motivator and needing a new formation are two different things. Clearly, the new system has improved nothing. How about we try a solution that doesn’t change the system, but tries to improve the performances of the players? Currently, the performances haven’t improved, and Dalot is less likely to improve playing as a LWB than he was playing as a RB. Also, others have even gone in the other direction. Mazraoui has gone from actually playing well to not playing well, probably because he’s now a wing-back it seems.
 
343 said:
10 games? More like 48. We finished 8th last season.
Click to expand...

Well then don’t say ‘the team was 13th before’ if I am instead supposed to respond to something else. That was the point that was made, and I pointed out that the season had barely started. And we were very unfortunate to be 13th anyway, sue to a series of terrible decisions and bad luck. We were also only about 4 points of the top 4/6 at the time.

And even if we did finish 8th last season, I’m pretty confident we’ll do a lot worse than that this time round so why is this change being viewed as positive?
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
Bumping this thread I started before Amorim took over, where I asked when switching from 4 to 3 at the back had previously happened mid season, and if so, how successful had it been.

The most common example I got was that of Conte at Chelsea, who switched to 3 at the back early on in the season and went on to win the league.

Why was that Chelsea team able to switch to 3 at the back practically overnight and go on to be successful, whereas with our players it's like we're asking them to split the atom?

Can someone with more tactical nous than I, or more familiar with that Chelsea team, give me the differences. Was their squad simply better quality, or did they have specialist wing backs? Did they still play a 3 man midfield and just left 2 attacking players?

I know people are blaming the current formation for our bad results. But it can't be just the formation if Chelsea won the league with that same formation!
Click to expand...

I think our defenders have actually adjusted easily it's really only Mazraoui that has struggled but he'll probably settle as the RCB. We're short a wing back but that's about it.

The midfield two hasn't really changed so not worth discussing.

The strikers are no worse than they were, if anything they're getting more service but not doing much with it.

Bruno I think has actually slightly improved and Amad has been decent in the 10 position.

If we look at what worked and what we're now missing it's basically the goals Rashford, McTominay, Garnacho scored. Even Amad can't make up for those goals going missing.
 
Pre-season would be a huge difference. If only Ineos did right move at right time.
Not to mention that our transfers would be different too.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
I think our defenders have actually adjusted easily it's really only Mazraoui that has struggled but he'll probably settle as the RCB. We're short a wing back but that's about it.

The midfield two hasn't really changed so not worth discussing.

The strikers are no worse than they were, if anything they're getting more service but not doing much with it.

Bruno I think has actually slightly improved and Amad has been decent in the 10 position.

If we look at what worked and what we're now missing it's basically the goals Rashford, McTominay, Garnacho scored. Even Amad can't make up for those goals going missing.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

In our defence, I would say that Mazraoui, Dalot, Yoro and Martinez are adversely impacted by the nature of the roles they are being asked to play, with it not best suiting their strengths.

In midfield, Mainoo’s weaknesses are being exposed by the switch from a three to a two. Bruno I agree is not really playing poorly as an individual player, however, I don’t think he is suited to his role either in that it doesn’t best serve the team. He can’t get beyond anyone, yet is now effectively supposed to be the left sided forward. If we were to replace him in that role tomorrow, it would almost certainly be with a player with a completely different profile.

Rashford and Garnacho have been direct victims of the evolution. Rashford was in terrible form anyway, I concede. Garnacho is now finding himself out the door as there is no role for him.

This is a large part of our playing squad that the new manager has come in and sub-optimised. We were struggling before, but what chance did we have of getting out of a slump in form while being asked to play in unsuited roles?
 
Rozay said:
I disagree.

In our defence, I would say that Mazraoui, Dalot, Yoro and Martinez are adversely impacted by the nature of the roles they are being asked to play, with it not best suiting their strengths.

In midfield, Mainoo’s weaknesses are being exposed by the switch from a three to a two. Bruno I agree is not really playing poorly as an individual player, however, I don’t think he is suited to his role either in that it doesn’t best serve the team. He can’t get beyond anyone, yet is now effectively supposed to be the left sided forward. If we were to replace him in that role tomorrow, it would almost certainly be with a player with a completely different profile.

Rashford and Garnacho have been direct victims of the evolution. Rashford was in terrible form anyway, I concede. Garnacho is now finding himself out the door as there is no role for him.

This is a large part of our playing squad that the new manager has come in and sub-optimised. We were struggling before, but what chance did we have of getting out of a slump in form while being asked to play in unsuited roles?
Click to expand...

Are you comparing these players to the form they were in this season prior to the switch or last season? Because it seems more the latter or in general terms.

It's very difficult when some of the players were in poor form already (Dalot, Martinez, Mainoo, Bruno) to then claim the system is causing their form. I fundamentally don't get the Mainoo point as he isn't being asked to do much different and his passing options have probably been enhanced.

Whether the players individually are ideally suited to what Amorim would want is a very different but valid discussion. I just don't see the system hampering individuals.

Even Garnacho finds himself on the wing a lot in games, his stats (shots, dribbles etc) haven't materially changed from a snapshot of games. Rashford isn't a victim of anything beyond himself.
 
Rozay said:
Not playing well, and not being suited to the role you are asked to play are two different problems. One (the first one) problem is not about formations and systems, and the other one, is. The other one also makes it virtually impossible for most individual players to overcome the first one, because they are not going to improve their form playing in positions that don’t suit them.

Needing a new manager and motivator and needing a new formation are two different things. Clearly, the new system has improved nothing. How about we try a solution that doesn’t change the system, but tries to improve the performances of the players? Currently, the performances haven’t improved, and Dalot is less likely to improve playing as a LWB than he was playing as a RB. Also, others have even gone in the other direction. Mazraoui has gone from actually playing well to not playing well, probably because he’s now a wing-back it seems.
Click to expand...

We already tried this. Ten Hag's coaching staff was sacked and we brought in new coaches to help improve the players. Did it improve performances? No.

The new system has improved things, I feel we are alot better off the ball than we were in the last 12 months.

You can have any formation, system, motivator, when your goal keeper decides he has a hole in his glove, it wont matter.

When you have a ST who thinks his feet are a solid brick wall and the ball bounces off him, it doesn't matter.


Dalot has been at the club since Ole days and his improvement has been very minimal, so its nothing to do with the system, most of these players have hit their ceiling and cannot get any better.
 
Smores said:
Are you comparing these players to the form they were in this season prior to the switch or last season? Because it seems more the latter or in general terms.

It's very difficult when some of the players were in poor form already (Dalot, Martinez, Mainoo, Bruno) to then claim the system is causing their form. I fundamentally don't get the Mainoo point as he isn't being asked to do much different and his passing options have probably been enhanced.

Whether the players individually are ideally suited to what Amorim would want is a very different but valid discussion. I just don't see the system hampering individuals.

Even Garnacho finds himself on the wing a lot in games, his stats (shots, dribbles etc) haven't materially changed from a snapshot of games. Rashford isn't a victim of anything beyond himself.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Fans are again making up excuses for the players, who are clearly the issue. Its almost as if fans are so fixated on this formation, are forgetting how dreadful most of these players have been for 12/18 months.

A ST in a 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 3-4-3, 3-5-2 has to do the same role, hold up play, bring people into play, make runs and score goals.

Hojlund has been just as bad /anonymous as he was in a different formation, it must tell you its not the systems, its the player.
 
Bastian said:
It'll be absolutely fine. Like someone here who supports Sporting (can't recall who) said, he'll start off with full-backs/wing-backs as wing-backs, and once (if) this collection of players gets what he wants, he'll select more attack minded options. It will suit quite a lot of the players. The question marks are around the left-wing back option and the two behind Hojlund.
Click to expand...

In fact, it has not been absolutely fine
 
romufc said:
Exactly. Fans are again making up excuses for the players, who are clearly the issue. Its almost as if fans are so fixated on this formation, are forgetting how dreadful most of these players have been for 12/18 months.

A ST in a 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 3-4-3, 3-5-2 has to do the same role, hold up play, bring people into play, make runs and score goals.

Hojlund has been just as bad /anonymous as he was in a different formation, it must tell you its not the systems, its the player.
Click to expand...

Which would be a fair point in a Rasmus Hojlund thread, which this isn’t. He’s rubbish. Dalot, Mazraoui, Garnacho, Yoro and Mainoo are struggling with their roles. This has nothing to do with Hojlund. Or Onana. That’s deflecting.
 
We can change formations, players or tactics but the one problem I see is that we can’t pass the ball. Watching other teams I see the ball being passed from player to player. We, so often, seem to pass the ball to nowhere or, worse yet, directly to the opposition.
 
romufc said:
We already tried this. Ten Hag's coaching staff was sacked and we brought in new coaches to help improve the players. Did it improve performances? No.

The new system has improved things, I feel we are alot better off the ball than we were in the last 12 months.

You can have any formation, system, motivator, when your goal keeper decides he has a hole in his glove, it wont matter.

When you have a ST who thinks his feet are a solid brick wall and the ball bounces off him, it doesn't matter.


Dalot has been at the club since Ole days and his improvement has been very minimal, so its nothing to do with the system, most of these players have hit their ceiling and cannot get any better.
Click to expand...

We did not try changing the manager by not actually changing the manager ffs.

And Hojlund and Onana have been poor (incidentally, Onana started the season brilliantly). You seem to keep ignoring all of the players I have listed and focusing on Onana and Hojlund.

We literally line up with 5 defenders, at least 2 of whom are playing out of position, and it is not working and has never looked like working. Given that it is not mandatory to do so, people are being wilfully ignorant by dismissing the relevance of any impact these decisions are having on us performing terribly.

Our manager, under no obligation to do so, has decided upon a system where our wide threat is supposed to come from Dalot on the left and Mazraoui on the right. It’s a terrible decision, and has been unequivocally unsuccessful. Yet so many are unable to call that as it so blatantly is, for bizzare reasons like Dalot had a few poor games in the position that he had good games in all of last season anyway, so him being asked to play left-wing has no relevance. It would have been far less shocking if Dalot improved his performances at right back after getting a new manager than it will be if he suddenly starts performing impressively at left wing. He’s obviously not going to.
 
Last edited:
It was the absolute dumbest thing we've ever done. Also unnecessary, since Amorim actually preferred to come here in the Summer and there is zero rush to sign him in November. Not to mention that we clearly have no money to support him in this transformation, with buying decent players he can actually use.

Makes you question what kind of morons are running this club. We've already learned that apparently Ashworth was not "best in the class", after all. Maybe Berrada is also not all that? Tsk tsk tsk
 
romufc said:
Clearly you haven't been watching us play.

I will explain so it makes a point.

Pre 3 at the back, we did not play any better, so was the system the problem for the players?

Post 3 at the back, the players are still making the same mistake?

This is not about formations and systems, its about player quality.

Do you think Onana would make more saves in a different system?
Click to expand...
Does this format count as a poem?
 
NewGlory said:
It was the absolute dumbest thing we've ever done. Also unnecessary, since Amorim actually preferred to come here in the Summer and there is zero rush to sign him in November. Not to mention that we clearly have no money to support him in this transformation, with buying decent players he can actually use.

Makes you question what kind of morons are running this club. We've already learned that apparently Ashworth was not "best in the class", after all. Maybe Berrada is also not all that? Tsk tsk tsk
Click to expand...
We won’t know about this until next season. It’s a tough period but if it means we hit the ground running next year because Amorim has had time to work out who to keep and not, it’ll be worth it.

I know the formation impacts all parts of the game, but I don’t think the defence has really been much of a problem from open play. We’ve conceded 5 more goals than Chelsea in fourth, but scored 17 less. The issues are from not having productive wing backs and a decent striker, not because we’re playing a back three.
 
Glorio said:
The thing is if Amorim gets the right players, for the most part, they should fit any system that intends to dominate possession. I don't get why people are concerned about getting him players that suit how he wants to play.

Our wingers should be good in tight spaces anyway. Both Giggs and Becks would have thrived in the wide 10 positions as well as the wings. Wing backs, depending on their strengths could either be full backs or wide forwards.

The issue is not one of formation, it's one of ill-suited players to a team expected to play dominant football
Click to expand...
Quoting myself here, but I'm not too concerned about the transfers for the reasons stated above.
Wing backs pose the greatest risks, but even so, see the above point. I don't believe very good players playing as wing backs typically have big issues adjusting to teams (NT for example) with conventional back fours.

If we get the right profiles, they should mostly be good fits regardless of whether we stick to 3-4-3 or not
 
NewGlory said:
It was the absolute dumbest thing we've ever done. Also unnecessary, since Amorim actually preferred to come here in the Summer and there is zero rush to sign him in November. Not to mention that we clearly have no money to support him in this transformation, with buying decent players he can actually use.

Makes you question what kind of morons are running this club. We've already learned that apparently Ashworth was not "best in the class", after all. Maybe Berrada is also not all that? Tsk tsk tsk
Click to expand...
How is that true? People were calling for sacking Ten Hag thru last season, even after cup win. Not too mention this season. Better to have him trying to implement things than having interning who players won’t respect and won’t consider worth investing in his methods (see Rangnick).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.