Why did the 3atb formations go out of fashion for so long?

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
43,500
I don't remember many teams playing this set up in the 2000s? Maybe even the mid 90s onwards that they were seemingly began to be wiped out.

They made a resurgence about 10 years ago under Conte, and since then you do see a good number of teams using this set up.

So what made them go away, and what's bought them back? Are football manager's just all massive copy cats, so they just needed one to show them that it could actually work?

Or is it the type of player modern football is developing - that it seems to suit that skill set? You need a lot of fast high work rate players to make it work, in your CBs, WBs and CM. Which seems to be the prototype player football seems to be reproducing.
 
I recall reading somewhere online that Queiroz begged Ferguson to switch to a 3-5-2 in the 2002-03 season. Maybe it was due to a few injuries in the defense or to remove a weak link and add an extra layer of midfield protection. Course, may also been some wild rumor back then.
 
I would guess a combination of a few things. 3 CBs helps given lots of wingers/wide forwards cut inside a lot more than 15-20 years ago, so the extra CB covers the gap between CB and FB. Full backs were also responsible for pushing forwards a lot more, so a 3rd CB allows them that freedom with extra cover behind (in 433 variants with full backs pushing high, they can be exposed defensively). Likewise, with wide forwards playing higher and more central, a 343 doesn't require them to always track the opposition full back all the way back. Teams have also been building out from the back in a back 3 (even if they have a back 4 on paper - either with a DM dropping between 2 CBs, or sometimes one full back sliding across) - a back 3 is a kind of natural progression.

Also probably a fitness thing. In the 90s some teams played 352, Brazil when they had Carlos and Cafu, who had the physicality to get up and down all game plus plus technical quality, and I'm sure it's always been fairly present in Italy for more defensive purposes. It was, outside of that Brazil team, seen as a fairly defensive formation, but with increasingly attack minded wing backs it's now a viable option for a side wanting to play on the front foot.

Also, back 3 formations tend to do quite badly against 442, which was the dominant formation in the 90s, as the wing backs would be doubled up on. Football tactics always goes in cycles though, and my guess would be will in the next few years see a return of a variation of 442. I can see teams playing a 442 with two inverted wing backs, one holding mid, one box to box midfielder, two wingers who stretch the pitch and go outside, and two forwards who are both capable of dropping deep/into the channels/running in behind.
 
Skills said:
I don't remember many teams playing this set up in the 2000s? Maybe even the mid 90s onwards that they were seemingly began to be wiped out.

They made a resurgence about 10 years ago under Conte, and since then you do see a good number of teams using this set up.

So what made them go away, and what's bought them back? Are football manager's just all massive copy cats, so they just needed one to show them that it could actually work?

Or is it the type of player modern football is developing - that it seems to suit that skill set? You need a lot of fast high work rate players to make it work, in your CBs, WBs and CM. Which seems to be the prototype player football seems to be reproducing.
Click to expand...

The 2002 World Cup final had two teams with 3 at the back.

But yes it was less common, especially in England. My understand of it is:

Basically there was a tactical revolution in the mid to late 1990s towards a flat 442/4231. There was actually tension when Wenger took the Arsenal job that he was adamant he wanted to play 442 and the old defenders at the club wanted to play 3 at the back I believe.

442 was always around in England but it was seen as more modern and progressive back then, probably influenced by Sacchi. 442 was associated with athleticism and fast football. Whereas 3/5 at the back was associated with sweepers and man marking in defence - concepts that were considered outdated.

Football tactics are often a big game of Rock Paper Scissors and 343 in particular had a lot of success against standard 433, teams under Conte in particular. That helped popularise it again when 433 became the dominant formation. My issue with 343 or 352 is that when both teams play it, it often ends up cancelling each other out and not the best spectacle.
 
Trequarista10 said:
I would guess a combination of a few things. 3 CBs helps given lots of wingers/wide forwards cut inside a lot more than 15-20 years ago, so the extra CB covers the gap between CB and FB. Full backs were also responsible for pushing forwards a lot more, so a 3rd CB allows them that freedom with extra cover behind (in 433 variants with full backs pushing high, they can be exposed defensively). Likewise, with wide forwards playing higher and more central, a 343 doesn't require them to always track the opposition full back all the way back. Teams have also been building out from the back in a back 3 (even if they have a back 4 on paper - either with a DM dropping between 2 CBs, or sometimes one full back sliding across) - a back 3 is a kind of natural progression.

Also probably a fitness thing. In the 90s some teams played 352, Brazil when they had Carlos and Cafu, who had the physicality to get up and down all game plus plus technical quality, and I'm sure it's always been fairly present in Italy for more defensive purposes. It was, outside of that Brazil team, seen as a fairly defensive formation, but with increasingly attack minded wing backs it's now a viable option for a side wanting to play on the front foot.

Also, back 3 formations tend to do quite badly against 442, which was the dominant formation in the 90s, as the wing backs would be doubled up on. Football tactics always goes in cycles though, and my guess would be will in the next few years see a return of a variation of 442. I can see teams playing a 442 with two inverted wing backs, one holding mid, one box to box midfielder, two wingers who stretch the pitch and go outside, and two forwards who are both capable of dropping deep/into the channels/running in behind.
Click to expand...

This is actually a really good point. I remember Guardiola talking about playing against Chelsea's 3atb last season, and how important it was to have the wingers on their natural feet. That was the default way of playing back then - with the wingers providing width.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
The 2002 World Cup final had two teams with 3 at the back.

But yes it was less common, especially in England. My understand of it is:

Basically there was a tactical revolution in the mid to late 1990s towards a flat 442/4231. There was actually tension when Wenger took the Arsenal job that he was adamant he wanted to play 442 and the old defenders at the club wanted to play 3 at the back I believe.

442 was always around in England but it was seen as more modern and progressive back then, probably influenced by Sacchi. 442 was associated with athleticism and fast football. Whereas 3/5 at the back was associated with sweepers and man marking in defence - concepts that were considered outdated.

Football tactics are often a big game of Rock Paper Scissors and 343 in particular had a lot of success against standard 433, teams under Conte in particular. That helped popularise it again when 433 became the dominant formation. My issue with 343 or 352 is that when both teams play it, it often ends up cancelling each other out and not the best spectacle.
Click to expand...

Don't you think this is the case with 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 as well?

The 2010 world cup was a borefest of teams playing the 4-2-3-1 and then I remember the Liverpool-Chelsea games in the mid 00s where they both used to cancel each other out.
 
It is fairly cyclical and one of the most determining factors is which formations are in vogue with the top teams of the moment. There are strengths and weaknesses to most formations and really it is the quality of the individual players and their understanding of their roles that makes them effective.

I know that when it became all the rage to go 3 at the back in the early nineties there were teams having success with it and so everyone jumped on the bandwagon but in the case of lesser teams what tended to happen was they would get pushed onto the back foot and it would rapidly become a back 5 with no real outlet and despite the extra defender they would invariably concede because they could not get out of their own half.
 
I first entertained the idea and then remembered something back 3s have never been in vogue, they never the opportunity to go out of fashion. While the teams/managers using it have seemingly been memorable it wasn't a widespread system, not like 442, 4231 or 433.

Now I would ask the same question but about 4312 and 442 diamond, in the 90s they were very common and magically disappeared.
 
It feels like LVG was the first to use it extensively in the PL, much to the dismay of the fans. But then Chelsea started using it and it became cool.
 
It should be taken into account that the vast majority of kids who start their journey of trying to make it as pro's will be asked to play in one of the basic formations, probably 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 of some sorts.

This will often keep being the case when they're teenagers... That is to say, most young footballers are taught to be either fullbacks or wingers.
In the same way, most young footballers who play at the back will be coached to be either fullbacks or CB's who play in pairs.

It's probably very hard to find many good defensive players who don't have to learn how to play in the 3-4-3 formation from scratch when they're 20-something years of age.

And most managers probably haven't coached enough teams/players to play in a way that suits the formation.
So while they'll probably understand what they want from their players on paper, they won't be able to coach them to actually do it to a sufficient level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus
Trequarista10 said:
I would guess a combination of a few things. 3 CBs helps given lots of wingers/wide forwards cut inside a lot more than 15-20 years ago, so the extra CB covers the gap between CB and FB. Full backs were also responsible for pushing forwards a lot more, so a 3rd CB allows them that freedom with extra cover behind (in 433 variants with full backs pushing high, they can be exposed defensively). Likewise, with wide forwards playing higher and more central, a 343 doesn't require them to always track the opposition full back all the way back. Teams have also been building out from the back in a back 3 (even if they have a back 4 on paper - either with a DM dropping between 2 CBs, or sometimes one full back sliding across) - a back 3 is a kind of natural progression.

Also probably a fitness thing. In the 90s some teams played 352, Brazil when they had Carlos and Cafu, who had the physicality to get up and down all game plus plus technical quality, and I'm sure it's always been fairly present in Italy for more defensive purposes. It was, outside of that Brazil team, seen as a fairly defensive formation, but with increasingly attack minded wing backs it's now a viable option for a side wanting to play on the front foot.

Also, back 3 formations tend to do quite badly against 442, which was the dominant formation in the 90s, as the wing backs would be doubled up on. Football tactics always goes in cycles though, and my guess would be will in the next few years see a return of a variation of 442. I can see teams playing a 442 with two inverted wing backs, one holding mid, one box to box midfielder, two wingers who stretch the pitch and go outside, and two forwards who are both capable of dropping deep/into the channels/running in behind.
Click to expand...

The '4-4-2' you described is basically Ten Hag's 4-2-3-1 at Ajax, though Masraoui wouldn't usually play inverted on the right.
 
VivaObertan said:
The '4-4-2' you described is basically Ten Hag's 4-2-3-1 at Ajax, though Masraoui wouldn't usually play inverted on the right.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but generally still inverted wingers and a 10 deeper than the 9. I can see it going back to actual wingers, and two central forwards. Antony under ETH does stay very wide in the build up so arguably not the typical wide forward, but in the final third he's still looking to come inside on his left foot more often than going outside to the byline. What I predict is wingers being more workhorses who dribble outside, and inverted full backs taking up even more ball playing and creative responsibility (especially being deep lying playmakers in possession and full backs out of possession).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.