Manchester City Tactics – Premier League’s Aversion To The Three-Man Backline Hinders Mancini’s Experiment

By Paul Holland
12 years Ago

In the last year or so the three man defence has gradually come back into vogue; Napoli gained particular acclaim with it in the Champions League last season, Italy played it as an alternative formation at the Euros, and Barcelona regularly switch to a three man defence. ai???Three at the backai??i?? seems to be the formation of choice in Serie A, and the 3-4-3/3-5-2 makes for one of the most fluid and exciting formations available when played to its attacking strengths; so why then when Roberto Mancini attempts to play it with Manchester City does it fail so miserably and gain so much derision in the media, and why donai??i??t more English teams take it up as an alternative?

English football certainly seems to lag behind its European counterparts when it comes to tactical innovation, with teams in the Premier League tending to respond to tactical developments instead of initiating them. The British media have suggested Manciniai??i??s managerial position may be on the line due to his tactical misadventures and Liverpool legend Alan Hansen went as far as dismissing Manciniai??i??s recent attempts to play with a back three as ai???crazyai??i?? on Match of The Day.

Hansenai??i??s comments were particularly confusing after watching Wigan ai??i?? the Premier Leagueai??i??s only team to regularly play three at the back – play out an emphatic win against West Ham. One could say that Mancini is wrong to try and change a winning formation, but to try and develop a ai???plan Bai??i?? seems perfectly reasonable and perhaps completely necessary in a modern European game where the top teams exude tactical flexibility.

Man Cityai??i??s recent Champions League defeat to Ajax brought Manciniai??i??s dalliances with three at the back under ever closer scrutiny. Manchester Cityai??i??s superstars are surely Ajaxai??i??s equals in terms of ability considering the entire Ajax starting XI was assembled for less than A?3m, but Ajax were on the whole much more fluid and versatile than a stilted Manchester City; Cityai??i??s attempt to revert to a 3-5-2 backup formation was both disjointed and disastrous.

Manciniai??i??s implementation of the formation probably didnai??i??t help after admitting he didnai??i??t prepare his City side ideally, but surely it doesnai??i??t take a huge leap of imagination for a professional footballer to adapt to playing in a three man defence. It appears that English teams are far less flexible in their tactics than European sides – a view demonstrated in Micah Richards words after the game, ai???The players just want to play. Itai??i??s a hard system for us because we are not used to it and the players prefer a 4-4-2 but heai??i??s the manager and we will do what he says.ai???

The 4-4-2 is the most clearly defined/natural formation of all, with clear emphasis on playersai??i?? roles, but just because the players like it individually doesnai??i??t mean itai??i??s best for the team.

Perhaps then culture of the English dressing room needs to change and Mancini needs to play the strongman and quash his detractors with the courage of his convictions. When Marcelo Biesla took the Argentine job he met a general unwillingness when trying to implement his alternative 3-3-1-3 formation. Biesla democratically asked his players if theyai??i??d like to play with a three or a four and when they voted unanimously for a four Biesla responded with, “This shows which model has your preference. I would like to announce, then, that we are going to be playing with a back three. Bye.”

Richardsai??i?? critique seemed fair game in the eyes of the English media who probably remember English sidesai??i?? failed experiments with three centre halves and ai???sweepersai??i?? during the late 90s. Fans of a certain vintage may recall teams like Liverpool playing three centre halves in order to simply accommodate players rather than to fulfil a clear tactical vision; the result was chaos rather than fluidity. The English game tended to play three at the back in terms of ai???jamming inai??i?? an extra centre half, meaning an English ai???threeai??i?? often ended up as a chaotic and overtly defensive back five, including full backs.

A modern attacking ai???three at the backai??i?? formation has the following attributes: firstly it consolidates possession efficiently for the team on the back foot by using a deep lying midfielder and three centre halves in close proximity along with the full backs as dangerous out balls – therefore the oppositions attackers find it harder to press when the ball is in transition. Secondly it is one of the most ai???fluidai??i?? formations going, giving the attacking team the ability to triple up on the wings rather than playing mainly in twoai??i??s like in a 4-4-2. Thirdly, it makes the opposition’s players very hard to track with marauding fullbacks and weight of numbers in attack – often having seven men in the final third rather than six.

A team like Wigan is highly reliant on mobile full backs and specialists like left-back Jean Beausejour getting forward to join the charge; this means that a phenomenal 43% of their play goes down the left compared to only 27% on the right (Whoscored.com).

There are two main ways to play the 3-4-3. Wigan use three distinct centre halves/defenders whereas teams such as Barcelona use a midfielder to drop back between the centre halves and consolidate possession as the full backs push on.

The 3-4-3/3-5-2 can be used defensively to shut games down in the manner that Bordeaux often use it – by tracking back into a 5-4-1, or, it can be used as an offensive weapon as evidenced by Napoli and particularly Barca; a means of getting more men into a perfectly fluid attack.

The drawback of three at the back is paradoxically in its very fluidity, which can descend into chaos and misinterpretation ai??i?? as was the case at Man City. It needs tactically astute players and generally suits quick mobile forwards and pacey attacking full backs.

Modern English teams seem tactically rigid and generally averse to tactical experimentation, a theme explored earlier. Even England manager Roy Hodgson makes explicit his devotion to four at the back: ai???The back four gives you the best possibilities of covering the width of the pitch defensively. With 4-4-2, youai??i??ve got ai???twosai??i?? all over the field. I would always be looking to find a team that can play with a back four. Amongst the front six there a lot more options.ai???

Regardless of Englandai??i??s apparent hostility to the three man defence, ai???three at the backai??i?? has fully established itself as the latest trend in European football and if Wiganai??i??s Roberto Martinez is correct, it could well end up cementing its place in the English game – Mancini seems to be one of the few Premier League managers to acknowledge this point. Three at the back could have taken City to the next level and his failure to implement it successfully could be as much of an indictment on the tactical inflexibility of his stubborn millionaire superstars as of Mancini himself.

Categories: English Premier League, Features
Tags: Manchester City Mancini Premier league Tactics

Related Content

Five Reasons Real Madrid reclaimed the La Liga title

Manchester City prepared to cash in on Liam Delap

Fabrizio Romano rules out Liverpool move for Pedri

Nana4d Situs Toto Togel Terpercaya dan Terbaik

Girona set to contact Barcelona for fresh Eric Garcia loan deal

Ipswich Town rival Fulham in Ben Sheaf pursuit