Is 343 more of an attacking or defending formation?

[Olivergoldblack]

I was trying to explain to someone that Julen changed our formation at Newcastle to 343 to win the match, like at Spurs. He looked at me like I was mad.

To me 343 is more attacking, it just depends on how you use the wingbacks. When your defending its like 5-2-3, and attacking it's more like 3-2-5. Under Nuno I get the impression people thought it was a defensive setup, and wanted to go '4 at the back'. The first 3 seasons under Nuno we scored a lot more goals in the 343, and when we've tried to go 4 at the back and mix it up with 343 in his 4th season to the current day we've scored substantially less - although not replacing Jota and Doherty adequately, and a seemingly a persistent number 9 crisis since Raul's head injury, could be a bigger factor.

What's everyone else's opinion of 343?

 

[WalsallWolf]

It is completely situational. I am no coaching expert, but it worked against Spurs because it helped us regain territory we had badly lost and was getting badly overrun in. It did not work against Newcastle because it contributed to us losing territory we had ironically worked very hard to gain back.

Top and bottom if it IMO.

 

[Minimalist]

Any formation can be attacking or defensive, just depends on the details of how you play it.
I do agree JL made the change at Newcastle to try and be more attacking. I think he was expecting them to push forward and us to counter attack them, RAN probably stayed too high and left killman exposed, then once Newcastle scored the counter attacking plan was scuppered .

 

[WolfLing]

I was trying to explain to someone that Julen changed our formation at Newcastle to 343 to win the match, like at Spurs. He looked at me like I was mad.

To me 343 is more attacking, it just depends on how you use the wingbacks. When your defending its like 5-2-3, and attacking it's more like 3-2-5. Under Nuno I get the impression people thought it was a defensive setup, and wanted to go '4 at the back'. The first 3 seasons under Nuno we scored a lot more goals in the 343, and when we've tried to go 4 at the back and mix it up with 343 in his 4th season to the current day we've scored substantially less - although not replacing Jota and Doherty adequately, and a seemingly a persistent number 9 crisis since Raul's head injury, could be a bigger factor.

What's everyone else's opinion of 343?

Lopetegui's comments today suggest that the move to 3 centre backs wasn't an attacking change.

He mentioned that he'd already made 3 very attacking subs just before we scored, so he brought Collins on to give the team more balance (i.e. to make us less attacking!).

But that aside, I think the reasons 3-4-3 is use is it should offer the perfect balance between defence and attack with the wing-backs being the most important players transitioning from defence to attack. As you say 3-2-5 going forward, 5-2-3 going back. Worked perfectly for a while with Doherty and Jonny under Nuno, but has stuttered a bit since.

 

[PolishWolf]

3-4-3 is a formation that focuses on the transitions between different phases of play (Pressing, rushing back, controlling the ball). When the ball is won or lost transitioning into a defensive block or into a counter or a slightly slower wing overload.

Your 4-3-3 means that the speed at which the full backs transition from a defensive or attacking phase of play is slower, as they don't have the extra man covering. So they're often forced to stay back more.

Ultimately when a 3-4-3 is done with the right players you end up with theoretically an extra man in attacking phases more frequently but occasionally a man less (i.e 2 cb remaining back with everyone up field would provide 8 men up field and a 3-4-3 provides 7)

 

[JOSWolf]

Very much depends on the personnel and how the system is used. Worked well with 3 at the back against Spurs second half but looked a shambles at Newcastle when we changed to it.

 

[FJRWolf]

Can be either, against Spurs we looked all over the place at the back for 10 minutes after the change but managed not to concede and then Neves and Moutinho completely bossed the midfield.
On Sunday we conceded almost immediately and then couldn't get the upper hand back.

 

[Beastier]

I guess the instructions of the wide 2 will determine the degree to which it's an attacking or defensive set-up.

Wing backs encouraged to push on errs moreso towards the former and full-backs advised to stay disciplined and kill the opposition threat moreso the latter.

 

[Bryce]

with the mind set and coaching of the current squad we look more fluid and more of a threat with a 3-4-3 . We get further forward and more players in and around the area with a 3-4-3. We look more solid defensively with a 3-4-3.

4-3-3 gives us strength in midfield which is nulified iof you start Moutinho as a 10 in my view. 3-4-3 with Moutinho and Traore options off the bench is the right way to go for me this season and assess the future in the summer if or when we stay up.

 

[OLDGOLD]

I guess the instructions of the wide 2 will determine the degree to which it's an attacking or defensive set-up.

Wing backs encouraged to push on errs moreso towards the former and full-backs advised to stay disciplined and kill the opposition threat moreso the latter.

This, and the ability of the central midfield to win and retain possession and how far up the pitch they can play.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

He went to a back 5 to defend the point and we ****ed it up.

Would have been better off sticking with the 4 and simply refreshing the midfield

 

[lets all have a disco]

Lopetegui's comments today suggest that the move to 3 centre backs wasn't an attacking change.

He mentioned that he'd already made 3 very attacking subs just before we scored, so he brought Collins on to give the team more balance (i.e. to make us less attacking!).

But that aside, I think the reasons 3-4-3 is use is it should offer the perfect balance between defence and attack with the wing-backs being the most important players transitioning from defence to attack. As you say 3-2-5 going forward, 5-2-3 going back. Worked perfectly for a while with Doherty and Jonny under Nuno, but has stuttered a bit since.

If it was a back 5 then why was Rayan attacking so far up the pitch...I think there was a mixed message to the players as well......if it was to shore it up, then the players on the pitch either didn't get the message or didn't do what was told....

He initially brought Rayan on over Jonny to attack....cause he we was behind.... obviously Rayan continued in this way....seems confusing to me....and I expect the players....

Still don't think the bringing Collins on was a problem....they didn't execute the plan...if it was hold out , then sit .. but they didn't.

Personally I would have started Collins and I was screaming for him at half time as we was getting run raged..but as Newcastle had just brought almeron on then Rayan should have been on him and not attacking...

We wasn't gonna win the game...so sure it up and sit for a point...it was the right think to do but the planned shape didn't happen....