Mark Williams
| Name: | Mark Williams |
|---|---|
| City: | Swansea |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Membership: | Adult Member |
| Sport: | Football/Soccer |
Explaining the 3-4-3 system used by Mumbles Rangers U-18 team 2014-15

See the guidance at the top of this page to understand why you are not seeing interactive Football/Soccer images.
Hopefully, this image shows the marked difference between Conte's style of 3-4-3 and mine.
Most striking is that attacking width comes from the two wing backs (Alonso and Moses), who have to be incredibly fit to shuttle up and down the touchline, fulfilling both their attacking and defensive duties. At a grassroots youth level, I feel it is unlikely you would have players with this level of fitness, speed and tactical nous available to you. Hence, my wing backs are limited to defensive/midfield responsibilities.
The other major difference is that the midfield four are in a "box" shape. One of the key outcomes from this is that Hazard and the other attacking midfielder (either Pedro or Willian) are well-placed to combine with the abrasive striker, Costa, to create goal-scoring opportunites.

See the guidance at the top of this page to understand why you are not seeing interactive Football/Soccer images.
Key Factors
To develop the idea of the attacking roles in this new shape.
Organisation
Teams line up as follows:
- Red Midfield 4 plus 3 attackers. Red movement is restricted as per Screen 1 "Team Shape"
- Blue Back 4 plus two CM's. Blue Back 4 are restricted to Zone 3 and midfield to Zone 2
Blue keeper starts the practice by kicking a ball to Red 2,3 or 8 and Reds try to score in large goals.
If Blue win possession, they can score in mini-goals (positioned in the corners to focus the mind of the WB's)
Progressions
- can remove the condition limiting the Blue midfield and alow them to help out their defence.
Atacking Coaching Points
- 7 & 11 keep width touchline-to-touchline and make back-post runs to support the striker when ball is on opposite wing.
- 9 operates "in the channels" (i.e. between CB's and between FB & CB) and looks to run behind the Back 4
- With the No 10 arriving late, this gives us excellent width & depth

See the guidance at the top of this page to understand why you are not seeing interactive Football/Soccer images.
Organisation
3/4 length pitch divided into 3 zones as above.
Full width
Reds are playing 1-4-3 (i.e. missing two CB (4&6)
Blues are playing 4-4-0 (i.e. 4-4-2 less their strikers).
In theory in Zone 2, our midfield is matched up 4v4. In reality, we are challenging the Red No 10 to push on and support the attack in Zone 3.
This creates a counter-attack opportunity for the Blues so - even though we are primarily looking at Red attacking - we are emphasising the need for the WB's to remember their defensive responsibilities
Conditions
- no corners, only goal-kicks and throw-ins
- Offside is in play.
- Reds play in accordance with the movement restrictions set out in Screen 1
- Blues defenders are confined to Zone 3. Blue midfield are restricted to Zone 2 (i.e. they cannot help the defence in Zone 3) and can only enter Zone 1 when in possession.
- Consider removing all movement conditions
- will Reds retain their shape/discipline?
- will Blues put one (even 2?) strikers up against our solitary defender?
Atacking Coaching Points
- 7 & 11 keep width touchline to touchline and make back post runs to support the striker when ball is on opposite wing.
- 9 operates "in the channels" (i.e. between CB's and between FB & CB)
- late-arriving No 10 gives Reds good width & depth
- If movement restriction condition is removed, how do defenders react? Needs communication/organisation between 5,2,3 & 8. NB will need guidance/coaching
© Copyright 2022 Sport Session Planner Ltd.
Developed with Partnership Developers, a division of Kyosei Systems.
Animation Controls (PCs, Macs, Laptops):
Play animation
Play step-by-step
Repeat (toggle)
Full Screen
Pause
Stop
Back/Forward: Drag timeline button
Team shape (10 mins)
Background
I had been coaching this group of players for a number of years and we had typically played conventional 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 formations.
However, at Under-18 these formations were not working with the players I had. After a team discussion, we considered other options. Many teams we faced played with 5 in midfield (either 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1 or - rarely - 3-5-2). I felt using a solitary striker often left that player isolated and the only solution was to make the drastic (for me!) step of playing 3 at the back.
Having made this decision, the original plan was to play 3-5-2 but sometimes luck plays a part in decision-making!!
We were playing one of the weaker teams in the league and decided to experiment with an attacking 3-4-3.
It was a revelation and proved to be a perfect fit for the players I had.
Organisation
The ultimate shape we settled upon does not correspond with current thinking e.g. Antonio Conte's Chelsea.
(NB See next page for my visualisation of Chelsea's 3-4-3)
In our shape in open play:
No's 4,5 & 6 operated in Zone 1 and up as far as the halfway line.
No 8 acted as a screen and operated in Zones 1 & 2
The Wing-Backs offered width but only operated in Zones 1 & 2
No 10 was an old-fashioned "box to box" player who covered all zones but mainly 2 & 3
Attacking width came from 7 & 11 who operated in zones 2 & 3 servicing a central striker and the late-arriving No 10.
If the wingers dropped into Zone 2, the WB's (2 & 3) could tuck in to defend.
Amazingly, this radical change of formation suited this team perfectly and led to a vast improvement in performance; a team that had lost 70% of its games in the first 4 months of the season lost only twice (less than 20%) in the second 3 months.