THREAD:
A Potential Tactical Problem if Manchester United Set-Up with a 3-4-1-2 (3-5-2) vs Norwich's 4-2-3-1: An Initial Problem that Creates a Wave
NOTE: Due to a 25-tweet limit I cannot really delve into the points in detail and have only covered a couple of issues.
A Potential Tactical Problem if Manchester United Set-Up with a 3-4-1-2 (3-5-2) vs Norwich's 4-2-3-1: An Initial Problem that Creates a Wave
NOTE: Due to a 25-tweet limit I cannot really delve into the points in detail and have only covered a couple of issues.
As a base Manchester United's 3-4-1-2 would line up against Norwich's 4-2-3-1 like this. In this situation, there is not much to mention as positions within formations – and the subsequent match-ups – do not stay the same in and out of position. 
If Manchester United are in possession then this is how it will look. Whoever the AM is (Lingard, Pereira or Mata) will slightly drift to the right with both CMs shifting slightly wider. Immediately, there is a problem.
If we remove the three CBs from the equation United are playing a 4+2 attack with the AM floating between both. This is a problem as Norwich will defend with a 5-man midfield to counter the four and United's problem stems from midfield – not upfront.
Secondly, any triangle patterns including United's full backs will generally have to include their CFs. Now, this causes a problem as Pereira, Lingard and Mata are not goal-orientated enough to know that they must fill in for any striker who moves wider to join a triangle.
The AM should always maintain the 2-up-front set-up. Otherwise, it becomes a 1-man attack vs a 4-man defence. However, if the AM is intelligent and offensive-minded enough to replace whichever CF joins a width-led triangle then the following benefit arises:
From this angle it may not seem clear, however, remember what was said regarding formations: they do not stay the same in and out of possession. This is because players’ movement dictate new shapes and dynamics. Now, if a CF joins a triangle this will occur:
Here, I have not squeezed Norwich (what would generally occur) only because it makes the diagram unorganised. Nevertheless, the point is that the CF drags the CB with him, leaving space in behind for the AM to attack. Realistically, the next tweet is what it would look like:
Notice that United's triangle is negotiating with a 3-man defence between the LB, CB and LW. As a result, Norwich's CM and AM are able to make it a 5-man defence unless United's AM makes himself useful. How does he do this? He attacks the space as the next tweet will show.
Here, the AM has three direct lines. He can either move wider and open up an opportunity for a pass by the RWB/CF (rarely the CM) from the triangle or he can move centrally and hope that one of the three are able to play it over the top. The second has more reward but is riskier.
If he does choose the safer option and move wider this is the result. He will automatically drag the CM with him whilst both CBs will begin their retreat into the box. However, do you notice the next problem? Norwich will have a CB, CM, RB and RM who will all reach the box.
United's LWB will be too wide and their second CM will be too deep. Thus, the sole responsibility rests of the other CF not involved in the triangle to make a run into the box and be found. Martial > Rashford in this regard but will either be found by Lingard, Pereira or Mata?
If Mata is the one in the situation he will have to hold up play and turn back onto his left foot which changes the dynamic by a large margin. This is a reason why Guardiola prefers De Bruyne on the right and D. Silva on the left. It allows for first-time plays forward.
If we argue that both United's CM and CF can make the box and that their LWB can do so, too, then it leaves us with this. Firstly, it will require the LWB to be Williams as only he has this attribute. Secondly, it will leave him free but would require a great back-post cross.
In all cases there are clear negatives which stem from United's use of a 3-man defence. Is this a general problem? No. Rather, teams with competent attackers do not struggle in a 3-4-1-2, however, United are not good enough via the likes of McTominay, Fred, Lingard and co.
What about if United play a 3-4-3 instead of a 3-4-1-2?
Generally, a 3-4-3 matches up well to a 4-2-3-1 as long as the team's CM are competent in keeping the ball. This season, neither McTominay or Fred rank highly on ball retention though both do fall under the “good” range.
Generally, a 3-4-3 matches up well to a 4-2-3-1 as long as the team's CM are competent in keeping the ball. This season, neither McTominay or Fred rank highly on ball retention though both do fall under the “good” range.
Nevertheless, a competent 3-4-3 results in this. Two CMs with high ball retention allow for the LCB/RCB to move wider. This allows the LWB/RWB to move forward which allows the LW/RW to move inward. Now, we have three main dynamics:
1) United have squares instead of triangles: CB+CM+LWB+LW/CB+CM+RWB+RW
2) United have flexible wingers who can float around their base area, moving closer to the CF or further away from them
3) Due to the wingers move inward the CMs tend to have more space on the ball
2) United have flexible wingers who can float around their base area, moving closer to the CF or further away from them
3) Due to the wingers move inward the CMs tend to have more space on the ball
All three dynamics are caused by competent midfielders. However, United do not fully possess this nor do they possess competent wingers who can benefit from the advantages caused by competent midfielders. Despite this, the structural benefits with better players is immense.
In every phase, United would have an extra player. This is due to the initial square that is built down either side and then the extra winger who would join the CF if there was a cross from the other side. Likewise, the wing back could join, too, which adds a third.
Norwich are the worst team in the Premier League defensively. This becomes clear when they are attacked by any semi-decent attack which United do have individually. There is enough in United to cause them problems.
Solskjær, who has opted for a 3-man defence in his last two games, would benefit much more from a 3-4-3 than a 3-4-1-2 as the 3-4-1-2 with possession gives spacial and on-ball responsibility to the AM and United do not possess a player who is good enough in that position.
As a result, any 3-man defence should be accompanied by a 4-3 with trust that McTominay and Fred's ball retention will be high enough to produce the natural advantages of a 3-4-3 against a 4-2-3-1. Alternatively, Solskjær can match up equally with a 4-2-3-1, relying on quality.
Conclusion:
Regardless of the set-up he choses it seems as if any formation adds both positive and negative aspects to United's play. This is a result of a lack of inherent quality coupled with a lack of coaching; the players are not good enough nor displaying signs of coaching.
Regardless of the set-up he choses it seems as if any formation adds both positive and negative aspects to United's play. This is a result of a lack of inherent quality coupled with a lack of coaching; the players are not good enough nor displaying signs of coaching.
End of Thread.
