Jonathan Wilson
Jonathan Wilson's Articles (Bot)
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
This last year has seen a change of mentality. Inter's success has demonstrated that reactive football can be effective
When 3-5-2 began as a tactic in the 80s, pioneered variously by Carlos Bilardo with Argentina, Sepp Piontek with Denmark and Ciro Blazevic with Dinamo Zagreb, it was essentially an attacking tool. Fielding three centre-backs seemed to have become outmoded with the emergence of lone striker systems, but the system has evolved and re-emerged, only this time it has a distinctly defensive aspect. Against Manchester United at Old Trafford, Rangers used the formation so successfully they conceded just 12 attempts, only three of which were on target. A similar defensive wall will face United at Ibrox on Wednesday.
The theory
Three at the back was a response to the retreat of the winger. With fewer and fewer wide forwards playing high up the pitch, there was a decreasing need for defensive full-backs, and wing-backs could be used to engage the opposing wide midfielder higher up the pitch. Ideally the wing-back covered the opposing wide midfielder and full-back, leaving a side playing 3-5-2 against 4-4-2 with three against two at the back and three against two in midfield. That meant teams playing 3-5-2 were rarely caught on the counter, that they tended to dominate in central areas, and that it was easier for players to break the lines – a defender stepping forward into midfield, or an attacking midfielder moving up to link with the forwards. In South America and south-eastern Europe, where 3-4-1-2 became the preferred form, three at the back extended the life of a traditional playmaker, offering both a stable midfield platform and attacking width.
But as 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 became more common, three at the back became more difficult to play effectively. Rather than having two markers at the back plus a spare man, sides playing 3-5-2 had a marker, a spare man, and another spare man, who was largely redundant. In addition, with the opponents playing wide forwards, the wing-backs had more defensive responsibility and so had to play deeper, offering less in the way of attacking width. In midfield, meanwhile, the numbers were matched three on three, while the full-backs of the side playing 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 were left free, either to provide defensive support or to rampage into midfield or down the flank. And so 3-5-2 largely disappeared.
This last year has seen a change of mentality. The last decade has, with one or two exceptions, largely been one of proactive, attacking football – thanks at least in part to the abolition of the back-pass, the liberalisation of the offside law and the increasing intolerance of heavy tackles. The success of Internazionale in the Champions League, though, demonstrated that reactive football can be effective despite the rule changes, and their performance against Barcelona in Camp Nou must have given hope to countless managers of lesser teams: here was proof that if organised well enough and sufficiently disciplined a team could hold out against technically superior opposition.
If a team has no other aim than to hold out, then three central defenders has a purpose again, even against a side fielding a lone central striker. The extra spare man becomes not a redundant figure, but useful extra cover. That was apparent for a number of teams at the World Cup. Uruguay, for instance, played three at the back against France in their opening game, and were intent broadly on frustrating a side whose implosion wasn't yet evident. North Korea attempted much the same against Brazil. Algeria did it against England.
Rangers' interpretation
Arguably the key part of that Algeria set-up was Madjid Bougherra, and he has been a major figure in Rangers' impressive form in the Champions League. Defeat away to Valencia makes it far harder for them to qualify for the last 16, but given pre-tournament expectations, it's to their great credit that they are in with a chance and should, at worst, finish third in the group and so qualify for the Europa League. Realistically, they need to beat Manchester United, which would not only keep them in touching distance of Valencia – who face Bursaspor – but would ensure United had to take their final game, at home to Valencia, seriously.
Rangers' success has been rooted in a back five which, while not as negative as, say, Algeria's, has certainly been set up primarily to contain. At its centre is the experienced and commanding David Weir, his lack of pace covered by weight of numbers around him. He has been flanked by Sasa Papac and Bougherra, although Bougherra is definitely out with a hamstring injury, while Papac hasn't played since suffering a head injury against Hibs. Lee McCulloch has played deep in midfield – so deep at Old Trafford, in fact, that his heat map barely differed from that of Weir.
In three of the four games, Kirk Broadfoot has played at left-back, and he is a far more attacking force than Steven Whittaker on the other flank, linking up with Steve Naismith. If Nani plays on the United right, that battle could be key, although it's notable that most of Valencia's best play in their 3-0 win over Rangers came less through Joaquin, who hugged the right touchline, than through Ever Banega, the left of the two central midfielders, and Juan Mata, who played tucked in on the left in a 4-4-2.
The dilemma
Rangers have a dilemma against United, because they do really need to win the game; keeping it tight will not be enough, and this time they face an opponent for whom a draw would be a perfectly acceptable result that would not only ensure qualification but would leave them needing only a draw from their final match to top the group. Making things more complicated is the fact that Maurice Edu, who usually provides the link to Kenny Miller, the lone striker, has not played since the Hibs game with a knee injury.
It has been the line of Steven Davis, Edu and Naismith that has determined Rangers' balance in Europe. Against United, all three sat deep. At home to Bursaspor, Davis and Edu played almost in a line with McCulloch with Naismith in an advanced left-central role. At home to Valencia, when McCulloch was unavailable, Naismith switched to the right and Rangers operated with a flat midfield four of him, Davis, Edu and Vladimir Weiss, while away in Valencia it was back to the 5-1-3-1 shape employed against United, but with the line of three more advanced than they had been at Old Trafford.
United, for their part, can afford to be patient. Certainly there's no point playing aerial balls towards a crowded box, given Rangers' strength in that area, and their best ploy is probably simply to be patient. After all, Rangers need to score at some point, so if United keep the ball, Rangers will at some point have to come chasing it, and that means space will appear even in a packed defence. And that, of course, is the weakness of the five-man back line; it is not a flexible formation, but is designed almost entirely for defence.
Jonathan Wilson
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More...