What’s in the box?
Using a box-structure in central area with a 3–2–2–3 formation (a.k.a. 3-box-3 or WM) has become common this season among the teams of top European leagues. Although we saw some uses of this formation in out-of-possession phase as well, it is rare, and it was recently used during high press only against teams using very narrow structures at the tip of their formation. Therefore, I will try to elaborate the use of formation mainly in-possession phase in this article.
The purest positional teams rejected using double pivot for a long time. It was assumed that using two holding midfielders within the same zone would be redundant and can be easily covered by single opponent player, that would force the team to play wide towards fullbacks, with whom you don’t want to progress the ball, because the players at the wide areas having smaller passing angles and less passing options. This could help opponents to trap the wide players and gain possession, or at least keep the ball further away from their goals.
“There is only one book for training and tactics: the regulations. The best tactical book there” — Juanma Lillo
However, of course, football evolves. The strongest perturbations are the new rules added to the game. It took a bit for us to understand the importance of high press and build-up after the back pass rule in 1992, but it really changed the game. And more recently, in 2019, the modification in the goal-kick rule further encouraged teams to build up from back and press high against teams building up from back. Teams started to need more players at the central zones during build-up.
We should also acknowledge that, in recent history, the taboo about double pivot was broken with De Zerbi’s build-ups. Two pivots could be effectively used at different heights in small areas to create central triangles, break opponent pressure lines, and progress the ball. Also, Guardiola’s use of inverted fullback showed there were different ways for full backs to contribute the game in possession. Last few seasons, we observed the major threat creation for top teams was through technical fullbacks, who were usually located at half space in possession. Using narrower bases in possession also helped teams to be more resilient in defensive transitions, by pushing opponents to wider zones after the loss of possession and gaining time to regroup.
While the base of the structures was evolving through narrower forms, the tip started to be wider. Nowadays, it is common in positional football to divide the football pitch into five vertical corridors, and it is considered that occupying all these corridors simultaneously offers advantages, especially against flat-4s, to stretch the opponent backline, to create pockets to exploit.
All these emerging ideas brought us today a new structural solution; 3–2–2–3 consisting of a narrow 3–2 base and a wide 2–3 tip. Let’s focus on different parts of the game to understand why this formation offers advantages.
Build-up
Usually, teams build up with 7 or 8 players in modern football, including the goalkeeper. Here, in the case of 3–2–2–3 structure, we see the attacking midfielders intentionally staying far away to open space at the back. Therefore, teams use five outfield players and a goalkeeper, total of six players for build-up. 3–2 base structure naturally generates triangles between the two lines. Using two holding midfielders at different heights and the center back little deeper creates more passing options.
During deep build-up, the goalkeeper joins to make a 4–2 to stretch opponent press. Goalkeeper’s role becomes more important as the team lacks one player in build-up. The goalkeeper should be proficient with his/her feet to offer continuity support in deep build-up and emergency support if the teammate cannot find passing options nearby. Kicking range and accuracy are also critical as man-oriented high press has looked like the only viable option to press high to this pressing structure until now. This means, there can be potential 1v1s for far players with a lot of space behind their defenders, so goalkeeper should be able to deliver the ball to the far players.
As the ball moves away from the goal, the structure turns into a 3–2. Wide center-backs approach to central center-back. One option for opponent to press is to use man-marking. This has its own advantages and disadvantages, that are quite obvious. In the recent years, the rise of high press was through more zonal approaches. In the heart of these zonal approaches is to use +1 player at the backline and -2 players in the opponent half. For example, if the team uses a 4–3–3 formation, builds-up with 4–1 base and leaves 3 players at the final line base, then the opponent presses with 6 players against 7 players of ball-holding team, leaves 4 players at the backline. When a team builds up 3–2 and keeps 5 players at opponent’s half, this forces opponent to go into an undiscovered territory. With the same logic, the opponent should press with 4 players, however, the pitch is usually too large to do all the tasks of high press with only 4 players. If the opponent prefers a more hybrid approach, then they use their holding midfielders to be intermediate pressers between ball-holding team’s holding and attacking midfielders, and this creates new problems for the high pressers.
Usually, a good place to trap the ball-holding team is the wider areas for the teams using zonal pressing. This is because; 1) the opposite full back of ball holding team becomes a useless far player who doesn’t attract any opponent so the opponent can get close to ball with more players while still preserving +1 at the backline. 2) The ball-holding player has smaller angle to pass in wider areas. However, in narrow 3–2, the ball-holding team doesn’t use the wide corridors at its base, so the pressing traps are more difficult to apply and may require more than two players.
My own opinion is that the most valid way for zonal approaches with -2 players is to use an even narrower shape to only allow passing options to the wingers, preferably from wide centerbacks, and still setting the pressing traps at wider areas, but this time on wingers instead of fullbacks. It would be surely riskier than setting traps to fullbacks as you allow the opponent to progress a bit further, passing one or two pressure lines, but it is also very hard for the winger to receive the ball with a good body orientation towards opponent’s goal, which creates a good scenario for pressing traps. Also, it is still safer than opening passing options for central progression. A good example of this extremely narrow high press was RB Leipzig’s attempt against Manchester City, and they lost 7–0 eventually (!), but they lost the game in different subphases. In fact, their press was quite effective between 25–35, when they believed they still had a chance to come back, and really put City in a difficult position.
Progression
It is a bit difficult and maybe not accurate to separate build-up from progression. They are quite intertwined, and the statics and dynamics of build-up strictly affects progression, but it is still important to point out a few things. As mentioned above, the far players during build up specifically offers height and width, which means once the opponent’s first pressure lines are broken, there are a lot of 1v1s and there is a lot of space to exploit. Therefore, this is the time to increase the tempo and move the ball forward. Normally, purely positional teams don’t like to cover long distances with high tempo. However, another taboo mainly destroyed by De Zerbi’s and Conte’s interpretation to positional play and applied in this structure, progression happens very quickly to settle in opponent’s third and/or create chances.
Creation
When the ball comes to final 3rd, there is clear advantage over flat 4-s. The ball holding team has 5 but opponent has 4 players at the final line. In a situation created from a quick progression, the team first tries exploiting this advantage.
However, if the opponent is settled at low block with a good plan, then things become a bit more complicated. The most viable opponent approach against 3–2–2–3 at low block is to mark ball-holding team’s attacking midfielders with two midfielders, use two centerbacks over opponent striker, which eventually can turn into a line of 6. This has created problems for 3–2–2–3, as other solid low-block ideas targeting not to give numerical advantage at/around zone 14 created against various structures of the teams heavily using the principles of positional play. This is still a part that is unsolved generally but using overlapping/underlapping wide centerbacks or roaming attacking midfielders could still help to overcome the problems most of the times.
Defensive transition
As discussed briefly at the introduction, a narrow 3–2 base provides strong rest defense for the team. It is not a big concern to use number 8s wider anymore because the team still has lots of bodies at the center of the pitch. This means if the possession is lost, let’s say, during progression, it is very hard for opponent to find inner channels for counter attacks. And moving the ball to wider areas to progress means more time for the team to regroup.
In addition, as the team using 3–2–2–3 structure in possession holds numerical advantage most of the times in possession, at the time of the possession loss, they probably continue holding the advantage. That offers a very suitable platform for counter-pressure and regain possession.
Conclusion
Football is evolving much faster than before. The knowledge is much more accessible, the ideas travel much faster. It is very hard to predict what the strongest structure or game model would be next year. However, 3–2–2–3 structure is certainly proven to be effective for teams using the principles of positional play. It will be interesting to see the chain reaction and the new ideas in out-of-possession phase.
