🔗 Share this article

Some encounters just don’t sound right. Maybe it’s almost conceivable that, had things gone slightly differently in the 1970s, Malcolm Allison or another manager coaching their team beyond the Iron Curtain for a shot against the legendary tactical masterminds, but a match between Dynamo Kyiv and Crystal Palace remains a fixture that provokes a double-take. It feels like a mismatch: how can those two clubs even be in the identical tournament?

However this is the modern era. Ukraine is battling invasion, its teams diminished. The Premier League is extremely wealthy. And the Eagles are managed by among the emerging stars of the European football. They not only play each other on the matchday, but they won with a degree of ease. It was their third consecutive victory, their 19th straight match without defeat.

Managerial Rumors and Next Steps

And so, because no mid-size club can even just be allowed to enjoy a good run, all the discussion is of where Oliver Glasner might move to. His deal ends at the conclusion of the season and he has declined to agree to an renewal. He is 51; if he is going to take over a top team with the possibility of an extended tenure in command, he doesn’t have a great deal of time to make a transition. Could he then be the solution for Manchester United? He does, ultimately, play the identical formation as the Sporting coach, just rather more successfully.

Strategic System and Cultural Context

Which raises the question of the reason a approach that has drawn so much doubt at Old Trafford works so well at Palace. But it’s never only about the setup, nor is it the situation – generally speaking – that a specific system is inherently better than a different one. Instead specific tactical shapes, in combination with the style they are enacted, prioritise certain aspects of the game. It is, at the very least, intriguing that since Harry Catterick’s Toffees won the title in 1962-63 with a W-M formation, just a single team has secured the English league title playing with a back three: Antonio Conte’s Blues in 2016-17.

Antonio Conte’s team won the title in 2016-17 with a three defenders and in practice two No 10s.

That success was something of a black swan occurrence. The London club that season had no continental commitments, allowing them more rested than their rivals, and they had squad members who fit the system virtually freakishly perfectly.

N’Golo Kanté, with his endurance and reading of the play, is almost a duo in one, and he was operating at the back of midfield together with either calming presence of Cesc Fàbregas or Cesc Fàbregas, among the most penetrating playmakers the division has seen. That offered the foundation for the dual playmakers: Eden Hazard, who thrived in his free role, and the Spanish forward, a master of the dart into the penalty area. Every one of those players was enhanced by their combination with the teammates.

Cultural Reasons and Strategic Difficulties

To an extent, the relative lack of success for the three-man defense, at least in terms of claiming titles, is systemic. Few sides have won the title playing a 3-4-2-1 because not many clubs have played a three-at-the-back system. The global tournament win in 1966 cemented in the English football consciousness the efficacy of defensive organization with a four defenders.

That remained the standard, nearly without question, for the two decades that followed. But there may additionally be particular strategic reasons. A back three derives its width from the wingbacks; it may be that the intense high-energy nature of the English football makes the requirement on those individuals excessive to be maintained consistently.

However the 3-4-2-1 presents particular challenges. It is solid, providing the trapezoid defensive shape – three center-backs protected by two holders – that is widely recognised as the most efficient way to guard against opposition fast breaks. But that is just a single phase of the game. If they push too far from the cover of the triple defenders, given the common use of setups with a midfield triangle, a pair of midfield players will often be outmanned without support from other areas – unless one of them has the outstanding abilities of the French dynamo.

Eddie Nketiah rejoices after netting his side’s additional strike versus the Ukrainian side.

Strengths and Limitations of the System

The inherent solidity of that tight defensive block, meanwhile, although an advantage for a team aiming to withstand pressure, becomes a potential drawback for a team that aim to take the game to the rival. Its biggest asset is simultaneously its primary flaw. The rigid structure of the formation, the way the midfield is split into holders and creators – all defensive mids and attacking mids in current parlance, with zero No 8s – means that without a individual to move across bands there is a danger of predictability; once more, Chelsea had the ideal player to fill that role, David Luiz frequently striding forward from the back three to become an extra midfield presence.

Contrasting Approaches at Palace and Old Trafford

Palace don’t care about that. They have the second-lowest ball control of all teams in the top division. It’s not at all their job to have the possession. And that is the primary reason why a direct comparison with United’s difficulties is challenging. The Red Devils, by history and by expectation, cannot be the side with the second-worst ball retention in the Premier League.

Even if they chose to play on the break against opposing elite clubs, the majority of their matches will be against opponents who sit deep and could be happy enough with a draw. In the bulk of games there is an pressure on them to control the play.

Perhaps a progressive team can play a 3-4-2-1 but it demands very particular players – as the Italian coach had at Stamford Bridge. The Austrian’s success with it has arrived at Lask and the German clubs, where he has been in a position to have his team sit deep and break at speed.

They have beaten Aston Villa and West Ham, because the majority of teams do at the present, frustrated the Blues, and torn Liverpool apart on the break. But they’ve additionally drawn at home to Nottingham Forest and Sunderland, and found it hard to overcome the Norwegian side. Sit deep against Palace and they struggle for creativity.

Adaptation and Future Possibilities

Could the manager adapt if he moved