🔗 Share this article

Some matches seem out of place. Maybe it’s just about conceivable that, had things gone slightly otherwise in the 1970s, Terry Venables or another manager leading their side beyond the Iron Curtain for a shot against Valeriy Lobanovskyi’s cybernauts, but a match between Dynamo Kyiv and Crystal Palace remains a fixture that provokes a double-take. It feels like a mismatch: how is it possible that those teams even be in the identical competition?

But this is the contemporary era. Ukraine is fighting invasion, its teams diminished. The English top flight is incredibly wealthy. And Crystal Palace are coached by among the emerging stars of the continental game. They didn’t just play each other on Thursday, but Palace triumphed with a degree of comfort. It was their third straight victory, their 19th straight match without loss.

Managerial Speculation and Next Steps

Therefore, because no mid-size club can simply be permitted to enjoy a good run, all the discussion is of where the Austrian manager might go next. His deal ends at the end of the campaign and he has refused to agree to an extension. He is fifty-one; if he is going to take over a top team with the chance of an extended spell in charge, he lacks a huge amount of opportunity to make a move. Might he then be the answer for the Red Devils? He does, ultimately, play the identical 3-4-2-1 as Ruben Amorim, just significantly more effectively.

Tactical Formation and Cultural Background

Which raises the issue of why a system that has attracted so much scepticism at United functions so effectively at Selhurst Park. But it’s never only about the setup, nor is it the situation – generally speaking – that a specific system is intrinsically better than another. Rather specific tactical shapes, in combination with the style they are enacted, emphasize particular aspects of the game. It is, at the very least, fascinating that since Harry Catterick’s Everton claimed the title in the 1962-63 season with a W-M, only one side has secured the English league title playing with a back three: Antonio Conte’s Chelsea in the 2016-17 season.

Antonio Conte’s Chelsea won the championship in 2016-17 with a back three and in practice two No 10s.

That success was something of a rare event. Chelsea that season had no continental commitments, allowing them fresher than their competitors, and they had squad members who suited the system virtually remarkably well.

N’Golo Kanté, with his endurance and reading of the play, is almost two players, and he was functioning at the base of midfield together with the calming presence of Cesc Fàbregas and Cesc Fàbregas, one of the most penetrating passers the Premier League has seen. That provided the foundation for the two No 10s: the Belgian wizard, who revelled in his unrestricted position, and the Spanish forward, a master of the dart into the penalty area. Every one of those individuals was improved by their combination with the others.

Systemic Reasons and Tactical Challenges

To an extent, the comparative absence of titles for the three-man defense, at minimum in terms of winning championships, is systemic. Not many teams have secured the title playing a 3-4-2-1 because few clubs have adopted a three-at-the-back system. The World Cup victory in 1966 cemented in the English football consciousness the effectiveness of defensive organization with a four defenders.

This stayed the default, almost without question, for the twenty years that followed. But there could additionally be particular strategic explanations. A back three derives its breadth from the wingbacks; it may be that the extreme hard-running style of the English game makes the demand on those players excessive to be maintained regularly.

But the system presents specific challenges. It is stable, offering the trapezoid defensive shape – three center-backs protected by two holders – that is commonly acknowledged as the most effective way to defend against opposition fast breaks. But that is just a single phase of the match. If they advance forward from the protection of the three defenders, given the prevalence of setups with a midfield triangle, a pair of central midfielders will often be outnumbered without support from elsewhere – except if a single player has the outstanding gifts of the French dynamo.

The striker rejoices after scoring his side’s additional strike versus Dynamo Kyiv.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the System

The inherent solidity of that compact 3-2 block, meanwhile, although an benefit for a side aiming to withstand pressure, turns into a potential disadvantage for a team that seek to take the game to the opposition. Its biggest asset is also its primary weakness. The blockish structure of the system, the way the center is divided into defensive players and creators – all No 6s and No 10s in current parlance, with zero box-to-box midfielders – means that without a individual to step across lines there is a risk of being read easily; again, Chelsea had the perfect man to do that, David Luiz frequently advancing forward from the defense to become an extra midfield presence.

Contrasting Approaches at Palace and Old Trafford

Palace aren’t concerned about possession. They have the second-lowest ball control of any teams in the Premier League. It’s not their role to have the ball. And that’s the primary reason why a direct contrast with United’s struggles is challenging. The Red Devils, by history and by demand, can not be the team with the second-lowest possession in the league.

Although they chose to counterattack against opposing top sides, most of their matches will be against rivals who defend deeply and would be content enough with a draw. In the bulk of fixtures there is an pressure on them to dominate the play.

Perhaps a progressive side could play a 3-4-2-1 but it demands very particular players – as the Italian coach had at Chelsea. The Austrian’s achievement with it has arrived at Wolfsburg and Eintracht Frankfurt, where he has been able to have his side sit deep and attack at pace.

They have beaten West Ham and West Ham, because most teams do at the moment, held the Blues, and ripped Liverpool apart on the counter. But they’ve additionally drawn at home to Sunderland and Sunderland, and found it hard to beat Fredrikstad. Sit deep against Palace and they struggle for creativity.

Adaptation and Prospective Possibilities

Could Glasner adjust if he moved