🔗 Share this article

Some matches just don’t sound right. Maybe it’s just about conceivable that, if events had unfolded slightly differently in the 1970s, Terry Venables or another manager leading their team beyond the Iron Curtain for a shot against the legendary cybernauts, but a match between Dynamo Kyiv and Crystal Palace remains a fixture that elicits a double-take. It seems like a mismatch: how is it possible that those teams possibly be in the identical tournament?

But this is the modern world. The nation is fighting conflict, its teams diminished. The Premier League is incredibly wealthy. And the Eagles are coached by among the rising stars of the European football. They not only face off on the matchday, but they triumphed with a notable ease. It was their third straight win, their 19th straight match without loss.

Coaching Rumors and Future Moves

And so, because no team of their stature can even just be permitted to savor a good run, all the discussion is of where Oliver Glasner might go next. His deal ends at the conclusion of the campaign and he has declined to agree to an extension. He is 51; if he is planning to lead a major team with the chance of an extended tenure in command, he lacks a great deal of opportunity to secure a move. Could he then be the solution for the Red Devils? He indeed, after all, utilize the same formation as Ruben Amorim, just rather more effectively.

Strategic Formation and Cultural Background

Which brings up the issue of why a approach that has attracted so much doubt at Old Trafford works so well at Selhurst Park. But it’s not only about the formation, nor is it the situation – within reason – that one formation is intrinsically better than another. Rather specific formations, in conjunction with the style they are implemented, emphasize certain aspects of play. It is, at the very least, fascinating that since the manager’s Everton claimed the title in 1962-63 with a W-M formation, just a single team has won the English league title playing with a back three: Antonio Conte’s Blues in the 2016-17 season.

Antonio Conte’s team won the championship in 2016-17 with a back three and effectively two attacking midfielders.

That success was a bit of a rare occurrence. The London club that campaign had no European football, keeping them more rested than their rivals, and they had squad members who fit the system almost remarkably well.

The French midfielder, with his stamina and reading of the play, is almost a duo in one, and he was functioning at the base of midfield alongside either calming influence of Cesc Fàbregas or Cesc Fàbregas, among the most penetrating playmakers the Premier League has seen. That provided the platform for the two No 10s: the Belgian wizard, who thrived in his unrestricted role, and Pedro, a expert of the dart into the penalty area. Every one of those players was enhanced by their combination with the teammates.

Cultural Reasons and Tactical Challenges

To an extent, the comparative absence of success for the three-man defense, at least in terms of claiming championships, is cultural. Few sides have won the title using a 3-4-2-1 because few clubs have adopted a back three. The global tournament win in the 1960s cemented in the national mindset the effectiveness of defensive organization with a four defenders.

This remained the default, nearly without question, for the two decades that followed. But there may additionally be particular tactical reasons. A back three derives its breadth from the wide players; it may be that the intense high-energy style of the English game makes the demand on those players too great to be undertaken regularly.

However the 3-4-2-1 presents specific difficulties. It is solid, offering the trapezoid defensive shape – three central defenders protected by two holders – that is commonly recognised as the most efficient way to guard against rival counterattacks. But that is just a single aspect of the match. If they advance forward from the cover of the triple centre‑backs, considering the common use of setups with a midfield triangle, two central midfielders will tend to be outnumbered without backup from other areas – except if a single player has the outstanding gifts of the French dynamo.

Eddie Nketiah celebrates after scoring his side’s additional goal against Dynamo Kyiv.

Strengths and Limitations of the Approach

The inherent solidity of that tight 3-2 block, meanwhile, although an advantage for a side aiming to withstand pressure, turns into a possible drawback for a team that aim to take the game to the opposition. Its greatest asset is also its greatest flaw. The rigid structure of the formation, the way the midfield is divided into defensive players and creators – all No 6s and attacking mids in current terminology, with zero box-to-box midfielders – means that without a individual to step across lines there is a risk of predictability; again, the Blues had the ideal man to do that, David Luiz frequently advancing forward from the back three to become an extra midfield presence.

Divergent Approaches at Palace and United

Crystal Palace don’t care about possession. They have the second-least ball control of any side in the top division. It’s not at all their job to have the possession. And that’s the primary reason why a direct contrast with Manchester United’s struggles is difficult. United, by history and by demand, cannot be the team with the second-lowest ball retention in the Premier League.

Even if United opted to play on the break against other elite sides, most of their matches will be against opponents who sit deep and would be happy enough with a draw. In the bulk of fixtures there is an onus on them to dominate the play.

Maybe a attacking-minded side can adopt a three-at-the-back system but it demands extremely specific personnel – as the Italian coach had at Stamford Bridge. Glasner’s success with it has arrived at Wolfsburg and the German clubs, where he has been in a position to have his side defend compactly and break at pace.

Palace have defeated Aston Villa and Aston Villa, because the majority of sides do at the present, frustrated Chelsea, and torn the Reds apart on the break. But they’ve also drawn at Selhurst Park to Sunderland and Sunderland, and found it hard to overcome the Norwegian side. Sit deep against Palace and they have difficulty for creativity.

Adjustment and Future Possibilities

Would the manager adapt were he to go