THREE AT THE BACK

Even though most football managers say it is the team and the players - and not the tactics - which dictate levels of success, most fans have long been fascinated or even obsessed by formations. My early football-watching 'skills.' such as they are, were honed on old-fashioned WM structures, essentially 3-2-2-3 which, by the early 1960s (and after the Hungary debacle, of course) had gradually morphed into 4-2-4, or 4-4-2, and then 4-3-3.
Mind you, no-one cared much about formations in those days, anyway, for it was not until the invention of TV pundits that the public at large began to take much notice of this aspect of the game.
Inevitably, this latter (4-3-3) formation echoed England's success in the World Cup in 1966, but as many clubs at the time still had players immersed in the old ways (ie, wingers and inside-forwards with an in-bred reluctance to track back or even labour for a full 90 minutes) it did not work for all. Thus Mr Ramsey's 4-3-3 was not actually a glimpse of the Promised Land, but yet another transitional stage.
Nevertheless, it has been interesting of late to see several Premiership sides, which last season included Liverpool, Hull and even Manchester United, flirting with three at the back - with varying degrees of success.
It was not a new manoeuvre, for I can recall a European Cup Final back in the 1960s in which one of the sides (Italian, I think) played 3-3-4. It caused a lot of sniggering in the admittedly insular Pressbox at the old Wembley, while the match itself was largely written off as a pedestrian spectacle,
as one of those Continental 'chess' contests, all passing and little passion. I dare say it was our mistake.
One of the problems of three at the back is making it work. British players are not used to it, or brought up with it, and what the devil do you do about the full-backs? Or wing-backs, as they are called. Previous forays with three at the back often failed because the opposition twigged early on that if they pushed up on the wing-backs, forcing them into a defensive frame of mind, they were also denying the opposing side width. So the idea, occasionally tried and tested, was mostly found wanting.
It is a different matter altogether, however, if you can make it work. And in this context I have to say that Liverpool looked very comfortable with it the last time I saw them on TV experimenting with the system, having (a) found themselves some players who could actually deal with the defensive situation, and (b) using attackers in the wing-back positions.
It has been a long journey to get there, however, but it does, if successful, allow sides to make use of the extra man further upfield. So we may soon be seeing more formations like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2, depending on the blend and the whim of the manager.
On the other hand, and as many managers point out, it's not the formation, it's the players that matter most. Still, I have to say that experiments with three at the back do also follow the modern trend of adding more and more players to mid-field. Perhaps formation buffs will find that 2-6-2 or even 2-7-1 are not so very far away, after all.