%20rotate(-8.06)%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cpolygon%20class%3D%22cls-1%22%20points%3D%22336.19%20136.81%20330.16%2094.25%20326.06%2071.19%20326.44%2071.13%20335.22%2093.54%20352.29%20134.52%20373.95%20131.46%20362.7%2052.01%20350.02%2053.8%20356.05%2096.36%20360.15%20119.42%20359.77%20119.48%20350.99%2097.08%20333.91%2056.09%20312.25%2059.15%20323.51%20138.6%20336.19%20136.81%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cpolygon%20class%3D%22cls-1%22%20points%3D%22402.91%2059.3%20412.36%20126.02%20427.17%20123.92%20417.72%2057.21%20431.59%2055.24%20429.79%2042.51%20387.23%2048.53%20389.04%2061.27%20402.91%2059.3%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cpolygon%20class%3D%22cls-1%22%20points%3D%22463.51%20118.77%20458.69%2084.71%20474.68%2082.44%20479.51%20116.5%20494.36%20114.4%20483.11%2034.95%20468.26%2037.06%20472.96%2070.25%20456.96%2072.52%20452.26%2039.32%20437.4%2041.43%20448.65%20120.88%20463.51%20118.77%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cpolygon%20class%3D%22cls-1%22%20points%3D%22540.5%20107.87%20538.77%2095.68%20518.91%2098.49%20515.77%2076.29%20535.63%2073.47%20533.93%2061.5%20514.07%2064.32%20511.11%2043.42%20530.98%2040.61%20529.25%2028.42%20494.53%2033.34%20505.78%20112.78%20540.5%20107.87%22%2F%3E%0A%20%20%3Cpolygon%20class%3D%22cls-1%22%20points%3D%22299.03%20155.17%20301.29%20171.58%20542.78%20138.39%20540.5%20121.97%20299.03%20155.17%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E)
Arsenal: So which system is better, back-three or back four?
Arsenal have played with both back-three-based systems and back-four-based systems this season. But which one is better served for the team moving forward?
In Wednesday night’s 2-1 win over Chelsea in the second leg of the Carabao Cup semi-final, Arsene Wenger employed two different systems, recognising the vulnerabilities of the first-half set-up, altering the formation implemented at halftime. It was a decision that very much changed the game in Arsenal’s favour.
Catch the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal podcast here
Wenger initially set up in a 4-3-3 formation, with Mohamed Elneny flanked by Granit Xhaka and Jack Wilshere in midfield, the same trifecta that started to such great effect against Crystal Palace at the weekend. But Chelsea, with an extremely mobile front-three, were able to seek out the spaces in between the Arsenal midfield and defence, with Elneny overrun in central areas thanks to the drifting movements of Pedro, Willian and Eden Hazard.
So, at halftime, the decision was made to shift Elneny a little deeper, splitting Laurent Koscielny and Shkodran Mustafi, and match Chelsea up man-to-man. It worked. The greater defensive security that came from tighter, more disciplined spaces between each individual player was invaluable to stenting Chelsea’s free-flowing style, while it freed up Alex Iwobi and Mesut Ozil to abandon their dutiful tracking of the two wing-backs and press onto the wide Chelsea centre-halves in the back-three.
And this season, we have seen Arsenal enjoy success and suffer tribulations in both systems. Many times Wenger has turned away from the back-three to introduce another attacking player when searching for a late goal; and, vice-versa: he has recognised the need for the greater stability that the back-three provides against certain opposition. So which system is the better for this current squad, and which one should be employed more often during the latter months of the season?
Well, it depends. Personally, I like the back-three-based formation for two key reasons.
More from Pain in the Arsenal
- 3 standout players from 1-0 victory over Everton
- 3 positives & negatives from Goodison Park victory
- Arsenal vs PSV preview: Prediction, team news & lineups
- 3 talking points from Arsenal’s victory at Goodison Park
- Mikel Arteta provides Gabriel Martinelli injury update after Everton win
The first is the obvious defensive improvements that it instils. Specifically, when playing in a back-four, Arsenal’s full-backs often play more like wing-backs anyway, relentlessly bombing forwards, providing the attacking width high up the pitch. So against the counter-attack, it is not surprising to see a scrambled defensive effort between just two centre-halves and perhaps one, overmatched holding midfielder. The presence of a third centre-half makes a huge difference in this scenario.
The second reason is the freedom that it provides the two wide players either side of the central striker. Because of the propinquity of the two wing-backs, who start in more advanced flanking areas of the pitch, there is little to no responsibility on either player to provide either attacking width or defensive cover. They are free to roam throughout the pitch. That is where players like Mesut Ozil, Alex Iwobi, and now Henrikh Mkhitaryan, flourish.
The primary vulnerability with the 3-4-3 system comes in central midfield. Ultimately, it is a question of numbers, and a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 will always have an extra midfielder in central areas. That provides a far greater control of the most important area of the pitch, can lead to extended periods of overwhelming command of the game. This is where, I believe, Wenger wants to revert to a back-four-based formation. He greatly treasures possession, and a 4-3-3-type shape allows his team to dominate it. That is why, for example, the system worked so well against Palace — Arsenal thoroughly controlled the game because of their dominance of the central midfield.
Next: Arsenal: 30 greatest players in history
It will be interesting to see how Wenger rotates between the two formations. They both have their vices and their virtues, and they should be used interchangeably depending on the tendencies of the opponent. Certainly, Arsenal will be the better for being able to implement and execute a variety of shapes and structures.