Chelsea: Do not get too stuck on Maurizo Sarri’s formations

Many are trying to determine the exact nature of Maurizio Sarri’s Chelsea formation. The truth is the man does not believe in them and it will be fluid.

Formations are tricky subjects for many managers. Some will throw out the patterns of numbers with regularity. Others refuse to speak of them. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Formations are simplifications of incredible complex tactics. They create a starting point for conversation and a basis of what role each player is playing. But, by the very nature of the game, they are fluid and constantly changing. What looks like a 4-3-3 one minute could be a 4-2-3-1 the next.

Maurizio Sarri is in the camp of not believing in formations. His history has shown that to be true. The only consistent parts of Sarri’s tactics have been a keeper, two center backs, and a forward. Everything else is fluid and constantly changing. So while there is a desire to put the Chelsea squad into a 4-3-3 shape that Sarri is “known” for, the reality will be much more complicated than that.

For example, the way a team builds from the back is usually one of the two clearest indications as to how the side is lined up. Sarri likes to have a midfielder drop into the back line as the center backs stretch out wide and the full backs advance. The formation will then look like a 3-4-3.

Related Story: Chelsea steadfastly refusing the easiest £55 million of the summer

Another way to determine a team’s formation is how they defend. If the initial press fails for Sarri’s side, the forward and the nearest player will stay up top. The remaining eight players will form two bands of four. The formation looks like a 4-4-2.

So why is it that Sarri’s sides are often described or shoehorned as a 4-3-3 and not 3-4-3 or 4-4-2? The clearest answer is that Sarri is not putting an XI together based on the formation, but merely the eleven that must complement one another and succeed in a tactical sense.

Sarri’s Napoli was heavily focused on attacking down the left side. Faouzi Ghoulam would overlap high as Lorenzo Insigne tucked in. As Marek Hamsik pushed up, he and Insigne would often interchange and draw players in. That left Ghoulam free to play a cross into the forwards or back to the now more open Insigne and Hamsik.

That would make a very lop sided 4-3-3 at best. More accurately, it would be something like a 3-2-3-2 (also known as a M-M from long, long ago).

Sarri’s formation will be less about the numbers on each line and more about the players involved and the rehearsed methods of attack and defense. The team will look fluid and interchanging, but in reality it will be incredibly rehearsed and organized. Nothing will happen that was not practiced.

Perhaps one of the reasons as to why Sarri started slowly at Napoli was because he was playing with which eleven complimented each other best. He did not aim to play “4-3-3”, that is merely how it panned out. Chelsea will likely undergo a similar process as Sarri looks for his best XI. That is also why rotation is an issue for him, but that is an entirely separate topic for now.

Next: Four ways Chelsea's midfield could line up in Maurizio Sarri's 4-3-3

So do not get too stuck in on trying to shape Chelsea into a formation or worrying about what player is still needed in the market. Sarri is not looking to fit the team into a 4-3-3. He is looking to fit the team into something that works well, whether that is 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 or 4-4-2 or 4-2-4.