Chelsea: Why three at the back works until it really doesn’t

Chelsea has found success with a back three this season, but it is at most a trump card for Frank Lampard to draw on, not a main formation.

The incredible Grant James noticed a trend that came attached to Frank Lampard’s 3-4-3: the Blues struggle when they use it back to back. Chelsea will switch to a back three, get a result, and then stick to the formation for another game in which they struggle/draw/lose. Back to the 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 after that.

The same story happened this week. Chelsea defeated Manchester United handedly in a back three. They kept it in place for Liverpool, in part due to N’Golo Kante’s lingering injury forcing the issue. It did not work as Liverpool blasted Chelsea away. Even with the Blues clawing back into the match, Liverpool merely had to flex their muscle again to pull away.

So why does the 3-4-3 work for Chelsea in one match and then flop in the next? What is going on tactically to cause this?

First of all, what are the benefits of a 3-4-3? Mainly is its ability to create overloads in every single spot of the pitch if the players do what they need to do. Offensively, the two wing backs can push up to join the forwards and create a five man line that outnumbers most four at the back formations. Defensively, it can collapse into a five man line that can outnumber a three man forward line’s attack as well as a dual striker formation supported by wingers. In possession, four players can connect to play down the flanks which is more than most teams can handle. If they commit, it leaves an underload on the far side for a switch of play.

But perhaps most importantly is that it removes the play making burden from anyone player and spreads it throughout the team. The midfield two needs to be more conservative than in a three man midfield, but the wide diamonds comprising of a center back, a wing back, a center mid, and a wide forward can compensate with their movement on and off the ball.

The strengths of a 3-4-3 can also become its weaknesses. Because there is so much movement involved to facilitate the shape’s overloads, any one player unable to keep up or marked out causes the entire thing to collapse. Furthermore, it can be done in a free flowing way (see Frank Lampard’s 3-4-3 compared to Antonio Conte’s), but it still requires some consistent movements for players to understand. Consistent movements become telegraphed movements to the right opponent.

Which brings up the conclusion that making the formation effective comes down to planning time. This was often used as a criticism to downplay Conte’s title win, but it also has some truth to it. With the formation being so particular, the more planning time available, the easier it is to make work. The movements can be adapted to the opponent each match.

Over the course of the season, Lampard has had that planning time for some matches but not others. But mainly it seems as though it is planned out for one opponent and kept for the next without a new plan. In addition, it seems the players are rarely able to do the movements perfectly two games in a row, which as already mentioned causes the whole shape to collapse. It is very much a team formation which can bring the best out of players, but it can also backfire if the proper work is not put in by the very same players.

Lampard has mainly been a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 guy throughout his career with sprinklings of 4-diamond-2 and 3-4-3. The signings, both confirmed and rumored, for next season all indicate that Lampard is aiming towards his usual formation. 3-4-3 can remain a trump card to pull out against particular opponents like Manchester United or Tottenham, but it cannot be the main plan without building the team for it specifically.