The Advantages and Disadvantages of the 4-3-3 Formation being used by Hart..

[Controversial]

There have been many debates over the 4-3-3 formation and its pros and cons. Some believe Barca and Van Gaal have operated very well with this formation. It provides more width as you have more players in attack as compared to the opposition. The use of the full backs and their advancing play, playing more as wing backs, opening the opposition up with this wing play. Creating effective triangles that helps with the percentage of possession.

The cons are getting caught on the counter especially if your central mids are not adept in the short passing game and great in regards to possession of the football under pressure. Your only saving grace is a well executed off side trap. It requires players to be a lot more fit because the mids and forwards have a lot more running to do. They may also have to drop back and defend as well and advance in return. This formation places tremendous responsibility on the center backs and central mids, because they are the core of this formation that keep it together.

Players like Molino and possibly Guerra could thrive in this system. Because you need a genuine play maker (#10) for it to work effectively. The question remains, what squad will be selected to execute this formation. I support Hart fully with this new formation, I believe he will find the right balance as it is a very attack minded formation and requires top level fitness. My guesses are below:

Phillip

Jones

Bateau

Marshall

Cyrus

Peltier

Guerra

Boucaud

Plaza

Jones

Glenn

[Mose]

Definitely looking forward to seeing how Hart employs this system and what group he puts on the field. With regards to your lineup. I definitely like the backline, not sure about the midfield and I don't know enough about Plaza and Glenn to really comment on the forward line.

[Controversial]

Definitely looking forward to seeing how Hart employs this system and what group he puts on the field. With regards to your lineup. I definitely like the backline, not sure about the midfield and I don't know enough about Plaza and Glenn to really comment on the forward line.

plaza can run and falls back, hes a good player for Jones to play off of... I don't know about Glenn, from his videos I have seen I believe he can compliment jones.. that is left to be seen... very curious myself as to what hart will select...

[Dynamite Warrior]

Hart has used Winchester on the wing, and I believe Glenn is probably a replacement for Jones. Also I'm not sure that playing Peltier in the midfield provides enough protection for the defence. Cato gets the pick over Peltier based on form, and late arrival. This is how I think we will line up.

Jan

Joevin

Bateau

Marshall

Cyrus

Hyland

Guerra

Boucard

Winchester

Jones

Cato

[Controversial]

Hart has used Winchester on the wing, and I believe Glenn is probably a replacement for Jones. Also I'm not sure that playing Peltier in the midfield provides enough protection for the defence. Cato gets the pick over Peltier based on form, and late arrival. This is how I think we will line up.

Jan

Joevin

Bateau

Marshall

Cyrus

Hyland

Guerra

Boucard

Winchester

Jones

Cato

I like Cato on the right but I can't see Hart leaving Peltier who is faster than hyland and can play left wing being left out, jmo... i haven't seen enough of winchester to comment...

maybe this:

Phillip

Jones

Bateau

Marshall

Cyrus

Peltier

Guerra

Boucaud

Plaza

Jones

Cato

[Trini _2026]

i think both of you mixed up guerra and boucaud positions :0

[Controversial]

i think both of you mixed up guerra and boucaud positions :0

After the Haiti match I think positions will change...

[soccerman]

This will give us more options in attack but we'll have to be responsible on defensive assignments or we'll be exposed.

[maxg]

4-4-2 ==> 4-3-3 ==>4-5-1

[Cowen]

4-4-2 ==> 4-3-3 ==>4-5-1

I once heard a commentator say "Good Teams play 4-3-3 while bad teams play 4-5-1" with both basically being the same formation.
Just a matter how effective and disciplined the team can be

[asylumseeker]

4-4-2 ==> 4-3-3 ==>4-5-1

I once heard a commentator say "Good Teams play 4-3-3 while bad teams play 4-5-1" with both basically being the same formation.
Just a matter how effective and disciplined the team can be

I suppose the question that arises is: is there only one way of playing 4-3-3?

Also, given the diagrammatic limitations of the lineup graphics ... some contributors (neither of you) seem to be gehhin tied up regarding the width implications of the 4-3-3. The graphic shows the front 3 and the middle 3 lined up symmetrically behind each other. Is that reality? So I ask ... where do contributors expect the width to be reflected?

I started this post with the intention of more specifically addressing elements of what maxg and Cowen contributed, but then I decided it might be more helpful to start where I did. Leh we see. 

[Deeks]

If your players are good, formation doh matter. They will know how and when to attack and defend. Well off course, they have to follow the strategy the coach planned for the game.

[Controversial]

4-4-2 ==> 4-3-3 ==>4-5-1

I once heard a commentator say "Good Teams play 4-3-3 while bad teams play 4-5-1" with both basically being the same formation.
Just a matter how effective and disciplined the team can be

I suppose the question that arises is: is there only one way of playing 4-3-3?

Also, given the diagrammatic limitations of the lineup graphics ... some contributors (neither of you) seem to be gehhin tied up regarding the width implications of the 4-3-3. The graphic shows the front 3 and the middle 3 lined up symmetrically behind each other. Is that reality? So I ask ... where do contributors expect the width to be reflected?

I started this post with the intention of more specifically addressing elements of what maxg and Cowen contributed, but then I decided it might be more helpful to start where I did. Leh we see. 

can't deviate the diagram because of how the button is used... however, in real life situations or actual diagrams it would not look anything like that I agree, you can't really show width on it... unless you draw it yourself on here... 

[soccerman]

4-4-2 ==> 4-3-3 ==>4-5-1

I once heard a commentator say "Good Teams play 4-3-3 while bad teams play 4-5-1" with both basically being the same formation.
Just a matter how effective and disciplined the team can be

I suppose the question that arises is: is there only one way of playing 4-3-3?

Also, given the diagrammatic limitations of the lineup graphics ... some contributors (neither of you) seem to be gehhin tied up regarding the width implications of the 4-3-3. The graphic shows the front 3 and the middle 3 lined up symmetrically behind each other. Is that reality? So I ask ... where do contributors expect the width to be reflected?
I started this post with the intention of more specifically addressing elements of what maxg and Cowen contributed, but then I decided it might be more helpful to start where I did. Leh we see. 

When I play this system, the width comes from the forwards and space in created occasionally on the flanks for the outside backs to overlap. I also agree with maxg and Cowen, the different formations can essentially come to the same thing in theory. However if you will like to create more opportunities in attack 3 on top works best.
Depending on the opponent or the situation in the game with a 4-3-3 I'd go with 2 attacking mids or 2 defensive.