The 3-4-3 formation

The back three is three centre backs across the defence. The midfield four is two wing-backs out wide and two central midfielders in the middle. The front three is a centre forward with a wide forward on each side. The shape pushes more players into the front line than 3-5-2, while keeping the same defensive structure.

3-4-3 is one of the most attacking common back-three shapes. It can commit five outfield players — three forwards plus two wing-backs — to advanced positions, while still keeping three centre backs behind the ball. The trade-off is that the central midfield is reduced to two players, which means the formation can be outnumbered in midfield against a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.

3-4-3 has three attackers across the front line — a centre forward with two wide forwards roughly level. 3-4-2-1 has a single centre forward with two attacking midfielders just behind, in the half-spaces. The difference is small on paper but big in practice.

3-4-2-1 often gives the team more players between the lines. The two attacking midfielders can receive in the half-spaces, combine with the striker and help the team keep the ball in central areas. It is not automatically more defensive, but it usually gives a different kind of control from a flat front three.

With a narrow front three, the team relies heavily on its wing-backs to provide width. They push high in possession, drop deep when defending, and cover the entire flank. A 3-4-3 with poor wing-backs can become narrow and easy to defend against; a 3-4-3 with strong wing-backs can be one of the most aggressive formations in modern football.

The wing-backs in a 3-4-3 also have to combine effectively with the wide forwards in front of them. The wide forward usually plays inside, leaving the touchline for the wing-back; the two have to work as a unit, taking turns to attack the wide channel and the half-space.

The biggest strength is attacking presence. With three forwards plus two wing-backs able to join attacks, the team can create pressure across the width of the pitch while still keeping a back three behind the ball.

The second strength is the back three. As with any three-at-the-back system, the team can be hard to break down through the middle. One centre back can step forward to press without leaving the line short, because two more cover behind. This combination — security at the back and numbers in attack — is why some managers use 3-4-3 instead of a back-four shape.

The biggest weakness is in central midfield. With only two central midfielders, a 3-4-3 is often outnumbered through the middle by 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 opponents. The two midfielders have to cover huge ground, so the formation needs players who can defend, pass and move across the pitch quickly.

The second weakness is the demand on the wing-backs. They have more attacking responsibility than in 3-5-2, where the central midfield three helps cover the flanks. A wing-back caught out of position in a 3-4-3 leaves a much larger gap behind, and the wide centre back has to cover an even bigger area than in a 3-5-2.

3-4-3 has been the chosen formation for several top European teams over the past decade or so, often as part of attacking, possession-based football. The combination of a back three for build-up and a front three for attacking pressure suits managers who want to control matches with the ball.

Some teams use 3-4-3 only in possession, switching to 5-4-1 or 5-2-3 out of possession. The wing-backs drop deep, the wide forwards drop into the midfield line, and the team becomes a more defensive shape. This shape-shifting between attacking and defensive versions is one of the main features of any modern back-three system.