Southend United used a 4-3-3 formation from the start of the match away to Woking on Tuesday night. Below, I break down how the profile of players at head coach Kevin Maher’s disposal fit the system, and assess its medium-term suitability.
First of all, we must consider the availability of players. Joe Gubbins is currently out injured, and Jack Bridge wasn’t deemed fit enough to start the match. That left just Nathan Ralph as the only recognised left-sided defender in the back-five.
Therefore, the switch to a back-four wasn’t a surprise as, if Maher had persisted with wing-backs, a back-five would have needed players to be used out of position. As a result, it remains to be seen whether or not there will be a more permanent switch to the 4-3-3.
Nevertheless, I’ll now examine how suitable Southend’s squad is to the set-up on a more regular basis.
Build-up
Gubbins is the only profile who fits the left-sided centre-back role within the back-four during the build-up. Other centre-backs, Harry Taylor and Adam Crowther, are both right-footed; neither are massively comfortable on the ball; and the angles to pass to the left-side don’t suit their right-footedness.
Then, if Southend can progress forward, there would only be three players ahead of the ball. This limits the passing options for the midfielders and, if the forwards are reached, Southend would initially be under-resourced in the final-third. This is because there would be a huge distance for the full-backs to travel to reach the last line after being positioned deep, initially.
This, together with the forward-thinking mindset of having three strikers on the pitch, would tip the balance away from retaining the ball, making it more difficult for Southend to reliably sustain attacks and control possession. Although, having three forwards high up the pitch would offer a greater threat in transition as opposed to having just the two that the 3-5-2 brings.
Attack
During settled attacks, if Southend did manage to sustain pressure, a 2-3-5 shape would be formed when the full-backs push into the last line. Holding the width in attack like this would suit the full-backs, as they all have experience of doing so when playing as wing-backs in the 3-5-2.
It would also allow Southend to attack with five in the last line more reliably, as opposed to needing midfielders to push higher when the 3-5-2 is used. All five vertical lanes would be consistently occupied in attack.
However, again, it would require the full-backs to travel a great distance to support the attack, and possession would need to be held for this to happen consistently.
But there are more issues with this 2-3-5 shape. In transition, once Southend’s attacks had broken down, Crowther would be exposed. He isn’t the most athletic of centre-backs and would be asked to defend huge amounts of space, possibly even on his ‘wrong side’, if he was used as the left-sided centre-back.
Additionally, with the full-backs attacking high and wide, it would mean the #8’s make up part of the rest defence. Having natural defenders ‘high’ and natural midfielders ‘deep’ could prove problematic in transition. The profile of midfielders Southend have does actually suit this phase of play; but it’s unlikely to suit Kennan Appiah-Forson or George Moncur as they lack physicality, and are more effective in the final-third.
Defence
When defending deep, Southend would have a back-four. Straight away, this makes it easier for opponents to overload this defensive line with a front-five. As a result, a midfielder would have to track runs from deep, which is more difficult to manage than having five players already positioned in the last line. We also must consider that this back-four system isn’t something that Southend’s players have been used to, and it would take time to coach.
The two wingers would also be asked to track back, helping to form a 4-5-1. Because there would be just four players behind the midfield, the wingers would have a greater responsibility to track back, support the full-back and defend the wide areas.
This doesn’t suit the profile of the strikers Southend have at the club. Possibly Josh Walker could do so, but that would be a stretch. Realistically, Bridge would have to play on the left-side of the front-three, with Appiah-Forson or Jack Wood the options on the right-side.
Finally, in transition after defending deep, Southend would be more of a threat by having three players high up the pitch, compared to having just the two players up when defending in the usual 5-3-2.
Conclusion
Hopefully that provides a good analysis of how the 4-3-3 formation suits Southend in each phase of play. As detailed above, it would enable Southend to become a greater threat in transition and attack with five in the last line more consistently.
However, the likelihood of reliably getting the full-backs up the pitch to support the attack, as well as the issues in the build-up, defence, and in defensive transition mean that I don’t believe the current squad is very well set up to fir the 4-3-3 on a regular basis.
As I mentioned at the top of this article, the move to the 4-3-3 made sense due to player availability issues versus Woking, and it remains to be seen whether or not there will be a more permanent switch. However, if Maher does decide to change formation in the medium to long-term, I believe recruitment will be needed to mould the squad into fitting the system consistently.
Shrimper Stats 