Tactical Analysis: The Everton Back 3 Experiment

New Picture (108)

The  Stoke Problem

Our recent record against Stoke has been  poor with no wins in our last 4 matches against Pulis side and no clean sheets. Often we have failed to win the territory / aerial battles and been outnumbered through the middle on the second balls.  The problem was even more problematic given the absence of Fellaini – one of our most aerially dominant players – due to suspension.

Ever the reactive tactician, Moyes looked to combat this through springing a surprise in his selection, opting to deploy three centre backs (circled blue) with Coleman and Baines providing the width (as they usually do anyway) as wing backs in a 3-4-3- ish system.

New Picture (11)

In midfield,  Osman/Gibson supported an attacking trio of Mirallas, Anichebe and Jelavic with the Croatian through the middle and Anichebe (right) / Mirallas (left)  playing more supportive roles on the flanks (3-4-2-1) when we didn’t have the ball (circled yellow) and then when possession was regained Anichebe would come inside alongside Jelavic with Mirallas in behind (3-4-1-2). The tactical change was surprising given that such a setup is un-chartered territory for Moyes who always prefers a back four.

Many sides have used a similar back three setup against Stoke over the last season to combat the route one punts down the middle of the park – some with more success than others.  In terms of shape, Jagielka was the middle man who would predominantly attack the long deliveries –he won the most headers (8) on the pitch – whilst Distin came in on the left with Heitinga on the right.

Pros and Cons of 3 at the back

The key benefit of the back three is that it gave us a man advantage against Stoke’s two centre forwards Crouch and Jerome . This gave us better coverage through the middle and led to our figures in terms of aerials and second balls improving based on recent games against the Potters.

In this game we won 49% of the aerial duels which was a better figure than the game earlier this season (37%) and last season’s games home and away. Having more players in this central area meant we were better equipped bodies wise to hoover up the second balls too. In the corresponding fixture last season Stoke won  73% of their second balls whilst yesterday we restricted them significantly in this area to just 56%.  Heitinga is the better of the three on the ball and with Distin and Jagielka picking up Crouch/Jerome it meant Heitinga was usually  free to mop up and bring the ball out from the back unopposed. As the passing network shows he pushed the ball into midfield more than any of the 3, predominantly picking out Gibson who in turn looked to pick out Coleman to start attacks down the right.

In terms of the flanks it meant that wing backs  Baines/Coleman could focus more on the attacking role which is where their best attributes reside.

The disadvantage on the flanks was that we were numerically outnumbered and couldn’t engineer the 2 v 1 situations in the final third which is usually a hallmark of our attacking play.

New Picture (100)

This is particularly evident when looking at the passing network with Baines only receiving 2 passes from Mirallas in front of him compared to the double figures he usually gets from Pienaar and thus Baines was largely reliant on Leon Osman for service down his flank. This led to us firing in just 20 crosses compared to the 44 we desperately hammered in last season against Stoke.

One of the reasons the back three system is favoured against Stoke is because the numerical deficit on the flanks isn’t really exploited due to Stoke’s full backs primarily tucking in and rarely crossing the half way line to exploit this  advantage with their wide midfielder.

Conclusions

The ends justifies the means and you would have to say the back three experiment did the job in what was always going to be a war of attrition against a hard to watch Stoke outfit.The result also puts us in good shape for some of the crucial battles against key rivals in the coming weeks.

Offensively the lack of numbers on the flanks meant we didn’t create much with the exception of Mirallas excellent goal. Defensively however we looked more secure through the middle and restricted Stoke to few scoring chances with the Potters as usual very reliant on set plays.

Stoke look in big trouble; despite investing  heavily in the playing squad they are on course for their worst points total since returning to the top flight as well as their lowest goals output and seem incapable of creating anything from open play.

EB

Advertisements

One thought on “Tactical Analysis: The Everton Back 3 Experiment

  1. Wouldn’t be overly keen on seeing this setup again. As it turns out, average positions showed little deviation from our usual formation. The only real difference was that we had Heitinga RB and Coleman RM (two positions that neither is all that great in).

    As you pointed out, we created little in terms of presentable openings. I thought this was mainly due to the gaps between Heitinga – Coleman and Baines – Mirallas with both pairs playing too far apart. Since a large part of our game is creating two-on-one situations on the flanks, this approach really stifled our attacking play.

    As a result, Baines played deeper than usual since he lacked a constant presence ahead of him (Pienaar). While on the other side, Heitinga played even further back and Coleman was pushed on. He actually played level with Jelavic (just a good few yards to the right).

    Certainly a means to an end, as we got the win and a clean sheet, but I’d hope this was a one off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s