This is the brainchild of PSG’s under-19 coach Thiago Motta.

 

The 2-7-2 formation is really a description of a regular 4-3-3 but instead of reading from back to front of the pitch, it is read from side to side and includes the goalkeeper.  Note, the numbers add up to eleven, not ten.

 

From an attacking perspective, the focus is on the two on each side of the pitch away from the ball who will be able to find space.   See link below for full explanation.

 

 

 

 

Finding space

 

It is assumed attacking players can naturally find space by positioning themselves away from the zonal markers.   The concept of ‘playing between the lines’ of zonal formations, either horizontal lines between the back four and midfield or vertical lines, between centre-back and full back have been discussed in previous postings.   Here, the battle to find space is on either side of the pitch.

 

Many of these strategies about finding space often prove to be successful.   There is space in these various areas for attacking teams to exploit.  But, in all cases, it presupposes that you are playing against a zonal shape.

 

The reality is that teams are playing against a zonal shape.   So, this is not a problem unless you change the zonal shape to a man-to-man shape.

 

The Inefficiency of the zonal shape

 

In order for the attacking team to have a player free in any of these spaces implies there is inefficiency in the defensive zonal shape.    The attacking team have the same number of players and in order for one of them to get free would suggest that the defending team have an over-supply of players somewhere else, usually in their backline.   Therefore, there is an under-supply of players in the midfield area, hence the free player.   This is the nature of the inefficiency.

 

Any defensive system will have its weaknesses but it ought to be able to ensure, as far as possible, that opposition players are being marked.   Preferably, as they receive the ball as opposed to after they have received the ball.   There is a relaxation of this principle in football, possibly due to the size of the pitch and the number of players involved.   It may also be to do with the communication and organisation of the zonal shape.

 

 

 

The team man-to-man system

 

The man-to-man system has a better chance of delivering on this principle.   However, this is not necessarily the man-marking system that the football fraternity are accustomed to.   The team man-to-man system prioritises the marking of opposition players.  This assists the individual defender to mark an opponent “as they receive the ball” which brings a whole new level of intensity to the proceedings.   It is particularly important for pressure to be applied to the opponent in possession of the ball, not just around the box but in midfield areas as well.   The defender marking the player in possession of the ball may also require assistance from teammates.   This is where the ‘team’ element comes in.

 

The priority for the defending team is the opponent on the ball.   Other defensive colleagues should try to provide support to the player marking the opponent in possession.   The level of support will be determined by the proximity of those defensive colleagues to the ball.   In all cases, defending players who are not directly marking the opponent on the ball should move towards the ball.   This means moving away from your own defensive marker.   However, the distance one moves away must be commensurate with being able to be back in contact with this marker in the time it takes for the ball to arrive.

 

It is this distinction that enables, for example, a wide midfield player marking there opposite number (an attacking wide midfield player) to be able to “sag” or move across the pitch towards the ball as the opposition attack down the other flank.  But, they must also be able to travel back towards their marker and be there in the time it takes for the ball to get there.   It is possible that this particular player may be able to travel as far as the middle of the pitch.   Significantly, they would be back in touch with their marker if the ball were to be played out to this wide midfield area.

 

In terms of the 2-7-2 formation, this type of defensive organisation negates the opportunity for attacking players to find themselves free in space.   The same principle would apply to other zonal formations looking to exploit space in other areas of the pitch.

 

The man-to-man system of defence not only ensures that opponents are not left free in space but, at its heart, is the core principle of providing pressure on the attacking player in possession of the ball.   Thus the opportunity for this player to even make the relevant pass to any prospective player, in space, is greatly reduced.   This means that the initial distribution of players in the defensive zonal shape with a predominance of personnel in the backline is less important.  However, it would be appropriate to leave one player free from individual marking responsibility in the defensive unit.   It is quite feasible to facilitate this luxury.

 

 

 

 

 

Consolidation in shape

 

The principle whereby all players try to provide support to the player marking the opponent on the ball provides a consolidated shape around the ball.   Obviously, this shape is adjusting all the time according to the position of the ball.   Whilst it is a different kind of defensive shape it compares favourably with the zonal defensive shape where the principle of consolidation and, ironically, being ‘goal side’ are at the heart of this defensive shape.

 

 

Two different shapes

 

There is a broader point here, which is worth keeping in mind; the man-to-man defensive structure, is a strategy that is completely different in kind to the zonal format.  This fact alone ought not be underestimated.

 

It is difficult to understand how football just has this one playing system, a zonal system, with largely the same playing formation that is supposed to deliver for both attacking and defensive purposes.   These two elements of the game are completely different.   They are tactical opposites.   Being in possession allows the team to dictate play and the opponent has to respond to this play.   It does not make sense for one model to meet these opposing objectives.

 

At least with a man-to-man defensive structure, that addresses and is able to respond to any demands placed on it, you may want to adopt a zonal shape to address the attacking priorities.

 

Football needs to reform its defensive model.