What we know so far

2019 has been an eventful year for the Matildas, and tactically, the team remains a work-in-progress under Ante Milicic. As covered extensively by this column, the team has had issues finding the right attacking solutions without being defensively vulnerable.

The Matildas have a very wing-oriented playing style. Broadly speaking, the playing style refers to ball movement.

Is the ball generally in the air or on the ground? What direction are the passes in? How quickly does the ball move? What type of pass happens in specific areas of the pitch?

The wing-focus means we’ve seen a heavy reliance on the fullbacks - particularly Ellie Carpenter - to get forward and provide crosses.

However, this has left large spaces behind in which opponents have counterattacked, as Italy and Brazil demonstrated at the World Cup.

There’s also been a dependency on Sam Kerr to score goals, especially on her aerial prowess to attack crosses. This predictability, combined with the lack of another goalscoring threat, made it easy for organised defences and led to elimination by Norway in the Round of 16.

In terms of formation, the Matildas have 4-3-3 as their default, although we’ve seen experiments with 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 in an attempt to provide more central support for Kerr.

What has remained consistent is the Matildas being set up with a back four. A back four provides pairs of fullbacks and wingers on each side to potentially create 2v1 situations against opposing fullbacks.

This makes sense given the focus on getting the ball wide and crossing to exploit Kerr’s heading ability.

However, the team’s wing-focused playing style has come at the expense of players positioned centrally.

In possession, this has meant few players between the lines, making it difficult to break down opponents set in their defensive block.

In defensive transition, this has meant that the Matildas have lacked enough bodies in the middle to delay or stop counterattacks.

Could a formation change help?

A team’s formation is not just where players stand at a specific moment. It influences player movements, and specifically, the direction and degree of each player’s movements and how it affects their teammates.

The formation gives players the platform to perform on matchday, and makes it easier to carry out the team playing style.

Simply put, good players look average in a formation that puts them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and conversely, average players look good in a formation that has them organised to be in the right place at the right time.

Assuming Milicic intends to retain the current wing-oriented playing style, a potential solution to the abovementioned problems might be the 3-4-1-2 formation occasionally used by Melbourne City in the W-League this season.

City have several of the current senior Matildas in their squad, and as a result provide an approximation of what the Matildas might look like in a 3-4-1-2.

Against Canberra for example, City’s starting 11 comprised Carpenter, Lydia Williams, Steph Catley, Aivi Luik, Emily van Egmond, Kyah Simon, and Emma Checker.

In the diagram above, City have the ball in defence (blue arrow (1)).

We see Catley and Carpenter pushed high in their fullback positions to provide width, as they do for the Matildas (2). Notice however, the number of players City have in the central corridor of the pitch (blue area (3)).

Compared to the Matildas’ 4-3-3, the 3-4-1-2 only has two players wide and therefore allows for more players to be positioned centrally.

This means more players are able to move in between the lines, without sacrificing width, making the attacking build-up less predictable.

Another benefit of the 3-4-1-2 is the defensive cover offered in transition. Imagine if Canberra were to counterattack in the space behind Carpenter (4).

Unlike the 4-3-3, where only two centrebacks are present to cover the width of the field, in the 3-4-1-2 a third centreback helps reduce the space each defender has to cover.

This would provide Carpenter and Catley a few extra seconds to track back, and in possession would provide them greater freedom to attack.

Meanwhile, the 3-4-1-2 allows a triangle in midfield (5) and two central strikers, opening the opportunity to support and combine through the middle of the field.

Notice also how the two City strikers are split into their respective halfspace - this allows them to attack the space between the opposition fullback and centreback, creating confusion as to who marks who, as well as creating the option for a 2v1 out wide.

However, there are downsides to the 3-4-1-2, as with any formation. The most obvious is if an opponent plays with a quick front three - the lack of a spare defender to provide cover means risky 1v1s at the back.

Further, the physical demands on the wingbacks are huge, with one player tasked with maintaining the team’s width for an entire wing.

Having only one player per wing risks the team being deprived of width in the attacking third if the opposition are successful in forcing the wingbacks to remain in defensive positions.

What could a Matildas 3-4-1-2 look like?

With all this in mind, let’s now consider what a Matildas side in a 3-4-1-2 might look like.

Key selections are the outside centrebacks, who need to be relatively quick and be comfortable defending in wide areas, and the #8, who should be athletic enough to provide midfield cover as well as break forward to support the attack.

In defence, Checker and Jenna McCormick’s athleticism makes them favourites for the outside centreback spots, although Alanna Kennedy’s passing ability off her weaker left foot gives her an advantage for the left-sided centreback position.

Clare Polkinghorne’s reading of the game makes her the ideal candidate for the middle centreback or sweeper role, in charge of organising the Checker and McCormick’s movements.

As for the midfield, Luik’s strength and positioning as the #6, Chloe Logarzo or Tameka Yallop’s energy in the #8 role, and van Egmond distribution in the #10 role results in a balanced midfield triangle, and is not too dissimilar from the current Matildas midfield setup.

Meanwhile, the wingbacks, goalkeeper, and strikers pick themselves, with Catley and Carpenter undisputed out wide, Williams the clear #1 under Milicic, and Caitlin Foord and Kerr having a good understanding.

In the current 4-3-3, we’ve seen Foord cutting inside from the left wing to combine with Kerr, and the 3-4-1-2 allows the two to operate more as a strike pairing where each can make complementary runs to confuse defences.

It’s also pertinent to note that with most teams now playing one striker up front, defences are generally not used to defending against two strikers, and against a back four, Foord and Kerr have a slight advantage if left 2v2 against the opposition centrebacks.

The 3-4-1-2 formation is an intriguing option for the Matildas. While use of the 3-4-1-2 may only be suitable against certain opponents, at the very least, this formation could work as a useful plan B to the default 4-3-3, and make it less predictable to defend against the Matildas.

The author is an experienced football coach, having coached over 200 games at development and senior level. He has completed the FFA/AFC B Licence and runs the Facebook page "Tacticology".