Coaching Education content presented in partnership with The FA Learning

Evolution of Systems of Play, Part III
This series continues with a look at the systems employed at the 1998 World Cup

By John Bluem

The world champion: France’s 4-3-3
The system of play used by France in the 1998 World Cup was basically a 4-3-3 with a 4-4-2 in defense. The three top attackers were mobile, slipping into midfield and sometimes into defense, particularly in the second half of the final when the team went into a mass defense. The strong points of the team were speed, strength, determination, courage and general skill. A noted weakness was inaccurate finishing during the run of play. The key players were Zidane, Barthez, Desailly, Deschamps and Thuram.

In defense, the offside trap was used effectively in the second half of the final game, and the markings were mainly man-to-man. Deschamps played as the anchorman in front of the defense. There was a general high standard of skill — heading, passing, individual technique and positioning. There was great support from the midfield and attack.

The attacking buildups were very methodical. There was an emphasis on wing play, and in changing the point of attack, particularly on the right side to take advantage of Thuram coming from behind.

Summary: Excellent tactics, good organization, close team work and the individual performances of certain players were the key factors in the French victory.

 

The runner-up: Brazil’s 4-2-2-2
The Brazilian style of play was a 4-2-2-2. The strong points of the team were great technique and individual qualities, especially in attacking situations. The Brazilians were good at dictating the pace of the game and excelled in the use of long diagonal passes, especially left to right. Their primary weakness was poor defending against corners and free kicks. They also had problems when opponents (i.e., Zidane) ran at them with the ball. They defended too deep in the box and they did not maintain defensive compactness as a unit. When attacking, they were easily caught offside.

In defense they were zonal, with Dunga attempting to pick up midfield runners from France. Dunga, in combination with Sampaio, tried to block the route through the middle. They were very strong in the air but lacked coordination defending as a block.

Summary: A team totally oriented toward attack. They utilized running with the ball through central areas, playing combinations or releasing the fullbacks to deliver crosses. They attacked with six players and defended with a six-man base. In the final they played poorly as a defensive unit. In attack, there was a lack of movement and penetrating passes.

 

Germany’s 3-5-2
The team demonstrated very good tactical understanding, always holding effective positions and maintaining cohesion. Each player played for the team. They utilized a combination of zonal and man marking. All three defenders were mobile and skillful, and read the game well. The sweeper was in line with the stoppers, and often interchanged positions. The strikers used the space effectively for themselves and there was good coordination with the midfielders.

Summary: A well-balanced performance from a technical, tactical, conditioning, psychological and competitive point of view. Good balance in defending and attacking activities. The team was able to dictate the rhythm of the game and controlled the result effectively.

 

The USA’s 3-6-1
The system was probably more closely depicted as a 3-5.5-1.5 with a libero behind the defensive line and one striker (Wynalda) supported by a player who switched from midfield to attack (Stewart). With the exception of the first 20 minutes of the second half of the Germany match, the team lacked fighting spirit. No offside tactic was utilized and the team combined zonal and man marking.

Summary: Lack of confidence and the pressure of the first match against one of the favorites were the main reasons the team did not perform up to potential.

 

Next Month's Part IV will detail how to select a system that fits your players and coaching style, and the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems.

Editor’s note: John Bluem is men’s coach at Ohio State University and a member of the NSCAA National Academy staff. He is the men’s college representative on the NSCAA Board of Directors.