In Brazil, many wrinkle their nose to see a team cast with three defenders. “It will play in the boom,” fires some, regarding the choice of the coach’s scheme with one more beque.
This conclusion, however, may be quite wrong. It is necessary to observe the rest of the lineup, especially the characteristics of the two sides, to determine how the team will play.
If the sides are defensive, it can be said that the team will prioritize the defense, as it will form a line not four ago (the traditional, two sides and two defenders), but five (two sides and three defenders).
If the sides are offensive, they like to support and do so effectively (good crosses and/or finishes), the team has only three advocates (the defenders), and the sides become wing, which reinforces the idea of the team more strongly thrown into the attack.
In the Brazilian team, the last time a coach resorted to the scheme with three defenders, constantly and explicitly, was at the 2002 World Cup (Korea/Japan).
In that team, coach Luiz Felipe Scolari (Felipão), with the excellent side supporters Cafu, on the right, and Roberto Carlos, on the left, gave them much more offensive freedom by climbing the trio Lúcio, Edmílson and Roque Júnior in the defender.
When necessary, Lúcio covered Cafu, and Roque Júnior, that of Roberto Carlos, with the help of midfielder Gilberto Silva. Edmílson was left over if this initial marking failed.
Edmílson, who played centralized, advanced when the team had possession of the ball to help distribute the game.
Thus, Brazil was champion. Then, always with two defenders, the Brazilian team failed in the five following editions of Cup.
Not that acting with three defenders is decisive to win. None of that. Brazil lost Cup like this (Italy-1990, when the trio was Ricardo Rocha, Mauro Galvão and Ricardo Gomes). And the champions in Cups since Brazil-2002 have always played with two defenders.
But I consider it an interesting and valid alternative for the current selection, as there are sides (Wesley, mainly, or Vanderson, on the right, and Guilherme Arana, on the left) who often attack and efficiency in their clubs.
In a scheme with four advocates, the sides have as its primary mission marking, and thus Brazil ceases to have more constant advances of them – a good chance of dismantling, attacking the flanks, very closed rival defenses.
In addition, the defenders are usually high and good headings. With one more, the chances of head goal in free kicks or corner are widened. The set ball is an important feature, often vital, against retractions, when attempts at the success of the attack playing the ball does not work.
But it will be very difficult to happen, as coach Dorival Júnior has always been adept at the scheme with a line of four ago (4-4-2 or 4-3-3), and a change to 3-5-2 or another variation that uses three defenders is highly unlikely.
My suggestion, observing Dorival’s current cast, is a 3-4-1-2, with Leo Ortiz, Marquinhos and Gabriel Magalhães behind; Wesley on the right wing, Arana on the left wing; Gerson and Bruno Guimarães as steering wheels/socks; Centralized Raphinha (offensive half); Rodrygo and Vinicius Junior in front, one on each side, as they play at Real Madrid.
Dorival, however, should continue to choose an extra striker (João Pedro, Matheus Cunha, Savinho, Stephen or Endrick) and the traditional two defenders.
It may work, even though I haven’t worked well so far, but I would like to see, a couple of times, for a while, this change. It goes that Brazil plays better.
It is almost certain that I will be in the mood, because probably the national team did not train to play differently.
Certain things in life are quite difficult to change. There must be courage. Felipão had in 2002. It worked, and Brazil was a five -time champion.
