Download your free 3v3 football training PDF – containing 8 training plans – here…
What is 3v3 Football? by Peter Prickett (author of three 3v3 books)
Small-sided games have long been a popular training method. When Liverpool were dominant in the 1970s and 1980s, people would often ask, “What do you do in training?” The response was, “We just play 5-a-side”.
Training using small-sided games has been shown to have multiple benefits for players, with many academic studies being dedicated to deciphering how many touches of the ball players receive, how many game actions each player performs, what different formats and pitch sizes do to a player’s heart rate, and more. Studies have also developed a link between small-sided games in training and the development of skill acquisition through increases in decision-making within a game-representative environment.
This begs the question: if this is true of training, why would we not do it on match day?
In the last decades, the playing formats in English football have experienced a transformation, moving from only having the options of 7v7 and 11v11 for youth football to a far more nuanced and graduated approach. The official match day formats move from 5v5 to 7v7 to 9v9 to 11v11, depending on the age group.
We now seem to be at the point where the only place left to go is to make 3v3 an official matchday format.
It has long been an unofficial format. The FA handbook states that 5v5 is a maximum, not a minimum, but coaches have been reluctant to play smaller-sided games due to the sizes of playing areas and their squad sizes. Saturday and Sunday youth league coaches, who are mostly volunteers, have needed an edict from above. Not the option to play 3v3, but to be told that they must play 3v3.
Why 3v3? What are the benefits of 3v3?
Simply maths.
Less simply, a combination of numbers, perception-action coupling, affordances, scaling, intrinsic learning, environmental and task constraints, plus teaching games for understanding.
Let’s stick with the maths for now.
In the early 2000s, Rick Fenoglio ran a 4v4 pilot scheme with Manchester United, comparing 4v4 games with 8v8 games. The headline numbers were that the average 4v4 – when compared to 8v8 – had 135% more passes, 260% more scoring attempts, 500% more goals, 225% more 1v1 encounters and 280% more dribbling skills/tricks. But why bring up 4v4 figures when we are talking about 3v3?
Firstly, the age of the study. The study is over 20 years old and was run by the FA. This evidence has existed for a very long time. Secondly, it doesn’t take a particularly insightful mathematical leap to work out that if reducing the numbers by eight players yields increased actions, then reducing the numbers by ten will yield an even higher increase.
Ball contacts are key for players but these ball contacts need the context of decision-making. The most contacts a player can have with the ball is a 1:1 ratio. Just the ball and the player. This may be great for contacts and technical repetitions, but there is no pressure and repetition. When sports skills are learned in isolation only, it is recognised that what was learned in isolation breaks down under pressure.
The next highest number for ball contacts per player is 1v1. A 2:1 ratio. Pressure and decision-making increase, but there is a severe lack of one key aspect of the game of football. Someone to pass to! 1v1 domination is fantastic for players, but passing is a vital part of the game. Moving on to 2v2 and a 4:1 ratio, we now have a passing option, but only one passing option. Playing in pairs is another important part of football, but so much of the game involves trios and triangles. Plus, all aspects of the game that occur in 1v1 and 2v2 will occur in 3v3.
In 3v3, we now have a 6:1 ball to player ratio. Fewer touches per individual, but the number of possible decisions per player has increased. The game is more complex, but there is still a good ball-to-player ratio. The majority of fundamental game actions are possible, both in and out of possession. The more players we have on the pitch at the same time, the fewer actions per individual, as shown by the 4v4 study. 11v11 is a 22:1 ratio, which has been shown that even the best players only touch the ball for around 2 minutes in a 90-minute game. Any player who came away from training and had only had two minutes of ball contact would be mightily disappointed.
To be clear, I would never say to only train using 3v3. There are benefits to larger formats of the game and having larger numbers; generally, these advantages are tactical. However, the trade-off of allowing players to have opportunities to make decisions on the ball that are reflective of realistic game situations is worth the small tactical loss that can be made up for later.
