Tactical evolution is one of the most important aspects of modern football.
Teams that remain rigid in their approach often find themselves looking predictable, easy to analyse and ultimately easier to nullify.
Sunderland Women have built a strong identity through their disciplined and structured 4‑2‑3‑1 system, but as the game continues to develop, is there value in exploring alternative shapes that could add new dimensions to their play?
A shift toward a 3‑5‑2 in possession and a 5‑3‑2 out of possession is not about abandoning what works.
Instead, it’s about expanding the team’s tactical repertoire, increasing unpredictability, and unlocking the strengths of key players such as Louise Griffiths and Jessica Brown, whose natural tendencies already align with the demands of a wing back system.
The 4‑2‑3‑1 has served Sunderland well, offering a clear structure with a “double pivot” providing stability, a number ten linking the play and wide players stretching the pitch. It’s a formation that gives defensive security and attacking clarity. However, it can also become predictable, and the lone striker can become isolated when opponents crowd the central areas or tightly mark the number ten.
Attacks can become overly reliant on wide channels, making it easier for opponents to defend in numbers. Central overloads are harder to create and the team can sometimes struggle to break down compact defensive blocks.
These limitations don’t diminish the effectiveness of the 4‑2‑3‑1, but they highlight why having an alternative system could be beneficial, especially against opponents who’ve adapted well to Sunderland’s current patterns.
A 3‑5‑2 in possession offers several advantages that directly address these issues.
By adding an extra midfielder, Sunderland would gain greater control in central areas, allowing for more passing combinations, better retention under pressure, and improved support for the forwards. The presence of two strikers instead of one would immediately change the dynamic in the final third, providing more options for link‑up play, more consistent pressing from the front, and a greater threat in behind.
Instead of a single forward battling against two centre backs, Sunderland would have a pair capable of stretching defences, creating space for midfield runners, and offering more varied attacking patterns.
The most exciting aspect of this system, however, lies in the wing‑back roles.
Griffiths and Brown have already demonstrated the qualities required for modern wing backs: energy, creativity, defensive discipline, and the ability to transition quickly between phases. In a 3‑5‑2, they would have the freedom to push higher up the pitch, acting almost as wide midfielders when Sunderland are in possession.
Their natural dynamism provides width without sacrificing central presence, and their ability to deliver quality balls into the box could become even more influential. At the same time, the presence of three centre backs behind them would give them the security to attack without leaving the team exposed.
Griffiths, with her strong defensive instincts and willingness to drive forward, would thrive in a role that allows her to influence both halves of the pitch. Her crossing ability and timing of forward runs would become key components of Sunderland’s attacking play.
Brown, with her explosive pace and direct dribbling, would be equally well‑suited. She excels when given space to attack and a wing back role would allow her to stretch defences, create overloads, and contribute creatively in the final third.
However, both players also possess the defensive discipline to drop into a back five when needed, making them ideal candidates for the dual responsibilities of the position.
When Sunderland are out of possession, the shape would naturally shift into a 5‑3‑2.
This defensive structure is notoriously difficult to break down, offering compactness in the box, strong coverage of wide areas, and more bodies to defend crosses. The midfield three can remain narrow, forcing opponents away from dangerous central zones and into less threatening wide areas. With two forwards always positioned high, Sunderland would also be well‑placed to counterattack quickly, exploiting disorganised defences and creating opportunities in transition.
The system would therefore offer both defensive solidity and attacking potential.
Importantly, Sunderland’s current squad appears well‑suited to such a tactical shift. The team already has defenders who are comfortable in duels and capable of reading the game effectively, and a back three would maximise their strengths, providing extra cover for aggressive pressing and allowing one centre back to step into midfield when needed.
The midfielders are technically capable and tactically intelligent, making them well‑equipped to operate in the fluid rotations required in a three‑player midfield. Many of Sunderland’s forwards also possess attributes that thrive in partnerships — whether through one dropping deep while the other runs in behind, or through quick combinations that unsettle defensive lines.
Of course, no formation is without its challenges.
The wing‑back role is physically demanding, requiring exceptional stamina and constant transitions between attack and defence. Although Griffiths and Brown are well suited to the role, squad depth would need to support them over the course of a season.
A back five can also be vulnerable to quick switches of play if the wing backs are caught high, meaning communication and awareness must be excellent. Implementing a new system also requires time, repetition, and patience, as players adjust to new responsibilities and positional relationships.
Despite these challenges, the potential benefits make the 3‑5‑2/5‑3‑2 a compelling option. Football is increasingly defined by versatility, and teams that can shift shape, adjust pressing triggers, or alter their attacking patterns keep opponents guessing and maintain a competitive edge.
A secondary formation would allow Sunderland to adapt to different opponents, change games from the bench, and avoid becoming too predictable. It wouldn’t replace the 4‑2‑3‑1 but complement it, giving the team a broader tactical identity and more tools to solve different types of matches.
Whilst the transition would require time and careful implementation, the potential rewards make it an avenue worth considering. Football rewards teams that innovate, and Sunderland have an opportunity to evolve in a way that could elevate their performances and keep them ahead of the tactical curve.
However, one has to acknowledge the situation the Lasses currently find themselves in.
In women’s football, seasons are short and it can be dangerous to experiment with so little time and ever-looming pressure. That said, when performances and results aren’t going your way, something has to change, and perhaps instead of personnel, it’s in the way Sunderland play.
