The FA Cup tie between Sunderland AFC Women and London City Lionesses was more than a competitive fixture.
It also provided a rare tactical insight into what this Sunderland side could become, and although the match ended in a narrow 0-1 defeat, the performance revealed structural strengths that have often been missing this season — particularly in defensive organisation and collective discipline.
Against a Lionesses team operating in the Women’s Super League and known for their defensive structure
and physicality, Sunderland demonstrated that a more compact, layered defensive shape can provide the foundation for future success, especially when facing teams within their own division.
The match, therefore, served as a compelling case study for why Sunderland could and perhaps should, consider adopting a 5‑2‑3 out of possession and a 3‑4‑3 in possession as a long‑term tactical identity — as well as being an example of a game defined by fine margins.
Sunderland restricted the Lionesses to limited clear‑cut chances, with the decisive goal arriving in the fiftieth minute through Wassa Sangaré, who capitalised on a momentary lapse rather than a systemic flaw in Sunderland’s shape.
The defensive resilience shown throughout the match — particularly during the first half — was a marked improvement on some of the more open, stretched performances seen earlier in the season.
The Lionesses, despite their WSL pedigree, struggled to convert their possession into meaningful penetration and Sunderland’s ability to keep the game tight until the final whistle reflected a defensive structure that, although not perfect, was significantly more robust than in previous outings.
This defensive solidity is precisely what a 5‑2‑3 out‑of‑possession system is designed to achieve — and a 5‑2‑3 out‑of‑possession shape offers several inherent advantages that align closely with Sunderland’s current needs.
The first is the creation of a deeper defensive line with three centre backs supported by wing backs who can drop into a back five when required. This naturally reduces the space between defenders, making it harder for opponents to exploit gaps with through balls or diagonal runs. Against the Lionesses, Sunderland’s defensive line held firm for long stretches, forcing the opposition into speculative efforts and wide‑area play rather than allowing them to carve through the centre.
The match commentary repeatedly highlighted the Lionesses’ reliance on wide free kicks and half‑chances rather than sustained central penetration, which was testament to Sunderland’s compactness in the defensive third .
The second advantage of the 5‑2‑3 shape is the protection it offers for the midfield.
This season, Sunderland have struggled with midfielders being forced to drop too deep — often out of necessity rather than design — in order to compensate for defensive vulnerabilities. This has had a knock‑on effect in attacking transitions as the midfield has frequently been too far from the forward line to support counter‑attacks or sustain pressure in the final third.
In contrast, a 5‑2‑3 system allows the midfield two to remain more central and compact, shielding the defence without being dragged into the defence. This stability is crucial for a team that’s often found itself chasing games or scrambling to recover its defensive structure.
The third advantage lies in the natural transition into a 3‑4‑3 when possession is regained — and this fluidity is one of the most attractive aspects of the system as it allows a team to defend in numbers without sacrificing attacking potential.
When Sunderland won the ball against the Lionesses, the wing backs were able to push higher, creating width and stretching the opposition’s defensive line. Although the Lasses didn’t create a wealth of chances, they did show moments of promise, demonstrating that the structure can generate opportunities even against a well‑organised WSL defence.
Against WSL2 opposition, where defensive lines are typically less rigid and less experienced, these moments of promise could easily translate into more frequent and more dangerous attacking sequences.
The 3‑4‑3 in possession also suits Sunderland’s existing personnel.
The team has several players who thrive in wide or “hybrid” roles, capable of operating both as wing backs and as advanced wide forwards — and this flexibility is essential for a system that demands constant positional adaptation. The wide forwards in a 3‑4‑3 benefit from having wing backs behind them, allowing them to drift inside, combine with the central striker or attack the half‑spaces without being solely responsible for providing width.
This could be particularly beneficial for Sunderland’s attacking players, who’ve at times been isolated or forced to drop too deep due to the team’s defensive frailties. With a more secure defensive base, these players would be free to focus on their attacking duties, staying higher up the pitch and offering more consistent threat.
Saturday also highlighted the psychological benefits of a more structured defensive system.
Sunderland entered the game as underdogs, facing a team from a higher division with a strong defensive record, yet the Lasses held their own, keeping the scoreline tight and forcing London City to work hard for their victory.
This resilience can build confidence — particularly for a team that has experienced defensive struggles.
A 5‑2‑3 system provides clarity of roles and responsibilities, reducing the likelihood of individual errors caused by uncertainty or miscommunication. When players know exactly where they need to be and their role within the structure, they’re more likely to perform with confidence and composure.
However, it’s important to acknowledge the limitations of the system, as no formation is without its drawbacks.
A 5‑2‑3 can sometimes leave the midfield undermanned — particularly against teams that play with three central midfielders. This can lead to situations where a midfield duo is overloaded, forced to cover too much ground or unable to press effectively.
Against the Lionesses, Sunderland managed this challenge reasonably well but there were moments when the opposition were able to dictate play in central areas, and particularly during the second half. This is a risk that must be managed through intelligent pressing triggers and coordinated movement from the front three, who must be willing to drop in and support the midfield when necessary.
Another potential disadvantage is the reliance on wing backs to provide both defensive cover and attacking width.
This dual responsibility can be physically demanding, and Sunderland would need to ensure that the players in these roles have the stamina, pace and tactical awareness to fulfil these requirements. The FA Cup tie demonstrated that Sunderland’s wide players are capable of this work, but sustaining it over a full WSL2 season would require careful squad management and rotation.
Despite these challenges, the benefits of the system appear to outweigh the drawbacks, particularly when considering Sunderland’s current squad profile and the tactical issues that’ve plagued the team this season.
The defensive solidity offered by a back five could address one of the team’s most pressing weaknesses, whereas the attacking potential of a 3‑4‑3 in possession could unlock more consistent goal‑scoring opportunities. Saturday provided a glimpse of what this could look like — even if the full attacking potential wasn’t realised against a WSL defence.
Context is crucial here.
The Lionesses are a well‑structured and defensively disciplined side, currently sitting seventh in the WSL with a record of five wins, one draw and six defeats from their opening twelve fixtures.
Their defensive organisation is significantly stronger than that of many WSL2 teams and Sunderland’s ability to remain competitive throughout the match suggests that the tactical framework used could be even more effective against teams within their own division.
The lack of attacking joy in the FA Cup tie should therefore be viewed not as a failure of the system, but as a reflection of the quality of the opposition. Against WSL2 sides, Sunderland would likely find more space, more opportunities to counter‑attack and more chances to exploit defensive weaknesses.
The importance of building from a solid defensive foundation can’t be overstated.
Sunderland’s struggles this season have often stemmed from conceding avoidable goals, losing defensive shape, or being caught out in transition — but a 5‑2‑3 out‑of‑possession system directly addresses these issues by prioritising compactness, organisation, and collective responsibility.
Once the defensive structure is stabilised, the team can begin to develop more sophisticated attacking patterns, safe in the knowledge that they’re less likely to be punished on the counter. This is particularly important in the WSL2, where momentum and confidence can shift quickly and a strong defensive record often correlates with league success.
The 3‑4‑3 in possession also offers a platform for more creative and dynamic attacking play.
With wing backs providing width and the front three able to interchange positions, Sunderland could create overloads in wide areas, attack the half‑spaces more effectively and generate more varied attacking movements.
This would not only make the team more unpredictable but also reduce the burden on individual players to create moments of magic. Instead, the system would encourage collective attacking play, with multiple players contributing to build up and final‑third actions.
The FA Cup match also highlighted the importance of transitions, and Sunderland’s best attacking moments came when they were able to win the ball and break quickly, exploiting the spaces left by the Lionesses as they pushed forward.
A 3‑4‑3 in possession naturally lends itself to quick transitions as the front three are already positioned high up the pitch, supported by wing‑backs who can join the attack at pace. However, against WSL2 opposition, where defensive lines are often less disciplined, these transitions could become a key source of goals.
It’s also worth considering the long‑term development of the squad.
A consistent tactical identity can help players develop a deeper understanding of their roles, improve cohesion, and create a sense of continuity across seasons. For a club like Sunderland, which has a strong tradition of developing young talent, this could be particularly beneficial. A 5‑2‑3/3‑4‑3 system provides clear pathways for player development, particularly for wide players, centre backs, and midfielders who thrive in structured, tactically demanding environments.
This match, despite the result, could therefore be seen as a turning point rather than a setback.
Sunderland demonstrated that they can compete with WSL opposition when operating within a more disciplined tactical framework. The defensive improvements were clear, the transitions showed promise and the overall performance suggested that the team is capable of adopting a more sophisticated tactical identity. The challenge now is to build on this foundation, refine the system and perhaps apply it consistently in the WSL2.
There’s a compelling case for the Lasses to adopt a 5‑2‑3 out‑of‑possession and 3‑4‑3 in‑possession system.
The FA Cup tie provided firm evidence of the system’s defensive benefits — even against higher‑level opposition — and although the attacking output was limited, this should be viewed in the context of the opposition’s defensive strength rather than as a flaw in the system itself. Against WSL2 teams, Sunderland would likely find more opportunities to exploit the attacking potential of the 3‑4‑3 shape.
Most importantly, the system offers a solution to the defensive frailties that’ve hindered the team this season, providing a solid foundation from which to build a more confident, cohesive and effective attacking unit.
With the right coaching, player development and tactical commitment, this formation could become the blueprint for Sunderland’s resurgence, offering both immediate improvements and long‑term stability.
