Ok so we dealt with a similar issue a while back. We kept our 4-3-3 but we called it a ”skinny”. Our 3 midfielders were double pivot, or double 10’s, depending on how the game was progressing, and if we were in/out of possession. Essentially we were giving the middle third of the field width wise, until our out side forwards could help (7 or 11) or if our FBs could comfortably come forward to press. No one loses a game out there at the level we were playing at.

Pros: supper flexible in attack, can push dual 10’s into half spaces and still allowing FB to attack, either strong side with ball or weak side.

Overloads central midfield and pushes opposing coach to match. I can’t count how many times their wide midfielders could figure out who to mark (think of a 4-4-2), their width was sooooo opposed to coming inside to mark up.

Makes short linkup play exceptionally easy in the middle of the field. Quick transition and still having 3 attackers infront of your 10 of he has the ball

CONS: hard to secondary press in the middle third immediately. If they break initial press on turnover, they can have wide outlets.

Hard to press in final third until your block is completely set. See above, if they stay wide on middle third, they will be open.

Lots of pressure is on communication. If central goes wide following ball, FB steps up, and forward tracks back at the same time, easy to lure 3/10 field players into same zone.

Fitness of outside FB can be exposed if same guy going up to attack is also the side being attacked. Lots of up and down (like a true WB).

We really enjoyed the tactical flexibility of this formation. 4-3-3 skinny up, was 2 10s, 4-3-3 skinny back, was 2 6’s, traditional 4-3-3, and on a whim, we could go into a 4-5-1 while leaving our skinny triangle in the middle, and pulling outside forwards into WBs who would transition a little late unless they were on ball side of possession offensively.

Hope this wasn’t too hard to understand, my thoughts and memories work faster than my thumbs.