Formations are just telephone numbers right? Not something particularly descriptive, or that by themselves hold any moral weight or indication of play style. Yet there has at least been a little bit of a furore about Conte seemingly switching to playing a back 4 with Napoli at stages last season. And in accordance with the aforementioned rhetoric, people haven’t really questioned the difference in intent, nor practicing of Conte’s overall play, but rather noticed this difference, which seems to simultaneously carry weight, yet be inconsequential. I would argue however; that, Conte has in fact played a back 5 all season, with players potentially interpreting - or more likely with Conte - being told to interpret roles in a different way. While in addition, I think it speaks more to the paradigm of perceiving players from afar as positions, with Politano and Di Lorenzo at least superficially occupying abstract existences as a right winger and right-back respectively within the cultural zeitgeist. Partially, as I will argue, this discussion potentially highlights the pointlessness of formations conceptually; but also, I think it highlights why they are important to overall discourse through discussing the importance of footedness and verticality.
I would argue formations have no real strong definition, and what we call a particular system necessarily holds a degree of arbitrariness, either in the demarcator, such as off the ball shape, where the seemingly more structured and less fluid nature of out of possession play makes it predominant when prescribing structures more holistically. Or in how we more intuitively conceptualise or argue for a certain position, with that being tied up in deeper underlying assumptions and thoughts over importances of more minor details, with this more diffuse approach lacking direct articulatablity, appearing as an answer without descriptive depth or consistency. You see Denzil Dumfries at the highest point of an average portions map for Inter, but it doesn’t make you question his role as a wing-back, in contrast to Federico de Marco. This is something that interests me, because what necessarily makes them ‘wing-backs’. What is this role of a ‘wing-back’ and looking to go beyond the concept of priors and the ascribing of meaning and terms based on previous assumptions, how does verticality and footedness impact this.
Players in positions help you play in a particular rhythm, and who occupies these positions impacts what rhythm will be generated in accordance with your overarching ideas. Football after all, is a space-time concept. The type of spaces you seek to create, and how you read them on the pitch according to the opposition is therefore of upmost pertinence. Therefore, you must seek to relate the positioning in accordance with the ball, the teammates around you, the space and the opposition. This is not new, here is Pep:
However; despite what some may seek to propagate, Pep’s ‘positional’ sense of football is not rigid in the way it conceives of space occupation, and does not axiomatically require a desire to stay in position as opposed to moving towards the ball. For the purposes of argument - positions relate to occupation of space, and therefore their importance varies based upon the consistent occupation of that space both and out of possession. A sense of rigidity can be conceptualised within his model, whereby the prominence placed on the ‘telephone number’ in context can increase depending on consistency, both of shape in the positional sense, and of who occupies where in the shape. This for me is an interesting distinction, because you have both flexibility of shape, and flexibility of who occupies the roles. This is potentially the distinction between positional fluidity and relationism. I question whether this fits neatly onto a graph, because its difficult to think of a team with low difference in spatial occupiers but high fluidity of shape
Tangent aside Wing-backs hold an interesting role as the primary width holder from a defensive position, as even ‘attacking full backs’ often have support on the flanks with greater consistency prior to their near-sided wingers inversion. This in isolation is not what makes them wing-backs, as full backs in a diamond midfield suffer the same fate. Therefore, I have in a very roundabout way said that a wing-back is the wide defensive player in a back five. Genius! But I think EBL’s tweet here holds resonance:
https://x.com/EBL2017/status/1891168347863011756
But what type of wingback should you employ I think speaks to the character of how your team seeks to play:
Take Denzil Dumfries - he is a battering-ram of a wing-back, capable of great verticality and exploiting spaces left by the opposition. He is what I would call a dynamic player insofar as he thrives off attacking space, rather than resting in space while the team have the ball, or a player that seeks to move towards the ball to influence a game. He is an idiosyncratic player in that he often possesses a game-changing and unstoppable quality when harnessed, but moreover his limitations in possession force this type of usage and make him detrimental otherwise.
In the context of Inzaghi’s Inter and general team-building, you must then consider the implications of this type of player. He reduces fluidity, because he operates on a solely vertical and transitional plain. When he is in the team, Barella is less likely to come wide to receive possession, or make underlapping runs to create space centrally or to receive in wider zones anticipating complementary movements. Likewise, the centre back on his flank is less likely to have to make dynamic overlapping runs himself, which is something to consider with regards to instructions and likely makes play more rigid overall. Rather than running beyond, they will run in support - still moving high, but are more likely to pay half-space and deep crosses as opposed to quick-drilled ones at the byline. In this regard, Denzil can be conceptualised almost as monopolising dynamism down his flank, and therefore needs to capitalise on the transitional spark over space, rather than creating it through prolonged in possession plays, and consequently he makes play more vertical.
What are some considerations a coach may take from this, and how and when to apply it in certain match-ups. Perhaps in games where you are anticipating being the ‘inferior’ team where possession is likely to be dominated and the opposition hold attacking threats you want to ensure cannot isolate you in transition, you consider Dumfries. The greater overall ridgity of play provides greater transitional security, while the verticality not only is suited to holding shape to a greater extent, but also exploiting potential spaces left by the opponent in behind, where considerations of how to maximise the first 1-5 passes, or 10 seconds of possession through vertical movement is more important than how you unlock a team after 5-10 passes, or sustained periods of possession. This is only one instance, as performing overload to isolate style mechanisms and generally having an asymmetric set-ups can lead to one flank being more ‘transitional’ tactically.
Constrast this to Darmian at Inter, who when he plays wing-back, Inter generally play a less directly transitional way. The reasoning is two-fold. They lack a transitional threat in behind, and they now have a greater capacity to recycle the ball because of his more fluid, but less dynamic qualities. Consequently, they need to search for dynamism to unlock defences and find space in behind in different ways, such as the near sided centre back under or overlapping, now dependant on things such as Barellas position on the near-side and how he seeks to move. Everything becomes more interconnected and interdependent on a relational basis, where each movement informs the subsequent one at a holistic level. The aforementioned sentence applies in a literal sense when Denzil is playing, but in a much more simplified form because his one-dimesonality, and verticality makes play more predictable.
This is where I think someone like Amorim has failed at Manchester United and explains to an extent his failures against ‘smaller’ teams as opposed to the more admirable performances against larger opposition. He does not really embrace vertical positional fluidity, which limits the scopes of the centre backs as vertical actors to influence the game and upset the opponents defensive rhythm. Every game is one of positional rigidity, which fails to produce when the space is not created via oppositional endeavour - leading to the stodgy affairs and 1 goal either way games associated with his tenure.
Moreover, I do seek to ascribe any value-judgements to any of these terms; its a matter of suitability. As for Inter, both of these styles of play have proved incredibly effective. And in fact, using Denzil in the Champions League where they often are required to be more vertical, and harness his unstoppable qualities has proven extremely successful. Even in the league they began to rely more an more upon him as their performances continued to get worse as fatigue from fighting on three fronts began to take hold.
Contrast this to another coach known for having a more rigid style of play in Antonio Conte. This season, particularly since the departure of Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, Napoli have played a somewhat asymmetric back 5, with Politiano on one flank and then either one of Spinazzola or Olivera on the other flank. This case of asymmetry is something else I want to explore in reference to making a back 5 effective, but first, Napoli.
Politano typically occupies the same sort of positions a winger would, and plays often like an inverted winger would, and with being inverted, he has a greater scope of play centrally which means he can be more flexible with the ball at his feet. This typically means he can better stand up a defender to facilitate supporting play, particularly an overlap from right centre back, Di Lorenzo. This is why I think many classify the play style as being that of a back four. Because in these phases, Di Lorenzo acts as an overlapper and Politano as a dribbler - ergo falling into the model of winger and full back respectively, which is also their most commonly associated positions.
Now, having this model of playing doesn’t make Napoli any less direct or vertical in the abstract sense; however, as it pertains to Politano, I think that using a winger profile in this way often provides a contingency for when the direct style of play cannot work like clockwork, and when possession needs to be held in higher areas for greater amounts of time. It follows the logic of the inverted winger from there, in that dribbling becomes less committal and more dynamic typically when facing inside; in short it becomes less risky and better for sustaining possession (and much more but I think a tirade on the theory behind inverting wingers is perhaps best left for another day!).
In football when performing post-hoc evaluations, moreover you always encounter Euthyphro problems: does a team play inside because it has weak-sided wingbacks or do they have weak-sided wingbacks because they seek to play inside. One thing I would mention however; in a more prospective manner in answering this question is Conte’s consistent, insistence on playing what I like to call automatised ‘hoofs’. This is where a player facing back to goal, typically on the touchline and deep, and therefore, usually the wingback, plays a swinging central ball into space. This then provides the catalyst for more transitional attacks and speeding up play through looking to go forward. The issue which potentially comes with wrong-sided wing-backs like this, particularly if building in a less rigid manner, is central pressing traps as the opponent goes behind the midfielder with a dynamic advantage and is then able to directly transition against a stretched defence while in central spaces. This is another possible consideration and area of dichotomy when talking about wrong-sided wing-backs as fluidity is perhaps best suited to strong sidedness because of the greater contingencies provided by verticality.
To try and explain what I mean by this, I would contrast this with Inzaghi’s teams, which typically seek to have the player, playing forward, facing forward. To expand on this pithy saying, its essentially that his Inter were predicated on dynamic bursts into space, which suited forward facing orientation as it typically allowed for the dynamic advantage to be gained over the opposition through combination play. This style of football moreover was predicated to a greater extent on dribbling and fluidity, which facing forward when progressing better facilitates through putting the player in possession towards the expansive frontier and allowing back filling, opening space forward to progress. Compare those adjectives to what you would associate with a Conte team, which keeps shape to a much greater extent. As mentioned with the Di Lorenzo overlaps, this doesn’t mean its defensive, but rather that attacks happen in a more structured manner, and you are less likely to find the figurative polar bear in Arlington Texas.
This style of automatised hoof-ball (trust me, I use the term very endearingly) is therefore better suited towards having a weak-sided wing-back, as their natural orientation when back to goal favours their stronger foot, and therefore they are playing a less directly vertical role. Contrast this to an Inter player who has to directly step into space, which is more suited to a strong sided player. This is supported by the same logic which dictates a general preferability towards having a strong sided (most notably in discourse, a left-footed, left centre back) centre back as it allows for natural progressive angles. Perhaps one of, if not the most common pressing triggers is to allow the progression of a weak-sided centre back, who then runs down a cul-de-sac and only has the awkward pass to the wide player available who is then pounced upon. Ergo, dynamic advancement into space, and ‘progressive roles’ typically suit strong-sided players. For centre backs, it is difficult for them not to be conceptualised as a directly progressive player, therefore, they I typically believe they are almost always better being strong-sided. Full backs have often been seen similarly. Their role was traditionally conceptualised as that of a player who supports the winger by playing it down the channel and occasionally overlapping. If in doubt play it down the line. From there it evolved to the original tactico piece, on why wingers are important in the modern game and occupying the role previously filled by wingers, as dynamic width holders. Both these roles were vertical in their intention and primarily oriented around 1/2 touch actions or relied on space ahead. And now, as wing-backs have become (or been open to having the potential of being) less vertical in their orientation to sustain pressure in higher areas, among other things, centre backs have now stepped up to become the players offering dynamic support down the flank, and much needed verticality in attack to break teams down and provide wide, often crossing threats.
Inverted full backs are interesting etymologically, because unlike inverted wingers, they do not presuppose a degree of weak-sidedness. Often their role remained progressive, as they acted more as narrow or inside full backs who stepped up, rather than players who properly moved into midfield. The moving into midfield, a la Zinchencko is perhaps the most commonly associated variant, but even he typically remains strong-sided, because his role is primarily that of progressing play vertically to the forward players. Contrast this to somebody like João Cancelo when he was at Manchester City, where his role was primarily creative, and attempting to play the play diagonally, either connecting attacks to the far-side or creating chances directly. His role upsets the easy dichotomy I’ve created thus far, because of its diagonal intentions (combining the vertical and horizontal). But to maintain the dichotomy, he rarely went directly vertical in dribbles or passing intentions, outside the straight pass towards the touchline winger and I think therefore can be seen as a further evolution of the role. This evolution is not linear, as ‘vertical’ full backs still dominate, but showed progression insofar as it expanded the horizons of possibility and conceptualisation. It added an extra tool to an arsenal, particularly for when you want to play slower-paced more methodical football; bait opponents and exploit a particularly technical full back.
Now what about wingers? Can they still be vertical? Unsurprisingly, Pep Guardiola acts a good lens for study here as well. In general conversations, when people discuss Pep’s time at Manchester City, they most positively reminisce over the centurions, and most notably one player: Leroy Sane. His electrifying dribbling, close control and pace seems to capture something the zeitgeist feels is missing from City presently. However, an undercurrent I felt throughout reading Martí Perarnau’s book Revolution, which looks into Pep’s seasons at City, was Pep being skeptical and always wary of Sane. Despite his qualities, there was a feeling he was too direct in his playing style. And well part of that element is core to Sane’s style of playing irrespective of position on the pitch; how Pep harnessed these tendencies is interesting.
https://x.com/JackM_77/status/1865908005067530439
By playing Sane and Sterling on their strong sides, he largely simplified their style of play by forcing them to attack directly down the flanks and attempt to play drilled crosses into the box, with that being the emblematic goal of the era. This harnessed Sane’s close control, dribbling and direct tendencies through allowing him to run directly at his opposing full back, and Sterlings predatory movement alongside the aforementioned abilities to create a good synchronicity between the two. Moreover, you had David Silva and De Bruyne having constant threats of through balls into the channels which pounced on diagonal runs, and quick actions subsequent from them as they often occurred deep into the opposition’s half, which therefore suited the directness of playing on the first touch rather than having to cut inside. There is an entire tactical landscape to consider making this point which generally relates to teams lesser ability to counter the threats City posed at them, and having a greater willingness to acquiesce and accept being pinned deep. Moreover, it is worth mentioning the centurion season occurred in the aftermath of the Conte revolution where teams were playing back 5’s more frequently, where Pep has previously mentioned a preference for strong sided vertical players who are better are pinning their opposing wing back and forcing the opposition backwards (because of centre back/wing back confusion should the wing-back vacate position - think Wan-Bissaka in 21/22 game at Old Trafford).
Overall, there was a lesser concern about transition and losing the ball, with the penetrative runs of Sane and Sterling often meaning they were not glued to the touchline in comparison to a player like Jack Grealish. They were goalscorers and general attacking threats, and particularly the element about making dangerous runs in the half space to either receive a cross, or to make one across the box, and that greater orientation on quick actions as opposed to holding the ball up made them suited towards strong sided play.
Contrast this to the Grealish model which is oriented around holding up play, and generally being more horizontal in play style. Holding out baits of little touches to entice. Vertical players are typically lower touch players because they seek to make decisive actions quicker. https://x.com/cityreport_/status/1761883665859051684. As it relates to control, these high touch players like Bernardo, Foden and Grealish who increasingly became the relied upon wingers at City, compared to the electric Sane signalled a deeper shift in orientation. Pep changed to from less vertical wingers to move towards a style more oriented around pinning the opposition deep and suffocating them. That is not to say the Centurions did not do that, just not to the same extent. Attacks become more focused on finding the far-side earlier, taking more touches, playing more passes to force the opponent back before striking to nullify any threat of transition - such are the vicissitudes of verticality.
I would also say, that often, although not exclusively, the burden of verticality then fell onto the interior player who would make underlaps to upset the opponents structure to show for the wider pass - so in this paradigm, the vertical player is typically midfielder, who can receive deeper and pass wide to then underlap. An underlap is typically less transitional than an overlap and more about gaining space than an overlap because of the angle at which you receive it generally requiring one or more touches to readjust. I explore this more here https://runningtheshowblog.wordpress.com/2021/10/08/wrong-footed-full-backs-a-tool-for-consolidating-central-possession-and-accessing-the-far-side/ but as it pertains to this article, the point is that verticality typically falls onto the midfielders here, with Bernardo Silva and Kevin de Bruyne, being different examples of how that can manifest within a teams structure.
However; relating back to Manchester United who fit more into the Conte model, of transitional deep and needing a 1v1 presence high. I think Dalot and Amad fit the criteria of what is needed for these positions well, as Dalot is comfortable driving inside when having space, making runs in behind and playing passes centrally while being good on his weaker foot when more direct actions are needed. Amad contrastingly fits more into the Politano archetype (although very different as players) as being somebody who can face up 1v1 and provide a threat in the final third, while also being able to invite his centre back forward to attack more aggressively. This is where the asymmetric dynamics can also be somewhat mirrored, as Leny Yoro has shown himself willing to commit to attacks and an able ball carrier. In possession this then would allow the team to shift, with Maguire becoming an RCB and Licha an LCB during transition phases. Moreover, as it relates to off ball adaptions, and becoming more of a 4-4-2, I think stylistically the asymmetry works, as it puts a reduced burden on Amad from things like long balls, while allowing Dalot to operate comfortably as a more traditional ‘full back’.
This type of quick spark, transitional play when speed intensifies greatly after a lull period is something I think can be the antidote to the general stodginess which has typified Amorims reign. With Mbeumo and Cunha now coming deep to receive, and themselves being direct players with Sesko stretching defences to create the space for these players to operate, I think the team could excel at these types of central transitions. In the friendly against Everton we saw the creation of wide diamonds, particularly on the right flank where Amad would instinctively play a pass round the defender to Mbeumo. Perhaps most memorably, although not a diamond but an automatised hoof for the goal, when the double pivot came deep to create space centrally and from there the front 3 were able to combine quickly once the transition had been catalysed. Part of these sequences you also think of overload to isolate situations, where build up has occurred down the left, and Amad is now isolated vs a full back 1v1 and then can be supported by an overlap, either from the centre back or the interior. Or as it manifest this time, Amad receiving earlier 1v1 and being able to drive to win an albeit soft penalty.
A wingback can be a lonely role; however, as it relates to holding possession better and being more transitional in deep regions, I feel being weak-sided can often make them more connected and prevent the constraining effect of the touchline more efficiently, with drives inside often being something of potential. The sort of mid-positioning of the wing-backs is suited to moving inside against more intense presses, particularly if the double pivot feign deep (or under Amorim, one pushes high and the other deep) to create space to move into centrally. Maybe this is all a rationalisation to try and justify playing my favourite Manchester United player Diogo Dalot. However; I at the very least think there is something behind viewing footedness through the lens of verticality.
Superb piece