The inverted fullback has become a trendy tactic in modern football, with teams aiming to gain an advantage by deploying these defenders in central areas. But is this tactic truly as effective as it seems, or are we witnessing a resurgence of the traditional, wide-playing fullback? In this article, we will explore the contrasting styles of these two types of defenders and analyze their impact on team performance.
The Inverted Fullback: A Double-Edged Sword
The inverted fullback is a player who starts in a wider position but moves inside, occupying the half-space or central zone. The aim is to create numerical superiority in the center of the pitch, open up passing lanes for teammates, and offer an additional attacking option from deep. However, this tactic can also have its drawbacks.
One major concern is that the inverted fullback can become isolated and easily marked out of the game. This can hinder a team’s ability to progress the ball effectively and create scoring opportunities. Moreover, the absence of an overlapping fullback can limit the effectiveness of wingers, who may find themselves isolated on the flanks.
The Conventional Fullback: A Vertical Threat
The conventional fullback is a player who remains wide, occupying a position on the touchline. While they may not be as involved in possession play as their inverted counterparts, they often have a significant impact when they do receive the ball, particularly in the attacking phase.
Their natural inclination to make vertical runs allows them to arrive in dangerous positions with space to work with. These runs often lead to risky but rewarding actions like crosses, penetrative passes, or shots on goal. This direct approach can inject a vital dose of verticality into a team’s play, which is often lacking in teams that favor possession-based tactics.
A Case Study: Premier League Teams
Several Premier League clubs have experimented with both inverted and conventional fullbacks this season. At Manchester United, for example, the team initially used Luke Shaw and Aaron Wan-Bissaka in inverted roles, with mixed results. While Wan-Bissaka’s movement proved more effective, Shaw struggled to find his rhythm, often being marked out of the game.
Tottenham Hotspur, under Ange Postecoglu, also initially deployed inverted fullbacks, but the tactic was met with similar challenges. Emerson Royal and Destiny Udogie found themselves unable to make a meaningful impact in the final third, leaving their wingers, Dejan Kulusevski and Son Heung-min, isolated and ineffective.
In contrast, Manchester City’s Kyle Walker has thrived in a conventional right-back role, showcasing his blistering pace and ability to make penetrative runs into the box. Similarly, Chelsea’s Ben Chilwell, despite playing as a left-winger in a nominally back four, has exhibited the characteristics of a wingback, making dangerous runs from deep and offering a vertical threat.
The Verdict: A Trend to Watch
It is still early in the season to declare a definitive winner between the inverted and conventional fullback. However, the early evidence suggests that teams that have employed conventional fullbacks have enjoyed greater success in terms of both possession and attacking fluidity.
This could be attributed to a number of factors, including the player profiles of the fullbacks themselves, and the overall style of play adopted by the team. Ultimately, the success of any tactic comes down to its execution, and the right players need to be in the right positions to make it work. As the season progresses, we will continue to monitor the impact of both inverted and conventional fullbacks, and see if the trend of the traditional fullback continues to gain momentum.
