After Manchester City’s 2-1 win over Sunderland at the Etihad on Saturday, Pep Guardiola has been frequently praised for his use of the inverted full-backs. This is a tactic he utilised well and successfully at Bayern Munich and one he was expected to deploy after it featured heavily in pre-season for the Sky Blues.

Why did he do it?

One key reason was to maintain numerical superiority in the centre of the pitch. Similarly to Chess, this is the most important area of the football pitch. This is because it has the greatest access to all other areas of the pitch, therefore there are a greater number of passing lanes available, and the ball has to travel a shorter distance to get to either flank or halfspace. This meant that Manchester City had at least 5 players who would all at times occupy central-midfield zones. This ended up with City recording a monstrous 76.9% possession.

A second reason for Pep using this strategy is to improve his side’s counter-pressing structure. By having two players extra centrally(Fernandinho moves back up into the midfield line in the opposition half after dropping between the centre-backs in build up), they are able to close down space in the centre much more easily. If the ball is lost in the centre of the midfield, they can swarm the opposition and cut off all available passing lanes. When the ball was lost deeper in the opposition half, Sunderland were forced to counter-attack wide, meaning that the attack could be slowed down easily, and pressing traps could potentially be formed against the sideline.

The final benefit I will touch upon is the chain reaction this creates with the positioning of the more advanced players. As Clichy and Sagna moved into the centre of midfield, this allowed movements of several of the other players to be activated. First off, Silva and De Bruyne could move further up the field, therefore finding zones where their playmaking abilities are most effective. Secondly it allowed the wingers, particularly Sterling(Nolito less so as he often ventured inwards to the left halfspace, with Silva moving wide), to find space out wide. This is because the Sunderland wingers drifted inside to follow the inverted full-backs, therefore the passing lane between the defence and Sterling was often free. This also meant that the Sunderland left-back, Van Aanholt, would not want to risk getting too tight to Sterling as it was easy for City to play a ball in behind. This lead to Raheem Sterling moving with the ball from the flank to the right halfspace, attempting 7 dribbles, with 6 of them being successful. It was this play that allowed the penalty to be won for the first goal which was converted by Aguero.

But…

BUT, Michael Caley had Manchester City on 1.1 xG on Saturday(not including the penalty) which isn’t very impressive. It’s even less impressive when you are made aware that Sunderland registered 0.9 xG. Basically it wouldn’t have taken a drastic amount of luck for Sunderland to win that game despite the miniscule levels of possession recorded, and 1-1 draw could just about be argued as a fair result.

So is this down to flaws with the inverted full-backs, or another aspect of their game? It’s difficult to say since Pep’s philosophy brings about many changes in style and approach so it’s unlikely that they were ever going to be world beaters on day one, but I will finally go over my concerns with the inverted full-backs at Manchester City.

One concern is with the personnel. At Bayern the inverted full-backs would be Alaba and Lahm or Rafinha, these are 3 players who are very multi-functional and have the skillset to perform well as central midfielders anyway. The same can not be said about Clichy and Sagna in my opinion. This can make for reasonable problems particularly in ball progression through the midfield. If it were up to me, I would much rather David Silva be getting the ball and playing out from those deep areas with Clichy wide near the touchline, rather than the other way round. I think that suits their player identities much better.

However, I do have the same problems with Sagna but, I wouldn’t want De Bruyne coming too deep and I was impressed with Sterling’s dribbling from wide areas. So, maybe if a new player was brought in or perhaps Fernandinho used as an inverted right-back(Pep has said he can play in multiple positions) and another player utilised as the pivot(Yaya Toure?), however keeping an orthodox left back in an asymmetrical formation, I could see working effectively. As I believe it would keep the benefits of the system used on Saturday but iron out the weaknesses.

Then my other questions over its use in the Premier League are on its necessity. When Guardiola took over at Bayern, in Germany there was a style that dominated the league. High-pressing and insanely fast counter-attacks. So, it was out of necessity that this strategy was formed. The extra players in the centre helped by-pass the press of the opposition, but also hindered the other team in possession.

In England though, there are fewer teams who play this way. Leicester, Liverpool and even Arsenal are strong on the counter, however I feel like this warrants more use of the inverted full-backs as a strategy to be deployed against particular clubs, rather than an essential aspect of the team’s philosophy. Also, as many teams will defend in deep blocks, I think it may be better to use the full-backs to provide width in the final third, allowing inverted wingers and attacking midfielders more space to damage the opposition.

This is all up for debate and I am not drawing any set conclusions after one game. There are clear benefits with the use of inverted full-backs, however I feel like the problems have been ignored or unnoticed by the media and other bloggers.

Thanks for reading! Get in touch on twitter @statacticsblog