The concept of a full-back drifting into central midfield positions still seems relatively novel.
Yet it’s now over a decade since Pep Guardiola started doing it at Bayern Munich, taking advantage of the fact that his full-backs were Philipp Lahm and David Alaba, two outstanding technicians who both had experience of playing in the engine room for Bayern’s youth sides.
Guardiola continued his plan at Manchester City — initially unsuccessfully. The likes of Pablo Zabaleta, Bacary Sagna and Gael Clichy struggled to get to grips with the position. Others have had more success. Oleksandr Zinchenko was a central midfielder almost permanently fielded ‘out of position’ at left-back. Joao Cancelo felt like a playmaker more than a defender. Rico Lewis is perhaps the first player groomed specifically for this in-between ‘half-back’ role — part-defender, part-midfielder.
By this point, it’s not simply commonplace, but almost mandatory at top clubs. And with so many different players interpreting the role in so many different ways, perhaps it’s time to differentiate the use of these players more precisely.
1) One or two full-backs moving inside?
When Guardiola first unveiled his plan at Bayern Munich, his approach involved bringing both full-backs inside into midfield together. It was almost transformative, treating those players as part of the midfield structure, with the wingers told to remain in the positions where overlapping full-backs would previously have sprinted into.
But in recent years, it’s been more common to play something of a hybrid system, in part because many managers — including Guardiola — prefer his defensive block to take a 3-2 structure rather than a 2-3 structure.
So when Arsenal played Brighton earlier this season, for example, Jurrien Timber pushed inside to become a central midfielder, allowing Declan Rice to become a fifth attacker, while Ben White narrowed his position and formed part of a back three. This is probably the more common version.
But Manchester United have often brought both full-backs inside this season. In their defeat to Liverpool, for example, Diogo Dalot and Noussair Mazraoui both shifted inside at the same time, allowing two midfielders to push on.
2) Are they there to attack or to defend?
Every player on the pitch has responsibilities in both respects, of course. But the original idea of the half-back approach was keeping the back four close together, and ready to act as a defensive unit if the opposition counter-attacked quickly.
So when Arsenal have used White moving infield into midfield, for example, you tend to think it’s primarily about defensive shape — here, they’re playing against a Brentford side using a counter-attacking front two, and therefore Arsenal want a good defender in that zone, rather than out wide.
That’s very obviously not the thinking when Liverpool managers Jurgen Klopp and Arne Slot have moved Trent Alexander-Arnold infield. That’s a more proactive move, about getting their best passer on the ball more regularly, and in positions where he can play a wider variety of passes.
3) Are they acting as a defensive midfielder or an attacking midfielder?
The general understanding is that if a full-back pushes infield into the midfield zone, they are becoming a temporary holding player — most of the aforementioned screengrabs demonstrate that.
But in Manchester City’s 2-2 draw with Arsenal last week, Josko Gvardiol’s role was more advanced — he was tasked with moving inside from left-back to become City’s inside-left, with Rodri (and, when he departed through injury, Mateo Kovacic) as the sole holding player in a 3-5-1-1. As City maintained that shape even after Arsenal went down to 10 men, Gvardiol become a penalty-box threat, and had a couple of decent efforts at goal.
Again, our instinct is to group the roles together, because any full-back moving into midfield still feels like something of a novelty.
But if we differentiate between a holding midfielder and an attacking midfielder in general — and of course we do — we should do the same with regard to these players too.
4) Are they a ball player or a runner?
A tougher one to define, here, because most roles will combine the two. But again, you can say that for any position on the football pitch.
We can probably agree that Liverpool’s Alexander-Arnold and Destiny Udogie of Tottenham Hotspur are both brought inside for primarily attacking purposes. But while the idea is to get Alexander-Arnold on the ball because he can play the final pass so effectively, like for his assist for Luis Diaz at the weekend…
…Udogie feels like more of a “willing runner”, helping to take opponents away from the flank, allowing Son Heung-min — Spurs’ key attacker — to receive passes and find more space out wide. Udogie is decent enough in possession, of course, and get onto good forward passes, but he’s not a playmaker in the manner of Alexander-Arnold.
5) Natural or inverted?
The tendency to call these players ‘inverted’ full-backs doesn’t really make sense — the idea of inverted wingers is that they’re fielded on the opposite side to their strong foot, and cut inside and use their stronger foot to shoot. Alexander-Arnold, fielded in a narrower position from the right, isn’t really inverted when playing passes like this.
But Cancelo, when playing for Manchester City from left-back, was a different case. Although he had a fondness for using the outside of his right foot, when hitting crosses like this towards the far post, he was effectively acting as an inverted winger would.
There are further complications, of course, according to different formations and responsibilities with and without the ball. Guardiola has also increasingly turned to using a centre-back, rather than a full-back, stepping into midfield.
But this position has become so common that it’s no longer a variation on a role, as we previously considered it — but a role in itself, with its own variations.
