Inverted wingers

[Oscar Bonavena]

Maybe I'm a dinosaur pining for the days of Giggs and Beckham, or maybe I'm just frustrated at the continual ineffectiveness of United's inverted wingers, but when and why did this become so popular in football?

All I ever see from it is players bringing the ball into traffic and defenders able to crowd them out. Ok, they might occasionally cut inside and score a goal, but I can't help but think more chances could be created from getting the ball out wide.

I know Liverpool use inverted wingers very effectively, but they can balance it by having LB Robertson and RB TAA pinging balls in from out wide, we don't have those options (or certainly not as good).

So why are we so wedded to this?!

 

[Vidyoyo]

I agree but do our wingers have the profile to create from wide? Antony seems like the only one who might be half good at it. Rashford and Garnacho like to drift in and drive at the defence. Pellestri has a good cross on him but is ineffectual at a lot of other things and rarely plays. Diallo is forever injured. There's an international manhunt currently ongoing for Sancho.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

I think when the role of wing backs became to own the whole wing. With inverted players you can play 1 striker more easily. I think it is a natural evolution. 442 wingers were a bit one dimensional for me... But lots to be said for how pep uses wingers in the second half of his mgmt career

 

[ti vu]

Maybe I'm a dinosaur pining for the days of Giggs and Beckham, or maybe I'm just frustrated at the continual ineffectiveness of United's inverted wingers, but when and why did this become so popular in football?

All I ever see from it is players bringing the ball into traffic and defenders able to crowd them out. Ok, they might occasionally cut inside and score a goal, but I can't help but think more chances could be created from getting the ball out wide.

I know Liverpool use inverted wingers very effectively, but they can balance it by having LB Robertson and RB TAA pinging balls in from out wide, we don't have those options (or certainly not as good).

So why are we so wedded to this?!

Because total football influence means more focus on winning midfield battle thus an extra midfielder is preferred than a second forward. Inverted winger has more opportunity to shoot to offset the lack of second forward because against well organized defensive player, even a poacher as sharp as Haaland can be invisible if your main attacking pattern is moving it to the wing and out it into the box. Some teams have their wide forward as main scorer. Attacking full back cover plenty of attacking responsibility of traditional wingers, where the extra midfielder again help cover at the box to allow them freedom to go up the pitch.

Our issue? Our midfield sucks, and Bruno is even at his best is erratic and is a more attacker than a midfielder. Our full backs overall also are not good in attacking as expected for this inverted wingers tactic.

 

[Red4Ever]

Gordon hill suggesting we play garnacho on the right & Antony on left had me thinking about this; esp after we were so poor last few games. Garnacho is good on the left though

 

[Borussia Teeth]

I have no problem with inverted wingers but if they're unable to go on the outside from time to time then it's a problem. Garnacho seems decent at skinning his opponent and putting in a cross/cut back with his weaker foot. Rashford, Antony and Sancho all seem incapable of doing this.

 

[Bastian]

Garnacho is not a one trick pony. He goes inside and outside, he's pinged in some low crosses that are a treat for any centre forward. I might as well repeat what I've said in numerous threads, but we can try Rashford on the right in order to supply Hojlund. He's been played on the right before but it's been more about accommodating someone else on the left. Now we have an actual centre forward to supply.

 

[Stack]

Things get overly complicated and overly intellectualised in football too often. Normal old fashioned wingers still make it entirely possible to play just one striker, you simply give the opposite winger instructions to support the striker arriving in the box. Positions arent set in stone and at any one moment a players responsibilities can be more concerned with a situation in the moment rather than perceived responsibilities and positioning on the pitch.
Bring back normal wingers who can cross naturally with the available foot but they can also cut in if needed.
Too much theory not enough practicality

 

[Oranges038]

It's pointless when you're fullbacks aren't capable of supporting, overlapping and providing width. It's also pointless when you buy a striker who is essentially a target man, because of the above 2 points, he isn't going to get enough service. They are also pointless when you cannot create enough possession and movement to allow them to make the diagonal runs in behind the fullbacks to make cut backs.

This is exactly the reason why SAF jettisoned Ruud, he knew the setup he was moving to couldn't accommodate someone who was essentially a box striker. Which is aesthetically what Hojlund looks to be.

The end result is very few goals.

 

[Trequarista10]

It became popular due to 442 falling out of favour in preference for 3 man midfield formations because of the extra control in possession, and crossing being seen as a low % tactic that loses possession

At the top level I'm surprised their aren't more wingers/wide forwards who are competent with both feet and equally comfortable going outside or cutting inside. Our wide forwards have an extra hard job because ETH likes the full backs tucking in so they don't have an overlapping runner outside most of the time.

Either way I'd love to see a 442 variation and think it'd work with some tinkering. But very few players have grown up playing 442 or would be suited to a traditional winger role so they'd have to be converted. LW into RM or RW into LM. But these players grew up idolising Messi, Ronaldo, Robben and Co so will hardly be keen on tracking back, so its hard to find willing or motivated players to mould. A sharp, competent scouting department could achieve it though imo. May need to find overly attacking full backs who could excel as traditional wingers, and old school b2b midfielders with an engine, dribbling ability, vision, and playmaking ability to be utilised as inverted full backs. Would take a phenomenal scouting/recruitment effort and a manager who can handle big egos and convince them their skill set could be utilised in a different position.

 

[didz]

To me, the 'when' bit was Celtic around 2005. They had Shunsuke Nakamura and Aiden McGeady playing on the 'wrong' sides in a 442. I'd seen plenty of teams with one winger inverted, but that's the first team I remember seeing who had both doing it every week as their plan A.

So basically it's all Gordon Strachan's fault.

 

[ti vu]

Things get overly complicated and overly intellectualised in football too often. Normal old fashioned wingers still make it entirely possible to play just one striker, you simply give the opposite winger instructions to support the striker arriving in the box. Positions arent set in stone and at any one moment a players responsibilities can be more concerned with a situation in the moment rather than perceived responsibilities and positioning on the pitch.
Bring back normal wingers who can cross naturally with the available foot but they can also cut in if needed.
Too much theory not enough practicality

It's not easy like that. The type of wingers who are more comfortable to go outside attacking bigger space, usually don't have as good a feel for crowded space in the box.

You don't make a good cases when almost all of the top successful teams over the past decade have been playing with inverted wingers/ wide forwards. The theorists in this cases are the people who are advocating for wingers. Our problem doesn't mean other teams having same problem.

 

[noodlehair]

It seems to work well when the wingers run in behind inside the fullback off the ball, as then they're almost like a second and third centre forward. Or they draw the fullback in so it creates room for their own fullback to get forwards.

Rashford does this when he's playing well,but other times he either doesn't make the runs or we don't have enough presence in midfield to get the ball to him.

Antony always seems to be on the outside even though he always wants to cut inside, which imo is what makes him so often ineffective. Its very easy to defend because you can just let him run past you and know he's going to try and best you again to get inside anyway, and he's not creating any space for anyone else because he's not making runs into areas that's going to draw anyone out.

 

[RedStarUnited]

Maybe I'm a dinosaur pining for the days of Giggs and Beckham, or maybe I'm just frustrated at the continual ineffectiveness of United's inverted wingers, but when and why did this become so popular in football?

All I ever see from it is players bringing the ball into traffic and defenders able to crowd them out. Ok, they might occasionally cut inside and score a goal, but I can't help but think more chances could be created from getting the ball out wide.

I know Liverpool use inverted wingers very effectively, but they can balance it by having LB Robertson and RB TAA pinging balls in from out wide, we don't have those options (or certainly not as good).

So why are we so wedded to this?!

We are just a bad team. Arsenal play inverted wingers and their wingers cross a hell of a lot.

 

[Stack]

It's not easy like that. The type of wingers who are more comfortable to go outside attacking bigger space, usually don't have as good a feel for crowded space in the box.

You don't make a good cases when almost all of the top successful teams over the past decade have been playing with inverted wingers/ wide forwards. The theorists in this cases are the people who are advocating for wingers. Our problem doesn't mean other teams having same problem.

Sorry completely disagree.
Buy the types of wingers capable of going wide and crossing accurately but also have the ability to cut inside if the opportunity arrives. Also when i was talking about supporting the striker that was cutting in to get into the box. Positions arent rigid like on PS or FM, they change and adjust depending on the situation at any given moment in a game.
Just because other successful teams are using inverted wingers doesnt mean its the only way teams can be successful, if we stuck to that line of thinking we would never have seen the innovators like Michels etc appear.
Again, way too much theory and not enough practical application.
Awful argument you have made.

 

[V.O.]

Again, way too much theory and not enough practical application.

I'm not sure these are the terms you should be talking in when you're arguing against the way almost every team who has won anything worth winning for the last decade plays.

 

[AndyMUFC86]

Completely agree. And you make a great point about Liverpool. They have the full backs capable of delivering consistent quality balls into the box in replacement of a traditional winger. Our full backs are diabolical at getting forward and crossing. Or at least that’s the case currently without a fit Shaw. I’d love nothing more than to see us switch it up and put Garnacho from the right and Antony on the left. Or at the very least switch it in game for short period.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

I used to love it when Giggs and Ronaldo would swap wings through out a match. Why don't we do that anymore? I'd love to see us set up with inverted wingers only to have Rashford and Antony switch sides. Especially seeing as we've been playing with right footed LB's a lot lately. But yeah, I'm an old guy too and would love to see more right footers on the right and left footers on the left. Wingers with the ball at their feet should look to assist first, and score second. And if they are scoring a lot, most of them should be coming from making the back post run.

 

[didz]

It seems to work well when the wingers run in behind inside the fullback off the ball, as then they're almost like a second and third centre forward. Or they draw the fullback in so it creates room for their own fullback to get forwards.

Rashford does this when he's playing well,but other times he either doesn't make the runs or we don't have enough presence in midfield to get the ball to him.

Antony always seems to be on the outside even though he always wants to cut inside, which imo is what makes him so often ineffective. Its very easy to defend because you can just let him run past you and know he's going to try and best you again to get inside anyway, and he's not creating any space for anyone else because he's not making runs into areas that's going to draw anyone out.

That was basically Mahrez's game, only he did it well. I don't think Antony positioning himself on the outside is a problem at all - it's probably one of the main things Ten Hag likes about him. His lack of variety on the ball since coming to England is just bizarre though.

There was an assist he made for Dalot against Forest last season, where he cut in as per, but went right across the front of the box past his favourite shooting zone, and played a disguised through ball. He did that sort of thing a lot at Ajax, but to my knowledge that was his one and only attempt at it in a United shirt.

He had quick enough feet to get to the byline, stop, check, and cross with his left too, but again he seemingly left that skill in Amsterdam.

 

[Stack]

I'm not sure these are the terms you should be talking in when you're arguing against the way almost every team who has won anything worth winning for the last decade plays.

Again,
just because these other teams do these things doesnt mean its the only way to be successful. Again, if we all stuck to the same formula we would never have seen the innovators in the game. Awful argument

 

[V.O.]

Again,
just because these other teams do these things doesnt mean its the only way to be successful. Again, if we all stuck to the same formula we would never have seen the innovators in the game. Awful argument

You can't just declare something "too much theory and not enough practicality" when the practical evidence we have are the results for the last decade and they almost all point the other way.

You can have an opinion that something else might be be better, but you don't get to claim some kind of weird objectivity for it like you are doing.

 

[ti vu]

Sorry completely disagree.
Buy the types of wingers capable of going wide and crossing accurately but also have the ability to cut inside if the opportunity arrives. Also when i was talking about supporting the striker that was cutting in to get into the box. Positions arent rigid like on PS or FM, they change and adjust depending on the situation at any given moment in a game.
Just because other successful teams are using inverted wingers doesnt mean its the only way teams can be successful, if we stuck to that line of thinking we would never have seen the innovators like Michels etc appear.
Again, way too much theory and not enough practical application.
Awful argument you have made.

You're only project our team issue on the whole scale. As pointed out, the hosts of other teams that went back more than a decade have had no issue using inverted wingers. Your point is like saying our tactic is hit maximum level, and we need to add something innovation by implement an backward tactic. In reality, we have never reached there, the fluidity of other teams using inverted wingers because as a whole we're still a team relying on quick transition from deep exploiting space behind opposition high defensive line. The amount of goals scored by wide inverted forwards is evidence that this this innovative tactic is effective where as traditional winger and CF relationship had hit a tactical limit. You work the ball well enough as a team, there shouldn't be issue with get to the byline and square it across goal. Liverpool, Arsenal, City have been doing this.

 

[George The Best]

That was basically Mahrez's game, only he did it well. I don't think Antony positioning himself on the outside is a problem at all - it's probably one of the main things Ten Hag likes about him. His lack of variety on the ball since coming to England is just bizarre though.

There was an assist he made for Dalot against Forest last season, where he cut in as per, but went right across the front of the box past his favourite shooting zone, and played a disguised through ball. He did that sort of thing a lot at Ajax, but to my knowledge that was his one and only attempt at it in a United shirt.

He had quick enough feet to get to the byline, stop, check, and cross with his left too, but again he seemingly left that skill in Amsterdam.

Antony rarely goes for the byline as he doesn’t have a right foot and defenders know that he’s going to check back. We need to find a better way of making him more productive for the money we’ve spent on him. Maybe play him on the left with Garnacho or Pellistri on the right. Might get Hojlund more involved too if we had wingers that can cross the ball. ETH won’t like it though as that means Rashford is redundant

 

[Stack]

You're only project our team issue on the whole scale. As pointed out, the hosts of other teams that went back more than a decade have had no issue using inverted wingers. Your point is like saying our tactic is hit maximum level, and we need to add something innovation by implement an backward tactic. In reality, we have never reached there, the fluidity of other teams using inverted wingers because as a whole we're still a team relying on quick transition from deep exploiting space behind opposition high defensive line. The amount of goals scored by wide inverted forwards is evidence that this this innovative tactic is effective where as traditional winger and CF relationship had hit a tactical limit. You work the ball well enough as a team, there shouldn't be issue with get to the byline and square it across goal. Liverpool, Arsenal, City have been doing this.

Not what im saying at all and you completely missed my point. Never mind.

 

[Stack]

You can't just declare something "too much theory and not enough practicality" when the practical evidence we have are the results for the last decade and they almost all point the other way.

You can have an opinion that something else might be be better, but you don't get to claim some kind of weird objectivity for it like you are doing.

Too much theory in here and not enough practical understanding. Too much FM and PS and not enough actual coaching experience. Too many text books and not enough training ground understanding. Thats whats in here.

Hey you stick to the formula you find in some article or book or computer game. Its clearly working for you

 

[V.O.]

Too much theory in here and not enough practical understanding. Too much FM and PS and not enough actual coaching experience. Too many text books and not enough training ground understanding. Thats whats in here.

Hey you stick to the formula you find in some article or book or computer game. Its clearly working for you

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[stevoc]

Gordon hill suggesting we play garnacho on the right & Antony on left had me thinking about this; esp after we were so poor last few games. Garnacho is good on the left though

Rashford is shite on the right, so I'd like to see Garnacho given a run on the right. Though it's a mad situation we've found ourselves in with the right wing. Going into the season we had about £170m worth of wingers to rotate there.

 

[dcrompton]

Typical United in trying to ape successful teams but with inferior players. Liverpool buy expensive centre half which transforms their defence so we try to do the same, only with Maguire not Van Dijk.

Inverted wingers works with quality like Salah, Mane, Mahrez, Silva, Foden etc. it doesn’t work with dross like Antony or Rashford who is only on it 1 in 5.

 

[Red4Ever]

Rashford is shite on the right, so I'd like to see Garnacho given a run on the right. Though it's a mad situation we've found ourselves in with the right wing. Going into the season we had about £170m worth of wingers to rotate there.

it’s incredible really looking at the last few years

Greenwood
sancho
Antony etc

unreal

 

[Rojofiam]

Typical United in trying to ape successful teams but with inferior players. Liverpool buy expensive centre half which transforms their defence so we try to do the same, only with Maguire not Van Dijk.

Inverted wingers works with quality like Salah, Mane, Mahrez, Silva, Foden etc. it doesn’t work with dross like Antony or Rashford who is only on it 1 in 5.

Rashford isn't inferior to those except Salah...his G/A in his last 5 PL seasons is up there even with Mané's output, and he did it in much worse teams.

Rashford last 5 (so from age 21 onwards): 18, 26, 22, 6, 22

Mané all PL seasons with Liverpool: 19, 17, 24, 27, 19, 20

 

[tob]

Not only are we playing with inverted wingers, but inverted fullbacks as well. How centrally do you need to play?

It’s often mentioned how most goals come from inside the 6-yard box (or close to it), and with only one or two touches. However, our wingers always seems to go for the dribble inside and shoot when they’re close to the penalty box. I don’t know, but maybe that has a connection to how few goals we score.

 

[Dannn411]

Not only are we playing with inverted wingers, but inverted fullbacks as well. How centrally do you need to play?

This is a very important point and the primary reason our play is so tumescent. Everything is funneled central with zero attacking threat out wide. We have so many wide players and none are good at either beating a man out wide or delivering a cross from out wide.

 

[dcrompton]

Rashford isn't inferior to those except Salah...his G/A in his last 5 PL seasons is up there even with Mané's output, and he did it in much worse teams.

Rashford last 5 (so from age 21 onwards): 18, 26, 22, 6, 22

Mané all PL seasons with Liverpool: 19, 17, 24, 27, 19, 20

Rashford’s Goals and assists may match up, but you think he’s a better footballer than Foden and Silva!

 

[tob]

Not only are we playing with inverted wingers, but inverted fullbacks as well. How centrally do you need to play?

This is a very important point and the primary reason our play is so tumescent. Everything is funneled central with zero attacking threat out wide. We have so many wide players and none are good at either beating a man out wide or delivering a cross from out wide.

And because our wingers can’t beat their man - they don’t. They just move inside, inside and more inside, into an more and more crowded area, until they think that they have a good clearance for a shot at goal.

 

[lex talionis]

Our issue is that our wingers can’t beat their defender. Rashford has incredible I’ve in the open field, but against a packed defensive line he cannot create chances. Antony? Insert laugh emoji here. Sancho? Can’t be bothered. Martial is a natural left winger but he’s all appetite for football. I like Pellistri, but he’s raw.

Inverted, extroverted or whatever, or wingers are our weakness by miles.

 

[Redstain]

Rashford’s Goals and assists may match up, but you think he’s a better footballer than Foden and Silva!

Rashford isn't the issue it's that other side of him there's no productivity whatsoever. What kept Arsenal in a great position last season was Martinelli and Saka both scored double digit numbers in the season. That is a massive incentive for being inside forwards. Antony is a monumental failure as a first team player, I said it last season but he belongs on the bench with someone playing ahead of him.

To the OPs point, inside forwards only work if they offer threat or goals for the majority of teams in the league. City can't be used as an example because they are the best coached team with the best manager that eclipses himself from all his peers by a distance that's wider than being measured in margins. They also create overloads through the middle so the wider players don't necessarily have to score they positionally draw defenders out to give space to the midfielders. Hence why they were perfectly able to score before Haaland came in and why Gundogan bagged numerous goals in his appearances.

 

[didz]

Antony rarely goes for the byline as he doesn’t have a right foot and defenders know that he’s going to check back. We need to find a better way of making him more productive for the money we’ve spent on him. Maybe play him on the left with Garnacho or Pellistri on the right. Might get Hojlund more involved too if we had wingers that can cross the ball. ETH won’t like it though as that means Rashford is redundant

As I said, that didn't seem to matter much at Ajax, even against Champions League level opposition, as he was agile enough to work something out. He developed into a more rounded footballer when he was there, but it's as if he's forgotten his 3 years in Amsterdam and regressed back to his 19 year old self. The absence of a right foot has always been a problem, but there was a time when he actually had solutions to it.

Does he really become less predictable going to the left? Well, no, not really. If anything he becomes even more easy to deal with, as his only option there is going down the line and whacking it in. At least on the right there is (well, there should be) some mystery as to when he cuts inside, along with better angles and more options when he does.

I don't think we'll get more out of him by giving him fewer options - better off giving him more and making damn sure he's using them all. For now though, I'm not sure if he should even be in contention. He hasn't looked right since coming back from Brazil.

 

[bazza3727]

What a lot of posters seem to be losing sight of is the wingers prime task in matches - to supply crosses and chances for the front man (men). Hojland has played 11 prmier league games to date and I can't remember him having a fair chance of scoring in front of goal in any of them. Any chances he has had have usually been blocked or closed down. We seem unable to create decent chances for the kid. This has to change and quick!

 

[Dannn411]

I have no doubt in my mind that once we solve our winger problems we will be scoring freely again. That has been the big problem since Nani left. We need two traditional wingers on the wings. Speedy, direct, relentless. I would sell every wide player we have and take someone like Adama Traore from Fulham as a stop gap till we find them. He would offer so much more than the pathetic excuses for wingers we have now.

 

[Marcus]

Maybe we compromise. An inverted winger on the left and a regular one on the right. Sorted.