Football’s conventional wisdom challenged, Attacking full backs no more?
It may be a preposterous thought that an attacking full back is the most important player on the pitch when it comes to attacking. However, looking at the teams that have won the world cup recently, the thought is backed by results on the pitch.
In 1994 Branco and Jorginho for the Samba boys, in 1998 Thuram and Lizarazu for the Les Blues, in 2002 Cafu and Roberto Carlos for Brazil and in 2006 Fabio Grosso and Gianluca Zambrotta for Italy provided the platform for their team’s win.
Correlation is not causation and nobody ever wins anything in football because they have the best full backs in the world. While the trend highlights the tactical importance of having formidable full backs it does not state that the side with the best attacking full backs will be the one emerging victorious this time around.
A dubious myth has prevailed over the past few years, for a team to win the world cup it is necessary to have the best player playing in the best form of his life. The Messis, the Ronaldos, The Torreses and the Drogbas cannot win the world cup on their own but it is a proven fact that the attacking full back pairs have done it for their sides in the past.
There is a stronger-than-you-think connection between the attacking full backs and the winning but having said that, the likes of Grosso, Cafu, Thuram and Carlos were exceptional players and would have stood out even in the most extraordinary of outfits.
In this years football extravaganza, we have already seen that Lahm was instrumental in Germany’s 4-0 win, Cha-du Ri was the architect in chief of the South Korea’s first win and in fact it was the marauding Maicon that broke the deadlock against North Korea for Brazil.
Even Tony Lochhead of the black caps, who plays mostly as a wing-back was the source of New Zealand’s attacking intent in their 1-1 draw. On the other hand, Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson were anonymous in England’s game against USA and hence England offered little or nothing going forward.
The examples quoted are more than ample proof of the theory of correlation between attacking full backs and success, but all of it comes down to the point that Jack Charlton made after the 1994 world cup. He said, when a team meets an opponent playing 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2 the full backs are the players with most space in front of them and thus having the most time with the ball. Consequently, this gives them opportunities to make risk free runs into dangerous and unexpected areas of the pitch.
When a team comes against an opponent not employing the conventional formations and playing a more extrovert 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1, as is the case with most of the sides these days, the theory does not hold true and fails miserably.
This complicates matters for the attacking full back, in this case if an attacking full back is playing against an attacking winger then he is fighting with fire. The prime examples being Roberto Carlos against David Beckham in the 2003 Champions League quarter final which Manchester united lost 3-1 and Micheal Essien against Cristiano Ronaldo in the Champions League final 2008. While Roberto Carlos negated the threat of Beckham Ronaldo was also as anonymous against Chelsea.
A very thin line exists between the two and when the tournament you are playing happens to be the World Cup the risk is even bigger. Theo Walcott did not only score a hat trick against Croatia, in Zagreb, but also destroyed the Croatian’s left side by pushing Danijel Pranjic, a full back so attacking that he is only found in the mid field, on the defence. Thus, it can work both ways for a team but nothing can be guaranteed.
It can be easy and safe for an attacking full back to sit deep and absorb the heat, like Ashley Cole did against Cristiano Roanldo in the Euro 2004. If the attacking full back is to sit deep in his own box then he should be a defensive minded player, like Lee Dixon or Arsenal or Manchester United’ Gary Neville or Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic, in which case the domination of the attacking full back can be countered at ease.
Tags: