as far as i can tell, wg and smf have "functional" differences versus sb and wb differs only in "style".
the role of wg and smf are pretty distinct. wg are usually pacy and strong on the dribble in terms of stats. they stay up and out wide stretching the defense. traditional wg plays on the side of their dominant foot, crosses in down low by the goal line. modern wg plays on the opposite flank, crosses are less common and more cuts are made inwards for open shots or perhaps into the box. wg are the keys to counter attacks. they are there to exploits 1 on 1 situations against sb. they dwell around the corner of the box lot of times waiting for these openings. wg do well when the game is fast but normally dont perform when the game is slow and when its not 1 on 1. its pretty obvious what a wg is.
smf are completely different. their individual styles vary. these days i dont think they matter as much as they used to because the traditional 442 does not perform anymore. the style of crossing in from both flanks are not particularly effective against the zonal system these days. also the rise of the sb/wb undermines the role and importance of the smf. usually an exceptionally talented player would play in the middle or move up to the wings rather than kept in the smf position to be more effective. position wise very few talent exist. the flanks are always covered by dmf and sb/wb. or wg. in my opinion, ronaldhino can somewhat be classified as a smf although he exhibits wg and amf (here i regard amf as the dead center ones or else it defeats the purpose of the discussion i.e. lamf, ldmf) qualities. raphael van der vaart is probably the closest smf we have in this generation of footballers, i.e. on the side but not a wg, but still i would consider him as a smf and amf hybrid because of his tendencies to move center at times. david beckham is what i would consider a true smf. fixed to the sideline. early crosses. no reliance on pace etc. he contributes to the team on the side with the central playmakers unlike the wg which are pretty much lone gunmen. very very few players could stay out that wide and away from the front and contribute to the plays. at one point i saw some potential in david bentley but i guess i was wrong. camoranesi, i would classify as a right leaning amf rather than a smf. so ya... a rare kind...
finally, sb and wb. we all know what a sb is. the wb, however, is relatively new. they are seen as ultra offensive sb's or even wg playing deep in their own halves. but to me i dont think there is a fundamental difference between the role of these 2 positions. i believe it is a matter of style. position wise sb and wb are essentially the same in real life i.e. not we11, pes, fifa. they are part of the d line. so called wb's like dani alves, carlos, bosingwa, cafu are said to play much more upfield; this in my opinion, is simply a temporary (but in some of these cases permanent off position. haha.) offset. it is not ideal but is definitely necessary in order to create a mismatch down the flanks: 2 v 1; sb/wb+mf/wg v sb/wb. on top of that, like i mentioned previously, the sb/wb complements the wg these days since they are placed on the opposite end of their stronger foot. if you look at the wb position functionally, it is virtually the same as the sb. they are not exempt from their duty to defend. if you look at it from the sb angle, notable sb like zambrotta, maldini, grosso, finnan, evra they all move up for crosses and support. just like any wb does. so to me there really is not a fundamental difference. the major difference lies in the balance of defense v. offense.
these days commentators tend to over emphasize on differentiating players like they are chesses and creating new labels for formations such as 41212, 4411. its just a little extreme. there has always been supporting strikers in 442 or dedicated amf in 451. a lot of times these differences are completely unnecessary and creates only confusion. football is an art. not an exact science.
No comments:
Post a Comment