🚨 Back 5's are NOT the modern meta at the elite level. If you want...
EBL@EBL2017
3 views
Aug 08, 2026
~12 min read
Advertisement
1
🚨 Back 5's are NOT the modern meta at the elite level.
If you want to overachieve as an underdog? Sure.
But if you want to control EVERY moment and DOMINATE at the highest level? It does NOT work.
Football history with theoretical thinking intertwined tells us why.
A thread.
If you want to overachieve as an underdog? Sure.
But if you want to control EVERY moment and DOMINATE at the highest level? It does NOT work.
Football history with theoretical thinking intertwined tells us why.
A thread.
2
First, let's talk about why the back 5 is good.
Let's take Xabi Alonso's Bayer Leverkusen, Thomas Tuchel's Chelsea, Simone Inzaghi's Inter Milan, or any of Antonio Conte or Oliver Glasner or Ruben Amorim teams.
From back to front, with and without the ball, let's assess it ALL.
Let's take Xabi Alonso's Bayer Leverkusen, Thomas Tuchel's Chelsea, Simone Inzaghi's Inter Milan, or any of Antonio Conte or Oliver Glasner or Ruben Amorim teams.
From back to front, with and without the ball, let's assess it ALL.
3
Before we get specific, let's acknowledge that each of these teams quite obviously had different approaches and subtleties to their work in each phase.
But, on a broader scale, they all operate from within a similar paradigm (even if Inzaghi's Inter were the most fluid).
But, on a broader scale, they all operate from within a similar paradigm (even if Inzaghi's Inter were the most fluid).
4
From the goal kick, one centre back pushes out to fullback, the double pivot position themselves at the edge of the box, one wingback stays low, and the other plays high.
4-2-4.
So, effectively, in this moment, the back 5 operates just like a back 4 would (at least on paper).
4-2-4.
So, effectively, in this moment, the back 5 operates just like a back 4 would (at least on paper).
5
Sometimes we see wingbacks hooking the ball around the corner into the #9 (Conte), centre backs inverting into midfield (Amorim + Inzaghi), traditional bounce passing via the #6 (Alonso + Tuchel), or a more direct approach to play short to go long (each coach but mainly Glasner).
6
Regardless, the approach remains clear, both in a back 4 and a 5:
Lure the opposition out and play through the press to 1v1's high OR play over it to achieve the same thing.
Some of the aforementioned tactical ploys have more success than others, but they all want that outcome.
Lure the opposition out and play through the press to 1v1's high OR play over it to achieve the same thing.
Some of the aforementioned tactical ploys have more success than others, but they all want that outcome.
7
Higher up, we see teams attack in a 3-2-5 with a double #6 or a 3-5-2 with two #8's.
Some teams drop a #6 into the first line (Kasper Hjulmand's Leverkusen), some teams want their #6's to remain central (Tuchel's Chelsea), and some are more fluid (Inzaghi's Inter).
Some teams drop a #6 into the first line (Kasper Hjulmand's Leverkusen), some teams want their #6's to remain central (Tuchel's Chelsea), and some are more fluid (Inzaghi's Inter).
8
Some are also more fluid than others with wingbacks inverting into the half space between the lines with the winger interchanging out to the flank (Alonso's Leverkusen) whereas others are more static positionally and prefer the wingbacks to stay high and wide (Amorim's United).
9
One of the biggest benefits of attacking in this general way is that it keeps the team compact when possession is turned over.
You have 5 high to counter-press and 5 low to manage the threat behind that (often in a 3-2 or a 2-3 depending on how many players the oppo leave high).
You have 5 high to counter-press and 5 low to manage the threat behind that (often in a 3-2 or a 2-3 depending on how many players the oppo leave high).
10
In settled defensive moments such as goal kicks, these teams often lock on man-to-man high, whether that be with both wingbacks pushed on or with one wingback high and one low or whatever adjustment they make to the opponent.
Not always, but this is often the case.
Not always, but this is often the case.
11
In open play, these teams defend in either a 5-2-3, a 5-4-1, or a 5-3-2.
Some are comfortable defending low (Conte's teams) whereas others want to step out and get pressure on the ball again because their philosophy is a ball-dominant one (Amorim's Sporting).
Some are comfortable defending low (Conte's teams) whereas others want to step out and get pressure on the ball again because their philosophy is a ball-dominant one (Amorim's Sporting).
12
So, that is a general overview of the back 5 system.
You can see some really obvious strengths within it, and you can also see extremely clear similarities between the types of teams being mentioned.
All of these teams had success with their coach, right? And great success too!
You can see some really obvious strengths within it, and you can also see extremely clear similarities between the types of teams being mentioned.
All of these teams had success with their coach, right? And great success too!
13
But they were all underdogs…
Tuchel's Chelsea came out of nowhere to win the Champions League. Sporting are not the favourites to win the Portuguese League each year. Nobody had Napoli down to win the Scudetto, or Leverkusen to win the Bundesliga. Palace's overachievements too.
Tuchel's Chelsea came out of nowhere to win the Champions League. Sporting are not the favourites to win the Portuguese League each year. Nobody had Napoli down to win the Scudetto, or Leverkusen to win the Bundesliga. Palace's overachievements too.
14
If you are a team that wants to punch above its means, then the back 5 is arguably that the best possible approach.
Why?
Because of how well-rounded the system is in each moment.
Let's go back through the phases one more time and discuss why it helps the player in each moment.
Why?
Because of how well-rounded the system is in each moment.
Let's go back through the phases one more time and discuss why it helps the player in each moment.
15
The goal kick is not a good example because teams who play a back 3 often build in a back 4, so let's skip to the attack.
In this moment teams may use a 3-2-5 for example.
Here, because of how the players are spaced out, they are in close proximity to do everything robotically.
In this moment teams may use a 3-2-5 for example.
Here, because of how the players are spaced out, they are in close proximity to do everything robotically.
16
The ball-side #6, #10 and wingback can all work together to combine in that triangle.
They can interchange, run off the back of each other and create 1v1's for the wingback, and they do so within close proximity.
If they want to circulate out, they can do so with ease as well.
They can interchange, run off the back of each other and create 1v1's for the wingback, and they do so within close proximity.
If they want to circulate out, they can do so with ease as well.
17
The positioning of two #6's knits the team together to combine on the ball side and to circulate out to the far side.
The same is true for the back 3. And the front 5.
The players are all consistently tightly distributed.
The shorter the passing distance the easier the action.
The same is true for the back 3. And the front 5.
The players are all consistently tightly distributed.
The shorter the passing distance the easier the action.
18
Plus, with how the system is the main creator in these moments (automatisms to create space, to play into the front, to play in behind, to isolate the wingback, etc), much of the creative process is taken away from players.
It's more about using the system to create.
It's more about using the system to create.
19
This is also true for teams who have excellent #8's, often players who can do a bit of everything (see Nico Barella).
He can play and dictate with passing or he can run off the ball into space in the final third.
Sometimes we even see outside centre backs help out (Bastoni)…
He can play and dictate with passing or he can run off the ball into space in the final third.
Sometimes we even see outside centre backs help out (Bastoni)…
20
And, in the defensive moment, the team is naturally competent in all aspects of play because they can press aggressively from goal kicks, for example, but when they lack pressure on the ball they can defend their box with 5 defenders.
It helps them react well to game-states.
It helps them react well to game-states.
21
Although debatable, Thomas Tuchel's Chelsea are the best back 5 team that I have ever seen and that is because of all of these reasons taken together.
OBVIOUSLY they had top quality, but they also had the intricacies within the system nailed down with game-state flexibility too.
OBVIOUSLY they had top quality, but they also had the intricacies within the system nailed down with game-state flexibility too.
22
Their run to the Champions League title was a prime example of that…
They were 3-1 down to Real Madrid and had to force the issue in Madrid to come back and win, and that's exactly what they did.
In the final, they were 1-0 up and were able to see the game out defending low.
They were 3-1 down to Real Madrid and had to force the issue in Madrid to come back and win, and that's exactly what they did.
In the final, they were 1-0 up and were able to see the game out defending low.
23
And that's why back 5's are arguably optimal for teams who are looking to overachieve relative to their quality.
They reduce the margins between the elite teams and themselves because they are competent in every phase of the game and game-state.
But it is NOT a dominant idea.
They reduce the margins between the elite teams and themselves because they are competent in every phase of the game and game-state.
But it is NOT a dominant idea.
24
Well drilled back 5's may reduce the margins against superior teams to a toss of a coin when there is seemingly no right to compete (see Inzaghi's Inter in the Champions League), but they also reduce margins between themselves and INFERIOR teams.
There are many reasons why. 💭
There are many reasons why. 💭
25
Let's go back through the phases and assess each moment.
First, the goal kick. On paper, this moment is often arguably the same as a team building in a back 4, right?
Sure, but the back 5 has one wingback high rather than a winger.
That is a clear profile and quality weakness.
First, the goal kick. On paper, this moment is often arguably the same as a team building in a back 4, right?
Sure, but the back 5 has one wingback high rather than a winger.
That is a clear profile and quality weakness.
26
Higher up, we can also say that the 3-2-5 or the 2-3-5 or the 3-5-2 or the 3-1-6 or even the 4-3-3 is the same positionally as a back 4 team in that moment, and that's true, but compare the personnel…
You have two wingbacks as opposed to two wingers.
That's a BIG difference.
You have two wingbacks as opposed to two wingers.
That's a BIG difference.
27
The natural distribution of attacking and defensive players on the pitch is massively skewed when you use a back 5.
With a back 5, you often have two #6's and 5 pure defenders.
That's 7 defensively minded players and only 3 attackers.
With a back 4? That is not the case.
With a back 5, you often have two #6's and 5 pure defenders.
That's 7 defensively minded players and only 3 attackers.
With a back 4? That is not the case.
28
Now, I know what you're thinking…
What if Nuno Mendes and Hakimi are your wingbacks?
And what if you play with two #8's instead of two #6's?
Sure, that increases the level marginally, but not by much.
No matter how good fullbacks are offensively, they are simply not wingers.
What if Nuno Mendes and Hakimi are your wingbacks?
And what if you play with two #8's instead of two #6's?
Sure, that increases the level marginally, but not by much.
No matter how good fullbacks are offensively, they are simply not wingers.
29
Alonso, Dumfries, Palestra, and whoever the hell else you want to mention as wingbacks are all better at arriving into space from deep rather than receiving the ball on the top line and creating in 1v1 situations.
You really want them receiving in the same areas as Yamal + Vini?
You really want them receiving in the same areas as Yamal + Vini?
30
Another clear problem with the back 5 is the positional rigidity.
It's often predictable to match up against and press.
It doesn't have the same effect as a team who play a back 4 base and attack within a three triangle paradigm, even if the positional play is similar on paper.
It's often predictable to match up against and press.
It doesn't have the same effect as a team who play a back 4 base and attack within a three triangle paradigm, even if the positional play is similar on paper.
31
When you attack within three triangles, players are constantly interchanging and rotating and you can barely make out what shape the team are actually playing (PSG, Arsenal, Pep's City).
With a back 5?
It's much harder to create that fluidity with 3 centre backs always low.
With a back 5?
It's much harder to create that fluidity with 3 centre backs always low.
32
A prime example of that is from throw-ins.
When a wingback takes the throw-in the team only has 3 players high and the rest of the team are positioned low.
You either throw back and let the opposition press your predictable positioning or you throw long into a clear underload…
When a wingback takes the throw-in the team only has 3 players high and the rest of the team are positioned low.
You either throw back and let the opposition press your predictable positioning or you throw long into a clear underload…
33
There are also glaring defensive issues that arise with the back 5.
From the goal kick, no problem.
In open play? Big problem if your intention is to dominate and to consistently press.
This is why Ruben Amorim MADE HIS TEAM SUFFER on a weekly basis at Manchester United.
From the goal kick, no problem.
In open play? Big problem if your intention is to dominate and to consistently press.
This is why Ruben Amorim MADE HIS TEAM SUFFER on a weekly basis at Manchester United.
34
When you try and lock on defensively in a back 5, you need lots of moving parts to work.
You need centre backs to step out and press players dropping between the lines, #6's to press opposition #6's, and wingbacks to press deep into the opponent's build-up.
That *CAN* all work.
You need centre backs to step out and press players dropping between the lines, #6's to press opposition #6's, and wingbacks to press deep into the opponent's build-up.
That *CAN* all work.
35
But what happens when the outside centre back is pinned and can't jump? The same can happen to the wingback.
What happens when the opposition #10 drops into midfield & the centre back passes him onto the #6?
Fluid teams DESTROY back 5's in possession because they can't lock on.
What happens when the opposition #10 drops into midfield & the centre back passes him onto the #6?
Fluid teams DESTROY back 5's in possession because they can't lock on.
36
It also makes it harder to lock on defensively because you have less players high up the pitch to get pressure on the ball.
In a 4-4-2, you have your #9, #10, and two wingers consistently positioned high.
Even in a 5-2-3 you only have 3 high so can easily be passed around…
In a 4-4-2, you have your #9, #10, and two wingers consistently positioned high.
Even in a 5-2-3 you only have 3 high so can easily be passed around…
37
When you are clear in your defensive approach like Glasner or Conte are and they are happy to sit back with 5 behind the ball, no problem!
If you are happy to play that way, great.
But no elite modern team wants to do that reliably unless they are suffering (yes, even Arsenal).
If you are happy to play that way, great.
But no elite modern team wants to do that reliably unless they are suffering (yes, even Arsenal).
38
But many teams are not happy to play that way.
And when they use a back 5 they end up pinned back because they can't get pressure on the ball but also because instead of defending in a 4-4-2 with two wingers, a #10, and a #9, they have less outlets high for counter-attacks…
And when they use a back 5 they end up pinned back because they can't get pressure on the ball but also because instead of defending in a 4-4-2 with two wingers, a #10, and a #9, they have less outlets high for counter-attacks…
39
These are all realities of the system.
The greatest example to use here are Inzaghi's Inter Milan.
They MASSIVELY overachieved to get to two Champions League finals. An unbelievable achievement.
But domestically against inferior opponents, they only won 1 Serie A in 4 years.
The greatest example to use here are Inzaghi's Inter Milan.
They MASSIVELY overachieved to get to two Champions League finals. An unbelievable achievement.
But domestically against inferior opponents, they only won 1 Serie A in 4 years.
40
Why is that?
Because the back 5 tactics increases your likelihood of overachieving but it decreases your likelihood of dominating.
Now, I know what you will say…
Why do Conte teams do well domestically but not in Europe?
Well, there are many reasons for that.
Because the back 5 tactics increases your likelihood of overachieving but it decreases your likelihood of dominating.
Now, I know what you will say…
Why do Conte teams do well domestically but not in Europe?
Well, there are many reasons for that.
41
Conte won the league with Juventus and Chelsea in a time where football was not as strong tactically.
At Spurs, he was fighting for top 4 despite having top players.
With Inter and Napoli the competition was poor.
In Europe, his teams came out on the wrong side of tight games.
At Spurs, he was fighting for top 4 despite having top players.
With Inter and Napoli the competition was poor.
In Europe, his teams came out on the wrong side of tight games.
42
Now, please don't get it twisted.
Antonio Conte is an all-time great.
A revolutionary coach who widely introduced the back 5 into modern football and we saw just how unbelievably effective it has been for him and for many other underdog teams around the world.
I am a huge fan.
Antonio Conte is an all-time great.
A revolutionary coach who widely introduced the back 5 into modern football and we saw just how unbelievably effective it has been for him and for many other underdog teams around the world.
I am a huge fan.
43
But I am talking about the here and now.
I am talking about how the back 5 translates to winning in the modern game.
No elite team plays with it for a reason.
Now, people will say what about Alonso's Leverkusen?
AGAIN, he elevated underdogs in a sub-elite league…
I am talking about how the back 5 translates to winning in the modern game.
No elite team plays with it for a reason.
Now, people will say what about Alonso's Leverkusen?
AGAIN, he elevated underdogs in a sub-elite league…
44
Would that Leverkusen team beat Kompany's Bayern Munich to a league title now?
No chance!
We also saw how badly Ruben Amorim did in the Premier League. It was hard to watch because of how awful it was (even if his implementation is the worst out of all the discussed coaches).
No chance!
We also saw how badly Ruben Amorim did in the Premier League. It was hard to watch because of how awful it was (even if his implementation is the worst out of all the discussed coaches).
45
The only way I can see a coach like Xabi Alonso using a back 5 and winning the Premier League in the modern day is if he uses it sparingly throughout the season in specific games against other elite teams to reduce the margins and otherwise he uses a back 4 for most game-weeks.
46
If he were to use it weekly, then the only way it would work is if Chelsea had truly elite quality across the pitch AND the standard at the top of the Premier League diminished and a low points tally was enough to win the title.
But does that mean it's optimal? No, not at all!
But does that mean it's optimal? No, not at all!
47
We rarely see the VERY best teams use this system for a reason.
It does not reliably result in success at the elite level of the sport.
It is also against the DNA of Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, Liverpool and other great clubs for a reason. It is not the 'meta'.
It does not reliably result in success at the elite level of the sport.
It is also against the DNA of Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, Liverpool and other great clubs for a reason. It is not the 'meta'.
48
Does that mean that no team will ever win a major trophy with that style of play ever again?
Obviously not.
But when assessing elite level football the demand is to strive the most out of every inch of your team.
Back 5's don't do that. That's the reality. It limits potential.
Obviously not.
But when assessing elite level football the demand is to strive the most out of every inch of your team.
Back 5's don't do that. That's the reality. It limits potential.
49
I would also argue that the demise behind Italian football on a qualitative level both in the Serie A and domestically is down to the consistent use of that system across the league.
It reduces the demands for the players. It promotes robotic play, and not freedom.
It reduces the demands for the players. It promotes robotic play, and not freedom.
50
Play that way at youth level and the game becomes about tactics rather than youth development.
If your country has no wide players or creative flair, that's because they are not playing systems that promote wide play.
Italy have zero star attackers right now for this reason…
If your country has no wide players or creative flair, that's because they are not playing systems that promote wide play.
Italy have zero star attackers right now for this reason…