<
        >

          Which position would win head-to-head, Man City's depth, Erling Haaland or Deb Haaland: It's Mailbag Time!

          • Ryan O'HanlonJul 22, 2022, 04:00 AM ET
            Close
              Ryan O'Hanlon is a staff writer for ESPN.com. He's also the author of "Net Gains: Inside the Beautiful Game's Analytics Revolution."
            Follow on X

          And we're back! Tons of fantastic and truly ridiculous submissions this time around, and I'm sorry I couldn't get to all of them. If you want to be featured in a future edition, just send me a question either on Twitter (@rwohan) or over email to ohanlonmailbag@gmail.com. I'll do my best to answer it.

          Now for the ones I did answer...

          A renegade trillionaire has bought out the contracts of all of the world's male soccer players, and for his own amusement, is hosting a mini-tournament with the players split up into four teams based on their positions. So it's a team of the best forwards vs. the best midfielders vs. the best defenders vs. the best goalkeepers. One wrinkle to keep it interesting/fair for the keepers: The GK team gets to play two of their 11 players at the goalkeeper position at once if they choose.

          How do the teams play, and who wins? Bonus points for giving us each team's XI. Double bonus points for estimating the total value of all the world's male soccer players in the sale that precipitated this madness. -- Patrick S

          What a start! OK, so we're gonna play this out, using the crowd-sourced valuations at Transfermarkt. Taking the 11 most valuable players at each position, we get:

          Are those lists perfect? No -- and neither are those valuations. But I know for a fact that Transfermarkt plays a bigger role in transfer fees and scouting across Europe than it should, so let's just assume someone told this so-called "renegade trillionaire" that he should use the website. He wasn't able to acquire the contracts of all the world's male soccer players because to envision that scenario, you have to also envision the collapse of society, in which case the players would have no contracts and therefore their services could not be acquired by said trillionaire, whose wealth in dollars would also now be meaningless.

          Instead, we're just gonna say that he was able to sign the 11 most-valuable players at all four positions for some kind of, I guess, LIV-Golf-style-exhibition, but we won't call it an exhibition competition. Were these Transfermarkt numbers perfectly accurate, the total fees paid for each position would be:

          • Keepers: $470.8m

          • Defenders: $819.5m

          • Midfielders: $973.5m

          • Forwards: $1.2 billion

          All in all, that adds up to about $3.5bn. Just a drop in the bucket. Now to answer the question over who would win.

          First, we can eliminate keepers. They would not score a single goal; even against the forwards, I just don't think they'd be able to pass the ball through them and ever move it toward the opposition goal to then be in position to let one rip against the forward playing in goal. If they opted for two keepers, they'd only have nine field players, which would just create more pressure on the goal. Maybe they could grind out a scoreless draw against the defenders, but that's it. They have no shot.

          After that, I'm pretty confident that the midfielders would win the whole thing. The logic is pretty straightforward; these players are, for the most part, involved in both phases of the game at all times, and most of them have experience playing at both ends of the field. The definition of "midfielder" is also helpful here, as some of these guys are defensive midfielders and ball-winners while others are creative types and goal scorers. If soccer is a weak-link sport like many theorize it is, the midfield team would have the fewest weaknesses, which would win out in the long run. They are our champions. Good for them.

          Most interesting, though, is the question of forwards vs. defenders. The goal-scoring and creative power with the forwards is absurd, but will they be able to move the ball up the field? And what happens when they lose the ball?

          A lot of these big money guys don't press too well, either, and a high-press would easily be their best form of defense. Plus, isn't some of their attacking advantage negated by the fact that they'll be playing a team composed solely of elite defenders? On top of that, TAA, Davies, Hakimi and Reece James are all way better attackers than any of these forwards are defenders. Imagine Dusan Vlahovic -- sorry, dude -- trying to stop a shot from TAA? Not gonna happen.

          So, we'll say that the midfielders win, the defenders finish second, the high-priced attackers third, and the keepers a distant fourth.

          Next!

          There are a few common formations used in the upper levels of professional soccer. However, let's say you wanted to think outside the box and toss them all aside. What is the most unconventional formation you think could be viable? That is to say, success is feasible and the formation would not merely exist as a fun gimmick.

          And, if you are so inclined, fill that formation in with what players you would want to employ to make it as fruitful as possible. -- Chris M

          There were 3,652 games played across Europe's Big Five leagues last season, and according to Stats Perform's categorization procedure, there were 19 different formations used.

          The most popular is the 4-2-3-1, which was used in 779 games. There's little difference between the 4-2-3-1 and the second most-used formation, the 4-3-3, which featured in 627 matches. The former features two deeper midfielders behind one advanced midfielder, while the latter "inverts the pyramid" if you will. Interestingly, teams playing a 4-2-3-1 produced a plus-99 goal differential, while teams playing a 4-3-3 went plus-215 despite featuring in roughly 150 fewer games.

          Broadly speaking, it seems like managers have agreed that four defenders, three midfielders, two wingers and a center-forward is typically the most efficient way to organize your players. The reason the 4-3-3 was more successful this past season, in aggregate, is likely because only a handful of teams can really afford to play with just one holding midfielder -- both in the literal and metaphorical sense. For the most part, the biggest clubs are the only ones who can afford the kind of player that can cover the space necessary from a solo holding midfielder, the kinds of center-backs who won't get exposed with only one player protecting them, or the kinds of advanced midfielders and attackers who rarely lose the ball and press aggressively so that lone holding midfielder isn't getting stressed for 90 straight minutes.

          Everyone else has to resort to tasking a pair of midfielders to only cover half the field, and then they have one fewer body forward, and you start to understand why the ceiling isn't higher.

          The worst formation, on the other hand, was the good old 4-4-2, which featured in 511 matches and produced a minus-94 goal differential. Friends don't let their friends play 4-4-2, folks.

          Anyway, now to actually answer Chris's question. With a 4-3-3 and a 4-2-3-1, you've got all of the spaces pretty well-covered. There are two center-backs, three midfielders and one forward up the middle, plus you've got a winger-fullback pair on each side of the field. Given that we're mainly going to be facing teams playing one of those two formations, how would we exploit it?

          Enter: the 3-6-1.

          Back in 2015, on his tactics website Spielverlagerung, former Borussia Dortmund assistant coach Rene Maric called the 3-6-1 "a logical step." As Maric wrote, "A 3-6-1 gives teams the possibility to flexibly act with a back three, back four or back five. After all, with six players in a chain in front of the first line there are enough players to resolve from the chain, drop deeper and re-organize if needed.

          "The same can, of course, be done further up. The six players in the central line can rove forward and support. This movement is possible in the 4-5-1 and the 5-4-1, too, but due to the amount of players, this is not only possible in a more flexible way, but also with higher intensity. You can utilize more players or leave the lines further and longer because the cover behind is higher. The amount of players also enables more access to the second line of the oppositional build up."

          The theory is that most teams don't need four players in the back-line until the ball is in their own defensive third, so you start with only three nominal defenders and then one of the midfield six -- which are, to start, aligned in a straight line across the field -- can always drop into the backline if need be.

          The same is true when defending from the front. Three central-ish defenders with another four centrally positioned in front of them makes it really hard for the other team to play long, and so the only real space is to play to whichever center back the center forward isn't marking. Once that happens, one of the midfield six can spring forward, cut off passing lanes, and start the press. Suddenly, there are bodies everywhere: Where do you pass the ball?

          In possession, it's even scarier -- for both teams. Here's how Maric outlined the potential movements from each position:

          (Credit to Spielverlagerung... also, the goalkeeper is to the bottom of this hypothetical formation.)

          What I like about this formation, in particular, is that it pushes a few tactical ideas to their extremes. Teams tend to use only three players at the base of their formation during buildup play, so why not just start in that alignment? Oh, so the half-spaces -- between the center back and the full-back -- are important in today's game? What if we have two players in both half-spaces at all times? Stationary center forwards are easier to defend against than late-arriving runs unto the box?

          Yeah, we're just gonna have six different guys who could make a late run into the box at any moment. Congrats on your four defenders covering our one forward.

          As that above diagram suggests, there are enough possibilities to make a player's brain melt, and it could all easily short-circuit or completely fall apart. The fun thing about this formation is that it really only works if you allow players to make decisions on the fly with and without the ball. But even if the movements aren't executed properly, there are just so many different players and angles and positions and locations that the opposition has to react to, so even an imperfect execution seems like it would still cause plenty of problems. When you lose the ball, you're not really at too big of a risk of being out-numbered; you just need your players to make the right decisions on who to pick up in the transitional moments.

          What might a real life version of this look like? Here's a theoretical Manchester City version:

          Ederson; Walker, Dias, Laporte; Cancelo, De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, Rodri, Foden, Grealish; Haaland.

          Here's hoping that Pep Guardiola breaks it out for the Champions League knockout rounds this season. I mean, would you put it past him?

          NEXT QUESTION!

          If Deb Haaland and Erling Haaland switched jobs, who'd be better at the other's? -- Matt L

          If you haven't seen it, Matt is referring to this tweet from the Washington Post.

          Whether someone on the WaPo's social media team is a Liverpool fan who wanted to tweak the entire Manchester City fanbase or if this was a snippet from a piece that was clipped unknowingly, it is perfect. This is writing, people. Get this real human being or this automated tweet mechanism a book deal or a pilot on one of the lesser-known streaming services.

          More from ESPN FC:
          - Ogden: Why free agents are losing power in transfer market
          - Marcotti: Ronaldo should return to Real Madrid
          - Kassouf: Meet the chef responsible for fueling the USWNT

          The answer to Matt's question would seem to be that Erling Haaland would be a better Secretary of the Interior for the United States than Deb Haaland would be a striker for Manchester City. If Erling became a cabinet member, I assume he'd just delegate almost all of his responsibilities to people who know what they're doing. He's not gonna just come in guns blazing and sell off a bunch of federal lands or anything like that, right?

          Unfortunately for Deb, she could not do that as the starting center-forward for the best soccer team on planet Earth. She would have to play.

          However! The answer is actually Deb. Erling is not a citizen of the United States of America and therefore would not be legally capable of doing the job. Deb, theoretically, could sign for City tomorrow and then start playing as soon as her leg heals up. Plus, if she's really doing Erling's job, she only has to play about 50% of the minutes -- roughly his rate of availability at Dortmund -- during which she'd probably just stand off to the side.

          If you told Pep Guardiola today that Deb Haaland had to be his starting striker for half the minutes this upcoming season, the guy would figure it out, and they would still finish in the top four.

          Onward...

          Are Man City a little thin now? Raheem Sterling (to Chelsea) and Gabriel Jesus (Arsenal) out with only Haaland (who doesn't suit Guardiola's style) in. (Kalvin Phillips for Fernandinho feels like a straight swap.) Nathan Ake and Oleksandr Zinchenko maybe out as well? Oh, and Riyad Mahrez, Kevin de Bruyne and Ilkay Gundogan are all 31 years old. Isn't last year's version better? -- Alex B

          OK, Back to reality. To start off, it's really hard for Manchester City to be better than last season. They produced the best expected-goal differential in a single Premier League season of any team in StatsPerform's database, which goes back to the 09-10 season. If they just kept the exact same roster, the most likely outcome would be a worse team.

          Instead, they've refreshed things a bit. The 27-year-old Sterling and 25-year-old Jesus are out, replaced by the 21-year-old Haaland and 22-year-old Julian Alvarez from River Plate. The 36-year-old Fernandinho is out, replaced by the 26-year-old Phillips. And backup keeper Zach Steffen, who has never been anything above a league-average shot-stopper, is out on loan to Middlesbrough and been replaced by Stefan Ortega, who was one of the best keepers in the Bundesliga for Arminia Bielefeld last season.

          Orange dots are goals; the bigger the dot, the better the chance:

          Since City play a unique and demanding system that puts specific stresses on specific players. I think we're better off identifying those players and seeing what the plan is if they get injured.

          The depth up top isn't a problem. They've been incredible without a center-forward and now they have one, plus a likely more-involved Jack Grealish, Phil Foden and Mahrez, along with De Bruyne and Bernardo Silva, who can both play as part of an effective front three. Then you can throw in the potential of Alvarez, too, who's making a big leap in competition from Argentina to England, but he at least has the potential to contribute this season. I don't really see an injury to any of those guys derailing City's season.

          More from Ryan O'Hanlon:
          - Reimagining Barcelona: What if they made no signings after 2016?
          - The evolution of Raheem Sterling: How City, England star revamped his game
          - Why do so many box-office transfers go bad?

          In the midfield, it used to be Fernandinho who was irreplaceable, and then it became Rodri. While Alex -- who we must note is a Liverpool fan -- called Fernandinho for Phillips a "straight swap," that's just not true. The Brazilian's legs gave out a long time, ago and he was really only a break-in-case-of-emergency option down the stretch. With Phillips, they now have a pretty clear Plan B if Rodri goes down. Phillips can also play with Rodri, plus you've got KDB, Gundogan, Bernardo and even Foden for more midfield options.

          At the back, while Cancelo is an irreplaceable archetype, I still think City can piece together the ball progression and the creativity he provides with all the talent we've already mentioned if he goes down. The center-back situation is fine with Aymeric Laporte, Ruben Dias, Ake (who seems likely to stay), and John Stones.

          The bigger question: What happens without Kyle Walker? He's the kind of skeleton key who can dictate play from deep, allows City to suck the life out of the opposition as they slowly push forward, and then also chases down any balls over the top. Yet while I think Walker raises City's ceiling to improbable heights, their floor is still pretty high without him. He only played about 50% of the league minutes last year, and they were still one of the best 38-game teams of all time.

          Plus, if Walker goes down, the presence of Phillips allows for some new alignments and extra defensive solidity, and if the rumored deal for Brighton's energetic left-back Marc Cucurella eventually goes through, he can do some of the same.

          In review, it's not that City have less depth than last season; the depth is just different.