I don't think it is the case that one must play a back 5 to enable fullbacks to have significant attacking influence. It is probably the most significant change to the game in recent memory that fullbacks have far greater attacking influence, and the vast majority of the most notable examples play in back 4 systems. I don't need to list them here, we all know the names. It's a false dichotomy, that we play a back 5 or Cacace can't attack. Cacace was hugely influential going forward as part of Des' back 4 system at the u20 world cup. I've had enough of this back 5 bullshark and the fallacious reasoning for it. We looked like we were playing Hudsonball whenever Hay played a back 5. We played both a back 4 and a back 5 for large parts of the Tokyo Olympics and we looked miles better when playing a 4. I also think you need two exceptional wingbacks and two exceptional central midfielders to play a back 5 in a way that doesn't cede all possession and territory and we have maybe 1 of those 4 in Cacace.
I don't think it is the case that one must play a back 5 to enable fullbacks to have significant attacking influence. It is probably the most significant change to the game in recent memory that fullbacks have far greater attacking influence, and all of the most notable examples play in back 4 systems. I don't need to list them here, we all know the names. It's a false dichotomy, that we play a back 5 or Cacace can't attack. Cacace was hugely influential going forward as part of Des' back 4 system at the u20 world cup. I've had enough of this back 5 bullshark and the fallacious reasoning for it. We looked like we were playing Hudsonball whenever Hay played a back 5. We played both a back 4 and a back 5 for large parts of the Tokyo Olympics and we looked miles better when playing a 4. I also think you need two exceptional wingbacks and two exceptional central midfielders to play a back 5 in a way that doesn't cede all possession and territory and we have maybe 1 of those 4 in Cacace.