Inverted wingbacks lose you the game in the six seconds after you lose the ball

The shape that protects the middle of the pitch leaves both touchlines unguarded at the one moment they matter.

Both wingbacks step inside, the team builds with a back three and a five man middle, and the pitch looks controlled. Then a pass gets cut out forty yards from the opponent's goal and the whole thing turns over.

Count what is on the flanks. Nothing. Two wide players are standing in central areas, and the wingers who were supposed to hold width are ahead of the ball, and the opponent has a fast forward with fifty yards of touchline in front of him and one centre-back to beat before the cover arrives.

This is the trade nobody prices properly. Inverting solves your central rest defence beautifully, and central rest defence is what stops a counter through the middle. It does very little about a counter that starts wide, and a lot of good transitional teams have noticed. The first pass after a turnover against a possession side is almost never straight up the middle now. It goes into the channel, deliberately, because that is where the grass is.

Six seconds is about how long it takes for a break to become a shot from a turnover in a good area. In six seconds an inverted wingback who was standing next to the pivot cannot get back to the touchline. He is not slow. The distance is just too far, and the sprint is diagonal and backwards, which is the least efficient way to cover ground.

The fixes are all compromises. Ask the far side centre-back in a back three to defend wide, which turns him into a fullback and exposes the middle. Invert one side only and accept an asymmetric defensive risk. Or drop the whole idea in games where the opponent has genuine pace in wide areas, which is what a lot of managers quietly do while still describing themselves as positional.

I would go further and say the shape is a luxury good. It requires that turnovers be rare, which requires very good ball players, which requires money. Mid table sides copying it are buying the risk without the thing that makes the risk acceptable.

You see the result most weekends. A well organised side controls a game for an hour, loses the ball once in a bad place, and gets beaten down a wing that nobody was standing in.