A note on City’s full-backs

Liverpool’s recent 4–3 win at Anfield might have ended City’s hopes of an unbeaten season, but it’s unlikely to meaningfully dent their title challenge. Under Guardiola, City have amassed an enormous lead at the top of the Premier League throughout the first half of the season and they’ve done it by playing some scintillating football.

As always with teams riding high, they’ve had their detractors. One refrain in particular has emerged to call their achievements thus far into question: the transfer fees the club paid for Kyle Walker, Danilo, and Benjamin Mendy.

It’s not just gobshite Twitter users who’ve been regurgitating that line either. Listen to any discussion about City that involves anyone vaguely associated with United — supporters, pundits, ex-players — and you’re likely to hear someone baulk at the amount their rivals forked out for three defenders.

I find this argument about full-backs bizarre; it’s such a weird rod to beat City with. Some are minor points on why that is:

1. Mendy started 4 league games before he got injured and Danilo is a rotation option. City have used two converted midfielders, Delph and Zinchenko, as their primary left-backs this season. It’s difficult to make the case that those two players have had a meaningful impact on City’s form this season.
2. Defenders are generally undervalued — if the system you want to play depends on the quality of your full-backs, why should you spend less strengthening that area of your squad than you would spend on strengthening your forwards? It’s also worth mentioning that City started the season playing 3–5–2, so Guardiola would have been reliant on Walker and Mendy to provide width in that system. There is usually far less backlash over a club spending £50m+ wingers, who provide a similar function.
3. Danilo is a squad player and as such cost less than the other two, but Walker and Mendy were signed as first choice players. Benjamin Mendy started well before his knee injury and Kyle Walker has started every league game this season (except the one he was suspended for), so although they spent a lot of money on these players, they’ve immediately improved their first team. Contrast that with the £100m+United spent collectively on Blind (£15m), Herrera (£29m), Fellaini (£27.5m), and Mata (£37m) *— who are rotation players at best — and the £30m they spent on Victor Lindelof, who is currently their 5th choice centre-back.

None of these are the main reason that this argument is stupid though.

Since 2010 (roughly when they started to really spend heavily) City have spent about £165m on full-backs: £20m for Kolarov; £11m for Clichy; £3m or so for Maicon; and about £130m for the three lads they signed this summer. Prior to the last transfer window, they hadn’t spent a penny on upgrading that position for 5 seasons and they probably won’t have to for the next five years given the age ranges of their current set.

In the same time period, United have spent around £60m on full-backs: £4.5m on Büttner; £15m on Blind; £30m on Shaw; and £15m on Darmian. That’s not including the combined £30m they spent on Rojo and Young, who’ve both been used at left-back for periods of time.

Valencia is 32 and won’t last forever and United obviously don’t fancy Darmian much, so they’ll need two right-backs. Ashley Young is also 32 so, depending on what happens with Luke Shaw — he seems to have wormed his way back into contention over the last month or so — they’ll need either one or two left-backs in the near future.

For context, let’s look at the recent fees major clubs have paid for full-backs under the age of 25:

• Serge Aurier £23m
• Davide Zappacosta £23m
• Nelson Semedo £26m
• Theo Hernández £22.8m
• Emerson Palmieri (reported) ~£20m

None of these players are unequivocally first choice starters for their new clubs and have all cost between £20m-£25m so it stands to reason that if United want 2 starting full-backs (and at least one rotation option), they’re going to have to pay in excess of that. If they want players who will last for 5+ seasons for them, good luck doing that for under £100m (i.e. cheaper than the amount City has spent on that position for the decade).

I spent literally 5 mins on Transfermarkt and from that it’s obvious that City are just slightly ahead of United in the cycle of refreshing their squad. United are going to have to do it soon and there’s virtually no chance they’ll do it more cost-effectively than City did if they want to stay in the top four.

People just like to point out the amount City paid because they did it in bulk, rather than in drips and drabs like United have.

*Mata has started 16 league games for United this season, but he’s the player most likely to miss out due to the arrival of Alexis Sánchez.