Something that pyramid players were proud of, at interviews, is that they considered themselves as total players able to play multiples roles (for different games), instead of modern players labeled as specialists Even in this scenario, I think the usual roles in old systems were well defined, for most games or the stándard play
Talking of the project of Tom Stevens again, and the threads about the best players of each year (we are currently looking at the late 60s to 1970), a player that would fit the sweeper role well would be Pierluigi Cera. So if picking 6 players who'd be really suitable for that role over 6 line-ups, maybe he'd be worth a place even here. I know @annoyedbyneedoflogin was/is considering him for a spot amongst the 23 players he selects for 1969/70, in which Cagliari win the league and then Cera partners Rosato in the World Cup defence. I think he won't finally be in my own selected 23, but I can appreciate his qualities from what I've seen (eg in the game vs West Germany) and read (eg on Wikipedia).
Yes "labelled specialists" (labelled being the key-word) as you say because the players have never been as complete in the past than they are now ofc, in general. Still there would be remarks about "the defenders who can't defend anymore" as it is sometimes said... if there's perhaps some truth in it, at the same time the rules, the refereing has changed, and there can be more requirements towards them about building the game. Etc., well, OK. As for the players of before the war or even after, from what I've read, there were not always especially proud of playing multiple positions but on the contrary (that is what I came across the most often in any case) complained about being employed in a role/ position which was not the one they imagined for themselves (they wanted to play the CH or CF roles most of the time, later IF too) and playing the role of winger for exemple could be felt like a punition for them like a non-recognition of their talents - or they were pushed here because they had an injury/ were not fully fit also. Then there were players who excelled at the winger position of course and who could have not been anything else. Perfect, it is not a dishonour of being a winger since when you excel at this ofc. Also, there's different types of wingers with different caracteristics, same thing with the insides so different possibilities as to know what role is theirs as a winger given a specific combo winger-inside. For example, in the 30's Arsenal Bastin benifited of Alec James or James allowed Bastin to exprimate his qualities in a bilateral way (Jack too) but on the contrary, there would be combos that would not be that complementary with very often insides who were displaced on the wing (exple Vaast-Ben Barek in the French team of the 40s with Vaast displaced, something he was not proud of but angry about, more). About the standards of play I don't think that the insides consistently sticked to one portion of the field (centre-left and centre-right) but moved according to different situtations or deliberately in order to surpirse their opponents. At the back, say the backs + the halves, surely that the most often the marking was very standard but also from what I've read sometimes, in spite of their nominal positions at the start, it could be a back who marked the opponent winger (if too quick for the wing-half for exemple while the latter would focus more on defending against the opponent's insides as a counterpart). So, not saying they could not be proud of that ofc but most of the time, like today, the players had their preferences. Playing some positions was more prestigious (I've often read and heard that the CH position was the noble role and pre-war still, the most often, the star player was the CF. Could be IF later, more since the early sixities). "True-pure" wingers could be stars too but more rarely, it was like a race apart so to speak though in it there was players with different caracteristics (they really had to be complete or excel at something to stand out and be categorized as great players like their colleagues of the inside of the pitch and it has not changed that much over the years). Maybe some of them were proud for having played different positions once their career was over, most of all, I ask myself. That would leave a few of them who would be really proud of that for they were really equally good at different postions and most of all really enjoyed to play different positions (i.e in full accordance with the coach's decisions... depends on wich different positions we are talking about too and at what level of competition, I guess it can be putted in different perspectives according to the level of the player concerned, what are the different postions concerned , in what competition it occured, with who alongside them on the team, against who/ what team, how these opponent's team was organised, with what players exactly...). By the way, it makes me think about Gentile playing the "fluidificante role" with success like during one season or a bit more before the rise of Cabrini. There's also that match report Juve v Milan (what year, can't remember but pre-Cabrini) that says that he was the most offensive full-back of the two while playing right-back, this with Cuccureddu playing left-back... so it's like the "fluidificante role" was inverted here. That's what I mean.