Wenger has to step up

[hackajack]

Pretty much everybody used to play 4411. Now thay don't - ManU play 4231, Chelsea play 4141, Barca play 433.

 

[General]

All the formations you’ve mentioned are fundamentally varying forms of 4-5-1 - Common denominator is the lone striker and a five man midfield irrespective of how they are set up. Chelsea did go 4-4-2 to get back in the game against us last season (2-1 loss at Stanford Bridge) later on reverting to 4-3-3.

 

[hackajack]

Yes they are but they are all subtlely different and the distinction is worth making in my view since it has implications for what happens in games.

 

[Anzac]

Yes they are but they are all subtlely different and the distinction is worth making in my view since it has implications for what happens in games.

I agree - there are subtle variations in what roles players take & where they can be found relative to their team mates on the pitch. For example I loath the flat 5 man midfield & the 4141 due to the resulting isolation of the lone striker & lack of depth options in different areas of the pitch.

 

[Anzac]

Last season our 'strength' was our midfield - the 442 NOT the 451 IMO. This season we are struggling in the engine room, and IMO we will lose the season campaign in the 1st & last 3rds of the pitch as a result.

It depends which 4-5-1 you're referring to. A flat 4-5-1 (like Sunderland) is certainly not our style and 4-4-2 in the big games is a non starter because it's quite simple too permeable to win the midfield battle - hence the reason you never see United, Chelsea, Barca at all employing such tactics in big games.

Traditionally, 4-4-1-1 (with a real number 10)has always been our strongest formation, whether it's Merson slotting behind Smith or Bergkamp (or Wiltord) behind Henry. In the first leg of our CL tie with Liverpool, it was only when we went 4-4-1-1 with Hleb behind Ade did we actually look more threatening whereas before, Liverpool dealt with us quite comfortably with our straight 4-4-2.

I certainly agree with you that to execute both formations to the optimum, the engine room must be sorted.

As I've said IMO the engine room is defficient because it's being used to provide the primary cover for the defence, whereas IMO the simpler option is to have the FBs take this role.

 

[hackajack]

As I've said IMO the engine room is defficient because it's being used to provide the primary cover for the defence, whereas IMO the simpler option is to have the FBs take this role.

I don't really see where you're coming from with this one. Seems to me the fullbacks are already doing the job defensively often tucking in to make a 'third' CB if the play is on the opposition flank and only going forward in ones to leave 3 at the back. With narrow wingers they will always be needed to create width at the other end of the pitch.

 

[Anzac]

As I've said IMO the engine room is defficient because it's being used to provide the primary cover for the defence, whereas IMO the simpler option is to have the FBs take this role.

I don't really see where you're coming from with this one. Seems to me the fullbacks are already doing the job defensively often tucking in to make a 'third' CB if the play is on the opposition flank and only going forward in ones to leave 3 at the back. With narrow wingers they will always be needed to create width at the other end of the pitch.

My impression is that we look to use the FBs as an element of our attack as often as possible, unless it's a fast paced counter - more so now that we've got the supposed Plan B with the crosses from the flanks. For me the FBs are a STANDARD element of the attack, as opposed to being an EXTRA option like Ca$hley used to be. Likewise if one is staying back I don't see them as playing any deeper than the central mids, which still leaves the 2 CBs as the backline. The only time I see them in any defensive pattern is when we are playing the ball out of defence - but that's probably being a bit harsh.

When AW inherited the defence our FBs were much less attacking - this meant that the back 4 defended as a unit & only supported the attack as an extra / shock option. Now our wide mids always look to come infield as soon as we are in the final 3rd, so as to create the space for the FB outside. Add this movement into the middle into an already crowded defence & it's little wonder we can't pass the ball thru' the defence to create opportunities, and then rely upon the FB to put in a cross from the flanks. I have no issues with this when it is conducted at pace, but not when done at a measured tempo.

I'd like to see both FBs stay level with the deepest MC, and only go forward when there is a genuine overlap as opposed to a 'forced / false' opportunity. Further to this I want to see less of the crosses and more of the ball being cut back from the byline towards the AMs / MCs moving onto it, so as to turn the defenders.

The other point I want to make re Sunderland, is that when I see our central mids dwelling on the ball it's a sign that we've lost our shape & they have no short passing options. Too often Song & Denilson were holding the ball looking for an option to pass to, and often the only players available were the CBs. We then see the likes of Toure playing a direct ball forward as a result and / or the mids getting caught in possession / cheap turn overs from a poor pass. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say we push up too far when the opposition concede field position when defending deep & in numbers - we make it so much harder for ourselves than needs be.

IMO our decision making in the final 3rd is generally poor when facing a defensive team. We lose shape, we lack pace, we lack composure, and we take bail out options that offer little or no end result. Yet at the same time we seem prepared to persist in these options, which IMO are directly attributable to our defensive issues, while our 'solution' seems to be to compromise our performance in other areas of the pitch - midfield & attack.

If AW wants the strengthen the middle then why not play a narrow diamond 442 (with AMC, 2 MC & DM) - play the FBs from the midfield (owing to the DMC covering the hole), so that in attack / possession it operates as a semi 343 / 21412 with the FBs providing the width? Problem being that unless he decides to use Song & park him as DMC then he doesn't have any real options in that area.

AW has seen to it that we no longer have a genuine defensive style midfielder in the squad, so IMO he needs to come up with a 'real' solution to the defensive issues and NOT a compromise that weakens us elsewhere. He needs to adapt our play to the realities of our squad capabilities, and stop trying to force the players / team to conform to an ideal that they do not have the capability of meeting at this time. Plugging the midfield is NOT the solution - it's a sign of a lack of ideas = we're vulnerable down the middle so let's put an extra body in there, even tho' we no longer have anyone who is experienced / specialises in that role. While we do this we leave Ade as the lone striker due to his physical attributes such as his strength on the ball & stamina, yet he is very flawed in regard to his profficiency to convert early chances, and likewise in regard to his off sides when playing a high line.

As for the question re width in attack - simple, don't have the wide mids always cut infield, and select players who can run at defenders & beat them with the ball, as opposed to speed merchants such as Walcott & Eboue who look to beat the defender with pace - a low percentage play against a deep defensive line as you run out of pitch in a hurry.

The FBs ARE the defensive key, based upon the player resources available.

 

[hackajack]

My impression is that we look to use the FBs as an element of our attack as often as possible, unless it's a fast paced counter - more so now that we've got the supposed Plan B with the crosses from the flanks. For me the FBs are a STANDARD element of the attack, as opposed to being an EXTRA option like Ca$hley used to be. Likewise if one is staying back I don't see them as playing any deeper than the central mids, which still leaves the 2 CBs as the backline. The only time I see them in any defensive pattern is when we are playing the ball out of defence - but that's probably being a bit harsh.

The FBs ARE the defensive key, based upon the player resources available.

FBs are key attacking players for all top teams in the modern game (see ManU with Evra, Chelsea with Boswinga, Barca with Alves etc etc). In fact my view is that they have become too attack oriented at the expense of defensive qualities in general (players like the ludicrously overrated Ramos, Lahm and Johnson - who can't tackle). We've used them extensively since we replaced Dixon and Winterburn (who were more attackminded under Wenger anyway). With crowded midfields and narrow wingers it's absolutely essential - in fact what you see more and more is a CB breaking forward as well to create the extra man (see Kolo last season). We shouldn't be looking for new solutions to the problem which disrupt the whole balance of the team we should just fix the problem the 'simple' way by getting a DM (or two).

 

[Anzac]

Ahh that would be the simple solution, but one that AW has rejected on several fronts:
* no DM role in our pattern;
* the sale / release of 3 DMs;
* the decision NOT to purchase a player of that type for the senior squad.

Without that type of player or role, then the 'solution' must come from elsewhere, or it's a compromise. I'd rather see the FBs reigned in as opposed to putting in a compromise, especially one that further compromises another area of our pattern.

I get what you are saying about FB play in general as attacking options, but IMO it's gone too far when you continue to play that option at the expense of another, particularly when they offer so little by way of end product. It's not as if it would be removing a major contribution to our goal supply etc, whereas removing a striker is halving your options by comparison.

As for the pattern re 'narrow' wingers / AMs, simply get them to stay wide & use the MCs to come forward around the edge of the area. They are only 'narrow' because we tell them to come infield to allow space for the FBs to overlap = remove the tactic & your remove the requirement - make it an exception as opposed to the rule as it stands now.

 

[hackajack]

I get what you are saying about FB play in general as attacking options, but IMO it's gone too far when you continue to play that option at the expense of another, particularly when they offer so little by way of end product. It's not as if it would be removing a major contribution to our goal supply etc, whereas removing a striker is halving your options by comparison.

I have some sympathy for the view that FBs don't actually contribute that much in terms of hard numbers of assists and goals (though I think I've made by position on using topline stats clear here and elsewhere) and that many modern FBs would be better off doing their defensive jobs properly (which why I love Bacary who's a defender first and no mug going forward) but in our case they create the space without which it would be even more difficult to open up teams.

 

[Anzac]

I get what you are saying about FB play in general as attacking options, but IMO it's gone too far when you continue to play that option at the expense of another, particularly when they offer so little by way of end product. It's not as if it would be removing a major contribution to our goal supply etc, whereas removing a striker is halving your options by comparison.

I have some sympathy for the view that FBs don't actually contribute that much in terms of hard numbers of assists and goals (though I think I've made by position on using topline stats clear here and elsewhere) and that many modern FBs would be better off doing their defensive jobs properly (which why I love Bacary who's a defender first and no mug going forward) but in our case they create the space without which it would be even more difficult to open up teams.

Only because the wide mids come infield to create the space - and then the FB contribution to any end result is currently zero - so why bother??? I'd rather see the wide mids try to beat their man to get behind the defence, or see an interchange to open the defence as per Nasri's debut goal.

 

[hackajack]

Only because the wide mids come infield to create the space - and then the FB contribution to any end result is currently zero - so why bother??? I'd rather see the wide mids try to beat their man to get behind the defence, or see an interchange to open the defence as per Nasri's debut goal.

Nasri's goal was coming as a result of the WBA defence getting confused as hell as to what was happening with Gael occupying the RB and Sami attacking through the middle as Nik floated around.

 

[General]

Anzac, you're argument sounds very sketchy and could easily be mistaken for a lecture in quantum physics. Like Hackajack said, attacking fullbacks are a common feature in all the top teams. Besides, our wide mids do not always cut in. It's simply an option they exercise in attack. You don't seem to fully appreciate the nature of the opposition and the fact that it's sometimes almost impossible to break down certain defences (down the wings) without having a full back as an option. It’s also not a rule as you suggest that our AMs have to go narrow. Going narrow or wide is an option based on judgement and it only goes wrong with poor decision making. How many times have we seen Walcott on Eboue beat their man down the wings or cut in field? Many times, is the answer and two examples are Milan (Walcott’s cut back for Ade’s goal, having beaten his man down the wing) and Blackburn (same player dribbling inside for Van Persie’s opener.


Our general style of play and formation hasn't altered for the past decade under Wenger’s tenure and it is not going to now. Every single player, including Nasri, is fully aware of the requirements to the systems we play. To ask for it to be altered to accommodate players is a non-starter.



The simple fact of the matter is our midfield pairing is not simply good enough and this is having a knock on effect on our defensive and attacking capabilities. Boro, Wenger and Rice would've gone to great lengths to optimise the team’s performance with our current resources. At the moment, it's not working and this is mostly down to personnel. Song and Denilson, albeit talented, are not quite there yet for a title challenging team and no amount gloss will hide their shortcomings. The situation has obviously been exacerbated by an off form Cesc.

I'd hate to give the impression that I know better than our current management in terms of optimising the team’s performance with a better system. A player's competence and their adequacy to the task ahead (on the other hand) are very easy to evaluate, whether you're a fan or a manager. These shortcomings (and not system inadequacies), especially in midfield, is an area we all agree has become the team's main Achilles Heel.

 

[DC Gunner]

Our general style of play and formation hasn't altered for the past decade under Wenger’s tenure and it is not going to now. Every single player, including Nasri, is fully aware of the requirements to the systems we play. To ask for it to be altered to accommodate players is a non-starter.

So are players allowed to improvise if things don't go smoothely, or is their creativity restricted within that system.

 

[General]

Our general style of play and formation hasn't altered for the past decade under Wenger’s tenure and it is not going to now. Every single player, including Nasri, is fully aware of the requirements to the systems we play. To ask for it to be altered to accommodate players is a non-starter.

So are players allowed to improvise if things don't go smoothely, or is their creativity restricted within that system.

Clearly being creative / improvising is different from altering the system. Allowing players to express themselves is actually a mainstay of Wenger’s strategy. The downside is a player cannot improvise to good effect if he lacks the tools or is simply not good enough.

 

[arsenalfc0719]

Our fullbacks need to be more aware of their defensive responsibilities and less occupied with offensive ones. We turn to our fullbacks far too much, this only makes us predictable and boring. When our fullbacks get the ball they should cut back and put it right back into play instead of trying to put in the final ball which they do far to often. Our fullbacks putting in a cross nearly at opportunity to do so really kills the whole point of possession based football. Crosses should diminishes to the bear minimum.

Our plan "B" like some like to call it is a liability to our plan A, as now we seem to go for the plan B more often than not because, well, it is the easiest option, but unfortunately also the less effective option. Right now we are not using plan A nor plan B we are playing a mixture of both of them and that hasn't worked and will not work well for us. I'd rather we just had one game plan, but are good at it, rather then having two, but being mediocre at best at both of them, which is what we seem to be right now.

 

[DC Gunner]

Our general style of play and formation hasn't altered for the past decade under Wenger’s tenure and it is not going to now. Every single player, including Nasri, is fully aware of the requirements to the systems we play. To ask for it to be altered to accommodate players is a non-starter.

So are players allowed to improvise if things don't go smoothely, or is their creativity restricted within that system.

Clearly being creative / improvising is different from altering the system. Allowing players to express themselves is actually a mainstay of Wenger’s strategy. The downside is a player cannot improvise to good effect if he lacks the tools or is simply not good enough.

What if an opportunity arises for someone to make a killer pass [of any range] or a killer shot ! do you think they have second thoughts, or does the system allows them the flexibility !?

 

[DC Gunner]

Our fullbacks need to be more aware of their defensive responsibilities and less occupied with offensive ones. We turn to our fullbacks far too much, this only makes us predictable and boring. When our fullbacks get the ball they should cut back and put it right back into play instead of trying to put in the final ball which they do far to often. Our fullbacks putting in a cross nearly at opportunity to do so really kills the whole point of possession based football. Crosses should diminishes to the bear minimum.

Well, our full backs need the wingers to do their job and make the other team's FB think about having to watch either the crosser or the winger, if the winger runs @ the defender, few things can happen:

1-The defender goes with him, hence giving our full back the chance to cross.
2-The defender lets the CB handle the winger which in effect should open space for strikers.
3-The winger gets between the CB and the defending FB to receive a short cutting pass in the PK

..etc

that of course is part of a bigger strategy where multiple tactics have to be used, do we currently use multiple tactics ?

 

[asajoseph]

Guys, this thread really is going around in circles, and is absolutely nowhere near the original topic.

In the spirit of our ongoing efforts to stimulate new and original discussions, I'm going to lock this. Hopefully, you'll take this as an inspiration to start new threads, containing the myriad subjects covered here, but right now, I think this particular one has run it's course.

Seriously guys, it's been fun!