• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang: Black Panther

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheArsenalis

Well-Known Member
Laca has easily outperformed Auba at CF this and last season imo. Auba has looked lost every single game at CF except against Ukrainian farmers at the Emirates which is pretty worrying. Idk if he’s just having trouble adapting to the PL or if our style of play doesn’t suit him but I find difficult to justify putting Laca on the bench for him atm.

Either way, putting one of them on the bench (and Auba on a wing to an extent) is frankly mismanagement imo and people should focus less on who’s better than the other and more on why the hell we can’t play both up front.
Give lacazette a run of 5 games. And we could transpose everything being said about auba to him. The team isnt jelling. Attack struggling to link with midfield and then we defense midfield problems too. The good thing is we are getting results. Here hoping thet get it together soon.
 

ThlRama

Active Member

Country: Greece

Player:Saka
The thing is with the 4-2-3-1, players who are wide, in a way, have to stick wide because you already have the no.10 floating. A 4-3-3 has balance.

The exact opposite is true as a rule, mate, take a closer look at how these formations have been implemented throughout the sport's history. 4-3-3 is as a wide as it gets in its forward line, 4-2-3-1 can have the AM line as narrow as it gets on the other hand. You are probably talking about a 4-3-2-1.
 

Oh-Zeal

Member
The exact opposite is true as a rule, mate, take a closer look at how these formations have been implemented throughout the sport's history. 4-3-3 is as a wide as it gets in its forward line, 4-2-3-1 can have the AM line as narrow as it gets on the other hand. You are probably talking about a 4-3-2-1.

In the modern game if you play 4-3-3, your wide men are expected to chip in goals. Maybe before you'd have them as wide as possible however nowadays you have your right footed player on the left and left footed player on the right because there's this whole cutting in tradition going on. Full backs have become so important because they are the ones that provide the width while the inside forwards tuck in. For me, the 4-2-3-1 requires real wingers. Something we don't have at all. In a 4-2-3-1 you need wingers who will take on players from the wide position. In such a formation as well, I'd expect my no.10 to chip more goals too as the classic no.10 is now gone. Players like Neymar, Hazard, Salah are considered as inside forwards and the 4-3-3 is what gives them that freedom. As soon as its a 4-2-3-1, I'm thinking about real out and out wingers with crosses.
 

ThlRama

Active Member

Country: Greece

Player:Saka
In the modern game if you play 4-3-3, your wide men are expected to chip in goals. Maybe before you'd have them as wide as possible however nowadays you have your right footed player on the left and left footed player on the right because there's this whole cutting in tradition going on. Full backs have become so important because they are the ones that provide the width while the inside forwards tuck in.

None of this contradicts what I wrote. In a 4-3-3 the wide forwards start from very wide positions, to offer some width that the compact 3 man midfield sorely lacks. When the attack unfolds, yes, they tuck in to combine and score. But they are required to be able to play by the sideline, if they only work narrow it's not a 4-3-3 at all and instead a 4-3-2-1 as I wrote. And yes, when the forwards cut in then the fullbacks take the responsibility of providing the width, nothing new here.

For me, the 4-2-3-1 requires real wingers.

Very rarely do we see pure 4-2-3-1 with "real" wingers. "Real" wingers is what you very often saw in England a long time ago, workhorses that like to operate in very wide areas, defend and attack, have pace, endurance, power and excellent crossing technique, virtually "never" cutting in. This type of player is tailor made for the 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 (which again is different from the 4-2-3-1.) Are they sometimes used in a 4-2-3-1? Absolutely. But maybe one of them is such a "real" winger, on the other side you won't have a similar player. Otherwise this system becomes very dull and simply an inferior version of the 4-4-1-1, because it is weaker defensively (the wingers are too far ahead) without being more threatening.

In such a formation as well, I'd expect my no.10 to chip more goals too as the classic no.10 is now gone.

This sounds more like a critique of the skillset of the playmaker we employ (Özil, Ramsey, Mkhitaryan?) rather than having anything to do with the formation. A lot of player types can play in the hole for a variety of formations, which one is the best is anybody's guess. Certainly Özil is of a near-extinct species.

Players like Neymar, Hazard, Salah are considered as inside forwards and the 4-3-3 is what gives them that freedom.

All three you mentioned are AMAZING when hugging the sideline. Hazard in particular used to play very wide a lot during the past, Salah still does it most of the time, he doesn't cut in nearly as much as you are implying. Right now Hazard and Neymar are just too good to shoehorn into a limited role, they cut in because they are absolute world class and can do anything they want on the pitch. Hazard especially is a complete forward type; he can do anything needs be done. He can't be a guide regarding what wide players in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 do. Not to mention that in the case of Neymar and Hazard you haven't even looked at what the players on the the other side of them are doing.

As soon as its a 4-2-3-1, I'm thinking about real out and out wingers with crosses.

OK, so we buy 2 new "real" wingers and employ this, it might do us good, I'm not arguing on that. Maybe you're right. But why 4-2-3-1 and not 4-4-1-1, which is the ideal system for crossing since it is more dominant in wide areas?
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
Laca has easily outperformed Auba at CF this and last season imo. Auba has looked lost every single game at CF except against Ukrainian farmers at the Emirates which is pretty worrying. Idk if he’s just having trouble adapting to the PL or if our style of play doesn’t suit him but I find difficult to justify putting Laca on the bench for him atm.

Either way, putting one of them on the bench (and Auba on a wing to an extent) is frankly mismanagement imo and people should focus less on who’s better than the other and more on why the hell we can’t play both up front.
Wtf? Given he didn't play in the Europa league last season and was on fire for us domestically this is just baffling nonsense.

Agree we should be playing both but we don't do 442. We've no wingers for a start to play that way and not sure we have the centre midfield either to play it.
 

Oh-Zeal

Member
The exact opposite is true as a rule, mate, take a closer look at how these formations have been implemented throughout the sport's history. 4-3-3 is as a wide as it gets in its forward line, 4-2-3-1 can have the AM line as narrow as it gets on the other hand. You are probably talking about a 4-3-2-1.

I'll take that, I mistakened a 4-3-2-1 and the 4-3-3 mate.
 

Oh-Zeal

Member
None of this contradicts what I wrote. In a 4-3-3 the wide forwards start from very wide positions, to offer some width that the compact 3 man midfield sorely lacks. When the attack unfolds, yes, they tuck in to combine and score. But they are required to be able to play by the sideline, if they only work narrow it's not a 4-3-3 at all and instead a 4-3-2-1 as I wrote. And yes, when the forwards cut in then the fullbacks take the responsibility of providing the width, nothing new here.



Very rarely do we see pure 4-2-3-1 with "real" wingers. "Real" wingers is what you very often saw in England a long time ago, workhorses that like to operate in very wide areas, defend and attack, have pace, endurance, power and excellent crossing technique, virtually "never" cutting in. This type of player is tailor made for the 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 (which again is different from the 4-2-3-1.) Are they sometimes used in a 4-2-3-1? Absolutely. But maybe one of them is such a "real" winger, on the other side you won't have a similar player. Otherwise this system becomes very dull and simply an inferior version of the 4-4-1-1, because it is weaker defensively (the wingers are too far ahead) without being more threatening.



This sounds more like a critique of the skillset of the playmaker we employ (Özil, Ramsey, Mkhitaryan?) rather than having anything to do with the formation. A lot of player types can play in the hole for a variety of formations, which one is the best is anybody's guess. Certainly Özil is of a near-extinct species.



All three you mentioned are AMAZING when hugging the sideline. Hazard in particular used to play very wide a lot during the past, Salah still does it most of the time, he doesn't cut in nearly as much as you are implying. Right now Hazard and Neymar are just too good to shoehorn into a limited role, they cut in because they are absolute world class and can do anything they want on the pitch. Hazard especially is a complete forward type; he can do anything needs be done. He can't be a guide regarding what wide players in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 do. Not to mention that in the case of Neymar and Hazard you haven't even looked at what the players on the the other side of them are doing.



OK, so we buy 2 new "real" wingers and employ this, it might do us good, I'm not arguing on that. Maybe you're right. But why 4-2-3-1 and not 4-4-1-1, which is the ideal system for crossing since it is more dominant in wide areas?
All you have said is spot on. Major difference between a 4-3-3 and a 4-3-2-1. As well as the 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-1-1. We definitely need wingers if we ever want to gun for the league. I would rather have a special winger that has playmaking abilities like insigne rather than an out and out no.10. I'm a big fan of Özil, but I mean the game has changed. Players like James/ Isco/ Silva have learned to adapt and play deep. The 3 man midfield for me is a must though. I just feel that this is where the game is won and having the right balance is so so important. In Torreria we finally have someone who can collect it deep, intercept and start attacks. With Ramsey, we have a goal scoring midfielder who is better coming from deep, has High energy for the press but will never offer anything in the build up. Now I'd say for the 3rd spot we need a very special player. I'm stuck between a player like Moussa Dembele (Power/ pressure resistant and composed on the ball). There's not many of them but playing against the likes of Pogba and Matic, I still think we need a beast. The other type of player I think of is a player with key passes, skillful, magical and just offers something Ramsey and Torreira won't offer. Balance balance balance. We have Xhaka for now. Xhakas okay. However against pressing teams we vulnerable in midfield. He can come on in the second half. Up front we missing that Special player you mentioned who offers width, Skillful and just has that x factor about em. Shove em on the right. Than have Auba and Lacazette flourishing. Mkhitharyan and Özil are very special but tactically, these players are dying out. Unless they can offer something deep.
 

Wryer

Well-Known Member
The goals are great and I think the stats are in his favor.

But I can help but feel something is not quite right with Auba on the pitch? He seems a little jaded and lethargic. Looked disappointed when taken off. His overall build up game also feels somewhat haphazardand disjointed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts+

Top Bottom