Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by The_Roadrunner, Jan 19, 2015.
You are preaching to the choir - I've longed for some power in the middle.
Found this awesome article featuring Neil Banford. Reading this, it seems he has a big hand in the defensive improvement of the team. Interesting tidbit about Stefan O'Connor aswell.
IMO we've played 3 versions of the 4141 this season:
1 - at the start of the season it was akin to a 4 AM line as we pushed high into the final 3rd, but it left us vulnerable on the counter particularly when we lost the ball behind the play;
2 - against Citeh & others we played 4 across the CM line starting from deeper & not pushing hard ahead of the ball, however this has also had draw backs in not converting our dominance in the middle 3rd into creating chances in the final 3rd;
3 - IMO we've now moved to an asymmetric shape with a CM on the flank from midfield so as to provide both deeper support for the overlapping FB and to provide an off set 4 man midfield.
Such a quiet thread.. guess it is easier to just write change this player with some other team star than discussing tactics
Defence/attack balance is a lot better than it was in large part due to Le Coq, maybe a bit fortuitously, but anyway that reduced the need to discuss the obvious glaring 'gap'. There are little things still such as width, ball playing and power through central midfield, but in general there would be a lot more discussion here if we didn't have the win % we've had since the loss at WHL early Feb. The loss against Monaco does raise some questions, but as much regarding overall mentality as with tactics.
We are top of league for set piece goals, is there anyone who can see how much improvement we have made?
IMO we still lack another option to balance our primary want of passing through zone14. Our current plan B is to cross from wide & usually square, which is dog ****e to a primarly passing possession style.
In lieu of changing our patterns (as may be necessity if there is no room to make a run in behind), then my preference is to have a player who can impose themselves physically to take the ball & drive into the opposition area - like PV / Yaya.
Diaby may have been that player initially but no longer. Wilshere looks to do so but lacks the strength on the ball, whilst Rambo makes the runs OFF the ball.
I would rather opt to improve our long range shots. Long shots would make opponents think twice about sticking too deep but if they got suck out it would also be a problem.
Any defence nightmare is a side that can make exquisite short passes, make use of crosses and capable of long range. We have players with quality shots like Santi and Ramsey, but we rarely utilize them. And shots have another use, minimalize interceptions by opponents.
I think Rambo can provide the threat of long range shooting if he's tasked with a supporting role as in the DLP.
it's not about role Anz, it's about training.
long range shots aren't about only power, but also positioning, decision making and placement.
Lampard is very dangerous from long range not only cause he has the power and accuracy but cause defenders would hesitate to close him down in fear of his through pass. 1 second of hesitation is enough to cause a gap to shoot/pass to.
Rambo has got some basic on it, but he is still far from Santi.. however, Santi isn't taking as much shots as he did in his first year.
I suspect we aren't training long shots...
Ramsey has the vision but not always the execution - sometimes his technique lets him down. He has good timing when it comes to getting into goalscoring positions (particularly from deep), but when it comes to executing a key part in a move, sometimes it's all wrong. Ramsey as DLP could work, but I would rather a slightly more technical and tactically aware player to assume the role, and just have Ramsey next to them as an all-round B2B. His energy next to Arteta worked because he basically supported Arteta's movements both on and off the ball. It was hard to mark Arteta out the game because Ramsey was there disrupting that.
As far as improving long shots - well no matter how much you improve them, they are far less likely to result in goals. You end up just taking pot shots. There's a method to Arsenal getting closer to the goal - it's simply more efficient to score from those areas. They're more likely to result in goals. Taking a chance if it's there is fine, but taking long shots is not a good way to ensure goals!
I'd like to see our wide players wait before cutting in - we're too narrow upon entry into the final third, when the wide men need to time their runs inside better. This is more down to the team getting used to each other I would say - Alexis still hasn't yet integrated fully, although he's improving in that area. Ox was good at holding wide before cutting in.
Was interesting to see Arsenal yet again bypass Coquelin in the buildup play v Swansea. We noticeably produced more chances when he came off. Love the lad, but the limitations are clear there. We'll see how he improves during pre-season. But it's clear we need a deeper midfielder more comfortable in the build-up without sacrificing ball-winning ability. Schneiderlin is the closest. Gundogan will probably be too much of a sacrifice in ball-winning, but he would offer greater transitional play.
Why does Wenger hate wide players?
He seems to really be obsessed with always having one of his center mids out on the wing. Why play Santi there today?
Even when Pep was obsessed with playing midfielders everywhere he tended to move midfielders back into defense rather than play them out wide using Pedro and Alexis. It wasn't until he was forced to try to shoehorn Cesc into the team. No surprise shoehorning another center mid into that team disrupted the balance and Barca never really looked as good with either Cesc or Iniesta out wide instead of Pedro-Alexis.
This, to me, is really one of Wenger's biggest current tactical weaknesses. He seems to have gotten over his idealistic full out attacking experiment and last season he showed he can play pragmatic. But he still has this weird obsession with sticking one of our center mids out on the wing.
Admittedly it occasionally works really well like against Liverpool last year when Ramsey was out wide but then he seems to get attached to the concept far too much rather than adjusting the next week to a different opponent.
In short I think Wenger provides many examples of what is called the Endowment Effect in economics.
Yes. He is so desperate to prove he doesn't need to conform to the modern game that he is left looking sheepish at times.
Anyone else noticed that almost every season we start with total freedom of what players want to express them self on the field. There seems to be no instructions and the tactic is for them to figure it all by them self on the field. Can't remember a long way back but every season there are chapters where our players have total freedom, and because of that we look naive and unmotivated on the field.
It isn't until the top 4 is at risk when we start play the tactical football we all know Wenger is capable of.
This is of course just another theory from me, but I would like to hear what others have to say about it.
Ok, so now you don't mind if "the Einsteins on Arsenal-mania" second-guess "the best manager in the world"?
I never minded it. People can say what ever they want to say!
Forgot to mention but I'm obligated to change opinion when ever I want to without noticing anyone.
Anyway. Wenger is still best manager in the world, and he should play Walcott more as a striker in my opinion. So...
I agree. The last time that actually worked was with the Invincibles. You could argue that Pires wasn't a natural wide player but that team was so balanced and fluid it didn't matter. Henry and Cole provided the width needed on the wing. This team's problem is that it has no real identity. They defend when they feel like it. They counter attack when they feel like it. They play lazy possession football when they feel like it. There doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan even when things are going well. I think that's down to this being a group of players that doesn't necessarily fit. The roles aren't clear enough. The Invincibles were fluid but you also knew what everyone's job was and how they fit tactically. Can we really say that with this side?
It's more to facilitate fluidity, Ramsey or Wilshere on the wing is usually better on the ball than a traditional winger. The issue is balance, with a Sanchez on one wing and Ramsey or Wilshere on the other, things are ideal because the balance is there with Sanchez being quick and penetrative or, in other words, a striker, meaning that we play with 2 strikers and 4 midfielders. However, when you play Ramsey Özil Ox all in the same lineup, there is no penetrative force, I think Wenger may think that Ox is that player but I'd characterize Ox as more of a midfielder than a Sanchez type, that's why I would have advocated starting both Giroud and Walcott so as to maintain that balance that I have described, until Sanchez returns at least. Thought Wenger came to that realization last season.
Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv