Wenger has to step up

[hackajack]

I said Wenger model of management is becoming increasingly flawed largely due to his reactive outlook to things in general (Read – “Reactive”). The statement had nothing to do with encouraging responsibility or “giving players their head”. Wenger is very reactive and this would’ve been obvious to even his staunchest advocates. I do not remember questioning the other elements to his managerial style but yes I think we could’ve heeded to the warning signs much earlier and sent mummy’s boy back to where he came from.

Well the discussion is getting very wide ranging. I think he's strategic thinker rather than being reactive - hence the bit about encouraging players to be mature - that's the result of a long term decision on how to develop a team and players. The youth team stuff again is the result of a long-range decision to counter Chelsea spending. In fact everything points to him being not reactive or knee jerk to short term stuff but looking at the long game all the time(possibly too long a game).

 

[General]

I said Wenger model of management is becoming increasingly flawed largely due to his reactive outlook to things in general (Read – “Reactive”). The statement had nothing to do with encouraging responsibility or “giving players their head”. Wenger is very reactive and this would’ve been obvious to even his staunchest advocates. I do not remember questioning the other elements to his managerial style but yes I think we could’ve heeded to the warning signs much earlier and sent mummy’s boy back to where he came from.

Well the discussion is getting very wide ranging. I think he's strategic thinker rather than being reactive - hence the bit about encouraging players to be mature - that's the result of a long term decision on how to develop a team and players. The youth team stuff again is the result of a long-range decision to counter Chelsea spending. In fact everything points to him being not reactive or knee jerk to short term stuff but looking at the long game all the time(possibly too long a game).

Not at all and there really is no need to stretch the issue. Being reactive is not synonymous with knee jerk or short termism. The youth policy is part and parcel of the game. We seem to place more emphasis on it and sometimes ludicrously use it as an excuse but United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Barcelona and even Man City all have a top class youth set up.

The point I was trying to make is Wenger’s general attitude towards problem solving and he is more reactive than proactive. The majority of the problems we’ve faced this season could’ve been mitigated long before they became an issue. I’ve stated events in 05/06 as a prime example. Late substitutions and throwing men on to salvage something after the damage has been done is also another!

 

[hackajack]

The point I was trying to make is Wenger’s general attitude towards problem solving and he is more reactive than proactive. The majority of the problems we’ve faced this season could’ve been mitigated long before they became an issue. I’ve stated events in 05/06 as a prime example. Late substitutions and throwing men on to salvage something after the damage has been done is also another!

But all the evidence tends to suggest that he has long term strategies that he has decided on and sticks to...ie he's not reactive at all. The subs he has a policy of letting the starting XI win the game (and only tries a gamble in the least 15 minutes). The personnel he has had a policy of developing or buying in young players... he doesn't rush out and spend money (like I think he probably should have this close season). You might take issue with his decisions but I don't think you can say he's reactive - he's sticking to his guns not reacting to events.

 

[DC Gunner]

I can agree, Wenger is not very reactive to what happens on the field in terms of adjustment, that is why his subs' timing is almost always the same.

If it indicates anything, it indicates that he tends to have a pre plan and sticks to it without adjustments [I think it explains his signings and substitutions to a certain extent]

 

[General]

The point I was trying to make is Wenger’s general attitude towards problem solving and he is more reactive than proactive. The majority of the problems we’ve faced this season could’ve been mitigated long before they became an issue. I’ve stated events in 05/06 as a prime example. Late substitutions and throwing men on to salvage something after the damage has been done is also another!

But all the evidence tends to suggest that he has long term strategies that he has decided on and sticks to...ie he's not reactive at all. The subs he has a policy of letting the starting XI win the game (and only tries a gamble in the least 15 minutes). The personnel he has had a policy of developing or buying in young players... he doesn't rush out and spend money (like I think he probably should have this close season). You might take issue with his decisions but I don't think you can say he's reactive - he's sticking to his guns not reacting to events.

You don’t think throwing on Vela immediately after we conceded a goal had anything to do with being reactive? It must’ve been a pre-planned substitution then but it all seems too coincidental. I can find you a plethora of examples (to add to the ones I’ve already listed) where Wenger’s reacted to a situation after refusing to heed to the warning signings.

It’s all good persevering with players and having a plan but it is results and subsequently trophies that count in the end. As far as I’m aware, his attitude towards problem solving is more reactive than proactive. He preserves and sticks to his guns until things go badly wrong, then he reacts (I’ve put forward 05/06 as a classic example where he was forced into the transfer market after failing to envisage the problems ahead, some of which were blatantly obvious).

You choice of words (“rush out and spend money” for example) suggests a slight misunderstanding of the point I’m trying to put across. I’m in no way referring to panic buys, long term strategy, youth policy or knee jerk reactions. I am referring to an approach that identifies a possible quandary and mitigates it long before it becomes an issue. It’s quite simple really and in this case Wenger is anything but proactive. He will sidestep to manoeuvre and develop a long philosophical text about the hidden attributes of the team and their adequacy to the task ahead, while the problems still linger. There is no way we would’ve suffered those two defeats (to two average teams at best) with a more proactive Wenger. I guess in the grand scheme of things his decision making and being reactive are closely linked. Half of the problems we faced last season are even yet to appear and all the signs are that we remain susceptible to them.

 

[AnthonyG]

You don’t think throwing on Vela immediately after we conceded a goal had anything to do with being reactive? It must’ve been a pre-planned substitution then but it all seems too coincidental. I can find you a plethora of examples (to add to the ones I’ve already listed) where Wenger’s reacted to a situation after refusing to heed to the warning signings.

Yes, Wenger replaced/punished Song in reaction to the goal and his role in conceding it.

 

[giuliob]

He is very, very conservative in his tactical approach during a game, and this way of operating has the hurt team for the past three seasons, this season included..He is unable to step outside of his game plan and tweak it during the game, either tactically or with subs....During a tight game, if what he says during half time has not sunk in, why wait till the 70th minute to make a substitution? He simply refuses to take off the blinders..

 

[Biggus]

I think he's strategic thinker rather than being reactive - hence the bit about encouraging players to be mature - that's the result of a long term decision on how to develop a team and players.

And that's why I've always maintained that his good long term strategic thinking coupled with his understanding of business makes him the perfect director of football for us. As he is an average tactical thinker,( I'm sure everyone knows the difference between strategy/tactics) responding inadequately to situations on the ground as they arise. This comes to a very pointy head during a game when issues like weather, referees decisions, morale of the players,injuries, time ticking , tempo of the game- all impossible to plan ahead for and needing decisive tactical adjustment, coming into collision with Wenger's grand strategy fixed in his head.

These tactical shortcomings weren't such an problem when players like Adams, Campbell, Vieira, Pires, Bergkamp & Henry were on the pitch as they were well able to adjust themselves.....Taking care of the "little things" as Wenger would see them. With no effective leadership in the team there is a massive gulf in the communication from Wenger's ideas to their implementation onto the pitch in a match situation.

I really want Wenger to step up(stairs).

 

[hackajack]

And that's why I've always maintained that his good long term strategic thinking coupled with his understanding of business makes him the perfect director of football for us. As he is an average tactical thinker,( I'm sure everyone knows the difference between strategy/tactics) responding inadequately to situations on the ground as they arise. This comes to a very pointy head during a game when issues like weather, referees decisions, morale of the players,injuries, time ticking , tempo of the game- all impossible to plan ahead for and needing decisive tactical adjustment, coming into collision with Wenger's grand strategy fixed in his head.

Disagree, the tinker men don't always get it right in the short term and I reckon they nearly always get it wrong in the long term (ie building trust in the team). It's no accident that the two most successful managers in the English game hardly ever make subs before 70 mins and win a lot of games late on. Strategy wins over tactics (as it does in most arenas).

 

[Anzac]

Disagree, the tinker men don't always get it right in the short term and I reckon they nearly always get it wrong in the long term (ie building trust in the team). It's no accident that the two most successful managers in the English game hardly ever make subs before 70 mins and win a lot of games late on. Strategy wins over tactics (as it does in most arenas).

Firstly I don't call adjusting your formation / tactics / style as a result of something as always being a case of tinkering - perhaps if you do so for no apparent reason / strategy it is more likely to be tinkering. Hiddink is very good at making early tactical changes in all three areas, but I'd not call him a tinkerer.

Which brings me to the second point - the assumption in your statement is that the tactical game plan for a match is correct from the outset - formation, players, roles & style. AW SHOULD have made early changes v Sunderland as his game plan was wrong from the outset & obviously so - this is most definately NOT tinkering.

I agree that there MUST be a long term strategy or big picture, otherwise the club becomes aimless. However IMO the 'tinkerers' are more likely those without a long term plan, and are more concentrated on the immediate match by match. The better managers should be capable of doing both, with the assistance of a DoF depending on the size of the club & scope of the vision.

As for the comparisson of SAF & AW - quite simply IMO SAF / ManU has a more stable match day game plan than AW / AFC. This includes formations used, style of play & player roles, and more importantly they have the squad to execute their patterns. Lastly there is the purpose & timing of those changes being made - more often than not SAF makes changes to rest / develop players, AW makes changes to chase / secure a match.

Bottom line while they may appear similar at first glance - IMO it's a case of apples & oranges.

 

[Anzac]

but IMO AW doesn't want a DM type & would actually prefer a more fluid / creative / ball playing MC pairing - it's the only reason I can think of to justify the sale of 3 DM types along with his comments re Song as CB = no DM types in the senior / fringe players. This then leads me to the conclusion that the defensive cover needs to come from elsewhere, I.E. the FBs, as to change to the 451 / 4141 is at best a compromise/d solution (re no genuine DM type players), to a defensive issue based upon providing cover to the CBs.

I think he wants a DM alright but he doesn't want to play a holding player like a Makelele nor does he want an average quality player like say Barry. If he could have bought the new Vieira in the summer I have no doubt he would have done that. I don't agree with the other solutions - basically to win games you need to win the CM and you need a balance of players to do that.

Thinking about the players we were linked to / approached in the summer - I'm still not convinced that AW wants a DM type - more of an MCd like perhaps Flamini - a ball player / box-to-box with defensive capabilities. None of the mids we've been linked to have defence as their primary attribute - even the likes of Alonso & Inler.

The question then becomes exactly what does AW see as the requirements / role of the midfield & what of the question re balance & defensive cover????

 

[hackajack]

Which brings me to the second point - the assumption in your statement is that the tactical game plan for a match is correct from the outset - formation, players, roles & style. AW SHOULD have made early changes v Sunderland as his game plan was wrong from the outset & obviously so - this is most definately NOT tinkering.

Well I agree in that particular game since it was glaringly obvious that a number of things weren't working BUT had RvP's goal stood it would look like Wenger's 'steady as she goes' was correct and most of the time it is. That leaked memo was all about 'playing our game' and not worrying about the opposition - that's the over-arching strategy which takes precedence over any specific game.

 

[DC Gunner]

Firstly I don't call adjusting your formation / tactics / style as a result of something as always being a case of tinkering - perhaps if you do so for no apparent reason / strategy it is more likely to be tinkering. Hiddink is very good at making early tactical changes in all three areas, but I'd not call him a tinkerer.

Which brings me to the second point - the assumption in your statement is that the tactical game plan for a match is correct from the outset - formation, players, roles & style. AW SHOULD have made early changes v Sunderland as his game plan was wrong from the outset & obviously so - this is most definately NOT tinkering.

If the above is true, one got to wonder what does Wenger tell the team @ half time !!

Reading the comparison with fungus reminded me of the FA match [2004 I think] were we started the game without Henry, went goal down, could not tie so wenger put Reyes and Henry around the 60 minute, I know people can say it is reacting to what is happening on the field [and it is in some way], but leaving Henry should not have been anyway.

 

[General]

The timing of Fergie’s substitutions may draw similarities with Wenger but on the contrary, Ferguson throughout the years has always relied on a more stable platform – from proactive player recruitment to a dynamic formation. As such, he more often than not makes these changes to close out a game rather than chase it. His taste for makeshift solutions is also minimal compared to Wenger and as such approaches the issues head on.

Talent wise, they both have their strengths/weaknesses and given similar resources, Wenger is more likely to come out on top due to his ability to work within limited constraints. Then again, identifying the needed personnel to the task ahead is what Fergie is very good at. You can talk of expensive flops but you simply have to speculate to accumulate in this game. Key player recruitment was vital to our chances this season and it is open to conjecture whether or not Wenger fully appreciated this.

 

[Anzac]

Well I agree in that particular game since it was glaringly obvious that a number of things weren't working BUT had RvP's goal stood it would look like Wenger's 'steady as she goes' was correct and most of the time it is. That leaked memo was all about 'playing our game' and not worrying about the opposition - that's the over-arching strategy which takes precedence over any specific game.

See this is the part I have real issues with - IMO AW simply doesn't do this at all - in this regard IMO he qualifies as a 'tinkerer'!!!!! The 433 formation with those players was yet another variation on our 2 basic formations 442 / 451, let alone the player positions & roles - and we haven't played a top half table team as yet!!!!

I've said elsewhere that to me the C Cup squad is the better example of 'Wengerball', because he sticks to a basic formula re formation, tactics, style & player positions / roles - and more importantly he lets them play with a certain amount of abandon / expression. For me the 1st team is often compromised by AW in several of these areas & I've commented that they play with one hand tied behind their backs.

Again these changes that he makes leads me to believe that the basic template for the team re style / formation / tactics etc is NOT compatible with the player resources - otherwise why the persistant changes, and particularly against lower table teams???? Away matches v CL teams I can understand - but anyone else we should be able to take the field in a standard formation with our standard players, play our normal game & come away with 3 points - if not then we are punching above our weight or the plan is wrong in one area or the other.

In this regard I'd rather have AW as our DoF with the Grand Vision, and someone like Hiddink calling the shots on match day. AW 'tinkers' with the plan prior to kick off, but once he's rolled his dice he then seems prepared to let nature take it's course until the last possible moment - he's either blind, arrogant / stubborn, scared to make change, or he realises that his starting XI are his best available players to get any outcome (hence the late changes), but he rarely looks to change the formation without changing players.

As a club we are VERY poor tactically not only in regard to match days, but overall in regard to the weakness in our style of play. We bemoan defensivle teams, yet what has our response been on the pitch - we knock the ball wide to a FB to put in a (usually) blind cross that seldom reaches any so called target in the area (if we have any) - the so called Plan B - bollocks!!!! It's a low percentage play that we are very poor at & does not compliment our basic style of possession play. IF our basic strategy was good enough we should not need this 'easy' option - for a start we don't show enough composure or patience in possession in the final 3rd & are too eager to take this 'easy' option.

AW may be brilliant at long term strategies for the club - but he sucks at match day tactics for the team - a case of from the sublime to the ridiculous. I'd almost go so far as to suggest that AW hasn't shown that he is capable of executing his own long term strategies so far as the team success on the pitch is concerned. His previous titles were achieved with inherited players, finished products & experienced players at the top of their game - he has none of this at his disposal now (by his own making) and it shows on the pitch.

 

[Biggus]

Great post Anzac, I agree with every word. You know what really hurts? those 12 years of defeats and failure in European competition. We had the players good enough but nothing illustrates Wenger's tactical naivety better than the defeats in those tight games which could have gone either way.
Then there are those who bleat "bad luck" as a explanation.....12 f**ing years of "bad luck"?

but once he's rolled his dice he then seems prepared to let nature take it's course until the last possible moment -

And nature will take it's course again, and I wonder which game we'll have our usual "bad luck" in. :roll:

 

[Anzac]

Great post Anzac, I agree with every word. You know what really hurts? those 12 years of defeats and failure in European competition. We had the players good enough but nothing illustrates Wenger's tactical naivety better than the defeats in those tight games which could have gone either way.
Then there are those who bleat "bad luck" as a explanation.....12 f**ing years of "bad luck"?

but once he's rolled his dice he then seems prepared to let nature take it's course until the last possible moment -

And nature will take it's course again, and I wonder which game we'll have our usual "bad luck" in. :roll:

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.

Further to this the reason we are struggling is due to our defensive pattern (same story for several seasons), where by as a result, our midfield & attack are being compromised to provide 'cover', yet the FB role is not being addressed.

The worst thing that happened to this club under AW has been the CL run in '06 & the 451 used that season - it's now become the 'go to' formation for the club which IMO is bollocks!!! It MAY work in the CL where teams play a more open game, but it certainly doesn't compliment our style of play in the PL where teams will sit deep in defence to hold out for a point for survival - to say nothing of the difference in squads from then & now!!!!

Too often tactically AW will conceed the high ground to our mediocre opposition, often without having a sucker punch waiting to blind side them elsewhere. One of the greatest tactical plays is to make your opponent's strength into their weakness - we've done that all on our own for them IMO.

I've made no secret of the point that IMO AW has lost us at least 3 PL titles (including last season), and numerous Cups - both domestic & CL. IMO the C Cup squad falls apart in the latter stages BECAUSE of the integration of the senior players, and the conservative approach that AW then brings. Likewise the Invincibles IMO are one of the greatest teams NOT to win the CL - AW's tactical substitution in the final following the send off showed his true colours - he talks a pretty talk re attractive attacking football, but in reality when push comes to shove he's not prepared to take that level of risk. It was the final FFS - no 2nd chances - why try to hold out for penalties (as per the FA Cup) particularly when you are down to 10 men, when they are not likely to be able to see out the 90 mins + extra time & THEN try to score from the spot!!!!

Bolton Away last season is a far far better lesson on letting this team show what they are made of when the handbrake is off. Rather than 451 & blind crosses - our Plan B should be to up the pace & movement / if they get set then play more Direct balls into the area from deeper (as per Eboue to Ade v ManU at Emirates last season), as opposed to trying to cross from the corners.

 

[hackajack]

See this is the part I have real issues with - IMO AW simply doesn't do this at all - in this regard IMO he qualifies as a 'tinkerer'!!!!! The 433 formation with those players was yet another variation on our 2 basic formations 442 / 451, let alone the player positions & roles - and we haven't played a top half table team as yet!!!!

I've said elsewhere that to me the C Cup squad is the better example of 'Wengerball', because he sticks to a basic formula re formation, tactics, style & player positions / roles - and more importantly he lets them play with a certain amount of abandon / expression. For me the 1st team is often compromised by AW in several of these areas & I've commented that they play with one hand tied behind their backs.

Again these changes that he makes leads me to believe that the basic template for the team re style / formation / tactics etc is NOT compatible with the player resources - otherwise why the persistant changes, and particularly against lower table teams???? Away matches v CL teams I can understand - but anyone else we should be able to take the field in a standard formation with our standard players, play our normal game & come away with 3 points - if not then we are punching above our weight or the plan is wrong in one area or the other.

In this regard I'd rather have AW as our DoF with the Grand Vision, and someone like Hiddink calling the shots on match day. AW 'tinkers' with the plan prior to kick off, but once he's rolled his dice he then seems prepared to let nature take it's course until the last possible moment - he's either blind, arrogant / stubborn, scared to make change, or he realises that his starting XI are his best available players to get any outcome (hence the late changes), but he rarely looks to change the formation without changing players.

As a club we are VERY poor tactically not only in regard to match days, but overall in regard to the weakness in our style of play. We bemoan defensivle teams, yet what has our response been on the pitch - we knock the ball wide to a FB to put in a (usually) blind cross that seldom reaches any so called target in the area (if we have any) - the so called Plan B - bollocks!!!! It's a low percentage play that we are very poor at & does not compliment our basic style of possession play. IF our basic strategy was good enough we should not need this 'easy' option - for a start we don't show enough composure or patience in possession in the final 3rd & are too eager to take this 'easy' option.

AW may be brilliant at long term strategies for the club - but he sucks at match day tactics for the team - a case of from the sublime to the ridiculous. I'd almost go so far as to suggest that AW hasn't shown that he is capable of executing his own long term strategies so far as the team success on the pitch is concerned. His previous titles were achieved with inherited players, finished products & experienced players at the top of their game - he has none of this at his disposal now (by his own making) and it shows on the pitch.

Wenger does have a strategey of playing 4231 at every level and encouraging the teams he puts out to play their game and let the opposition worry about us - in contrast to say a Benitez who frequently makes personnel and formation adjustments to cater for specific opposition. Hence he's not a tinkerman in my view.

In general our problems have not been opening up teams and scoring goals but defending and managing the game from winning positions. There isn't a better manager on the planet than Wenger as far as I can see, when he goes you'll feel the breeze.

 

[Anzac]

AW has often said we play 442 more often than not as standard in the PL & 451 in the CL, so I'm not convinced it is 4231 unless it's a variation on the 451. I could handle us playing 4231 IF the FBs didn't get so far forward so often - with the mids pushing forward the CBs are exposed - hence our dilema in defence. I can't bring myself to accept it as 4231 when we have Diaby & Eboue on the flanks - gotta be 451.

I disagree that we don't have issues in attack, although the defence is the greater concern thus far this season - unlike last when we ran out of options up front.

As for when AW departs - I supported AFC before he arrived & will do so afterwards. While I disagree with his match day performances, I prefer to have him in charge of our current situation in the current climate, even if I do feel that it is a situation somewhat of his own making re the team - he got us into the situation so he can see it out.

 

[General]

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.