I don’t like 5:30pm kick offs on a Saturday, mainly because I don’t like ESPN commentators and pundits but also because I have lost count of the times these games don’t go to plan.

However with a win in the NLD and qualification to the Champions League knock outs we had two wins under our belts and the chance to make that three with a visit to Villa Park I felt more confident than normal for a Saturday evening fixture.

With JohnnieNYCs post ringing in his ears and a glance at Raddy’s pre match Wenger decided to give rotation a go. I have often complained in the past that Arsene doesn’t get rotation, he either rotates all or none, well today he went for four changes from the team that took the field against the Lilylivered cretins from N17. Rested were Vermaelen, Wilshire and Sagna, being replaced by Gibbs, Ramsey and Jenkinson, the injured Theo replaced by Oxlade-Chamberlain. If I was going to criticise I would say that was two too many. We had no choice with Theo and playing Gibbs at left back is a no brainer when fit. I wouldn’t have swapped Jack and Bacary but I would have kept Koscielny in the side as Arsene did. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and pre match yesterday I wasn’t too worried about Jenkinson. But in my opinion there is an issue when too many new partnerships are on the pitch at once it causes a getting to know you period which affects our play.

A rain soaked pitch is good for us so I was pleased to see it pelting down at Villa Park, for the record Lambert likes his teams to pass so I wouldn’t expect him to be one of the managers who purposely don’t have the sprinklers on the surface pre match. A zippy surface should mean we can play passes at pace. But we don’t seem able to do that anymore.

There really isn’t too much to report in terms of events on the pitch it was all very timid, gilt edges chances were few and far between, it says something about our attacking display that the best chance of the game fell to Koscielny who was on one of his upfield charges after nicking the ball from an unsuspecting attacker. Unfortunately the ball was behind him and he couldn’t get a good contact with his left peg, and it was very much a centre backs shot harmlessly over the bar.

So without much to comment on in the game lets focus on why we failed to breakdown another average PL defence. For me it’s the way we are currently setting up, the start of all our possession is The BFG, you will not find many better passers of the ball at centre back, but he is getting fewer and fewer options every time he receives the ball, Arteta used to be his outlet but he at the moment seems unable to show for every ball, when he does show he in turn has very few options close, Cazorla, Ox and Pod yesterday were too far up the pitch when we had the ball at the back. When the ball did get to them we had no space or pace as we are not passing and moving. We are missing runners from deep. We try and pass the ball round the defenders, and put in crosses, but we are just not good enough to make this work.

In my opinion when we have possession at the back the midfield and wide players need to start 10 yards deeper. This then means when we move forward we have to pass and move at pace which can only be good for us, and should mean we have players breaking through defensive lines.

Right anything else to say about the match…..two good stops by Szczesny, and our crossing and shooting were pretty woeful.

Ratings:

Szczesny 8 – one top drawer save, good control of area and another couple of solid stops

Jenkinson 7 – good physical display, some timely challenges, didn’t support attack as well as he can do

Gibbs 7 – good to have the future England left back back

Koscielny 7 – assured performance

BFG 7 – what we have come to expect.

Arteta 6 – not in the game, is there a curse on the armband?

Cazorla 6 – didn’t do enough.

Ramsey 7 – he gets a lot of stick but he never stops showing and he sees a lot of ball because he makes himself available. Never ever hides, and plays wherever he is asked to.

Podolski 5 – very poor from the Pod, touch let him down in the first half.

Ox 5 – didn’t make his mark on the game, must hold wide if this is where he is being asked to play.

Giroud 7.5 MotM – he was the only one consistently playing one touch passes encouraging midfielders to run past him with clever touches, and lay offs. Made bad passes look good. Got no meaningful service but never stopped showing.

Subs:
Gervinho – 6 ran it out of play more than in to danger areas
Arshavin – 6 did nothing
Coquelin (too little time to score)

Written by GoonerInExile

I just want to point out that this view comes from a fairly new football fan but more importantly an  Arsenal fanatic. Because I am been new to the game, I probably watch more than my share of non-Arsenal matches, in my quest for knowledge. I note the way other managers use their squads, and then I look at our talented team. I am well aware of the players not available due to injury at any given time, as all of us are.

I am constantly frustrated by the feeling that we have players who are getting run into the ground, while on the other hand, we have talented eager people getting rusty, and possibly disgruntled, on the bench. Both of these feelings are compounded even more by the fact that we never do early substitutions.

Let me start with this example: Sagna has just returned from a serious, long term injury – also one very similar to his previous leg break. Before his return, Jenkinson was filling in more than admirably. He was mentioned as a candidate for MOTM often, also being recognized by the media and the national team. So, as we heard that Bacary was close to his return to the team, I thought about how he should probably be used.

To me, there certainly was no reason to rush him any faster than necessary, but I did worry about Jenkinson getting too many minutes from the beginning of the season. But still, a great problem to have. Why not give Sagna enough match time to regain sharpness, then make sure he gets an occasional week off, to keep him healthier, and Jenks sharp. Now, it feels to me, (despite the new contract)  like Carl has fallen off the map.

Before the Tottenham match, or maybe the previous one, Sagna was a doubt, and had to pass a fitness test before the game. Wouldn’t that be a perfect time to have him take a day off, considering his recent injuries, the run of games he played, and the quality of the backup for the position? I know he doesn’t want to sit ever, but few players do, and the manager has to get them used to rotation.

Why is there such fear, that we must start our absolute best 11 for every match? It’s not as though there’s a frightful drop off in quality with the example I just cited. It’s not like last years RvP – Chamakh situation.

Arsene fills our team with international quality along with young, promising players. I just don’t see us resting our best or working in the rest of the squad, in any prudent manner.

Cazorla, to my eyes, takes a more than usual beating, because he plays at such a high level of effort, he is marked harder than anybody on the pitch by the opposition, and because of his size, they try to rough him up as much as possible. Even if you don’t like the drop off in class to the second or third choice, he must be given some time to recharge. The same goes for Arteta. I think we are seeing some fatigue with our midfield. I really don’t want Jack to be overworked. I know he has been subbed for, but that’s not the same as a week off, considering how long he’d been out.

I won’t waste your time going through all the possible options that we have to give our guys some rest. There are plenty.Including some versatile players like Arshavin, Ox, Coquelin, who can do midfield and other positions pretty well. They might even be inspired to excel by the opportunity. I wouldn’t be surprised that even if we have a fully fit squad with Diaby and Rosicky, Arsene would over use Cazorla,and Arteta, though probably a little more careful with Wilshere (learned the hard way).

Our recent midweek match with Montpellier as an example, a good opportunity to work in Jenkinson, or rest either Santi or Arteta in midfield. If we don’t trust ourselves to tweak the starting 11 in a match like that, how will we ever be confident.

At the back, I think we need to keep our top 3 CBs fresh. No one likes a rusty center half, so when Gibbs returns to LB, we must keep that in mind- and he is another that should not be playing 2 matches per week, or for or five in a row. Not with his history. I don’t care if it’s Santos, Vermaelen, Yennaris, Miquel (I’d like to see Ignassi a bit more).

We can’t approach every match selection as if it’s a Champions League final. But that drives me to my final point ———

Something that many of my complaints come back to : We are often in this position because of how we do our business. The feeling of having to start our best players always, with no margin for error, because of our perennial slow starts to the campaign. This comes from late bargain hunting at the end of the window, or general disorganization at the top regarding contracts and such. All made worse by a ridiculously impractical pre-season in which our players (even the ones who signed early) had precious few minutes in matches together, in some cases, almost no time to gel. Terrible for a club with youth and a high turnover like ours. We can still do tours, but we must set up more practice matches.

Even having noted that situation, it’s no excuse not to rotate a lot more than we do. Keep everyone better rested, fresher, sharper, maybe happier- and who knows, we might even see a few less injuries that way.

Written by Johnnie nyc

My footballing titillator for today is all about Risk.

I thought short and hard how best to make my point, and here it is:

GOOD: “Arsenal come streaming forward now in surely what will be their last attack. A good ball by Dixon, finding Smith, for Thomas, charging through the midfield. Thomas, it’s up for grabs now. Thomaaaaas! An unbelievable climax to the league season.”

BAD: “Arsenal come streaming forward now in surely what will be their last attack. A good ball by Dixon, finding Smith, for Thomas, charging through the midfield. Thomas, it’s up for grabs now. Thomas turns, plays the ball back to Richardson, who finds Adams…”

Now, imagine you were Mickey Thomas at that very moment you received the ball from Smudger. You could have looked up and thought: “Crikey, defenders homing in on all sides. A goalkeeper advancing. I don’t like the look of my chances. Nah, stop, pass back, safety first”.

But no, our Hero thought: “Sod it, I’ll have a go”.

In other words, he did a quick risk assessment, and thought “Mmmm”. He did not think about what’s the worst that could happen, he thought about what’s the best thing that could happen here, and went for it.

My view is that games are often won on the back of split second decisions. The term “who dares wins” springs to mind. Yesterday, Rocky instigated a superb debate about the defence and the balance between attack and defence. Solidity, composure and zero risk should be the hallmarks of a good defence. Whereas moments in attack should be coloured with spontaneity, elasticity and high risk.

The three positions where this should be most evident are in the two wide positions and the most advanced midfielder. During phases of most games, and in some entire games, we do not employ our “taker on’ers” to do their “taking on”. Chief amongst these are Santi, Theo, Gerv, Ox and AA. Players who can take one defender out of the equation and commit another. This inevitably creates space.

I have urged “thrust” on here before, but that forward surge must not grind to a halt around the penalty area.

Of course this comes with its share of risk, and the failure to succeed will hand possession to the opposition, but look at the wide play from Chelsea, Utd and City. They believe that there are areas of the pitch where risk of failure is acceptable, and I would agree, because the rewards outweigh the downside.

Increasingly this season I have noticed Theo doing this with more success, and even Gerv’s poor final ball does not alter the fact that against Pool, when he was out left, he was creating space in the middle. Our Russian has the same effect, and it is not to be underestimated, ask Centre Forwards the value of space and the opportunities presented by having the luxury of taking on one defender rather than two (Persie thrived on it).

I would like Arsene to preach a high risk strategy in these areas of the pitch, as with our set up of a front three, it is the AM and Wide Boys who will do the damage. Free them. Sod it!

Written by MickyDidIt89

There has been much recent debate on AA regarding systems and formations. Most of that is centred around our so called 4-3-3 system and how effective it is, and whether we would be better served employing a different system. Firstly I think the reason that we are debating it so much recently is because our performances and results have not been good enough. If we were currently sitting top of the table with some scintillating performances under our belt then we would likely not be talking about this topic nearly so much, if at all. Unfortunately that has not been the case recently and therefore the fine and educated readers of AA often feel the need to analyse and attempt to identify the reasons for our recent shortcomings.

Systems and formations are just one area that some of the Arsenal faithful feel to be the cause of us not performing so well recently. Many may alternatively feel that the main problem is that we don’t play our players in their best positions in the chosen system. Others may feel that we don’t effectively drill and instruct our players well enough, especially where the defence is concerned. It may also be that we have a lot of new players getting to know each other and are still having to adapt to new team mates and a different way of playing.

I know some fans will feel that we are just in that adaptation period and that once these players have developed a better understanding of each other that we will fire on all cylinders. Others would dismiss most of the above and reach the more simple conclusion that it is more about the players and the level of quality that we have within the squad and that systems have very little to do with it.

I actually agree with most of the above points and I more often than not find myself agreeing with the opinions of the many AA’ers on all of these issues. Micky’s recent post on how to bring out the best in Podolski triggered some interesting debates about some of these issues. The question for me is are some of these points more relevant than others? That is difficult to answer. For myself I would currently favour the combined effect of both the chosen formation, and which players are being played where in that formation, as having possibly the biggest impact on some of our more lacklustre performances, and that is why I will talk mostly about those points in this post.

The reason I feel strongly that, with the current Arsenal squad, it is more important for us to be adaptable in our formation is because we are not at the front of the queue in the transfer market to cherry pick the best players.

Our manager still admirably acquires some great bargains but they are often individually a level below what our rivals are able to get. For me it then becomes more important for the sum of all the parts to be greater than the individual, and that means getting the best out of the players, as a team, which I feel means we have to play the correct system with the right players in the right positions to get the strongest possible team performance.

I don’t actually really champion one system over another, but I feel there are times that we should be able to change the formation if things are not working out. For me the chosen formation should represent who we have available and what opposition we are playing and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Before you think that this will descend into a spew of technical drivel, with more number combinations than the infamous Tuesday night Clacton-on-Sea blue rinse bingo bonanza, I hope I can pleasantly surprise those of you that would normally consider these discussions to be the most powerful cure to insomnia. I am hoping to firstly get across a thought process that I have had for a while which actually attempts to completely simplify the subject and then look at what may be right or wrong with the current formations we use. Whether my thoughts on the matter should be considered in any way correct I will leave up to the esteemed fellows on this site.

I want to start by asking a question that may prove slightly controversial and that some may agree with and some disagree with. That question is :-

“Are we being overcomplicated when we talk about systems and formations and is it in reality far more simple?”

Many systems and formations are often mentioned which are felt may potentially be more effective for us. The greatest variety of formations seems to come from those that start with a flat back 4. I will have missed some out, but amongst the different formations often mentioned would be the following :-

4-5-1

4-3-3

4-4-2

4-3-1-2

4-2-3-1

3-5-2

3-4-3

I have often heard coaches and ex-pros state that football is actually an easy game that is often made to look overcomplicated. Maybe this is in part due to the modern era of the professional game, where the studio analysis is thrashed to death by the pundits and so called experts. If one were being cynical you could form the opinion that these multitudes of formations are just a tool for them, to make themselves seem more knowledgeable and important, and therefore justify their huge salaries.

With this in mind it leads me to the next question that I would like to fling open for discussion, which is :-

“Are there in reality only 2 main systems to choose from, and after that it is all about the quality of players and types of players being employed within that system, and where within that system they are being played?”

When choosing a formation could it be that maybe the only basic choice a manager needs to make is whether to start with a defensive back 3 or a back 4, and that this then dictates one of only 2 main systems. I believe it could be argued that if you start with a back 4, then after that is decided it is only the types of players playing in certain positions that will dictate if it shapes up more as a 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-4-2 or any one of the other connotations. Micky’s recent post threw up some debates on this and I noticed that some views were that, once the game is under-way, there is a fluid interchange of players and that they don’t remain lined up in any one rigid formation. I would agree with this view and feel that what makes the formation look more like one particular system or the other, as the game unfolds, are the types of players that are being played in the various areas of the pitch. The way the opposition sets up and their strengths and weaknesses in certain parts of their team will possibly also dictate how our formation ends up looking once the game is in mid flow.

I will try and give a couple of examples to back this argument and leave it for you all to decide if you agree or not. I would like to compare a past great Arsenal side to today’s side. I will not list the back 4 players specifically as both teams are starting with a flat back 4, and I will focus more on the 6 players comprising the midfield through the attack. It could look as follows :-

PAST TEAM

RFB CD CD LFB

Ljunberg Vieira Gilberto Pires

Bergkamp

Henry

CURRENT TEAM

RFB CD CD LFB

Arteta Wilshere

Cazorla

Ramsey Podolski

Giroud

The past team lines up in the classic 4-4-2 with DB in the number 10 / withdrawn strikers role. The current team are lining up in the favoured 4-3-3 formation that we have witnessed many times this season. If we were, however, looking at both of these teams in a hypothetical game, what happens if with the past team Pires and Ljunberg push up the pitch and come inside a little and at the same time DB has pulled slightly deeper into midfield to get more on the ball. For me then the shape would more resemble our current 4-3-3. If in the current team Podolski and Ramsey start playing deeper and wider and at the same time Santi has pushed up closer to Giroud then the current team would shape up more as a 4-4-2. If Santi remains a bit deeper as well then it would shape up more like a 4-5-1. If Wilshere and Arteta remain slightly deeper with Ramsey, Santi and Podolski slightly higher then is that a 4-2-3-1? And so on and so on, I feel you could continuously tweak these interchanging positions and come up with any number of formations.

So the question is that when you start with a back 4 are you actually only playing one system that will potentially only look different based on the type of players in the various positions, and does the formation only really change if you switch to a back 3? I will let you all decide that.

What did however interest me was a few weeks back when I questioned how was it that we could line up in a 4-3-3 and look so good against Liverpool but the same system against Norwich, who should be inferior opposition, looked so impotent. One other poster actually replied to me that we actually played a 4-4-2 against Liverpool which was confirmed by aerial shots that showed the positions of our players taking up this formation for much of the game. I would suggest that we actually lined up as a 4-3-3 but something different happened in this game as it unfolded. There were certainly 3 differences in that Gibbs, the Ox and Diaby all started at Liverpool but at Norwich it was Santos, Gervinho and Ramsey in their respective positions. Could it be that this was the key difference?

One of the biggest differences for me in looking at the above past and current team is in comparing Dennis and Santi. Both are fine players, but I would describe Dennis as being a withdrawn striker who with his technical ability can drop deeper into midfield to pull strings, while I would say Santi is an attacking midfielder who can push up into the withdrawn strikers role. I wonder if that slight difference is a key to how the formation ends up looking, because both players have slightly different instincts in the positions on the pitch that they favour.

I certainly feel that currently we play better when Santi gets higher up the pitch and positions himself in the spaces between their midfield and defence. It gives us a forward penetrative pass option and gets closer support to Giroud, and also when the ball is played into Santi in these positions the 2 wide players run off him better.

He did this well at Liverpool but seemed to play too deep at Norwich so we had limited penetration and seemed to be going sideways and backwards too often.

Was this because Santi still hasn’t quite fully developed that instinct that allows him to regularly and comfortably take up these more advanced positions or was it more something that the opposition did?

Does it even matter at times why it is not working and should we just accept it isn’t and just look to change formation to pose the opposition a different problem?

Giroud certainly ended up looking isolated at Norwich and it seemed to scream out to me to change the formation to get a second striker in behind him. If any player in our squad has similar characteristics to DB I would say it is Arshavin. Could it have been an option to take off Ramsey and move Santi deeper with AA dropping in behind Giroud?

This may have started to look more 4-4-2. Would we have then been overrun in midfield as some would say if AA is instructed to play higher and more centrally? I actually don’t know but we never used to be overrun with the past sides in this system. We could have also switched to 3 at the back and gone 3-5-2 which would also get us 2 strikers out there.

I know some of you do not like the idea of 3-5-2 and I will be interested to hear your thoughts on why. I feel any set-up has its strengths and weaknesses, but I would suggest that Norwich didn’t carry enough threat to exploit the weaknesses of a 3-5-2 and we would have dominated the midfield possession while getting a second striker in support of Giroud. Would I have played that at Old Trafford? I am not sure but possibly not because Utd would be far more able to exploit the space in behind the wing backs than Norwich would have.

There are plenty of questions and I don’t really have the answers to them all. I am just another armchair manager and occasional keyboard warrior, but I still feel that we don’t currently make best use of the players we have in, firstly playing them in their strongest positions and, secondly in using what we have to change the tactical formation during a game. Anyway for those of you that have managed to get to the end and are still awake let’s hear your thoughts.

Written by GoonerB