4-4-2 or 4-3-3?

Post by **QuartzGooner** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:38 pm

Good posts from G88ner and Augie.

Two points:

- If we go back to 4-4-2, do we have a mobile perpetual motion ball winner to play next to Wilshere in the middle?

Song can charge forward at times, but not sure he can run around all game?

We do have two of this type of player in Coquelin and Frimpong, but will either be ready to play a major role this season?
Only time will tell.

- If Cesc stays, how would a 4-4-2 accommodate him and Wilshere?

Would Wenger play them next to each other in the middle?
Would that provide enough defensive cover?
If they did play next to each other, would Song and Ramsey tolerate being on the bench for most of the season?

Post by **QuartzGooner** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:39 pm

Error: Double Post

stg · Post by **stg** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:57 pm

how about the 4123 formation we played against Man U at home?

Its Up 4 Grabs Now · Post by **Its Up 4 Grabs Now** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:30 pm

stg wrote:how about the 4123 formation we played against Man U at home?

4-1-2-3... 4-3-3... what's the difference other than Song actually sitting & holding as opposed to drifting up field?

Not saying formation discussions are worthless, but surely it's more about the personnel & how they actually fulfil their role than how you line them up on paper? Play the exact same formation we do now but put Arshavin in Cesc's place & you've automatically got more of a 4-4-2, even though all you've done is swap the name.

The way we actually play right now I'm not sure what our formation even is.

Cant really be 4-3-3 given how isolated the striker always is, there's no way we play with a front 3. Cant be 4-5-1 since the defence is always left totally exposed - on both flanks and the CBs.

Cant even really be a 4-anything cos the back line never operate in unison. Somehow we manage to put out a team that is basically a free-for-all but still rigid as fuck and totally predictable at the same time. Cheers Arsene.

Post by **Barriecuda** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:30 am

As an aside...

We do have two of this type of player in Coquelin and Frimpong, but will either be ready to play a major role this season?
Only time will tell.

Absolutely Frimpong is ready. He was ready last season and we got robbed of his services by an unlucky injury just before the season started (we are Arsenal after all

). However, from what I saw of him leading up to the campaign last year, he looked to be in great form. I'd expect to see lots more of him this year (a good thing).

Not saying formation discussions are worthless, but surely it's more about the personnel & how they actually fulfil their role than how you line them up on paper? Play the exact same formation we do now but put Arshavin in Cesc's place & you've automatically got more of a 4-4-2, even though all you've done is swap the name.

Well, when discussing formations, there's a built-in assumption that guys in their position are playing their position and its role as the manager has asked.

Gunnersaurus · Post by **Gunnersaurus** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:22 am

How on earth can you say that Frimpong is ready? Before his injury he played games in pre season, that is all, you can not say he is ready for the PL because he may have looked ok against some two bob Austrian team, to mention him and Coquelin is somewhat deluded, both are CC at best next year.

Post by **Barriecuda** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:21 am

Gunnersaurus wrote:How on earth can you say that Frimpong is ready? Before his injury he played games in pre season, that is all, you can not say he is ready for the PL because he may have looked ok against some two bob Austrian team, to mention him and Coquelin is somewhat deluded, both are CC at best next year.

I'm not saying he's going to slot into the starting 11 but yes, I do believe he will get games in the first team this season and I think he will do great based on the form he was in pre-injury.

Gunnersaurus · Post by **Gunnersaurus** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:40 am

Yeah, in the cups probably.

djhdjh · Post by **djhdjh** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:02 pm

Did we really play 4-4-2 in the Wenger glory years? We all called it that at the time but I wonder (and renowned tactics expert Jonathan Wilson of the Guardian certainly thinks so) if it was really more like the systems we see today with a single central striker (Henry) and then Bergkamp/Kanu in between their midfield defence with Vieira and Gilberto the holding midfielders and then the two wide men. So a 4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1 depending on how high up the wide men went. The only reason no one called it that was because Dennis had been a proper striker for most of his career and so kept calling him that. Now that position is taken by recognised midfielders like Sneijder we call it a midfield position.

Not sure what I think of that but we certainly didn't play an orthodox 4-4-2.

Proper 4-4-2 will never suit this current group. And it's all very well saying get different players but apart from maybe Yaya Toure how many midfielders are there these days like Vieira who could get round the whole pitch without leaving the defence exposed and allow you to get away with 2 in the middle? The game has sped up and you need the extra man in there as insurance. That said United showed that against teams you will dominate possession against anyway, why not have the extra forward since you'll spend most of the game in their final third anyway. But not for away games or big games.

But while formations are a big part of tactics, executing whatever you go with properly matters just as much. We must offer the opposition less space and be less rigid in attack otherwise nothing will change.

djhdjh · Post by **djhdjh** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:06 pm

Not so good it needed saying twice.

Post by **QuartzGooner** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:28 pm

I think it was 4-4-2 in the past.

Vieira was up and down the pitch all game, not just sitting deep with Petit or Gilberto.

I also think Parlour and Ljungberg tracked back a lot more than our current wide men.

djhdjh · Post by **djhdjh** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:20 pm

QuartzGooner wrote:I think it was 4-4-2 in the past.

Vieira was up and down the pitch all game, not just sitting deep with Petit or Gilberto.

I also think Parlour and Ljungberg tracked back a lot more than our current wide men.

What about Dennis? Because despite all you've said you could still call it a 4-4-1-1. Which fair enough is not exactly what we play at the moment but still has only the one central striker. I honestly can't remember, I guess he didn't contribute much to the midfield battle.

Doesn't change what I think of the present, the game has changed even in a few years. I just like talking tactics.

Post by **QuartzGooner** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:34 pm

djhdjh wrote:
QuartzGooner wrote:I think it was 4-4-2 in the past.

Vieira was up and down the pitch all game, not just sitting deep with Petit or Gilberto.

I also think Parlour and Ljungberg tracked back a lot more than our current wide men.
What about Dennis? Because despite all you've said you could still call it a 4-4-1-1. Which fair enough is not exactly what we play at the moment but still has only the one central striker. I honestly can't remember, I guess he didn't contribute much to the midfield battle.

Doesn't change what I think of the present, the game has changed even in a few years. I just like talking tactics.

I called it 4-4-2 because Henry would drop a bit deep out on the left, often slightly behind Cole and Pires, in a tippy tappy triangle testing tottering teams.
Him and Bergkamp were often moving around and dropping back to collect the ball and then running forward with it.

To say Henry was a "lone striker" is only partly descriptive, because I would give that description more to Drogba's "battering ram" role at Chelsea in his first couple of seasons.