Formation (4-3-3) the problem?

[Barriecuda]

Full Version:
http://canadiangunners.ca/2013/01/01/he ... mr-wenger/

(article precedes)

Our 4-3-3 is either specifically set up to, or simply deteriorates into, moving the ball to the sides. ... When we attack, we tend to set up a perimeter around the 18 yard box and move the ball around it, waiting for an opening. This causes a problem. We don’t have any players who are willing to try to beat a defender with a dribble/move to make an opportunity. Instead we pass the ball sideways. We do not make enough incisive passes ... And nobody on this team appears willing to shoot from distance. So what results is we end up pushing the ball out wide and eventually putting in a cross, devoid of any other options or ideas. The cross has ONE target in a box of two, three, or four defenders. To couple with our typically below-average cross quality, now we have Theo playing in the centre, who is never going to win the header...

Arsenal’s attacking play boils down to this predictable equation that other managers have surely clued into by now. With our dependence on width, due to a lack of dribbling, passing, and shooting in the middle, the opposition knows how to get Arsenal to push out wide, and how to defend against them once they do. ...

The current tactical setup is deficient. It’s certainly useful, but the 4-3-3 should not be our ONLY formation/gameplan. In games like today, we could have benefited significantly from a tactical reshuffle but instead we put on Gervinho and Ramsey and continued to smack our head into a wall hoping for a different outcome than the first half. Having a “plan B” would also give opposition managers a lot more to think about when approaching an Arsenal fixture. ... (article continues)

(Full Article)

Anyone fancy a return to the 4-4-2 or something else? Or are we just not performing regardless?

[supergeorgegraham]

If it is not working like last night you must change it to try and win against the lesser teams. We were out hassled and could not string any passes together.

[QuartzGooner]

Someone made a comment on the Daily Telegraph website that whilst we pass the ball a lot, we seldom play defence splitting "creative" passes.

You make that point too Barrie and I think it is true.

Of course, we need attackers to make decent runs as well, that is the other component of a midfielder making a successful forward pass.

This might sound crazy, but I think our current squad lends itself to a 3-5-2 formation.

Our defence is shoddy anyway, really not sure how much input Bould gets, so why not go for broke and maximise our attacking chances?

The back line would be l to r: Vermaelen - Mertesacker - Sagna.

In front would be Wilshere and Arteta.

Then Podoslki - Cazorla and Oxlade-Chamberlain in attacking midfield.

Put Giroud just behind Walcott up front.

Gives us a chance to use Walcott's pace the right way, lets the back three concentrate on defence, whilst Podolski and Oxlade-Chamberlain can focus on attacking runs knowing there will be a defence behind them.
Not that it lets anyone off pressing though.

Would mean more "cricket scores" but might just be our way of getting into the top four!

Far too much can be read into body language, but anyone else think it looks like a cold war between Wenger and Bould?

[StuartL]

Agree wholeheartedly Barricuda with much that you wrote.

We are dependant on our wide players, but the players actually playing in these positions are not capable of putting in decent service - particularly to Walcott, who wouldn't win a header all season against a centre back (even ours)
and the fact that he is outnumbered by 2/3 defenders in the centre on his own is criminal ( as our other wideman, stays on the other side in case we decide to slowly, slowly, work it across the field for the umpteenth time)

Giroud would cause defenders more problems and could hold the ball up, or flick it on for Walcott to try to utilise his pace if they played up top together or one slightly more advanced.

Its the total infelxibility of it that drives me mad, it doesn't work for 70 mins, so we just replace one wide man for an inferior one and hope that as if by magic that will rectify matters

Gervinho doesn't cross the ball, he constantly tries to dribble past 2 players, before running it out of play, Ramsey hasn't got the pace or skill to drive forward with the ball, so how on earth those two would change a game that we have been inefective in with our "best 11" on the pitch, by still using the same tactics defies all logic / common sense.

[I Hate Hleb]

The thing that strikes me is how often there is a lack of movement and thus options for the man on the ball. Apart form the fact they generally have better players all round, that is the main difference between Barca playing that style and us doing so. It's okay keeping the ball but ultimately there has to be a purpose to it which doesn't result in going from the edge of the opponents box back to the edge of your own.

Barcelona, much like us in my opinion, are not blessed with great defenders and goalkeeper but work their socks off higher up the field to win the ball back before that vulnerability can be exploited too often. This means that they win the ball higher up in a more attacking part of the field and also gives their opponents less time to get defensively organised. Whether merely changing to 4-4-2 would help is debatable as it would result in less pressing of the ball and leave even more space in midfield for opponents to exploit, meaning even more work for our unreliable defence and we just don't have the personnel to deal with it.

[armchair]

Barcelona, much like us in my opinion.......

Keep takin the tablets hlebby

[I Hate Hleb]

Barcelona, much like us in my opinion.......

Keep takin the tablets hlebby

You see that's why people say things like 'it was taken out of context'!!

[armchair]

Barcelona, much like us in my opinion.......

Keep takin the tablets hlebby

You see that's why people say things like 'it was taken out of context'!!

Well, that what you get for pulling me up over my grammar (or lack of) on the other thread.

[I Hate Hleb]

I was just trying to help you improve and become an even better armchair supporter than you currently are.

[kite]

So what's the point actually? Arsenal is not scoring enough because of poor tactics? Well there are only two teams who score more goals per game than Arsenal and those two are Chelsea and Manchester United.
Arsenal did not score in 5 games out of 20 - not too bad either.
I think the major problems are the players and not the tactics. Take a look at Manchester United. Tactics? Give me a break. The only reason why they are on top is because they have the best players. I don't watch every team in the league but to be honest the only team I saw that impressed me through tactics was Swansea. Chelsea, Manchester United, City - LOL! BUT they have the players to make up for that. Arsenal not so and that's the reason why Arsenal is behind them.

I know some won't agree but just watch them play.. red nose doesn't even know the meaning of the word "pressing" I guess

[Supagoon]

I dont think I have quite the confidence in the players many other arsenal fans have. I agree, UTD are top because contrary to opinion they have a the best squad in division. City have a very good 1st 11, but their squad is not the deepest.

In our case I think we have the 5th best squad in the division. It's hard to take because we have some very good players like Carzola, Wilshere and Sagna. But the rest I don't rate very highly. Strikers like Giroud, lack the finesse that we have been used to in the past. He also lacks pace, that's why Theo has no become so important. No surprises I don't rate our defence. Vermaelen is incredibly rash, and Gibbs has potential but still is nowhere near amongst the best LBs around. Sczezny used to be a liability in my opinion because imo he was so poor at saving shots. He has got better since embarrassing himself in Poland and I hope he has learnt that talking a good game is not a enough at the highest level.

Our midfield is not terribly creative. They like to pass but passing forwards and quickly is not their asset. Arteta is a good player but thats it, he is a CM playing out of position as a DM, and is totally risk adverse, he hates passing forwards and he slows our attacks down. Wilshere has started to run at defences because frankly that injection of pace is badly needed for a midfield that has trouble making forward creative passes.

Out wide, we've gone backwards. I know Ox is english, but he has been as wasteful as walcott on the right and is still playing like a rookie. I can't rate his output as being particularly high. No point discussing Gervinho.
Players like Podolski and Giroud in terms of attacking aren't and that standard we've been used.

We've been downgrading for a while, so I can't be too surprised about our position. 5th place used to be for Everton and Spurs and frankly I doubt our form especially against plucky lower placed teams is any worse than their previous sides.

Our 4-3-3 system was indeed used for superior players so now I do think we need to change to 4-4-2 at times because we cannot apply enough pressure with just one forward. The problem is in midfield, we lack any physical presence and with only two players we'll get physically dominated.

The difference between other 5th place teams is the fans are paying excessively for this team and its management.

[SteveO 35]

Whisper it softly but some managers actually change the formation to either a) exploit the opposition or b) adapt to the situation unfolding on the picture in front of them

Yep, honestly its true. Now I know none of us have worked a single day in football and the bloke that's worked in football for 30 years and was Coach of the Decade for 10 of them knows everything.....but honestly its true

Amazing eh? Changing the formation - which revolutionary ever thought of something like that?

There's me thinking that you roll up at Old Trafford or the Nou Camp playing with the same approach as Shrewsbury Town at home....but nope, apparently you are allowed to change it. Whatever next?

[I Hate Hleb]

Why that's down right revolutionary!! You youngsters with your modern ways!!

[Barriecuda]

kite & supagoon: Squads are only as good as how effectively they're utilized. Hence why City - who I would argue have the deepest squad in the country - are not on top of the league. United has dominated the league so far despite having many players well over 30, even in spite of Rooney and Nani not playing up to their standard. SAF finds ways to effectively use all the pieces he has at his disposal (and the refs lol)

Arsenal's goals-for stat (40 in 20 games) is slightly misleading due to several lopsided scores against Southampton and Newcastle. We have no problem running up scores late, but it's the meaningful goals that we struggle with IMO. And for as much as we concede (22 in 20 games) we need to be scoring a lot, putting further emphasis on our somewhat dull attack.

Anyway I feel like we have some of the best players in the Premiership but we don't get full value out of them. Podolski and Giroud are good goal scorers; Arteta, Wilshere and Cazorla are all individually in the top-10 for creative midfielders in the EPL; Vermaelen Koscielny and Mertesacker have all shown, albeit inconsistently, that they are excellent defenders. But when we go out on the pitch, none of those players look the value I've just rated them at.

Quartz: 3-5-2 is interesting; I would almost prefer a 4-5-1 with our current LWF/RWF playing deeper to give us 5 across the width of the middle of the park. Then just have the one target man; eg) Giroud for physical teams, and Walcott for teams that try to play a high-line or that press heavily. However like you mentioned, and this is the point I had hoped to touch on - we have a lot of good players who can play a variety of positions, so we as a team should be willing to experiment with new ways (i.e. new formations) to get more out of them. Especially when we're struggling against Southampton after 75 minutes.

[QuartzGooner]

Quartz: 3-5-2 is interesting; I would almost prefer a 4-5-1 with our current LWF/RWF playing deeper to give us 5 across the width of the middle of the park. Then just have the one target man; eg) Giroud for physical teams, and Walcott for teams that try to play a high-line or that press heavily. However like you mentioned, and this is the point I had hoped to touch on - we have a lot of good players who can play a variety of positions, so we as a team should be willing to experiment with new ways (i.e. new formations) to get more out of them. Especially when we're struggling against Southampton after 75 minutes.

I reckon we play a sort of 4-5-1 now, though more accurately I describe it as 4-2-3-1.

I think one target man works for us only on occasion, so am keen to try two up front especially as it might get the best out of Giroud and Walcott.