Well first the good news as I see it:
(1) For a new defence we were well organised.
(2) The players put the effort in & (apart from Ozil at times) they didn't hide.
(3) The Ox truly delivered - he was brilliant & changed the whole game.
(4) Since Gabriel came back in he looks a different player.
(5) Rob Holding looks potentially a real talent.
There is, however, a lot of problems:
(1) In the first half we were totally outplayed and couldn't get out of our half, we couldn't deal with the high press at all - it was effectively attack versus defence.
(2) If City's 1st half 'goal' had not been ruled out incorrectly it could have been a very long day.
(3) If the Ox had not finally shown what he can do and City had not tired so badly (and thus were unable to continue to press) I doubt much would have changed in the 2nd half.
(4) Giroud, Xhaka & Ramsey reinforced my opinion that they are not good enough.
(5) Welbeck has again shown shown that he is a real handful out wide, but is not nearly clinical enough to ever be our primary striker.
(6) Cech is too slow and again athletically looks 'past it', he made a good save but if somebody more athletic had been in goal then they would have been out quicker to take the ball off Aguero instead of making his finish pretty easy for him.
(7) Ozil is still a good player - but whereas Sanchez is critical to this team, I don't think Ozil is consistently playing well enough to be viewed in that way.
Basically what I am saying is that I was very happy with the result, but the weaknesses this team has are in my opinion glaring...
Hmmm... unconvinced.
posted on 24/4/17
The first half for us was a tactical thing and all about trying to keep it tight defensively, which by and large worked. The problem we had was that Giroud was the only player providing an outball, and with two CBs covering him City were able to mark him out of the game.
In the 2nd half, Wenger switched things up a little, allowing Ox and Monreal to push further up the pitch, which gave us a more attacking feel. Ironically, it was that change (along with some defensive sloppiness) which gifted City the opener.
posted on 24/4/17
We were too deep to start with on sunday but once we got up the field in the second half it was much more even. I dont subscribe to this idea we got lucky somehow that they tired in the second half. They are just like any team if your trying to chase down the opposition high up the field your players will get tired quicker than the opposition. You could see going into extra time Arsenal were the stronger side. Thats why its key to stay in the game against these sorts of sides because there will be chances to exploit their tiredness.
posted on 24/4/17
Will be interesting to see if this formations continues for the games ahead
Just seen our next five fixtures
Leicester
Spurs away
United home
Saints away
Stoke away
posted on 24/4/17
That's bad fixtures leicester are playing well and we all know about spurs utd are very dangerous and can see jose beating us again saints game can go either way same as the stoke game.
posted on 25/4/17
If I could get this morass of negative drivel minus 5 stars, I would.
For once we got the tactics right. Defend against a high press until they run out of steam,then push on and go for the winner. It worked,and Ozil is NOT the anti-christ. He keeps scoring and making key goals. I don't care if he gets his deck chair out at times, he is not a fullback! He was brought in to be creative,to put in crosses and corners and through balls and he does just that.
If the media told you lot to jump off a cliff you would argue over would make the biggest splat at the bottom.
posted on 25/4/17
comment by Castor Troy (U8700)
posted 10 hours, 23 minutes ago
Let's be honest, we got lucky yesterday. The football we played was very turgid and city dominated large parts of the game.
Problem is that we don't have a good enough mf to really exploit this formation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack sake. Mr negativity at his best.
We didn't get lucky, we played well and scored more than the opponent. Missed 3 absolute sitters as well.
As trigg said, the first half was tactical. It is funny when you see people like Castor moaning - he was adamant we would get "absolutely hammered". Most confusing, then, that he was fuming at us being cautious in the first half and taking a 0-0.
I don't recall City creating anything of note in the first half, bar the 'goal' - which I have seen a replay where you can see the whole of the touchline and the ball the wrong side of it (from a City POV).
Yes they hit the woodwork twice late on, but Welbeck had two golden opportunities and Holding another for us.
"We got lucky" - nah, we took 2 chances they took 1 and we won.
posted on 3/5/17
Well D'Jeezus, I think the Spuuds game made my point not negative - just realistic...
posted on 3/5/17
I didn't reply to you, I replied to Castor
posted on 6/5/17
Maybe, but Castor agrees with me & the point stands
posted on 6/5/17
No, it was more about Castor saying we would get hammered by City, then going on about us being lucky to beat them. The bloke was fuming we beat City.