A term you would not expect to here in relation to Arsene Wenger, a man who allows his teams to play (or did) with a beautiful freedom of expression. But it was one which is apt to his approach at the moment.
It is his tactical rigidity which frustrates me most, on a personal level.
I really, really do not like this 4-2-3-1. For me it is a cop out since its been used by Arsene. It means that we do not have to assign a midfield player with a defensive duty. Other teams who play the system do; they often have 2 players with that mentality.
In some utopia it would be beautiful to see a midfield two of Ramsey and Wilshere. As good a players they are, it is not sustainable. Incidentally, only matches those two have played together there was the 1-3 against Villa, and the first half of the Spurs match (where they looked good by all accounts). Ramsey has thrived in the formation, Wilshere has not, and the man who is our midfield staple, Mikel Arteta, offers nothing in this double pivot. I have less issue with the 3 in front, but is this double pivot which just does not work.
We play technical players against midfielders like Barkley running at them and our back 4. Our back 4 get slated by the media, but the system lets them down.
We need a player who will do that dirty work. As much of a crazy b****** as he was, Frimpong was willing to do that, and his cameos in the team were refreshing. It turns out he was not the answer, but someone else was. Flamini as performed very well this season in so many ways, and has adressed this to a degree. But like Giroud, he is but one man. We 2-3 defensive minded players who can play in midfield.
I wish our system encorporated a true anchorman. A Makelele. Or even just a scrappy guy who will provide us cover, like a Gattuso.
I have here discussed my dislike of our system. The actual point of the article, though, is that we don't have a back up system. We turned to 4-3-3 apparently at West Ham, according to Wenger, and it turned the match around. When has there been a tactical turnaround like that again?
Usually I like people to offer solutions in such cases of complaining. Any moron can point out flaws, but I only really respect opinions on Arsenal when feasible solutions are suggested.
Yet strangely enough here, I am not going to suggest a different formation, because I have a different football philosophy to Wenger (although I love the basis of what Wenger is TRYING TO DO). If I was a coach, I'd play a much tighter and narrower system, quite Italian in that respect, with more obviously defined roles for players to fulfil. My formation preference is 4-3-1-2 and 4-3-2-1. Yet neither are really workable for the players we currently have.
With that in mind though, I just want to say it is criminal we do not have an alternative system. If we don't scrap the current formation, we at least need to get a formation where we can get players closer to Giroud (or other centre forward) when things are not working out.
Rigidity
posted on 7/4/14
We won't ever sign that anchorman under wenger. We have been crying out for it for years but he would rather convert attacking midfielders into that position
posted on 7/4/14
I just want our next manager to have that attention to detail which Arsene appears to neglect. Not that he is too stupid to too recognise- more that he is too stubborn to be reactive tactically.
Be interesting if we got a Prandelli i.e. someone who prides themselves on the tactical.
posted on 7/4/14
Don't quite understand certain parts of your article, however taking the final paragraph as a summary I do agree.
Saying that, I personally would do the complete opposite to you and play a wide formation. With all of our players fit, id like to see 2 of either Ox, Serge, Walcott or even Wilshere playing wide under strict guidance that they are NOT free to roam and that they are to hold shape at all times.
We've been so weak on the wings all season, yet we actually posses 3 very good wingers. Too many times Sagna and Gibbs are expected to give us that width in the final third, which time after time leaves us very exposed.
Another positive to playing 2 wide men is that they will offer Giroud runners in behind the defence, something he is incapable of doing himself.
posted on 7/4/14
To be fair, I didn't suggest this Arsenal team should not try to get wide. With the players we have, that's what we should be doing.
However, if I personally could build a team, then I would play narrower and tighter. Just my preference.
posted on 7/4/14
Also, Id love to see a 4-2-2-2 formation given a go next season when Walcott is fit and another summer of hope ends in us pinning all our chances on 'Giroud getting us through to January'.
------ Flamini - Ramsey
Ox ----------------------------- Wilshere
------ Walcott - Giroud
Flamini to anchor the midfield, Ramsey as a box to box. Serge can come in on the right with Ox on the left if Wilshere is unable to do the role. Walcott runs the channels and the back line, while Giroud is under strict orders to win aerial battles, hold the ball up, feed our wide men or mids and then GET IN THE FACKING BOX!
posted on 7/4/14
comment by Wengerite (U6219)
posted 1 minute ago
To be fair, I didn't suggest this Arsenal team should not try to get wide. With the players we have, that's what we should be doing.
However, if I personally could build a team, then I would play narrower and tighter. Just my preference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appreciate that I think.its the best way to defend!
However, im a big fan of.spreading the ball and using the wholr of the pitch
posted on 7/4/14
I don't understand why some people said 4-4-2 is out dated.
If we consistently have 2 forwards upfront and press, the opposing team must have at least 3 or 4 at the back and can't do all out attack. So when we are defending we still have at least 1-2 man advantage and not out numbered.
Now we have Giroud/Sanogo upfront, opposing team can just leave two or even one at the back and won't afraid of being countered.
posted on 7/4/14
I disagree. The idea of 4-3-3 is to be actually more attacking. The front 3 have few defensive duties and are expected to be ready for counters without having to retreat back into their own half, thereby correctly positioned for any mistakes from the opposition in their half. The two deep players are supposed to alternate defensively in the full back positions to protect against wide counter attacks and to force opposing teams into the middle where you out number them.
In any case we haven't been playing a 4-3-3 in its true form since Song left. Arteta has been sitting and in fact Ramsey/Wilshere/even Flamini going forward very much in a 4-4-1-1 diamond formation. The problem we have is that Drogba was a superb striker and expert at holding the ball and we haven't got that.
posted on 7/4/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/4/14
comment by ronniec - In Bully We Trust (U15003)
posted 10 minutes ago
I don't understand why some people said 4-4-2 is out dated.
If we consistently have 2 forwards upfront and press, the opposing team must have at least 3 or 4 at the back and can't do all out attack. So when we are defending we still have at least 1-2 man advantage and not out numbered.
Now we have Giroud/Sanogo upfront, opposing team can just leave two or even one at the back and won't afraid of being countered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I still have plenty of time for the 4-4-2... Although pretty much every formation these days is just a slight variation of it anyway.