Barcelona 4-1 Arsenal: Messi dominates the game, but Arsenal let him
If there was any remaining doubt that Lionel Messi is the greatest football player of his generation, they were erased tonight, as Barcelona got the better of Arsenal in the much-hyped battle of the teams playing football ‘the right way’. Arsenal didn’t lose this match tactically, but they didn’t help themselves.
Barcelona went in as expected – keeping the alliteration at centre-half by choosing Milito and Marquez to replace the suspended Pique and Puyol. At left-back, Eric Abidal was back to replace Maxwell, who had a tough final 20 minutes at the Emirates against Theo Walcott. Upfront, Bojan replaced the injured Ibrahimovic, after his two goals at the weekend. Andres Iniesta was fit only for the bench, and so Barcelona again played their ‘alternative’ shape, with Messi deployed in a central role.
Arsene Wenger went on the offensive – selecting Theo Walcott from the start, and keeping Emmanuel Eboue on the bench. Mikael Silvestre started ahead of Sol Campbell, most likely purely because Barcelona’s threat comes from pace and movement, and therefore this probably wasn’t the right occasion for Campbell. Abou Diaby was pushed up alongside Samir Nasri, leaving Denilson on his own in a relatively adventurous 4-1-4-1 shape.
The game started off at a much slower pace than the first leg. Barcelona didn’t press as high up the pitch (perhaps wary of how much they tired in the first game) allowing the Arsenal defenders a fair amount of time on the ball. Barcelona twice went close from long-range Lionel Messi shots, and that served as a warning for what was to come later.
Arsenal took the lead through the player Barcelona feared most – Theo Walcott. His pace might be his only attribute, but it is very, very dangerous, and he sprung the Barcelona offside trap, taking advantage of their usual extraordinarily high defensive line, and squared for Nicklas Bendtner to score.
Then it was the Messi show. His first-half hattrick was superb because each of the goals were so different – a long-range belter, a poacher’s finish from close range, and then a sublime chip after outpacing the Arsenal defence over the top. It’s a cliche, but put Messi on the other side and the result might have been the reverse – the Milito-Marquez partnership was no more stable or unified than the Silvestre-Vermaelen one.
It’s tough to criticize Arsene Wenger’s tactics for this game. It’s probably fair to say that he was without his five most important players in a game he needed to score in – his best striker in Robin van Persie, his two most creative players in Cesc Fabregas and Andrei Arshavin, and his two most reliable defensive players in William Gallas and Alex Song. To get a result in the Nou Camp is tough at the best of times, but without those five it was a monumental task.
His selection of players was slightly surprising – against the pace and movement of Barcelona in the final third, Emmanuel Eboue would have been a useful player to have in the side, perhaps on the left against Barcelona’s greater threat from that flank. Tomas Rosicky is an excellent technical footballer and does his share of work defensively, but he simply doesn’t have the discipline and positional sense needed to play in a game like this, against the most attacking right-back in the world, Daniel Alves. Eboue has improved immeasurably in the past year or so, and though he may have been out of place on the left, he would have done a better job than Rosicky – who didn’t even impress going forward.
But the real issue must be Wenger’s decision to play a 4-1-4-1 shape, with Denilson stranded in front of the defence. With Messi playing centrally and with a license to drift around, the Brazilian was given the task of tracking him. Although it was far from an outright man-marking job, it was inevitable that he would constantly be drawn to Messi when he moved to the flank.
Messi celebrates his second
But that opened up Arsenal in front of the back four, creating space that was exploited at various times by Keita, Xavi, Pedro and Bojan. Arsenal needed another man in that zone, but with Diaby pushed forward alongside Nasri, their defence was left exposed. Diaby’s natural game is not as a holding midfielder, but if he had played there in a 4-2-3-1 Arsenal would have been tighter in front of their defence, and given less space to Barcelona where they really like to play.
Qique Sanchez Flores, whose Atletico Madrid team beat Barcelona in February, said he did it by“Keeping our shape short and narrow to make it hard for Barcelona to find players between the lines, which is what they do so well and what most causes you trouble”. The 4-1-4-1 didn’t make it hard for Barcelona to find players between the lines, it made it very, very easy.
And the most damning part is that Messi provided the initial pass to the player who then assisted his first two goals. For the first he played it to Pedro and later got it back, for the second he slipped it through to Abidal who put the cross in. On both occasions, he picked the ball up in space you would be disappointed to give any player in the competition, let alone the very best one.
The third (and to a certain extent) the fourth were caused – yet again – by a positional error from Thomas Vermaelen. And it’s the same mistake time and time again, coming too high up towards the ball to pick up a striker who has dropped deep. It happened against Manchester United, against West Ham, and now against Barcelona home and away, and it’s costing Arsenal a ridiculous number of goals. It’s such a blatant and persistent error that this website will feature an article on it within the next week, but it’s quite incredible that Vermaelen can keep making the same mistake and not face any criticism in the mainstream media for it.
Is it harsh to criticize tactics when Messi played as well as that, and won the game by himself? Probably, but he doesn’t score four goals every game, and Arsenal made it easy for him to work his magic. Wenger’s problem is that he isn’t good enough at setting up his side to neutralise the opposition’s main threats. He is a great football manager, but can he really be regarded as a great tactician? His commitment to good attacking football is wonderful and is appreciated by football supporters across the world – and we should not fall into the trap of thinking that football can be regarded as style v success – Barcelona have proven otherwise. But even they are capable of winning tactically, shutting down games, and completely switching their system according to their opponents strengths and weaknesses.
Wenger’s overall philosophy doesn’t need to change, but in specific, one-off games he surely must be a little bit more streetwise. If that means playing two players solidly in front of the back four, or playing a ‘defensive’ winger to keep the game tight in the first half, then Arsenal fans will hardly object to the brief lack of ‘classy’ football.
But these are probably debates for another day. Today was not about tactics, it was about Messi and the best individual performance of the season.
Barcelona 4-1 Arsenal: Messi dominates the game, but Arsenal let him
I think it’s worth pointing out that Barcelona still pressed high up the pitch far better than Arsenal did. Arsenal would regularly give up possession in defence, either by being forced to pass back to Almunia who would beat it long, or just by getting caught out by 2 or 3 Barcelona forwards cornering an individual Arsenal defender. Although Arsenal could’ve scored more, if Bendtner’s offside had been called correctly for example, they were still certainly the worse team. Remove Messi and Barcelona would surely still have won, perhaps comfortably.
During the game I was talking to my friend about how scandalous it is that Vermaelen is so highly thought of by the mainstream football media. Generally, he is a pretty good player, but as you say, he is extremely prone to positional mistakes and rash decisions.
The argument about whether or not Wenger is a great tactician is interesting, although I would probably come down on the side that he isn’t. He is good at setting his teams up to effectively dismantle a certain brand of opponent, but he loses too regularly to more intense, disciplined sides like Chelsea, in too predictable a way to be considered a great tactician surely?
Arsene Wenger is definitely not the best tactician compared to his European counterparts.
He comes across as idiosyncratic and vague in terms of his team set up, but thats the kind of manager he is. The same way you can’t expect Berbatov to close down like Olic and Olic to flick or poke or to surprise like Berbatov. Wenger has an exceptional eye for player potential and is a master in putting together inspiring attacking midfielders. But as a tactician, he still has to prove himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if his instructions to his players for the home match against Barcelona was, “Play as you like, these guys won’t kick around as much,” but I’d be worried though. Simply put, Wenger would make a great artist but an ordinary architect.
Here here on Vermaelen. While he’s an excellent on-ball defender, he isn’t yet a great center-half and gets caught out a ridiculous amount. His tackling acumen, particularly in contrast to his teammates, is the root cause of his errors escaping notice.
That said, he’s going to be a beast in the near future, once he stops ball-hawking so much.
Talking about Vermaelen, he is not good at covering. He needs someone to cover for him when he goes up try to do a tackle. He needs some time to be a centre back since now he still thinks he is a left back occasionally.
I think it’s a touch harsh to criticize Vermaelen in such a way. He has by far been the Gunners best defender (and scores quite a few goals) and has had an astonishing 1st season in the Premier League (especially considering that he came from the Dutch Eredivisie with Ajax). However, the 3rd and 4th goals were also an error of the whole Arsenal defense rather than just him alone. I think Clichy played Messi onside for one of the two goals and the other goal was also just the whole Gunners defense in disarray (probably b/c of Barca’s pure midfield class). However, you probably have a point in the other games that you mentioned (I didn’t really see all of them so I don’t know about that) but it might somewhat harsh (though probably true) to criticize the Belgian like this. I’m very curious to see the article to be published about this part of the Belgian’s game.
PS: I really love this website. Such great, in-depth analysis SO FAST after a game is just magnificent. I’m a teenager and play soccer regularly on different levels (and PASSIONATE supporter of the game) and I just learn so much from this website, and it truly helps and develops my understanding of the game. Thanks a million and keep up the magnificent work, it’s VERY appreciated!!!!
I do really like him, he’s exactly what Arsenal needed and it’s been a very impressive first season. A good argument for him to be the Premiership signing of the season. But it is the same mistake again and again and it’s so frustrating, because the rest of his game is very good.
The fourth was a defensive-wide problem, that is true – but if you look at his position, it is very high up the pitch.
The third was not entirely, but largely his fault. Dashed ten yards forward to try and win a header he couldn’t win, got caught wildly out of position when Keita headed it through.
Vermaelen is mostly great, and extremely durable, but when healthy Gallas is unquestionably Arsenal’s best defender, and in many senses the team’s most important player.
I actually think the criticism is quite fair, considering the level of praise he’s received this year for the things he does well. Like many Gooners, I too believe he’s the most logical choice for the captaincy once Cesc departs, but that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge that he’s been prone to massive lapses this season that have resulted in sloppy goals conceded.
RVP will be captain if Cesc was to leave.
Robin Van Persie is a) a striker, and therefore not best placed to be captain b) frequently injured c) has been known to have problems of temparament; Vermaelen would make a better captain.
- He’s already vice-captain
- His temperament has been fine for years now
- Injuries sure, but anyone can get an injury at any moment
- Loads of great captains have been strikers
- The role of captain is way overstated by fans/pundits, leaders lead regardless of an armband
it also helped quique sanchez flores that alves was out of that game atletico won & jeffren(barcelona’s very young left winger) was played @right back.
That match Barça had too many defensive players injuried. Jeffren is a left-wing and played as right-back.
As usual a very good article. I hadn’t seen that collection of interviews from the managers that have beaten Barcelona this season. In particular: -
“Keeping our shape short and narrow to make it hard for Barcelona to find players between the lines, which is what they do so well and what most causes you trouble”
Despite not having half their usual starting 11, Arsenal failed miserably to squeeze the spacel. Denilson who is not the ideal choice of DM had far too much to do and when the forward 3 players did attempt to apply some pressure to the Barcelona back line the rest of the side failed to move up with them.
Jonathan Wilson’s article today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/06/question-pressing-crucial-modern-game) pointed out Arrigo Sacchi’s views on pressing and squeezing play when trying to regain the ball. There should be less than 30 metres between front and back player to ensure the team in possession are given as much trouble as possible. There was evidence early on of some good pressing from Arsenal’s wingers and forwards, Walcott on Abidal forcing the left back to play it out. But once they gained some composure they saw there was no second wave of pressure once they played the ball through to their midfield players.
Thomas Vermaelen’s rushing forward for both goals in the first leg, would it have happened if the whole back four were 10-15 yards further up the field?
The Arsenal back four were already quite high when Vermaelen and Song were caught out in the first leg. Ten to fifteen yards higher seems unrealistic.
In addition to Vermaelen’s positional lapses, I see a failure by the Arsenal midfield to decrease the space in front of the back four. Plenty of space between the lines, indeed.
In addition, whoever has taught Barca to press as they do deserves great credit, as do the players who execute the plan.
Barca are very technical, and they put in an admirable shift when the ball is lost. Simply amazing!
These things are said to go in cycles, but bearing in mind the number of players coming through la Masia, and the fact that Messi is going nowhere, I believe that we are going to observe a fearsome dynasty at Barcelona that need to build a new trophy cabinet.
It will be a real shame when Guardiola leaves. I hope that they can convince him to extend his contract beyond next season.
WHAT A GAME. Messi- what more can I say about him that has not already been said. Jaw dropped when he scored each of his goals. Guy is amazing.
I think there was a tactical change that Guardiola implemented after the Emirates game (team looked very tired and stopped pressing the last 20 min) and instructed his players to ease into the game. They also have to think of Real Madrid this weekend, so once they were up you sensed a overall drop in energy.
I thought Eboue coming in for Arsenal caused Barca a few problems. Nothing that the midfield could not handle, though.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zonal_Marking: NEW ON ZM: Barcelona 4-1 Arsenal: Messi produces a stunning performance, but Arsenal gave him the room to do so http://bit.ly/bCM7g1...
Thanks for the article. Your website has become a staple of my Champions League experience this year here in the US. Do you plan to cover the CSKA-Inter fixture too? (I’m totally unfamiliar with it, so I’m not sure if it was an interesting game tactically)
Afraid not. I watched a fair bit of it, but it wasn’t terribly interesting. Inter went 1-0 up from a deflected free-kick, CSKA looked gutted as they needed three (they barely looked liked getting one) and then went down to ten men.
Inter played the 4-2-3-1 / 4-2-1-3 shape they fielded against Chelsea. The Inter – Barca tie will be fascinating!
Yes – if any manager will play as Flores suggests “short and narrow”, it’s Mourinho.
Yes, David Pleat had a good article in the Guardian saying the exact same thing about the space that Messi was afforded last night.
He threw out the idea of man-marking, which I could definitely see Mourinho doing, but who could keep up with Messi? Cambiasso is an interesting choice, since he’s been one of the best players for Inter this year, as well as having the experience with dealing with Messi on the national team.
Possibly, you could have a couple players marking him as he goes through different zones.
There’s going to be a lot to chew on tactically.
What about a prewiew at Inter- Barca.It would be intresItng to hear your opinion about Mourinho tactics?Is he gonna play 4-2-1-3 with Cambiaso and Zanetti in midfield ,Sneijder in front of them,E’too and Pandev wings,Milito lone striker.He used this formation to beat barca in his first season at Chelsea,i think is the best choice to counter Barca .Or a 4-4-1-1 with fast wide midfielders to speculate the forward rund of Alves and Maxwell/Abidal (less than Alves the left back).A 4-2-3-1 in the attaking phase,with an MC droping DM and the AMC Droping MC in the defense to a 4-5-1.But Inter dont have fast wide midfielders like Chelsea , so Mou probably is gonna try to kill Xavi passing and with that all Barca passing game ( a man to man marking Cambiasso at Xavi),Messi’s game will suffer so he will have to drop back to take his balls and soon as he will get the ball will be surrounded by 2 Inter palyers and if not deposeded ,foulted by rotation to avoid being booked.On the offensive phase, Inter will try to play fast counterattaks ,exploiting the pace of E’too and Pandev probably with passes directly from Lucio ,a good passer,and takeing advantages from set-pieces,Sneijder a master class on this.Anyway possesion will be 65-35 to Barca, but all it matters is what you do with the ball when u have it is the most important,so with closing down the spaces,( short and narrow) Inter will have a good chance.
PS. i woluld like an opinion about the tactician Guardiola.Is he good tactician or just a good pedagogue who just continue what Rijkaard did in Ronaldinho era? TNX FOR THIS SITE
Good point made on Vermaelen, generally he’s been a top signing but his positional sense seems to be abit dodgy.
The one thing I noticed was Wenger’s distinct lack of acknowledgement that Theo Walcott should have been their attacking outlet. Barca’s full backs push on regularly and surely Arsenal could have exposed that more than they did? In fact when they did manage to expose the space in behind they got their goal.
I wondered if switching Walcott to the left would have been even more beneficial? Dani Alves bombs on so much there would have been chances for Arsenal to break on them.
Arsenal missed open players on a couple of breaks.
Likewise, Barca gave Arsenal scoring chances in the second half.
Bendtner’s pondering on the ball, Rosicky blazing over when he could have attacked the near post and shot or cut back to score at the far post. Various other giveaways by the Barca midfield.
Despite Barca’s dominance, this match was not over until Messi’s fourth, no matter how unlikely Arsenal made it look with the few chances that they had in the final third.
Is anyone else annoyed by the distraction of close-ups and multiple replays that deprive us of restarts and buildup play? What a shame!
Yes, I totally agree about the replays! I might do a post on that -television coverage of football generally is very poorly thought out, and they do have a propensity to make the same mistakes -such as the commentator’s disease (different from the commentator’s curse):
http://www.cerebralfootballer.com/2010/04/television-coverage-commentary-and-the-commentator%E2%80%99s-disease/
Sky Sports/ITV will almost certainly be creaming over Messi even if he’s marked out of the game.
Now I have posted about it:
http://www.cerebralfootballer.com/2010/04/television-coverage-replays/
The worst is when they go for a pointless closeup when the game didn’t even stop for a freekick/similar.
It’s usually on an exciting counter-attack too.
full credit for the person behind this website. after many hours spent trawling through the traditional newsites (Times, Guardian etc) this one has to be the most informative of the lot. Thank you for giving me a new perspective on the game i love it has increased my enjoyment no end.
Fantastic article, once again. Can’t wait for your thoughts on United-Bayern tomorrow. I think United will really squeeze play and put Bayern under a lot of pressure. They have to create some chances though too, obviously. Nani will be important without Rooney. Can’t wait for the Inter-Barca build-up and matches either!
Hi ZM.
Soon you’ll need to stop calling the 4-2-4ish an “alternative shape”… it’s becoming pretty much the norm.
If I were Maradona I’d be instantly thinking how to replicate this in the national team. I’d switch the “speedy fullback” role to the left (opposite of Barça and Brazil 70), and line up with
Romero
Zanetti/Otamendi-Demichelis-Samuel-Insua
Mascherano-Veron
Tevez/Aguero-Messi-Higuain-Di Maria
Scary.
It’s only my opinion, and I’m by no means the best informed visitor to this site, but I believe Insua is a major liability. I know this is harsh because he is very young. I would hardly describe him as speedy, he appears to offer very little going forward (his Carling Cup screamer aside), and he is a defensive liability. He offers neither size, nor speed, nor technique, nor positional sense.
I would suggest that if Argentina want to attack down the left, they play Zanetti there and leave Otamendi be. How about Placente? He must be fresh since he only has 3 appearances this season for Bordeaux.
Listening to Tim Vickery it seems Maradona wants to play four center backs across the four, (Otamendi-Demichelis-Samuel-Heinze). It seems unlikely that they will have the attacking movement that affords Messi such freedom. It seems a shame.
Maybe Tevez as a right back? It’s not like the Albiceleste lack for second strikers for crying out loud! Just a crazy idea, I understand that Tevez is bang in form…. Maybe Jonas could do a job at right back if Maradona could find a hardworking replacement for him in midfield.
And why would Cambiasso be left out in the cold?
Mind you that I am just proposing how Arg could line-up in the “alternative shape”, not predicting/prescribing their best formation.
I don’t think Maradona will take Cambiasso and Pupi Zanetti at all, he hasn’t used them for ages and doesn’t seem inclined to do so as good as their recent Inter form is. But I wouldn’t leave them out at all – definitely rate Cambiasso above Veron and Zanetti above any other possible right-back. Also would consider seriously using Nicolás Burdisso.
Insua a liability – yes; Insua as Argentina’s most attacking-prone full-back – yes. To play in the 4-2-4ish formation (my assumption) the right back doesn’t need to defend properly (cases in point: Dani Alves, Carlos Alberto). But Gutierrez at right back is also plausible, good call.
Also, talking about leaving people in the cold, we haven’t talked about “impact subs” Diego Milito and Lisandro López…. now talk about options in attack.
Maradona could do well to draft in Zabaleta. He can play effectively at RB and has the ability to be used in a multitude of positions – a great quality to have when you;re playing a WC game every 3/4 days and are limited to the squad you take regardless of injuries.
I’m glad that someone else has picked up on Insua being a terrible left back.
In fact Liverpool have two horrible full backs. Glen Johnson going foward is very good but defensively he is appalling. the same can definitely be said for Inusa.
With regards to your Argentina formation I’d go with Tevez instead of Aguerro on the right of the forward line and have Cambiasso in midfield, who would fit perfectly in the barca team.
Right on that this is the formation for Argentina, but if Diego had a brain in that head he would pair Mascherano with Cambiasso in the center and have the front 4 be Tevez, Messi, Higuain, Milito. These same personnel can also play a more conventional 4231 if tactics needed to switch…
This wasn’t a great performance by either team and defnitely not by Barça. They only play well when Guardiola wears the black suit.
“Keeping our shape short and narrow to make it hard for Barcelona to find players between the lines, which is what they do so well and what most causes you trouble”
Which is exactly what Inter seemed to be doing defensively against CSKA.
A few points regarding the match.
In the first half, Busquets appeared to be playing ahead of Xavi. In the 2nd he dropped back to his usual role (until Yaya came on). I am not sure what the rationale from Pep was for this decision: Maybe he thought Sergio would be better at regaining possession and wanted to do it higher up the pitch or perhaps he figured that Denilson was going to man-mark Xavi and wanted to pull him out of position. Anyway, this contributed to Barça losing possession too often. The entire team always looks to Xavi to control and distribute and he was having to do it from a deeper position and at greater risk of exposing the defense. It caused a lot of confusion.
A corollary to the above point is that the CBs had no midfield cover and weren’t able to spread wide (with the DM moving back to play 3rd CB) nor did they get close enough to Bendtner to stop his vital distribution in the final 3rd.
Gaby Milito was Barça’s best defender but was poor with the ball at his feet. In fact, Arsenal seemed to be pressing in such a manner that the ball ends up with Milito who then would make a wayward pass under pressure. Puyol used to do the same thing earlier but this season he has learnt to make his decisions earlier and give up the ball a lot quicker.
Arsenal would have been better off starting Eboue and bringing Walcott on as a sub. They showed their hand too early and had no further cards to play.
Nice post. What I believed made the difference in the game is Wenger’s tactical naivitee. He was outcoached in the first game and you wouldnt think it would happen again – but surely it did. Messi is great (I follow La Liga), but Arsenal – a supposed ‘big team’ – made him look like Maradona versus Beer Leaguers.
Arsenal knows Barcelona our going to maintain posession because they have signifigantly more composure in move into space better then Arsenal. So the Gunners have two options: 1) Press them in their own half with the defensive line pushing up or 2) allow Barcelona to enter Arsenal’s half and create a compact defense…. either way its a lose-lose situation
For the first option, they do not have these type of players with this work-rate and Bojan can catch the CB’s off guard. The second option is better but it requires a disciplined defense and an intelligent, defensive midfielder who can organize (a la Cambiasso). Arsenal has neither.
You have to occupy Dani Alves because he is crucial to the attack with crosses and teams up with Messi very well. I can see Mourinho using a 4-3-3 to occupy the fullbacks, the same way they did against Chelsea. Its also wise to man-mark Xavi and close him down every time has the ball. He will NOT lose the ball, but be forced to pass it backwards. Someone else from Barcelona will step up, but it will not be the same with Xavi at full throttle
Hey there,
I’ve been following your articles for a while and I’ve paid attention to the constant talk about this Barça’s alternative shape.
Well, cutting to the chase, I don’t think it’s a 4-2-4!
And, I’ve read the post by Roberticus! It’s very clear and brilliantly explained, indeed.
But when it comes to formations and tactics, people tend to forget we’re talking about people (the players), natural characteristics/tastes and collective movements (the most important part of the game, not the shape of the 10 or the starting position of the players).
I really believe they go on a 4-2-3-1.
But all said above explains why it seems so much like a 4-2-4:
- because Messi is very attacking player and constantly goes up on the pitch running, he’s not the typical man sat between the striker; he will be often by his side, aiming the box and the goal, rarely coming down to help the two center midfielders;
- and because Pedro in the right flank is much more of a winger, headed for the byline, from an advanced-wide midfield position, than any one who plays on the left side (Iniesta or Keita – they naturally fall back to the midfield because of their characteristics being closer to midfielders than to wingers or forwards).
But it would be very interesting to ear Guardiola about this!
Keep up the good work around here.
Best football site ever (though I know you’ve heard it before, it’s true)!
You got it, mate! You’re absolutely right!
I believe it was Diaby who initially dispossessed Milito and made the pass that released walcott. So after the first goal the 4-1-4-1 shape seemed like genius. I’m not saying Wenger should’ve stuck with the shape, but one can understand the strategy.
[...] Wenger’s fault — but neither did it alter his reputation as a manager who “isn’t good enough at setting up his side to neutralise the opposition’s main threats.” Wenger’s 4-1-4-1 “didn’t make it hard for Barcelona to find players [...]
Completely agree that Wenger’s weakness is his unwillingness to basically acknowledge a superior opposition and set up his team to neutralise their threat.
In his defence last night he didn’t have the cattle, but as has been noted before on this site, when both teams leave the game open, the superior opposition nearly always prevails. Wenger should have realised this and at least started with a formation more inclined to stem the supply to the Barcelona forwards.
With Walcott’s pace, Barca’s high defensive line and the expectation that Barcelona would dominate possession, maybe a formation designed to crowd the final third and break on the counter-attack would have been better.
In the next round Mourinho will certainly try to shut them down, so it will be a very interesting tie. In a way I’m glad Inter-Barca is a 2-leg Semi-final and not the final, as Inter will probably have to open up and go for it at some stage, whereas in the final they might be tempted to shut the game down and see what chances present themselves.
I cannot fathom why Wenger doesn’t invest in a defensive midfielder. Every single season there are rumors that he’s going to finally buy one. Does he ever do it? Nope.
Denilson is alright, but he doesn’t have the physique to be a great defensive midfielder at the moment. His passing is neat and tidy but he’s physically weak compared to many other defensive midfielders.
I don’t know if Wenger is trying to prove a point or something by not signing a quality defensive midfielder. Mahamadou Diarra was probably available for this season. He would’ve come cheap and he would’ve been a beast. He’s limited technically but his technique is far from bad.
Also, if you watch Barcelona’s goals, every single goal they scored was avoidable. The first one if Silvestre wasn’t an idiot and passed the ball too Messi (and if they had pressured him quickly and heavily directly after losing possession). The second one, if Diaby had marked and followed Messi into the box. Also, Clichy is watching the ball way too much. The third goal if Vermaalen didn’t go into the duel like a hotheaded idiot and also if Almunia didn’t hesitate and just ran at Messi. The fourth, how the hell do you end up giving Lionel Messi, who might be better than God at football, acres and acres of space? And how is it that Clichy is just watching Messi as he shoots? Embarrassing.
Dude, Song is not only a defensive midfielder, he’s worked himself into being a very good one. He was injured for the second leg, and pressed into duty as a center-half in the first after Gallas limped off.
That’s one defensive midfielder. And who’s there to replace him? Denilson? Don’t make me laugh. Denilson wouldn’t go into any top teams’ line-ups. How can you have one pure defensive midfielder in your squad? Barcelona have Touré, Busquets, Keita who are all very capable as defensive midfielders. Xavi has played there before. Real Madrid have Gago, Diarra, Lass, Xabi Alonso and Esteban Granero could probably play there as well. Liverpool have Mascherano, Lucas, Gerrard who’s capable, Aquilani who’s capable. Man U have Anderson, Carrick, Fletcher, Gibson, Hargreaves. Chelsea have Essien, Mikel, Lampard, Belletti (capable). Juventus have Sissoko, Melo, Marchisio. Inter have Cambiasso, Mariga, Muntari, Stankovic, Motta. Milan have Gattuso, Flamini, Ambrossini. Roma have Pizarro, Brighi, De Rossi.
All of these clubs have adequate cover on the DM position. Song is good, but behind him? Denilson? Is that all? Don’t make me laugh. Wenger has made some good choices but also many bad ones. His worst might be that he never adequately replaced Viera.
Frankly speaking, Denilson can’t even make into the line-ups of a decent team such as villa or spurs… It surprised me that he had the longest running distance last match, where had these distance gone? He is always jogging around the pitch, but when a sprint is needed, he just cannot do it.
Arsenal definitely need another defensive midfielder. The most frustrating thing is that Wenger let both Matthieu Flamini and Lassana Diarra leave the club.
The other possibility, ZM, given what you have observed regards Vermaelan’s defensive lapses at CB, would be to move the Belgian to defensive midfield. This would enable the following:
a) Denilson (or Song) partners him in a double pivot, thus completely liberating Nasri (whenever Cesc is unavailable or being rested)to play between the lines.
b) Denilson pushes up alongside Cesc (or Nasri) to form a three man midfield.
c) Song settles in at centre-back, becoming in effect the new libero.
Flamini left Arsenal although he was offered a fresh contract. Diarra left coz at that time Flamini was in the form of his life and Gilberto was also there. There wasn’t much chance of him getting first team action. Plus Wenger did try to get Felipe Melo, so its not that he doesn’t realize the need to have a world class DM
Here is a thought: Maybe Vermaelen is being INSTRUCTED to play higher up the pitch and try to win those challenges ? When he does he looks great and everyone praises him but it is a risky strategy so sometimes it fails and he looks like a doof. That could explain why he seems to be making the same mistake all the time, the same way Arsenal´s DM, whoever is playing, is often caught out of position because they are trying to win every challenge instead of HOLDING…
I think Vermaelen´s errors are a consequence of Arsenal´s whole approach to defending.
Just a thought.
One of the commentators mentioned that Wenger was having a go at Vermaelen last week, pointedly raging at the lad, for the defender’s part in Ibrahimovic’s second goal (Can anyone in the stadium confirm?) I think I’ll go with ZN’s analysis in this instance.
You could well have a point, pheteesh, but the strategy is plainly not working. Besides, look at Barcelona’s fourth goal – Vermaelen hasn’t even charged high up the pitch, he’s just started in a position 10 yards infront of his full-backs (who aren’t blameless).
I think the first incident against United was the most silly – Gallas had already motored forward and had joined the attack, leaving Vermaelen as the only centre-back, and he still followed Rooney’s 15 yard backwards run, leaving Park with the whole half to himself. Indeed, Park’s free run on goal from the halfway line was very similar to Messi’s last night.
I was not trying to absolve Vermaelen or the rest of the defense for their errors, only pointing out that because of the way Arsenal play, those errors will often lead to goals. There was a stat I saw earlier that showed that Arsenal concede very few shots on target but these often lead to goals. If you ask both centerbacks to play as liberos and both fullbacks to push up the way Arsenal do, you are asking for trouble because there is no saftey net when that strategy fails. So Wenger has to take the majority of the blame, the same way I blamed him for Clichy’s lack of form earlier in the season (he had absolutely no help on that side). The whole reason for pressure-cover-balance defending is because you expect players to make mistakes so you cover for that.
Think of the chain reaction: Denilson is out of poition so Vermaelen has to ocuppy the space in the hole, he gets caught out of pistion too, both fullbacks have pushed up……….easy goal.
That is what I am trying to say.
RE: Vermaelan’s starting position 10 yards ahead of his defensive partner…
It’s a strategy used by some teams (such as Arsenal did in previous seasons to combat Drogba) whereby the defender and the holding midfielder move together in order to ’sandwich’ the centre-forward who is dropping off to receive the ball- useful if the forward is a pivot like Drogba, Berbatov or Ibra…but against an elusive figure like Messi or Rooney this is suicide!
I wonder whether Vermaelan is naturally predisposed towards this as a product of his formation at Ajax, whereby the ball-playing centre-back often doubled as a defensive midfielder and, facing other Dutch teams, was expected to intercept a false No.09 like Kluivert, Van Persie, Bergkamp etc.
I know what you mean about the tactic re:Drogba, Roberticus, but I’m not sure it’s the case here. In the first leg for example, him and Song were holding a good defensive line, and then Vermaelen suddenly charged towards Messi in a deep position, whilst the ball was being played over his head for Ibra to run onto.
I’ve done an article on it today, but will wait until after this week’s game to publish it.
Maybe Vermaelen is really a DM at heart? But then who would play CB?
Just saw others posts on this idea – need to hit refresh more often.
Thanks for the great analysis.
I wonder where did Nasry fit in the above Arsenal formation i feel that he was played completely out of position and apart from being fouled in the beginning of the first half i haven’t seen him in the game in both attacking or defensive positions. i feel it would have been much better if EBOUE was in place of Nasri specially when he was under performing after the knock.
concerning Rosiscky he did a great job in the left flank where in the first half he stopped ALVES and made some crucial pass but as the game went on he tired and needed to be replaced.
[...] article from James Wilson. Lobanovsky's scientific approach to football is quite interesting. Barcelona 4-1 Arsenal: Messi produces a stunning performance, but Arsenal gave him the room to do so… And this emphasizes what Wilson what talking about. The most important thing in football is now [...]
I would agree with your suggestion that Arsene Wenger is not a great tactician, it seems to me in games like this, he’s not even a good tactician. Personally I would have started Walcott up front (with Bendtner).
All of the suggestions in the article were valid: Eboué on the left was a good one in particular, although he has looked out of sorts when he has played there before.
I’d also ask if anyone noticed several poor refereeing decisions in favour of Barcelona?
Eboué being booked for removing a Barca player’s arm from holding him back and Denilson’s booking for a great tackle were particularly bad. I’m not saying this cost Arsenal the game but it did not help.
I agree. Not decisive and because it wasn’t about getting ‘big decisions’ wrong, it doesn’t get attention – but it was a really poor performance, I though. Eboue and Denilson’s bookings were ludicrous.
I disagree. I think that Wenger is a great tactician, if he wants to be. Sometimes it feels like he just tells the players: Go out and do your thing. He’d rather win the game playing his style than change his style slightly to match the opponent’s style better. Sometimes it works, most times it doesn’t because it assumes that the opponent doesn’t try to disturb and counter your style.
Wenger not a great tactician?
Depends on what you mean.
In terms of how he sends his teams out, how they are set-up, I think he is quite coherent and thoughtful in this respect. But in terms of corrective surgery, yes, he does appear to be lacking.
Does anyone recall last year’s Champs League semi-final 2nd leg vs United and Wenger’s responses to the enveloping nightmare? It was akin to hammering away at a nail only doing so harder and wondering why it wouldn’t enter; Adebayor was losing his aerial duals to Vidic and Ferdinand and failing to hold the ball up to facilitate Arsenal’s attacking midfielders, thus deflating their passing game. Wenger, instead of changing tack and maximising Arsenal’s natural tendencies by bringing on someone like Vela, keeping the playmakers and trying to stretch United, responded by placing Bendtner alongside Adebayor Arsenal completely lost fluidity as they became more intricated in an aerial dual with the United defence. They weren’t playing to their strenghts.
Without Marquez providing service from the backfield, you would not have these wonderful Messi goals.
Too harsh to say Messi alone was the difference.
I have to disagree with the formation. Diaby wasn’t as high as the diagram shows him to be – he was one the whole level with Denilson. Infact Nasri was much higher and closer to Bendtner. So, it was more of a 4-4-1-1. This was the way we lined up against Chelsea and Porto as well, with Fabregas being the deeper No 10. Many Arsenal fans have been criticizing Wenger over the past months for his decision to convert Fabregas from a midfielder to a deep lying forward.
He certainly wasn’t on the same level as Denilson, he was on the same level as Nasri. Check UEFA’s average positions diagram from the game: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/ucl/2010/2000480_tl.pdf
The diagram in this article was drawn before I saw that, but it certainly backs up that Diaby was playing alongside Nasri, not Denilson.
Arsenal’s shape has certainly been to feature Fabregas on his own high up the pitch in recent weeks in more of a 4-4-1-1, but this simply wasn’t the case last night.
Hmm good spot. Though I believe average positions can be a bit misleading. I remember seeing Diaby sprint from the half line many a time to close down Xavi (whom he was man marking throughout the game) as he was dropping deep. That would influence the actual way Wenger lined them up. I thought we played much more defensively than normal.
Maybe, but even without the ball there were two fairly clear lines of four, with Denilson inbetween, I found. The average position charts certainly shouldn’t be taken as gospel but I think it’s an accurate reflection of last night.
ZM – those Uefa files are fascinating – are they freely available from the website? If anything, it shows Barcelona in a more definitively “4-2-4″ shape than your own diagram. However, given how high the full backs play should we really be thinking about “2-4-4″ to describe the formation? The “back 2″ is not just a Barcelona thing of course: it is pretty standard for full backs to play largely in line with the deep midfielders, shuttling back to fill in on the defensive line and tracking runs in exactly the way deep midfieders do.
I think maybe the average position fails to show the extent to which Keita and Messi (in very different ways) shuttle into deeper positions, with Pedro and Bojan stretching the pitch by maintaining their high positions. It’s also interesting how high a position the left back (Maxwell more than Abidal) takes when Barcelona regain the ball on the right or in the middle – this gives a similar attacking outlet to that provided by Pedro high on the right.
Yeah, just google “UEFA Press Kits”
The point about the full-backs is certainly fair, but I guess people understand that attacking full-backs in a 4 play very attacking, so no need to change it from a 4-man defence, I think. Further forward is a bit more complicated…
Thanks.
Fair enough – I’m not usually one to get too bogged down in numbered formations anyway. Interestingly though, I just read this from Jonathan Wilson (excellent as ever…) who sees Barcelona’s formation as a 2-5-3! http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/06/question-pressing-crucial-modern-game
It’s the Metodo – definately the Metodo
I agree with your assessment but (having skim read) nobody seems to have mentioned that Diaby was playing higher upfield to get in and around Xavi who was controlling the game from deep? Admittedly he failed, because Xavi’s pass-and-move is so good, but I thought it was a deliberate ploy by Wenger to cut out Messi’s supply rather than just swamp him with Diaby & Denilson and leave Xavi time and space.
Few posts above this one mate, ZM was saying the same thing.
I thought that Marquez wasn’t even that bad but anyway.
What I thought most interesting were the subs after Abidal got out. Maxwell came in and played a lot deeper than at any point in the first leg. Any time he went forward, Keita provided excellent cover. Doubleteaming on Arsenal’s right side worked and frustrated Arsenal even further. Yaya’s addition later on and added strength in defense and midfield locked it down. Barca played a 4-5-1 after the 60th minute and Barca just played a complete rather defensive game, maybe to kind of prove to some English pundits that they are not a one-dimensional show pony team. Inter games will be interesting.
I am not an Arsenal fan (although I admire their pure footballing style) I do however follow (Barca from a distance) and often go to see them.
Barca were not exceptional last night, Messi was, he was allowed the space and the freedom to be. Arsenal gave him the space and Barca’s style/formation allows him to be free. Messi employed (primarily) in his deep lying role caused damage and was more (obviously) effective in this game. (It was Messi the decoy who was effective in the first leg, freeing space for his strike partner to run into).
Arsenal and Wenger were naive, the only tactics they employed were deploying Diaby higher up field and trying to utilise the pace of Walcott. What ever happened to Arsenal’s possession game? Arsenal usually play from their keeper to their full backs and then through midfield. Yes they were missing key players and their leader but kicking long from the keeper to a striker who doesn’t retain possession convincingly, isn’t the answer. We all know Xavi is a pass master and his side follow suit, so giving up possession so cheaply is not the answer.
Inter will do their homework and it will bring out the best in Barca, the true Barca will show up like they did in the first half of the first leg. If they do that, they win. If it’s tight then there is Messi (repeat three times in a hailing manner)!!
“Arsenal usually play from their keeper to their full backs and then through midfield. Yes they were missing key players and their leader but kicking long from the keeper to a striker who doesn’t retain possession convincingly, isn’t the answer. We all know Xavi is a pass master and his side follow suit, so giving up possession so cheaply is not the answer.”
I noticed on a good few occasions Almunia choosing to kick long when a full-back or Denilson were showing for the ball just outside the box. I appreciate that the pressing of Barcelona’s front players makes this a slighty risky option, but it’s still the right one, most of the time, especially for Arsenal. Especially against Barcelona. I think displayed a lack of confidence in the team, or maybe just Almunia’s lack of confidence. You can be sure Barca would have backed themselves to pass under pressure in their final third and then exploit the space that is made further up the pitch as a result.
About Vermaelen,it may simply be his habit of playing in the Eredivisie, where there is usually more than one player to cover those positions between the lines, which means that there is no gap (a striker dropping deep is picked by an anchor man). Vermaelen may be reacting to the innate teachings of Ajax,, who still espouse the concept that no player should stick to one position (which means that a player drifting to cover an area will get cover himself from someone else). That will probably be ironed out in time, since he seems to be also a very intelligent player.
One comment: mentioning that this match erased any doubts about Messi being the best is neither fair to Messi nor to the other great players around. Not to the others because it means one great match could cause a decision (what if next weekend Messi plays rubbish and Ronaldo/Kaká destroys Barcelona?, opinions changing?, not mine). Neither is it fair to Messi because he has been doing much more than just this match. Some other, when he doesn’t score, may be much more impressive due to what he did for the team. (by the way, that’s where he shows he’s better than Ronaldinho, since Messi is always useful, whilst Ronaldinho would be useless in his off days).
Yeah I was wondering that too about Vermaelen at Ajax, although I didn’t see enough of him there to comment. It’s an interesting theory.
Re: Messi, it doesn’t say that it proves he is the best player, it just says that it proved his doubters wrong. In England it hasn’t been uncommon for pundits to say that Ronaldo or Rooney are better players. Take this exchange between ex-Arsenal player Paul Merson and ex-Liverpool player Phil Thompson:
====
Jeff Stelling – “Paul, Is Wayne Rooney the best player in the world?”
Paul Merson “For me, its Rooney, Messi and Ronaldo”
Phil Thompson “Why are you mentioning Messi, Rooney’s far above him”.
Paul Merson “But you know with Messi that…”
-Interrupting-
Phil Thompson “He’s not having a great season, he’s been average”
Paul Merson “But you know that when the really big games come, Messi will produce, he always does”
Phil Thompson “No, Rooney’s far above him. He keeps proving it every week”
===
OK, so Thompson’s a clown, but it represents a view that was held by some in England. Football pundits here are so ignorant that unless a player plays well against an English club, they’re made out to be rubbish. Francesco Totti is regarded as crap and overrated, Ibrahimovic was the same until last week, and Messi was doubted before the Champions League Final – and as shown here, was still doubted by some.
Now he’s dismantled an English club in this way, there will be no more “Why are you mentioning Messi?”
OK then, I understood you wrong. In that case, it’s fair to point Sid Lowe’s article on the Guardian today. Same story.
In any case, the sport press in general does not have the brightest minds around (Jonathan Wilson or others are an exception rather than the rule) and columnists are frequently appreciated mainly by how nice their articles sound, whether they are a load of rubbish or not. English press, in that matter, are only more at fault because of a certain ingrained insularity in their thinking. The only others who may not immediately recognize how good Messi is are portuguese journalists (because of Ronaldo) and brazilian ones (because he’s a bloddy argentinian).
That’s fair. Sport press is bad overall but it’s very bad here in Britain at the moment. It’s interesting that two of the most respected writers here are Gabriele Marcotti and Sid Lowe, both of whom cover foreign football. The ones who merely stick to English football get bogged down in the obsession about character and personality.
“…He’s (Messi) having a bad season”
Tommo, he’s on course to pick up the Golden Boot ffs!
I’m convinced that there are legions of British football fans out there who know that they are being ill-served and patronised by such punditry. And neither are they swayed by this perverse and this masochistic British notion that “working class = authentic, crude and noble// self-improvement, education, broadening horizons = conceited, vain and pointless”.
As a Barça supporter, I have to say that I thought Arsene got it right from the start. Yes, Barça had the ball, but it was in the wrong part of the pitch, it was exactly where Arsene wanted us to have it. Close to our goal, where a steal would be eminently dangerous. I loved the way the midfield 4 of the 4-1-4-1 worked, Diaby, Nasri and Denilson creating a very tight triangle to deny passage of the ball through the middle to Messi, who had to go to less “advantageous” positions to get it. Walcott always shifting inside first to cover the lane for Messi/Keita to receive from the center backs or Busquets, and forcing the ball wide to Abidal time after time. Barça wants to attack the position of the false 9, and Arsene didn’t let it happen. It scares me to think about the lessons Jose will have learned.
I have to disagree with the article then, Arsene’s initial set up was superior to what Pep put out on the field. Barça was not prepared to play the match that was on offer. We wanted to slow the game down, that’s fine, but it’s better to take the ball to your oppositions field to do so. Wenger, in my opinion beat Pep from the initial tactical battle. The problem is he was facing a singular genius who lays the best plans to waste.
Perhaps, but you have to account for the fact Barcelona have the ‘genius’. Yes, you can’t guarantee stopping him – not by any means – but you can make life difficult for him. Arsenal didn’t do that, they constantly allowed him to have the ball in space and were rightly punished for it.
That’s true. To be fair to Arsene though, I feel he learned his lesson from the first leg, but maybe just lacked the right personnel to complete the task. I don’t think playing with 2 DMs would’ve helped much because then Barça would’ve been free to keep the ball between the back and Xavi/Busquets, as much as that idea made me uncomfortable. Arsenal had to try to win possession there and mount their attacks quickly. I think that the idea of having one player responsible for Messi is also poor because he 9 times of 10 can beat one player and he can move around the pitch, pulling that defender into bad positions. I think the key for Arsenal in this match up was not conceed in the first leg. From there, any plan was flawed.
Yeah, I don’t think man-marking him as such is an option, but he was clearly going to play quite centrally behind the striker, and so I thought two players in the defensive midfield zone would have been better so one was always within a decent distance of him.
Also, judging by the passing stats, Barcelona kept it well in that area anyway, so Diaby there didn’t help that much.
[...] Barcelona 4-1 Arsenal: Messi produces a stunning performance, but Arsenal gave him the room to do so “If there was any remaining doubt that Lionel Messi is the greatest football player of his generation, they were erased tonight, as Barcelona got the better of Arsenal in the much-hyped battle of the teams playing football ‘the right way’. Arsenal didn’t lose this match tactically, but they didn’t help themselves.” (Zonal Marking) [...]
Great analysis, but you are totally igroring tha fact that referee was second worst person on field. Worst was of course Silvestre.
Denilson got booked because he tackled Messi with tis testicles. Great. And none of Barcelona’s players got booked. Just look at match ManU-Bayern right now. Rafael got second yellow card very easilly. With Barcelona shirt on, he would not have got it. 100% sure.
As for Denilson, getting booked so easilly eats your defensive resources. So at least that should be kept in mind.
This site doesn’t really discuss refereeing decisions – the internet is full of football fans complaining about referees – it looks at the tactics of the game.
The referee’s performance wasn’t particularly crucial anyway, although he did have quite a bad game.
I fully understand this site is concentrating on match tactics. But when there are games where referee simply fails and gives one team clear advantage, it is simply pointless to discuss anything about match tactics.
There is no point to say that referee did not favour Barcelona on last two occasions against Arsenal. And if we take that ManU-Bayern match, well, Rafael got somewhat pointless red card. All tactics discussion is covered there, Red Card to Rafael and there is Nothing Else to discuss on tactical side.
So I suggest that this site leaves this kind of games uncovered and concentrates also on some “smaller” matches where tactics really matter. For example many European League matches gave some excellent material to tactics coverage.
Of course, there is a problem, because not so many people watch this kind of “not so major matches”. Or are not interested in them. But still I hang on my point: If referee takes the game, what’s the matter with tactics? Why not concentrate on matches where tactical side gives huge amount of possibilities for analysis and discussion?
Your site, your rules and your opinion matters most, no questions about that. But I think you got my point.
ZM…you have a standard comment you use whenever someone mentions the ref’s impact on the game?
This is a strange comment because you think one refereeing decision negates anything tactical that went on in the game. Is it not worth commenting on United dropping their older players to play a pressing game? On how isolated Badstuber was against a tricky winger? On how United defended well with ten men? On how they struggled with a lack of attacking options?
Yes it does. Because, all that really matters is result. Nothing else is important.
For example last year Chelsea tactically totally outplayed Barcelona. However, Barcelona went through because referee did not gave them any penalty (there were six totally clear ones). So about tactics? Chelsea was better but they did not proceed because referee favoured Barcelona. Talking about tactics, what is the point to talk about tactics when referee ruines better team’s game?
There are many cases when we can blame referee, BUT there are also many cases when we can say that “better team proceeds or wins” without too many questions. So why not concentrate on those occasions? Instead games where referee is really spot on on negative side. I know it is not easy for referees, but tactics talking is totally pointless if referee fails.
As for that ManU-Bayern game, well, United probably would not have any problems with 11 men, on 10 men game was most probably lost. It was only matter of time when it happens. You really cannot build tactics with “one of our players gets red card” -mentality, except on rare occasions where that is expected.
I am so pleased you highlighted two points.
1) 4141 was not the right formation and why anyone would think it was is beyond me.
I love Wenger as a manager, but I really think he got this one way off.
2) Vermaelen made some shocking errors for a player of his quality.
The most sensible thing to do against these guys would be to upset their passing play.
You would do this by packing the midfield and making no space to play.
You do this in front of goal, keeping the opposition to long shots or crosses.
4-3-2-1
Hopefully Jose will prove me right!
charlie,
If you’re Arsenal, and you know you need at least a 0-1 result to win the match, how can you play a 4-3-2-1 and as you say, defend in front of goal. Not only is defending so deep against Barça tantamount to suicide, we must remember the context of the match. The 2-2 was a disastrous result for Arsenal to face. They know they have to get a goal, so the idea that they would defend in front of their goal seems odd to me. Firstly, because as I said, defending that deep against FCB is almost crazy, and secondly because defending so deep means you’re going to have to travel some 80 yards to create any danger to the oppositions defense.
I do believe that the 4-1-4-1 was the smart tactical choice. Ok, if Wenger leaves Emirates 2-0 ahead, then it is the bad choice. But he didn’t have that. So he went to stop the ball circulating before it could get into the finishing zone (not a good way to say it, but I’m struggling to find english equivalent for spanish phrase), and from there make his counterattack over shorter distances. Worked like a charm for the first goal and could’ve worked a second time if Diaby did not choose the wrong pass.
From the 1-1, the energy was sucked out of Arsenal, which for me is something beyond tactics. But the initial plan from Wenger was working, it really was. He never went there to dominate through possession. He went to Camp Nou to dominate by making Barça keep possession in areas that were most dangerous for them to do so and make his chances from mistakes. Smart plan, didn’t work, but does that make the plan flawed? Or is Messi just that good?
Last night I watched this game again. The second time around watching it I felt like what Wenger did at the end, bringing on Eboue at right back, was what he should have done from the start.
The shape that Arsenal should have used to counter Barcelona’s “plan B” is basically a mirror image of the Italian Zona Mista (without the man marking and sweeper):
————Bendtner——-Walcott–
——————-Nasri————
–Clichy—-Diaby——————-
————–Denilson——-Eboue–
—–Silv—-Verm—-Sagna———-
Also, consider how this might work for Inter, with Maicon at RB, Stankovic at left mid and Eto’o at right wing? And everything old is new again.
In fact, for this reason I’ll be surprised if Guardiola tries this same formation at all against Inter.
That’s a very interesting point actually. But do you think the movement of Barca in the final third and the ability for all their strikers to drop deep might have made the three defenders a little bit redundant?
Yeah, but Vermaelen would have been chasing them into midfield, right?
Seriously though, Barca is so multi-dimensional that you almost can’t scheme against everything they can do to you. But, you try to create 1 vs. 1 battles where you can win them, and get numbers everywhere else. I just think the right side was a place to get those 1 vs. 1 battles, but Sagna wasn’t the best choice to exploit that as an attacking fullback.
It’s funny how certain things escape notice..I like the way you guys have analysed…
What you have pointed out, I did, to a friend, long time back..he wasn’t so sure, but he watched a couple of games and understood what I was saying…
Barca’s strength is that they play from the back..The next best passing team, we can is arsenal, who don’t do it..maybe because of the pace in the BPL is faster than in La liga and more physical…
Frankly in the second game, arsenal would have won, if we had played Eboue and got Walcott on as a Sub..Walcott never tracked back and stopped any sort of pressing at the half way line..He is a winger who prefers playing in the final third…and is lost..or maybe AW should have played him in the center and let him run..he may not have Messi’s skill, but his pace would have created space for Nasri and Diaby..
If RVP had played, we would have seen him start in center and drift flank wards, that would have caused a lot of problems(think Kun Ageuro did it last season in that 4-3 was it? ) ..
The way to Barca is simple..a fast paced striker and another one who keeps drifting(pretty much what Barca attackers do)..this will create a lot of space(if not at the start, after a couple of threatening long balls)..
Real have a good chance, if they play as a team..with Ron and Higuain and a passer like Xabi and Kaka they have the pace and width..it’s left to see how they defend..
We all know that barcelona close down like crazy and thats one of the reasons they are able to maintain so much possession. Does it mean that they play with a high line? When they reverted to this alternative formation, hold a high defensive line?
Any thoughts on Barça’s set-up tonight?
It looked like a loose 4-4-2, with Alves as right-midfield (not right-wing)and Keita on the left (tucking in for Maxwell to overlap). Pedro and Messi up front.
It’s easy to criticise Vermaelen, but people seem to forget that his “errors” are not costly when he’s playing with a suitable partner.
Like most people, I groaned when I saw Silvestre’s name on the teamsheet. He is as mobile as a lamp post, and has the turning circle of a fully laden supertanker, and if Wenger is guilty of one thing, it’s not acquiring another centre half, something that MUST be addressed in the summer.
Gallas can no longer be relied upon to stay fit in the heat of battle, Djourou will need another six months to relearn the game (and may perhaps even convert to a holding midfielder as Wenger has hinted), and Song does too good a job anchoring the midfield to be wasted in defence.
Silvestre? He was a knee jerk cheapo purchase and I’d rather get rid of him and give Kyle Bartley a chance.
Experience counts for jack shit when even an average player can run rings around you.
Посоветуй таким методом сайт реально в траст вогнать? Хочу раскрутить сайт но не знаю как Яндекс постояно меняет алгоритм уже и незнаю как правельно сделать.Вот ссылка на метод раскрутки zero57.ucoz.ru
Хотелосьбы поблагодарить Вас за выложеный мотериал, я с вами полностью согласен.
Привет я вот мучаюсь в догадках вы на своём блоге что нибуть зарабатываете или просто для души у меня например ювелирный магазин магазин я на нём зарабатываю, или вы за деньги размещаете рекламу и баннеры то сколько стоит у вас поместить свой баннер? только без фанатизма.
I don’t think they need to change his position completely, just tell him to stop going on mad dashes up the pitch!
There is a sickening bias in the English TV commentary with Sky by far worse than ITV or the BBC. Nani’s first goal tonight brought all kinds of sycophancy, but it was no better than Seedorf’s finish under more pressure in the first leg against Utd, which raised a couple of ‘nice finish’ comments from Andy Gray and his pals. The cheerleading I can understand, but the belittling of opponents, the blind spot for the gamesmanship of English sides and the eulogising of anything to do with the Premier League drives me up the wall.
But you’re coming from a flawed point of view where you seem to think the idea of the site is to explain why tactics led to a victory.
It’s not, it’s looking to discuss tactics used in games.
Take the Chelsea v Barcelona game. Yes, it was a strange game and influenced by refereeing, but are you genuinely trying to outline a view where nothing else mattered in the game, that no tactics were relevant to the vague pattern of the game, and nothing from that game can ever be considered as interesting about either side’s way of playing?
That’s a nonsensical attitude with no merits whatsoever.
OK, agreed. So you want to concentrate on tactics regardless of result of game or game incidents that affect tactics? If that is your opinion, it explains a lot. And now I know it.
I think I continue reading this site without commenting this issue in the future. Now that it is clear.
No, I just don’t subscribe to the view that if the referee has a bad game, “it is simply pointless to discuss anything about match tactics”.
Take that Chelsea v Barca game, where you say, “For example last year Chelsea tactically totally outplayed Barcelona. However, Barcelona went through because referee did not gave them any penalty (there were six totally clear ones). So about tactics? Chelsea was better but they did not proceed because referee favoured Barcelona. Talking about tactics, what is the point to talk about tactics when referee ruines better team’s game?”
As you say, “Chelsea tactically outplayed Barcelona”. So the site would talk about how and why they tactically outplayed Barcelona. What’s the problem?
Everyone talks about the tactical insight offered by this site and I read this particular article and chuckled all the way.
I’ll record this one as an off day.
Denilson is very good at defensive midfield. Just a couple of weeks you’d realised that. But then you’ve regressed to writing what agrees with conventional (but not true) wisdom.
It would be nice if you actually offered some kind of constructive criticism or some point of any kind – please inform me why it was an off day, or why I “regressed to writing with conventional (but not true) wisdom”.
In fact, please point out where on earth Denilson was criticized. All I said was that Arsenal needed another defensive midfielder in their squad, which is plainly the case.
Indeed Flamini was offered a new contract, but it’s interesting how often players leave Arsenal on a free when they could still do a job for the club. Robert Pires, Sylvain Wiltord, Sol Campbell, Edu, Matthieu Flamini… Besides, it was foolish to sell Diarra when Flamini was not committed long-term. A loan would have worked well. Presumably Wenger does see the need for a defensive midfielder, but (a) why he would go for a player as mediocre as Melo and (b) why he gave up when not getting his first-choice are both pertinent questions.