Tottenham 2-1 Arsenal: Spurs defend deep, narrow – and brilliantly
Tottenham record their first league win over Arsenal for a decade, and simultaneously rule Arsenal out of the title race. Arsene Wenger’s side have been written off on at least two previous occasions, but this, surely, is the end of the road.
No major surprises in the starting line-ups – with injuries throughout the side, Wenger merely chose what he had. As against Barcelona, the only choice was between Emmanuel Eboue and Theo Walcott, and the Ivorian got the nod. Denilson played in space behind Abou Diaby and Samir Nasri in a 4-1-4-1 shape.
Tottenham’s formation was their standard 4-4-2, with debutant Danny Rose on the right. Luka Modric sat very deep, almost alongside Tom Huddlestone, although the Croatian’s tendency to go forward occasionally left space for Nasri to exploit.
North London derbies always start at a frantic pace, and Tottenham began by pressing aggressively, putting pressure upon Thomas Vermaelen (who was replaced by Mikael Silvestre) and Sol Campbell. The approach changed when Tottenham went ahead through Rose’s wonderstrike – they instead sat deep, letting Arsenal’s defenders have the ball, and played with two solid banks of four in front of their goalkeeper.
Spurs defended brilliantly throughout – their back four played extremely narrow, across the width of the penalty area, and let Arsenal have the ball in wide areas, confident their centre-backs would win the ball in the air against Nicklas Bendtner. The players they used were crucial – Younes Kaboul was effectively a centre-back playing at right-back, and was a towering presence in the penalty area, whilst Benoit Assou-Ekotto on the left is slightly less solid, but had the presence of Gareth Bale, comfortable at left-back, to double up against Arsenal’s right-winger, and help out in the air.
Arsenal struggle to break down sides who sit deep and play with two narrow banks of four - it was the same pattern against Aston Villa back in December, until Cesc Fabregas came on and changed the game with his direct play. Although Arsenal now have a more traditional target man in Nicklas Bendtner, it’s still not in Arsenal’s game to cross the ball constantly – although their play very wide, their biggest threats often come through the centre, or when the wingers cut in.
Arsenal’s passing style is often likened to Barcelona’s, but there are notable differences between the two. The most obvious one last night was how unwilling Arsenal were to play the ball to their centre-backs once they got into advanced positions. With Barcelona, the ball will often go to Henry, Pedro or Messi in wide positions, and if they don’t see a good pass on, they’ll play it backwards and start again. Not only does this keep possession, it also draws the opposition defence up the pitch, leaving space to exploit in behind, or between the lines.
Arsenal never looked to do this, instead playing short, quick passes in advanced areas, yet rarely steered the ball into goalscoring positions, as passes were intercepted. Arsenal’s over-reliance on short, neat passing also seems to have compromised their ability to play on the counter-attack – too many moves were slowed by Nasri and Rosicky and lost momentum, allowing the Tottenham defence back into position.
Arsenal lacked penetration, lack directness – and this was shown up blatantly when Robin van Persie stepped onto the pitch. He immediately produced a brilliant turn in the centre of the pitch that sent him towards goal – and quickly got shots in to test Gomes. Could a more frustrating night for Arsenal fans be possible? In one game they managed to lose to their biggest rivals, lose sight of the the Premiership title, and then van Persie illustrated ‘what might have been’ had he not been injured for the majority of the season. The good news for football as a whole is that he should be in good condition for the World Cup, as he is one of the best strikers in the world.
Arsenal didn’t have a single shot on target until Robin van Persie’s introduction on 68 minutes. He alone had three in the remainder of the game.
Arsenal’s problem was demonstrated most notably by a misplaced van Persie pass. He picked the ball up in the centre of the pitch, then shifted a through ball behind the defence for Rosicky to run onto. Rosicky, however, was not the same wavelength, and was instead making a run towards the ball for a short pass. The ball trickled out for a goal kick. It may only have been one misplaced pass, but it summed up the difference between van Persie and the rest of the Arsenal side – van Persie is a direct player who looks towards goal instinctively, whereas Rosicky almost seems to have become brainwashed into a regime where short passes in front of the defence all day is the best ideology.
For all of Arsenal’s failings, the game was equally won by Tottenham’s brilliant defending. Michael Dawson was unbeaten in tackles and aerial challenges all game, and Spurs defended solidly as a unit rather than as individuals, communicating well, pressing in numbers when the ball got into their third, and covering for each other when one player – generally Modric or Bale – went up the pitch.
In truth, their passing was poor and they rarely threatened Arsenal – it took a wonderstrike and a defensive lapse for them to score, but once they went ahead, their defending was simply faultless. Only Manchester United had scored two goals against Spurs at White Hart Lane this season, and that same game was the only occasion Tottenham have lost having gone 1-0 up. The focus on Arsenal here should not take away anything from the brilliant way Harry Redknapp set up his side, but essentially there’s not a great deal to say about Spurs – they did the basics well, and when it comes to defending, that’s often the key to a positive result. Redknapp had to shoulder the blame when Spurs lost the reverse fixture 0-3 in November, but he deserves immense credit here.
Tottenham’s defensive brilliance was epitomized by Michael Dawson. This Chalkboard shows his flawless tackling record, and how often he was in the right place to clear the ball.
Tottenham 2-1 Arsenal: Spurs defend deep, narrow – and brilliantly
The lack of vision and chemistry between the attacking midfielders showed as well. Several times Diaby, Eboue, Rosicky and Nasri made good runs behind the defence, but the player on the ball did not notice. After a while, players gave up making runs behind the defence, and coupled with Bendtner’s forays out of the box, led to the lack of chances created.
There seemed to be a general lack of movement in the central areas in the final third too, until rvp came on. Either Bendtner dropping to exchange passes, or not being too active, and the supporting midfielders not penetrating the space.
Nasri tried his best, with 89 passes, i think the most, huddlestone and modric only got 64 between them, but as mentioned Cesc’s absence was massive here! Sob.
Great site btw. loving it
Until Van Persie came on, it was Arsenal at their most frustrating they just never looked like scoring and even as a neutral I was screaming ’shoot’ etc.
As a Fulham fan it was nice to see Glen Hoddle say after the game ‘They defended like Fulham’.
Question: What would have happened if Tottenham hadn’t scored that wondergoal? (maybe a pointless q, but it would have been interesting to see)
Rosicky used to be, and still sort of is, a direct player. When he is in form, he is moving forward almost all the time. To bad we haven’t seen that kind of form in a long long time…
The game probably sums up Arsenal’s season:
1. Defensively – a disaster.
2. Extreme lack of movement in the box. The whole team sucks at crossing and meeting crosses. Especially when Fabregas, RvP and Arshavin is missing.
3. Injuries cost Arsenal ALOT. AALOOT.
Don’t quite understand why when Arsenal have the ball on the flanks, no one seems want to get into the box for the cross.
Bendtner has a good cross!
Isn’t it time that Arsenal took a long hard look at their medical staff / their physical training staff?
There surely has to be something wrong there…
An straightforward game to analyse. Not enough creativity to break down a tight defence. Arsenal needed either Cesc or VP right from the start. Even with the aerial presence of niklas “the bad touch” bendtner, crosses from either wing went stray. Nobody’s keen to attack them. Same old defensive lapses to concede cheap goals, same old lack of threat against compact defence. I wondered after the game what would have been had Van Persie played at Camp Nou, also liked the way Sol played, haven’t seen him so fired up in a long time.
I thought Campbell was the best player on the pitch, he was fantastic.
I second that. Did you see that pace? That is the kind of pace that has it’s source in shear determination.
I think best player on the pitch is a toss up between Campbell and Gomes. Campbell was a blast from the past in the way he played, and Gomes just did brilliantly several times in succession when called upon.
am an arsenal fan. i agree. but lack of desire and willingness to pass the ball,how many times did walcott make runs and diaby was just wallowing.
initially till mid-way this season i was impressed with diaby’s form and more importantly the willingness to drive forward with his mazy and leggy runs but for a couple of weeks he seems disinterested and it worries more since he should be fighting for a world cup berth with his perfomances for his club.
unless denilson can get physically stronger or compensate with either an increase in pace or skill then i’d let him be a fringe player for one more season because as neat and tiddy as he is ,he often seems like he lacks desire for a fight
….in short: OUR MIDFIELD AND ATTACK and goal keeper HAVE LACKED CONSISTENCY…i dont include the defence because apart from silvestre i think they’ve all been brilliant and most goals we’ve conceded this term have come from a lack of support from midfield or the continuous errors
Diaby has become a great player this season, but he lacks two things: Passing ability/vision to be an effective central midfielder/playmaker. I think he should get a better shot, he almost never shoots from distance and he has skills to get into positions to take a shot with his Diaby Turns™.
Arsenal lack the dribblers to break down solid defenses(or the players they have are unwilling to do this). The Tottenham defenders didn’t have to collapse on any one player because instead of taking on the man, Arsenal players chose the short pass.
The bigger problem is the defending. They play a high line but don’t communicate well enough to play the offside trap. The defending on Tottenham’s second goal was unbelievably poor. Arsenal have defended like that all season and have been punished by the good teams.
When most sides play 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 they play with wingers who are instructed to and wants to take in every man in sight. Man Utd – Aston Villa – Tottenham – Man City…
To say that Arsenal’s wingers doesn’t do this is an understatement. When Sagna plays, wide presence on the right is almost always provided by him, and I don’t see him take on every player he sees. The same goes for Clichy. None of the full-backs have very good crosses either.
The wingers on the other hand tries to have some sort of party with the central players in the middle. Some games Arsenal kind of doesn’t play wingers, they play two second strikers who look to always cut in, invovled in the middle, have a party with the central players and make space for Sagna and Clichy. Especially wide Nasri, Rosicky, Eboue, Arshavin seems to do this.
What you didn’t mention is the fact that Tottenham had a very good set up for counter attacks. Every time Arsenal had the ball for longer periods of time, Sagna and Clichy would push high up the pitch, often being found in Spurs’s box and when Arsenal lost the ball that left huge spaces in which Pavliuchenko looked to get into and split the center-backs.
In fact Tottenham defended so well that until Van Persie came on, Arsenal never had a glimpse of the goal and in fairness Tottenham had a few great chances after exposing Arsenal’s full backs. On one occasion Pavliuchenko should have made it 3:0 after a rare burst forward by Assou-Ekotto . In the rare occasions Spurs had the ball, Rosicky and Eboue did nothing to protect the full-backs.
Arsenal, in my view ,just refuse to adapt. They keep playing the same predictable way. Nasri was playing as a second striker, trying to run at the defenders, but he couldn’t find space between the midfelders and the defenders, because there was none. Eboue and Rosicky kept drifting around switching flanks but they had no idea how to get through the defense. Dribbling past 3-4 players was the only time either of the mentioned 3 looked dangerous, and that simply won’t work at the top level.
Bendtner was left isolated between Tottenham’s centre-backs and in order to get the ball he drifted out wide, where he was competing for space with his teammates…
On this form – and with the lack of quality alternatives in central defence – shouldn’t Dawson be called up for England, at least for the initial preliminary squad?
I agree, his passing is simple and effective (apart from the one a game diagonal). His positional sense and reading of the game have improved tremendously.
Firstly I’d just like to say what a fantastic site you have created, congratulations it’s been a joy to discover.
I am a very proud Arsenal fan, I think what we have achieved despite a crippling injury list, a young squad and stronger competition than I can remember has been fantastic. Frustrated Gooners should just take a look at Liverpool, tipped as title winners at the start of the season, and remember that Champions League football is not a right, it has to be earned, and we’ve earned it yet again for next year despite all the setbacks we’ve had.
Looking ahead to next season, I think reverting back to a 4-4-2 is a must. This might sound controversial as the 4-3-3 has been an interesting experiment and, to a certain extent, a successful one, but I believe the following reasons provide a good case for why it should be used as Plan B:
1)Bendtner’s progress this season has been really pleasing, he’s established himself as a key player, but he’s got so much more to offer playing alongside another central striker.
2)The same goes for Van Persie. Playing just in behind Bendtner, he has the freedom to either make runs in behind the opposition defence, hold the ball up, or come deep and turn into space, where he can either look to shoot or play incisive through balls out wide, or into Bendtner’s path. Last night, the fact that Van Persie came deep and played the pass into Walcott meant that Bendtner could get right into the box and get on the end of the cross. Bendtner and Van Persie are completely interchangeable in this way, and have everything you could want from a front two.
3)If, and it seems a big if at the moment, Eduardo can return to full strength for next season, he is lost in a 4-3-3. He needs to play alongside Bendtner, as he did so effectively away at Everton a couple of seasons back. He needs a physical presence alongside him so he can make the most of his predatory instincts in the box. He’ll have the chance to do so when rvp gets his inevitable 3/4/5 month injury (I somehow feel saying that might reduce the chances of it actually happening again)
4)Xavi controls the game from deep for Barcelona, and is capable of dissecting the opposition defence with his range of passing. I think Fabregas needs to do the same for Arsenal. Playing him deeper in a two man central midfield will obviously give him greater defensive responsibility, and prevent him from getting in the box as often, but I feel the controlling, creative aspects of his game, which are his main strengths, are limited by playing him further forward.
5)While Song has been outstanding this season, he is not, and never will be, the midfield destroyer which I feel is necessary to play the anchor man role. Albeit from a much deeper position, he is interested in going forward not back. The same goes for Denilson, and Diaby. For the balance in midfield, one of these three should play alongside Cesc and share the defensive/offensive responsibilities, in the same way as Busquets and Xavi do for Barca when they play in a central midfield pairing. In the vast majority of our matches we dominate possession and don’t need a midfielder just to sit and defend, never mind someone who doesn’t want that role/isn’t suited to it.
6)The 4-3-3 doesn’t suit our full-backs, neither defensively nor offensively. At the back, they get no help from the wide men in front of them, often (particularly down our left) leaving them exposed and unable to prevent crosses coming in. We struggle to defend these crosses, especially with a goalkeeper who’s excellent shot stopping/rushing out fail to hide the fact that he is completely lost when a cross comes over. Playing wide midfielders in a 4, rather than wingers in a 3, might remind them, especially Arshavin, that we need to defend as well as attack as a team. Going forward, the full-backs’ threat is nullified as they fail to get beyond our wide men so often. Let Rosicky/Arshavin/Nasri/Diaby come in from wide positions and encourage the full-backs to provide the width.
The 4-3-3 obviously has its benefits, and shouldn’t be scrapped altogether, I just feel that Bendtner can occupy defenders giving our two world-class players, Fabregas and Van Persie, the chance to really express their ability. Also, surely it’s about time Wenger had a Plan B, like Guardiola’s Barcelona. We are very predictable; the option of changing formations according to the opposition, as well as during games (as was shown last night) would be invaluable.
Apologies for the length of this post, I got a bit carried away. What do you think about returning to 4-4-2?
I like what you have pointed out..Maybe we can go with a diamond in midfield, given how much short passing we do..and anyway crossing has very little use..Song can play the bottom of the diamond..Fab and Nasri MF and Arsh at the top..Persie and Bendtner can be on top…This will allow a lot of interchange between, Arsh,fab,Nasri and Persie..
The diamond doesn’t give you any natural width. Teams need only to put players in the center to completely lock you out of the game and make it impossible to play through them and hit on the counter the second you draw your full-backs forward for overlaps.
Chelsea did that with Scollari and it worked for a few games until they were found out.
But with us the difference is that Arsh and Persie can drift to the wings, that will cause confusion as to who is going to pick on who..and unlike chelsea we keep the ball longer…anyway we get picked on the counter as the full backs are up most of the time..
A diamond with Song, Nasri, Cesc and Arshavin is interesting, but I doubt if Cesc and Nasri would make good ‘carilleros’. And Cesc and Arshavin drift inwards naturally than outwards and are probably more adept at finding incisive passes or attempting shots on goals than crossing.
It would be better to figure out a formation that can maximize the players’ effectiveness than pick an interesting formation and expect players to slot in seamlessly. For instance, using RVP/Arshavin and Walcott along with Bendtner for the front three with Walcott wide out right and RVP/Arshavin playing off Bendtner. Clearly, that’s the role Arshavin prefers, and one that RVP can use to drift deep or wide.
Also agree with BP below that the 4-4-2 is more predictable, and the reason for moving to a 4-3-3 was to maximize passing options by creating more triangles. None of the top-flight teams use 4-4-2 as a standard option including ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool and Barca. It might be ok as a backup for when we don’t have the personnel for in midfield.
I think the 4-4-2 has had it’s time. On the basis of last night’s game 4-4-2 might look a good option but that’s only because Spurs defended so deep and allowed Arsenal time on the ball. Best example of that would be Diaby holding the ball in the center of the park casually knocking it about without having any idea what to do with it.
In a game where the opposition is trying to outplay Arsenal, they only need to set a Defensive Midfielder to sever the link between Arsenal’s attack and defense. And on the attack that side will have 3 people in midfield playing against Arsenal’s 2. The second the wide midfielders come to help, they’ll expose the wide areas, and because the fictional side playing(using a 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3) vs Arsenal will have a wide forward pinning back the fullback, that will leave space for the opponents.
Arsenal’s wingers aren’t suited to a 4-4-2. Diaby’s worst games came from playing as a wide midfielder 2 years ago and people were screaming for him to move in the center.
4-4-2 is not bad for a second option when teams defend deep like Tottenham did today. But for a so-called plan A, it won’t work.
Interesting points, is it not the case though that 90% of the teams we come up against throughout the season have defended deep and allowed Arsenal time on the ball? Our problem is that we haven’t done enough damage with this possession, and a 4-4-2 with wide players coming inside and two strikers through the middle would make us more dangerous/give us more options in possession.
I completely disagree that Arsenal’s wide player are not suited to a 4-4-2. Rosicky, Nasri and Eboue are most certainly not wingers, and while Walcott is more suited to a 4-3-3, he is not technically good enough to start games. As for Diaby, his performances are so inconsistent that he’s had some games in central midfield this season that could qualify as his worst. In the Champions League away at Liverpool and Milan he had superb games coming in from left midfield, in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 formation.
This is why I think plan A should be 4-4-2, and a plan B of 4-3-3 could perhaps be used on the rare occasions “In a game where the opposition is trying to outplay Arsenal”.
It is no coincidence that Arsenal’s best Champions League run happened while playing 4-5-1.
Options in possession come from having more midfielders. The problem Arsenal has, as you say, is not doing enough damage with it. But think back to the start of the season when Arsenal had Van Persie. They were devastating. I remember some people tipping them to score 100 goals. That system was very fluid and Arsenal were breaking down “park the buss” defenses with ease. A much better option than the 4-4-2 they played before that and struggled with.
What went wrong was Arsenal started playing more a 4-4-1-1 after Van Persie’s injury, moving Fabregas further up the pitch, in an almost second striker role. That gave Fabregas goals but he wasn’t able to influence games from deep in midfield and they didn’t have another player who could. As was pointed out in the article Arsenal don’t have enough “direct” players. They refuse to adapt and negate their weaknesses so it’s only natural it looks like the formation is not working.
Completely agree about moving Fabregas further forward, overall he is more effective coming from deep. But don’t you reckon he’d be even more effective with Van Persie, dropping off, AND Bendtner ahead of him in central positions?
The superior technical ability of Fabregas and Song, together with whoever out of Diaby/Nasri/Eboue/Rosicky plays left/right midfield, means that we would dominate possession against 9 out of 10 teams, even those who field 3 in central midfield.
I don’t think the 4-3-3 formation hasn’t been working, but a 4-4-2 would encourage and even necessitate a more direct approach.
You’re not going to encourage more direct football by having an extra midfielder on the pitch who doesn’t like to get ahead of the ball. Play two strikers, and at least we’d have someone going in behind (mostly Bendtner) if the other one (Van Persie) drops deep.
I do fancy Bendtner and van Persie as a strike partnership, or likely Chamakh in place of Bendtner. A 4-4-2 would be risky as the wide players don’t defend that much. However, with better attacking full backs in the mould of Barcelona, a 4-4-2 diamond featuring Fabregas, Nasri, Diaby and Song could work (especially since Arshavin might be leaving). Van Persie can drop back to make it a 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 as well.
442 would leave Arsenal even more exposed to the counter attack. I think its a good plan B if teams are defending deep. None of the Champions League quarterfinalists used 442 because at the top level you will get destroyed.
It doesnt matter what formation Arsenal play if they cant commit to basic defending. Good teams will always beat them.
433 did bring the best out of Van Persie and Fabregas before they got injured so I think Wenger was vindicated there.
I fail to see how we could be more exposed on the counter this season than we have been. In principle, I think a 4-3-3 should make us less perceptible to counter attacks, but we haven’t got the players. Song is no anchor man, neither is Denilson.
My point is that the best way to bring the best out of the whole squad, and not just one or two individual players, would be to go back to 4-4-2 in most matches. I guess Van Persie and Fabregas were outstanding in the 4-3-3 because they were outstanding players at the top of their game, but that doesn’t show they couldn’t be better in another system.
Absolutely agree about the shoddy defending, but a lot of this I think is due to a lack of protection for the full-backs, which would be improved by the wide players remembering to defend again, something they seem to have forgotten in this 4-3-3.
Don’t recollect the French teams’ formations, but Bayern did use a 4-4-2 against ManU in both legs. That is pretty much top-level opposition, and they were able to contain ManU’s formation over both legs.
Formations are a basic framework for the players and can only affect the outcome so much. The rest is up to the players’ implementation of the formation to effectively counter the opposition.
I agree strongly with the point about the full-backs. Clichy said recently that he’s been struggling as it’s hard for him to overlap in a 4-3-3.
There certainly is need for a ‘plan B’ at Arsenal at that could well be a 4-4-2, I think, for next season. Or 4-4-1-1 with van Persie behind a central striker. I can see that working at home, but away I think Arsenal need numbers in midfield and the 4-3-3 works quite well, generally.
But I’d be wary of changing the system too much. If van Persie was fit, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation.
As for Eduardo, I think he needs to be loaned out for a season. Arsene Wenger has never, as far as I can remember, loaned out an established player (maybe Senderos a slight exception) but Eduardo needs playing time and confidence, and I don’t think he’ll regain that at Arsenal by spending him time on the bench. It would be a risk to lose him for a season, but I think letting him spend a season at say, a mid-table Spanish side or a top Portuguese side – somewhere where the football is very technical – might do wonders for him.
Good shout about Eduardo, it’s been sad watching him come on a shadow of his former self. I guess if Chamakh does come in we might have enough central strikers without him.
The main reason I brought up the 4-4-2 is that because of RVP’s injury, we now have a Bendtner who has proved himself through the middle, and is not going to want to switch to the right wing. We need his height and presence in the team, so our best team has them both playing centrally.
It’s an over-simplification, but I think it’s not about which system you pick, it’s about which system suits the players you’ve got. Going forward, Fabregas, Van Persie and Bendtner are our key men, and they all need to play centrally, so for me 4-4-2 or indeed 4-4-1-1 are the best options.
A signing of Chamakh or another striker will let us have three choices as the most advanced forward: Bendtner, van Persie and Chamakh.
Behind him that player we have lots of choices, primarily Van Persie but Arshavin, Fabregas, Nasri, Rosicky and all the other “Nr 10’s” that Wenger has buyed will be able to play there. Wenger does indeed love those Nr 10
I think this surplus of second strikers/attacking midfielders/attacking wide players is Arsenal’s downfall.
Witness against Barcelona how hard the Blaugrana worked to win the ball back. Remember Pedro sprinting back down his right flank to dispossess a player after Alves made a challenge.
The pressing is ingrained in the Barca side, and the players are willing to run themselves into the ground. Ever wonder why Henry doesn’t get a sniff these days? Arsenal have too many luxury players. They need to learn to press as a team when the ball is lost and to track back.
Witness Abidal getting in behind to receive Messi’s throughball on Barca’s second goal. Where was the help from midfield and wide players?
This is turning into a rant, but when I think of Bendtner, Eduardo, Van Persie, Arshavin, Rosicky, Walcott, Nasri, Eboue, Denilson, how many of them can be on the field at the same time in the current motif?
When we watch Barca play, they have many, many consecutive touches: pass, pass, control, pass, pass, etc… 30 consecutive touches, and if they lose the ball, the opposition is lucky is smothered and lucky to consolidate possession by going through the goalkeeper, let alone have the vision to launch an effective couterattack. Barca-style pressing and tracking back is essential for a team who want to play beautiful football to feet, dominate possession, and get many players into attacking positions.
BTW ZM, great point on the extent to which Barca rely on their center backs when it’s not on, and the freedom those center backs show to initiate a penetrating move when they’re left as “the free man.”
What Would Pep Do?
A 4-3-1-2 may do as well, and can change shape to 4-4-2 easily.
No formation will help Arsenal if they can’t get that defense sorted out. Either they need better zonal defense coaching or they need to commit to a sweeper system instead of the pseudo-sweeper they have in Gallas.
Steve,
you make many good points.
If I could just add, or modify the following:
3) Eduardo does indeed seem more suited to a front two; a substantial part of his game is about associating with another striker in proximity. But since Arsenal don’t really consider him a first-choice attacker, there’s hardly any need to mitigate by building a system around such a player, is there?
5) 4-3-3 vs 4-4-2: I don’t think Arshavin can, nor should be expected to, cut it as a wide-midfielder in a four man midfield. In the same way that you would never try Messi there because it would knacker him. There is an insane amount of work involved in this position in a midfield four; fall-back to assist your full-back, tuck in to aid your central midfielders. Wenger tried him there very briefly during his first few games and he voiced his discomfort at having to track all the way back to his own full-back; in Zenit he had never been expected to do this because, regardless of whatever the formation would be, his defensive duties occurred higher up the pitch. He is more an inside (quase-outside)-forward than an advanced midfielder, whose game is more about dribbling. Likewise, you just know that Walcott would be murdered in any midfield role.
Nasri and Rosicky can function as wide-midfielders because under Wenger’s philosophy, the players who occupied these positions tended to be playmakers and less box-to-box runners. It was a given that they should move inside during early build-up stages to lend more fluidity to the midfield.
I actually agree with whoever it was who posted that had Van Persie been fit we wouldn’t even be having this debate. Once RVP, Bendtner and Arshavin (or Walcott) are all fit, the three-man attack perfectly suits their varying characteristics. I don’t think there’s any need, medium-term, to jettison this approach. The problems with Arsenal’s 4-3-3 being inconsistently effective this season have been, most obviously, conditioned by the injury crisis. But another consideration is that the adoption of this system hailed a new approach, and Wenger said this much back in September: Arsenal were going to be pressing higher up the pitch and trying to play more compact. This was in contrast to their defensive measure under 4-4-2 (4-2-2-2) from earlier in the decade when Arsenal would fall back into their own half, invite teams onto them and then devastate them on the counter-attack; a formidable weapon which worked for them in those moments when they weren’t in possession of the ball.
Now, given the injuries, I don’t see why Wenger couldn’t return to this approach for the title run-in, given their availability of players. Arsenal would be less stretched, with less pressing duties and could stay more compact in the midfield even when in possession; the play would be less expansive but none the more aesthetically pleasing.
But maybe Wenger is looking long-term at this 4-3-3, so doesn’t want to change tack now.
Hi Roberticus,
Great points about Wenger’s reasons for changing the system, and I agree it’s definitely a long term plan, as the youth team have also played it this season, and Wenger is of course an incredibly stubborn individual. While I think it’s a great option to have, I still think 4-4-2 would suit our squad better as it currently stands.
Undoubtedly both Arshavin and Walcott would be unable to start at left/right midfield in a 4-4-2, and would be better suited to a 4-3-3.
However, Walcott is not technically good enough to start matches against most opposition, his control/body strength are lacking when he’s put under pressure and space is at a premium. As for Arshavin, he’s dissappointed me the most out of all our players this season, looking completely disinterested/unfit on many occasions. I think he was signed because we were seriously worried about failing to qualify for the Champions league, and needed someone of his ability to make an impact. It worked, but despite his obvious talent, I think he’s become a liability. If we do hang on to him, I really hope he proves me wrong next season.
I see both these players coming on as substitutes in a 4-2-4 when we’re chasing games, or perhaps as a positive counter attacking option when we’re in front and the opposition is forced to step up. Against the better teams, Rosicky/Diaby/Nasri/Eboue are all better options to start games from wide positions, and they’re all more comfortable in a midfield four, as opposed to a front three.
As for 4-3-3 suiting Bendtner and Van Persie, I’m not so sure. Bendtner can certainly do a job on the right, and has an obvious aerial advantage over most left-backs, but having done really well through the middle I think his game will go downhill by shifting him back out to the right. While Van Persie is certainly capable of playing the deep lone striker role very well, I think the physical presence of Bendtner alongside him would afford him greater freedom, and give him more options on the ball.
We lack midfielders who want to get in behind the lone front man when he comes deep, and that’s why we’re always passing sideways. It’s why, when Sagna and Clichy get the ball in advanced positions, they’re lucky to have one man in the box to aim for, so they have to go back, start again, and momentum is lost – or they put in a very hopeful cross which almost always amounts to nothing. Their crossing is made to look poor because they know it’s going to have to be an inch perfect ball in to create a chance.
While 4-3-3 does make for some very aesthetically pleasing football at times when RvP and Fabregas are both fit, I don’t think it’s effective enough. It prevents us from playing a more direct, incisive game, and this ultimately brings a huge sense of frustration/fear into our game which inhibits, rather than frees, the brilliant creative players we have.
Steve:
Van Persie had been playing for Bert Van Marwijk’s Holland often as outside-right in a front three, where he would constantly switch with Kuyt between the flank and the central role. I think he is one of the most versatile forwards in the world today; and by ‘versatile’ I don’t mean simply ‘doing a job’, but that he is equally effective across many positions and in different formations: false centre-forward, second-striker (in a front two), outside-left, outside-right, even as a No.10 in Holland’s 4-2-3-1 under Van Basten.
Bendtner, for all his faults, has improved since returning to the centre from the outside-right berth this year. So it would be interesting to see him and RVP swap between the No.9 and right-sided role (with Arshavin or whoever at outside-left) in a 4-3-3 next year. But yes, for the title run-in, maybe they should go back to a 4-4-2. In this case you could use any combination from Bendtner, Van Persie, Arshavin, Eduardo and Walcott, all producing a different mix.
Steve – I agree with your points on Bendtner+RVP in the box, and the absence of targets for crosses. I’ll repeat what I posted above as a reply to another comment of yours – maybe we could adopt a lopsided front 3 with Bendtner and RVP playing close in the box with Walcott out wide in the right. That way, more targets to aim for in the box (especially if Diaby can make some late runs in), and a more direct threat up front. The front 2 could be rotated among Bendtner, RVP, Arshavin and Eduardo.
As for Roberticus’s comment, Wenger seems loath to change formations for some reason. It would be interesting if he did change to display a willingness to adapt to the current situation.
On the basis of Arsenal’s injury woes, lack of long range passing and the Spuds game, 4-4-2 is an option which I have also advocated in my response post to an Arsenal mania article. The trick lies in changing your formation, given the variables faced with, plus it makes you all the more unpredictable and dangerous. Interchanging between 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 depending upon whether you have the ball can also be considered.
Arsenal definitely need to add a few aspects to the game:
i) long range shots, even if not successfull intially can be of help (recall Denilson’s effort against Everton, TV5 against Blackburn, if I am correct). Please remember some free kicks are also long range.
ii)if u can’t get forward with your possession, backpass and start all over again, think Barca. This way you draw the opposition out.
iii) daigonal crosses, don’t see much in Arsenal’s play.
Certainly the above would not be anti football, would it?
We played badly…And yes no one was willing to shoot..and diaby and denilson were almost walking…And I thought there was a lack of leadership, until Persie came on..Sol played well and tried doing it, but then no one seemed to be listening to him..Nasri was left out of the game for a particular period because Diaby was playing right with Walcott(whom they wanted to try and find more often I guess), then Nasri pushed to the right a bit..
When Persie came on, he came deep and took the ball, whereas with Walcott and Bendtner we seemed to have two players who would like the ball only in the final third(Walcott pays like a wing-striker- taking the ball only in the final third..for his pace he can come deep and drive)..
The pace of the game, when Arsenal had possession was damn slow..don’t think Arshavin or Cesc would have let that happen..
Barca are good, because of what you wanted out..I have seen Pique pick some really good passes-they have creativity right from the back..And the likes of Pedro, Messi can dribble and they have pace and they don’t get stuck..and everyone defends(Walcott is a major culprit there as well, he doesn’t run back with the full backs enough)…
Add to that a bad keeper, why punch when you can catch? You are in serious trouble..AW better spend some money, like Chelsea and United will and maybe Liverpool as well..or we might end up outside the top four(given that Persie and Fab again face injuries at some point)
I was very dissapointed that spurs played so negatively at home. Defending so narrow and deep, never having possesion. It worked, though. However, I feel that it worked because arsenal were so slow in build up and possesion with no drive. When Van Persie came on, he was more direct and dangerous, but the rest of were still playing same old slow-me-to-death-ball. In the end, I feel that this was a game Arsenal lost, rather than Spurs won.
This game shows that teams now know how to beat Arsenal, and beat them well. Sit back, play narrow, put pressure on Fabregas or their most attacking central midfielder and hit them on the break. (Although Arsenal fans may see this as anti-football because no one should be allowed to tackle Fabregas.) It took until the 68th minute for Wenger to make changes last night, at 2 nil down it was all too late. This stubbornness and arrogance will not win trophies.
First off, I really enjoy the site.
As for last night’s match I can’t really find much to disagree with aside from the point about Arsenal never moving the ball back to the centre halfs when they ran out of space and options up field. I remember them doing that in the first half however in the second, when they were chasing the game and trying to force something it rarely seemed to happen.
Spurs defended wonderfully last night. While watching the game what came to mind most was that how they defended reminded me of Chelsea when they won 3-0 at The Grove earlier in the season, admitedly Chelsea didn’t play the 2 banks of 4 but Spurs’ narrowness and aerial prowess at the back reminded me of Ivanovic, Terry & Carvalho that day and Cole, while not getting the protection ahead of him that Bale provided last night doesn’t really need it the way that Assou-Ekotto does. With the absence of Van Persie for the last number of months conceding space and only really closing down once Arsenal get to within 30-25 yards, as you said often with 4 and 4, can work very well agaisnt them and RVP’s cameo last night went to show that in the system that Arsenal play he’s the right type of player for the centre forward role against teams set up that way, not just because he’s simply a better player than Eduaro or Bendtner but because he’s got a good touch, quick feet and a quick brain for making space when little exists either to get the shot away himself or to act as an attacking fulcrum to bring others in. Often it’s said of Arsenal that if plan A doesn’t work then try plan A and without RVP in the side I think we’ve become more one dimensional than that due to the creative spark that he provides.
FROM THE ARTICLE
“whereas Rosicky almost seems to have become brainwashed into a regime where short passes in front of the defence all day is the best ideology”.
Oh! More of the Arsenal want to pass it into the net nonsense.
Sorry to hear you missed the game.
Till this moment I haven’t seen the game. Only highlights of it. Hence my disappointment, coming here hoping for some insight I encounter the same cheap shot we’ve heard 1000 times.
So you’re criticizing the analysis of the game, even though you haven’t seen the game? Really?
I don’t need to watch the game before I realise you’re engaging in cheap shots. Cheap shots never serve as good analysis.
I’m quite sure that saying a player has been brainwashed into something does not count as analysis.
Afterall a quick glance at the Guardian chalkboards for the game shows Arsenal taking many many more shots than Tottenham.
Also, looking at the main thrust of your point, it is that Arsenal were more incisive when RVP came on. The simple conclusion would be that quality counts in football. But for you it was proof that a player had been brainwashed into trying to walk the ball into the net.
It was a cheap shot ZM. Just a random insult over analysis.
It’s a tedious myth anyway.
How is is a ‘random insult over analysis’? The ‘analysis’ is that Arsenal kept looking to play the ball short and rarely penetrated the Spurs defence.
I am sorry to get involved in this discussion at a late stage but I really do think that both Matt and Ole Gunner are somewhat deluded in their attempts to defend Arsenal and wanted to attempt to defend the match report.
Anyone with even a passing interest in watching Arsenal games will know that they have a tendency to overplay the ball in the attacking phase – the fact that you both appear to be Arsenal fans means that you (should) have more than a passing interest.
When RvP, Fabregas, and Arshavin are playing they remedy this to large degree but even then it is still apparent. When they are not on the pitch (as for the first 68 minutes) Arsenal succumb to this tactic time and time again. As ZM states a cliche is often rooted in some form of reality and only someone completely blinded to their teams weaknesses would try to pretend it does not exist.
Here is another cliche about Arsenal: Arsenal are a team that loves to keep possession and yet good teams (apart from Barcelona) let them have the ball because they know that quick, direct counter attacking will penetrate their (defensively) fragile midfield and defence. Here is the reality from this season alone: Arsenal 0 Chelsea 3, Chelsea 2 – Arsenal 0, Man Utd 2 – Arsenal 1, Arsenal 1 – Man Utd 3, Man City 3 – Arsenal 0, Tottenham 2 – Arsenal 1, Man City 4 – Arsenal 2,
2 aspects I didn’t like
1) Needless insulting/inflammatory language. Brainwashed..?
2) Too much what over the why. Spurs defended deep, Arsenal passed it short in front of them. Why? What should they have done, why didn’t they do it etc. Seeing what happened, at least in this case, is very easy. It’s less easy to understand why it happens.
Have to say I think ZM is spot on with his anaylsis. It wasn’t so much pass it into the net, as a slavish devotion to passing it through the inside channels.
Tottenham ceded huge areas of the wings in their half but Arsenal were unable to deliver a ball from there that troubled the defence. Many times with the ball in good position deep on the wing, Bendtner was nowhere to be seen in the penalty box, let alone the edge of the six yard box where he might have done some damage.
And Rosicky was painful to watch, slowing the attack to walking pace as he approached the edge of the box looking for an opening.
Always funny to see how many pundits try to sound clever by crapping on Arsenal, even if they’re only repeating the tired old nonsense. What we’d give for genuine insight.
This web site is free… what would you give for genuine insight?
I can perform a what-you-want-to-hear service for competitive rates.
Absolutely love this site and the analysis done – makes for a wonderful read. I’m not as knowledgeable as some of the other posters here, so I’ll keep my analysis to a limited. Certainly was a ‘what-could’ve-been’ moment to see RvP play the way he did in the last 20 odd minutes.
I would highly recommend and suggest you upgrade the commenting format here; since this site will only move upwards in terms of traffic and comments it receives. Shifting to a forum format might be useful.
Cheers!
Arsenal always struggle against sides who defend deep and narrow (Chelsea at the Emirates was a prime example). The most frustrating thing is that Wenger never takes measure to adapt Arsenal’s style of play, believing blindly that by sticking on all his possession players he’ll somehow find a way through the defence. Not to mention the lack of substitutions and tactical shifts once it becomes apparent his side isn’t having any joy – all part of why I don’t consider Wenger to be a very good tactician.
Against a side that defends deep, sending numbers forward is playing right into their hands. They WANT you to advance into their half so they can just play the simple ball over the top into the wings (and Spurs did it a few times last night but poor finishing stopped them from scoring more).
What Arsenal need to do to counter such tactics is a) move the ball quickly from back to front when they’re counter-counter attacking Spurs (something which they painfully failed to do last night) or b) and this might sound radical, park the bus themselves. Force the opposition to come out of their own half and utilise the pace of Walcott on the counter. Obviously though Arsenal’s defence isn’t particularly great at playing a disciplined deep game and soaking up opposition pressure.
Another thing that compounds Arsenal’s problems against teams that defend narrow + deep is that they tend to concede early (1st half usually), while the game is still fairly open. That means the opposition can then employ their 2 lines of defence. Defence is just as much to blame as lack of attacking penetration in these fixtures.
One thing I noticed last night was that Arsenal couldn’t work the ball into the “D”. When van Persie came on that all changed, Arsenal finally had a player who could receive the ball with his back to goal in that area, turn and find passes. And the added advantage of such a player is that he draws defenders out. Bendtner’s goal was a wonderful demonstration of that.
I don’t agree that Arsenal lost to “their biggest rivals” (not in this game anyway). Other than domestic cup competitions Spurs have not rivalled us since the 1980s.I think the average Arsenal supporter views them as no more than mid table wannabes who have at last shown that they could hack it as a top four Champions League side…but not this time.
Regardless of the fact that Robin Van Persie was injured for most of the season, I’m going to have to blame Wenger. As an American fan, I took a while before settling on a Premier League team to follow. In the end, I chose Arsenal (beginning in ‘07-’08) because of their attractive style of play along with their focus on player development. I’ve trusted Wenger every step of the way and still continue to do so. However, it really bothers me when he had two transfer windows to shore up frailties in the squad. Since last season, pundits everywhere have been saying that Arsenal need a strong presence in midfield (i.e. a Viera type) along with cover for centerback and depth in the striking position. Since his injury, Eduardo has not been the same player that he used to be. With regard to centerback, both Sol and Silvestre are over the age of 30. Although Sol has done quite well (he was the best on the pitch last night behind RvP), we can’t rely on a bench with players like Sol or Silvestre. I think it is finally time to spend some money this summer; I’m not saying spend irresponsibly or pay more than certain players are worth, but any title winning squad has depth to it. I strongly believe in Wenger’s project at Arsenal and believe that it will pay off in the near future. This season, the squad had that mental toughness that any title winning side needs but they were stretched to their breaking point and lacked the depth to maintain consistent form throughout the rough patches.
Little things about Wenger’s or Arsenal’s approach of the game. Nothing about players buying or whatever, just small glitches.
First, leaving Denilson on the pitch is apparently an awful choice but he is subbed only after 70 minutes. This had happened numerous times before, not only this match and not only on Denilson (though I think he is never really suit his position). Wenger is very slow and indecisive on changing players and playing style during the game.
Second, after putting van Persie on and begin to play two forwards, balls are still be sent to the right flank to Walcott for too much which is meaningless. Only in the last 10 minutes, people began to realise this is ineffective and started to send more balls to the centre, either to van Persie or Bendtner. When changing your formation and player, one needs to modify the way you play the game – the attacking side, the tempo, etc.. However Arsenal failed to do this many times.
Third, bad positioning of the back four. This had cost many many goals for Arsenal, but never seems to improve. Why not, or simply they are not able to?
I agree with everything you have said. For one of Europe’s top sides, Arsenal have never been known for their in-game adaptability. This has been said before and I guess this final run into the season has confirmed that Wenger is not the greatest tactician-i.e. the quarterfinal against Barcelona.
with these tactics, spurs wouldnt last the qualifying stage in the CL.
Harsh, but I agree that they’d need to have a plan B aside from this quite basic 4-4-2. They do have a big squad and a few versatile players though, a 4-2-3-1 could work with one of the big players upfront and Defoe dropped to the bench. Palacios and Huddlestone holding, Modric, Lennon and Krancjar ahead?
If spurs were to use the 4-2-3-1 with Crouch up front, he would have to stop constantly putting both of his hands on the shoulders of the defender in front of him when going for a header. He seems to always do this instead of using his considerable height advantage to jump above opponents.
Spurs are formidable. Are you saying that they would be caught out by teams with excellent technique? Remember, Spurs didn’t park the bus until they were ahead, and they invited crosses that they were well equipped to deal with! Lennon, Krancjar, Modric with Huddlestone and Palacios holding. Or perhaps Modric deep in midfield with Bale in the 3 with Krancjar and Lennon. Sounds awfully tasty to me.
Hodgson to Spurs?
ZM, can we get a thread on Roy Hodgson? Admittedly Al Fayed reaches into his pockets a bit, but Hodgson has to take the plaudits for maximizing those resources.
[...] Tottenham 2-1 Arsenal: Spurs defend deep, narrow – and brilliantly “Tottenham record their first league win over Arsenal for a decade, and simultaneously rule Arsenal out of the title race. Arsene Wenger’s side have been written off on at least two previous occasions, but this, surely, is the end of the road. No major surprises in the starting line-ups – with injuries throughout the side, Wenger merely chose what he had. As against Barcelona, the only choice was between Emmanuel Eboue and Theo Walcott, and the Ivorian got the nod. Denilson played in space behind Abou Diaby and Samir Nasri in a 4-1-4-1 shape.” (Zonal Marking) [...]
I thought it was foolish to put Walcott on the right-wing. With Bale playing on the left, Tottenham, for most part, coped easily -Walcott should have came on and played on Arsenal’s left.
I was shocked that van Persie did not get injured again.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened had arsenal not conceded so early. Spurs’ back four unquestionably did their jobs well but they had relatively limited roles and were helped out massively by the hard work of huddlestone and modric in front of them. Arsenal need to work on defending as a unit rather than just leaving the full backs (and the one centre half who hasn’t run up to join the attack) isolated when defending swift counter attacks.
How about, ledley king, the guy is a freak, how does he perform like he does without ever training?It should be impossible, a modern medical marvel.Honestly without these injuries he would have nothing to envy about Rio or john terry.
In that regard he’s only a Paul McGrath tribute act.
What amazes me is that this tactic actually worked! Defending deep and narrow that is. I’m not familiar enough with the tactics of the game to say why or why not, but to be honest, i’ve NEVER seen a team win when they simply defend deep. When wave after wave of ACTUAL attack comes at the team defending deep, they typically give up the ghost. Why wasn’t this the case in this game? I think it has something to do with Arsenal’s attack.
Instead of attempting to retain possession as their number 1 goal, attack should be your number 1 goal. Directness is definitely something they were missing. I just can’t fathom that this Spurs team could withstand an onslaught by Barca while defending deep. Against such a team, i think even Barca would regard possession as secondary. Why? Because you’ll just get it back in moments. I think when a team defends like this, you need to not bring so many people up. Leave some back in case of counters. Also, RUN AT THEM! Swing the ball back and forth, make runs from deep yourself, do whatever, but don’t just pass the ball horizontally.
Also, for all you Bendtner fans, he has done nothing but absolutely disappoint. In fact, the difference in class between van persie and bendtner is quite astounding! I mean, Bendtner really deserves to be playing for a mid-table team. He has no qualities i like with the exception of the aerial attack. This showed when playing Barca. He was ineffectual, despite getting some looks at goal.
I could’ve sworn I saw Diaby miss yet another chance to send Walcott through on goal on the counter. Then again, one need not be awake to witness a recurring nightmare…
Quick reality confirmation -I saw that too, unless it was a collective hallucination…
Me too.. I saw it, and Diaby made some sort of body language gesture type thing as if he thought Theo was at fault. Offside maybe?
Has it become more of a cliche for Arsenal fans to whine about cliches than the cliche they are disputing?
Probably.
Calling Rosicky a ‘direct’ player is laughable. He’s lost the confidence and determination he had when he was at his peak. Arsenal haven’t used him in his best position throughout his Arsenal career and he’s consistently very disappointing despite being perhaps the most naturally talented player at the club.
People moaning about Arsenal fans moaning has become more of a cliche than Arsenal fans moaning.
Hmm interesting. This is getting too postmodern for me.
To be honest, although Rosicky did pass it sideways a lot, he often tried to take on players, failed, and then picked out a safe ball.
Furthermore, when he did beat players, he took shots that were well off target, and probably put himself off shooting any more in the match.
There were far worse players on the pitch than him when it came down to attacking intent.
The fact that he played poorly, and couldn’t shoot, nor take players on is probably down to a lack of form/confidence due to a long time out because of injury.
Whilst I understand and somewhat agree with your analysis, I also agree that there’s no need to claim that he’s been ‘brainwashed’. You should analyse on the evidence in front of you, and you can claim that he’s not a direct player, but to be honest you and I have no idea of what Wenger or the other training staff at Arsenal have said to him, so the notion of ‘brainwashing’ is frankly ridiculous.
But that is a small gripe to be honest, generally your analysis’s are an enjoyable insight into the tactics used in a match, some of which I pick out on my own, some of which I don’t, and are much better than the sensationalist rubbish written by the press.
I think you’re right Davey, but while brainwashed isn’t quite the right word, it does capture the frustration of watching a Rosicky whose imagination and incisiveness seem to have been sucked out of him.
While it would be crazy to suggest Wenger is encouraging him to play with a complete lack of confidence and creativity, I think his team-mates are to blame. More specifically, their unwillingnes to run in behind the defence simply gave Rosicky no options looking forward.
Diaby, Nasri, Eboue and even Bendtner, our one central striker, all love to come short and receive the ball, because with their technique, it’s easy for them and they enjoy it. It’s hard work making an off the ball run beyond the opposition, especially when there’s no guarantee of Fabregas picking you out, and we chose the easy option almost every time.
Rosicky himself is just as guilty – Diaby continually made sideways passes because that’s where Rosicky and the rest of them showed for the ball. As for him having shots at goal, they were all struck with a complete lack of conviction, as you say probably because of a lack of form/confidence.
Also, I would question the relevance of this popular stat that we’ve scored more goals from outside the box than any other team. A more interesting stat would be how many times, out of all the opportunities we have to shoot, we have actually taken a shot. Does anyone know how many shots Arsenal have had in comparison with other top teams?
I too think that stat is little irrelevant. It’s an interesting stat but I don’t think it answers any criticism about the style of play, the problem is surely not so much that they don’t shoot from long-range, more that they slow the attack down with too many passes when 3 or 4, resulting in an attempted through ball would be better.
I don’t know, I like it when we keep possession and try to frustrate/tire the opposition, but when we reach the box and there’s a lot of players behind the ball we definitely need to pass back to the centre backs and restart the attack. Instead of doing the whole, tap it around the edge of the box and hope by magic that we can score.
Generally more movement, and willingness to recycle the attack by going back to the centre backs is necessary!
I’ve noticed many occasions in previous matches where Arsenal players have tried to go for a complicated pass and lose possession. And the more often they do that, the more the chances of being caught on the counter.
Maybe the proliferation of sideways passing could be due to a combination of the team being low on confidence, as well as frequently trying ambitious passes and failing to find the target in the past?
Our five-a-side sessions must be a real treat. ‘First one to score, loses’.
ZM, I’m a proud gooner and I see nothing wrong with your analysis. I find Ole Gunner’s posts ridiculous and embarrassing — he’s the only one here providing cliches and stereotypes. There is unfortunately a certain species of gooner who refuses to accept any kind of criticism of his team and spouts nonsense. All I saw on Wednesday game was lots of aimless, clueless passing by players who had absolutely no idea what to do, no understanding with one another, all afraid to take a risk. It was a pathetic display. So we dominated possession. Wenger himself said it was useless possession. Spurs deserved their win.
I agree, I actually thought it was a really bad performance from Arsenal. The fact they dominated the game so clearly both in terms of territory and possession doesn’t make the defeat less bad, it probably makes it worse.
[...] Tottenham record their first league win over Arsenal for a decade, and simultaneously rule Arsenal out of the title race. Arsene Wenger’s side have been written off on at least two previous occasions, but this, surely, is the end of the road. No major surprises in the starting line-ups – with injuries throughout the side, Wenger merely [...] Zonal Marking [...]
Interesting debate here, but probably best to leave the comments there.
4-4-2 will work for Arsenal against opponents that lack quality in midfield. But i can’t see them dominating possession at the top, especially in the CL where players of the same caliber compete.
Arsenal will need a midfield who can run up and down the pitch all day two times a week, because Fabregas is not that type of a player. Another issue is that with 4-4-2, they can’t make late run by midfielders in the box, which is a very deadly weapon in the 4-3-3 and earlier in the season it gave them a lot of goals. Without that they’ll become largely predictable for defenders and will have to rely only on their technical skills to beat their man and create a numbers advantage. Also the lack of a third midfielder means the counters of the other team become even deadlier and with Vermaelen and Gallas’s tendency to push into the opponents half, no one will be there to cover the emptied zone.
Those above are the reasons why Arsenal moved to 4-3-3, and largely the reasons so many other teams at the top are playing it.
I’m not ruling out 4-4-2 as an option, on the contrary, i pointed out that Arsenal don’t adapt and by implementing 4-4-2 when they need to score would be a good option because it forces the players to look for the strikers and one of the striker to look for space while the other is occupying the defenders.
But 4-3-3 is the way this team functions best and when everyone is fit there would be no need to change it.
So because Arsenal took more shots than Tottenham, that makes them immune from criticism for their playing style, which resulted in them losing to an inferior side?
What a bizarre attitude you have shown here – staunchly defending your side before you have even seen the game to be able to offer any defence based upon what happened.
Your comments are so ridiculous that I could tell you simply hadn’t seen the game before you had revealed as much.
If you don’t think there is ‘good analysis’ here, or that it doesn’t provide any ‘insight’ then you are quite welcome to not visit the site – but if you’re going to criticize the articles, at least have the decency to watch the game before commenting.
Rosicky spent nearly the whole game passing sideways and moving into positions to receive safe short passes.
It was 4411 when Arsenal dominated every team possession wise (70-30% mostly) in 07/08 and won plenty of big games.
Obviously there was slightly different personal but the quality wasn’t exceptionally higher in any position.
true, and fabregas had a brilliant start to the season as one of the two central midfielders.
Bendtner is now ready to take on the role adebayor had in this team, and RvP can score far more goals than hleb did. If Van Persie is injured, perhaps this is also a good position for arshavin to play, providing he can be bothered to run around a bit?
I didn’t watch the benfica vs sporting match, but I wish to disagree with your analysis of it.
I think you’re just engaging in cheap shots when you claim that sporting didn’t try to win the game – a quick glance at the stats show sporting to have had far more throw-ins than benfica. I’ve heard this line about sporting being unambitious a million times – what I want is a review that’s going to tell me they were adventurous and gung-ho!
I guess I’m just going to have to take it upon myself to say something new and insightful about the games I haven’t seen yet
I’m an Arsenal fan and I have no complaints about ZonalMarking’s analysis of this match. Arsenal many times this season have played too narrow and rely on their wingers cutting inside. There have been many instances this season where a player could have taken a shot, but looked for the pass instead. I do not remember which match it was, but Fabregas played a 1-2 with one of the midfielders (maybe Denilson?) and cut into the box. Rather than passing, Denilson took the shot and scored. If you look at the replay, Fabregas is calling for another pass. I am all for sticking to the “beautiful game” ideology, but in the end…the end result of all these intricate passes should lead to the ball being in the back of the net.
I’d hope you’re able to understand that not having watched the game doesn’t stop me from criticising a ridiculous comments about a player having been brainwashed into short passes in front of the defence all dayas the best ideology.
That comment is absurd on its own face.
It’s a cheap shot.
It’s silly.
And having now seen the game, I was surprised to see how many times Rosicky broke free, went past defenders….in one case he was cynically fouled. So many times, he jinked past 2, 3 men.
I knew your comment wasn’t true by your appeal to a ridiculous cliche we’ve heard 3000 times.
What’s funny is, the past few PL games I keep seeing Denilson lining up a shot as a short clearance is made only for Nasri/Rosicky/Diaby/X to nip in a lay a short pass off to the side!
Ahmad, the fact of the matter is that Arsenaò score more goals from outside the box, by far, than ANY team in the league.
There are times when they struggle to create, because of bad decision making in the final third.
I suppose that’s what you refer to.
But the stupid cliche that Arsenal want to walk it into the net, is just that, very stupid and so lacking in insight that it actually cripples analysis.
Just because you consider it a cliche, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Spurs wouldn’t have been confident enough to set out as they did were it not true, for starters. Arsenal have three ‘direct’ players in Fabregas, van Persie and Arshavin. Without them, they were content to play the ball around in front of the back four and had no penetration whatsoever. Rosicky was most at fault for this, and declined to take shots when space opened up for him in the box.
And yes, if you don’t watch the match, don’t criticize the analysis. As with your comments on the Barcelona game, you just criticize without any real value in your comments, it’s tedious and a waste of time.
It is completely untrue. It’s a bad-bellick cliche drilled into otherwise sensible people’s consciousness by people who don’t like Arsenal’s approach to the game. But it’s very untrue.
Arsenal have the best goals to Shots on target ratio. They score most from outside the box, & despite playing most of the season with no striker, they scored a boatload of goals. In terms of chances created they’re up there with any team.
Yet you tell me they want to pass it into the net.
We’re not mugs.
To say Arshavin, RVP & Cesc are Arsenal’s only direct players is incredible in how wide off the mark it is. Walcott. Rosicky. Ramsey. Even a defender like Sagna is perhaps too direct.
“I am sorry to get involved in this discussion at a late stage but I really do think that both Matt and Ole Gunner are somewhat deluded in their attempts to defend Arsenal and wanted to attempt to defend the match report.”
Not defending Arsenal at all, they were dreadful.
“When RvP, Fabregas, and Arshavin are playing they remedy this to large degree but even then it is still apparent. When they are not on the pitch (as for the first 68 minutes) Arsenal succumb to this tactic time and time again. As ZM states a cliche is often rooted in some form of reality and only someone completely blinded to their teams weaknesses would try to pretend it does not exist.”
Anyone with a pair of eyes could see that was happening. My complaint was the language used to describe it, and the lack of analysis of why it happens.
“Here is another cliche about Arsenal: Arsenal are a team that loves to keep possession and yet good teams (apart from Barcelona) let them have the ball because they know that quick, direct counter attacking will penetrate their (defensively) fragile midfield and defence. Here is the reality from this season alone: Arsenal 0 Chelsea 3, Chelsea 2 – Arsenal 0, Man Utd 2 – Arsenal 1, Arsenal 1 – Man Utd 3, Man City 3 – Arsenal 0, Tottenham 2 – Arsenal 1, Man City 4 – Arsenal 2″
Very few of those goals conceded had anything to do with counter attacks, including this match’s.
It seems the irritating fanboys have found this site, sigh.
I like the idea that someone trying to defend the analysis of the owner of this site through further analysis and evidence can be categorized as a “fan boy”. Who am I a “fan boy” of exactly? I am certainly a fan of this site but not uncritically. Ad hominem attacks are pretty poor form really for a site like this – perhaps you should go to the BBC website where these sorts of things are more welcomed.
You said “It was a cheap shot ZM. Just a random insult over analysis” and “It’s a tedious myth anyway” and then claim in your response to me that “Anyone with a pair of eyes could see that was happening. My complaint was the language used to describe it, and the lack of analysis of why it happens”. Your complaint however seemed to strongly imply that it is “…a tedious myth” that Arsenal have a tendency to overplay in the attacking phase which is why I responded the way I did. If you would have made it more clear that you were complaining about language I would have responded differently.
There is no doubt that Arsenal play as described and seen by football watchers and ZM does try to explain how a team playing as Spurs did can cause Arsenal to be ineffective due to their tactical inflexibility. It might not be perfect (and what is?) but the match report is pretty spot on in that regard.
I tried to highlight, using empirical evidence of results, that Tottenham merely did what other top sides do to Arsenal: defend deep, let Arsenal keep the ball and then attack them with pace and power. Whether all the goals came directly from counter attacks is not really my point. I merely tried to highlight that well organised teams set themselves up to let Arsenal have the ball and effectively concede possession to them knowing that they can cope with their movement and then cause problems themselves when they attack Arsenal’s relatively fragile defence. Normally when you up set your team to let the other opposition keep possession it is termed a “counter-attacking” style. I am not sure there is another term better suited to this tactic but I may be wrong.
Yeah that sounds good, if only we had a quality right winger with intelligent movement and good technique. I don’t think Walcott is good enough at the moment to start against top class left backs, and there’s no-one else in the squad who could play that role.
But I like the idea, and it would give Van Persie more freedom, and Clichy the space to motor down the left wing , maybe with Diaby/Rosicky as a very narrow left-mid?
Actually, Walcott has sometimes shown some good movement to drag defenders out of space. Definitely needs improvement though, and should add something to his skills other than running at pace.
Yes, I was thinking the same about Diaby/Rosicky. Especially if Diaby is on the opposite flank to the advanced winger, he can get in the box for crosses. Whether crosses will be added to Arsenal’s goal-scoring options is another issue though. The team seems to focus mainly on getting through the heart of the defense (which, I guess, explains why the Spurs could maintain a narrow defense and lock us down).