Arsenal 0-0 Manchester City: Chalkboard analysis
Arsenal v Manchester City was the definition of a bore draw. Some Chalkboard analysis is likely to be more interesting than a match report (and quite possibly more exciting than the actual game too).
City defended excellently in the centre of the pitch, playing with three holding midfielders stationed immediately in front of their back four. The number of times they managed to intercept the ball on the edge of the area (and the fact they only needed to do so twice within the area) demonstrates the value in setting out the way City did.
Arsenal are simply uncomfortable getting their wingers and their full-backs to the byline in order to cross the ball – hence why City played so narrow, and forced Arsenal to go wide. The crossing record of Bacary Sagna sums this up well – eight crosses attempted, none completed.
Carlos Tevez looked unhappy playing upfront on his own, and struggled to link with the midfield players. When Emmanuel Adebayor came on, City shifted to a 4-4-1-1 shape with Tevez in the hole and he was far more of an influence on the game – his passing record before and after the change of shape shows that well.
City showed little attacking intent throughout the game – and considering the fact that Arsenal were playing a goalkeeper whose confidence is low after his mistakes against Wigan, they should have tested Lukasz Fabianski more. City took 86 minutes to have a shot on target.
Some players’ signature move is a stepover, a long-range shot or a defensive header. There can be few who have a distinctive type of interception – but that’s the case with Gael Clichy, who constantly uses his anticipation skills and incredible acceleration to steal in infront of the opposition right-winger when he tries to receive a pass. He did that five times in this game – four in an identical area of the pitch.
Arsenal 0-0 Manchester City: Chalkboard analysis
Fantastic use of the chalkboards, really helps to demonstrate your points.
Arsenal of course struggle against teams that defend deep + narrow, but I don’t think Sagna’s crosses are particularly that bad. Some of them fail to clear the first man, but generally I’d put the unsuccessful % more down to
a) lack of height in the centre/attacking of ball (Bendtner is a good header when the ball comes to him doesn’t throw himself at them)
b) excellent defensive organisation by City (and generally most clubs who attempt to play this tactic)
Clichy’s interception skills are superb and I believe he had 124 interceptions in the Premier League last year, the highest total for a defender (Denilson was the leader with 153 to put it into perspective).
@Carlton – Oh yeah, Sagna isn’t to blame personally, but Arsenal overall just seem weak when going wide like that (Bentdner’s goal against Wolves a notable exception).
Was quite evident in the second half, though.
I get the impression that Arsenal don’t like playing behind the defence, there’s a sense that they want to beat all of the players in front of them rather than playing a simple ball in behind to turn and stretch a back four.
Maybe thats just me though..
@ZonalMarking – Do you think Arsenal make a conscious effort to cross through Sagna when encountering such tactics? I rarely see Arsenal direct the crosses through Clichy against teams that defend narrow. Then again, Clichy’s quite a poor crosser of the ball, even when he’s got time and space.
The most disappointing chalkboard of the day was this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/3U7d6l52nK1XJm765vE5
Nasri’s lack of forward passing means Arsenal are missing Cesc Fabregas.
I think the first point in the blog also underlines the problem. There wasn’t good enough creative passing from Arsenal.
@Ole Gunner – that chalkboard does show a decent number of forward passes. I don’t think Nasri’s really to blame for that aspect of the play today, City closed down all the space in front of the box, hard to pick accurate passes though there (although I do agree Fabregas would have fared slightly better).
I am disappointed that Man City played so negatively in Emirates stadium. It appears that Man City aimed for one point rather than three. However, credit to them for defensing so well.
@Carlton – You really think so? I counted a grand total of 3 completed forward passes. For perspective, look at Cesc’s performance v Man City last autumn
@Ole Gunner –
To break down this kind of defense, you probably don’t need Nasri (or even Fabregas), you need Nani/Evra/Valencia – as was shown today by United.
Am I reading the chalkboards for Tevez’ passing wrong? It says he had 29 passes in both periods – 22 successful, 7 unsuccessful in each.
The key statistic is and observable one in the second of the two. Not how many lateral passes he makes. This can be down to one of two things – either he can’t make penetrating passes (which we know we can) or City showed no ambition to get numbers ahead of the ball. I think it is more the latter. Which is poor tactics in a game like this where Arsenal were there for the taking with a bit of drive and attacking intent.
@Ole Gunner – I’ve just had a look, Cesc completed 3 forward passes into the box (plus one corner). I’ve been using the chalkboards for quite a while now, 3/4 forward passes into the box is pretty much the average for a creative player, it’s even harder when you’re playing against a team that packs the middle.
I’d say the biggest letdown of Nasri’s play today was his movement on the ball, too often he picked it up on the left and came infield, congesting the play. The very least he could have done would have been to pass it back out to Clichy to take advantage of the space created by City’s right back following Nasri.
@Anonymous –
How could you possibly not need someone who can pass through the middle?
Arsenal very frequently face and beat that kind of defence. They do it the same way, pass through the middle. Watch the home games against Spurs and Villa for example. The one point being that I’ve never seen any team play 3 defensive midfielders in the Premier League. This was a first for me.
What you need is someone who can put someone through…see the pass RVP made to put Nasri through around the 25th minute. You need a player who can do that.
@Carlton – Not trying to argue but look at that Cesc map again, he’s completed many many more forward passes than Nasri all over the pitch. Nasri’s passing was rather flat, more similar to what you’d expect from a defensive midfielder.
The other point about cutting in is my long-term frustration with him. He’s a brilliant player who always beats his man. You can’t get the ball off him. And he can shoot. He beats his man wide, and instead of driving on, he cuts on to his right foot, and then looks up, reducing the momentum of the attack. He’s the inverse of Walcott. He knows he can beat his man for skill so he never tries to beat his man for pace (he’s very quick). Walcott can’t beat his man for skill and only ever tries to beat his man for pace.
@Ole Gunner – He did, but City were a bit more adventurous at home, playing only 2 players in a deep midfield position (Ireland + de Jong) compared to 3 today. And Cesc’s a pretty high standard to compare to, he’s one of the top 3 playmakers in the world. We should expect more of Nasri but he can’t play at Cesc level.
@Ole Gunner –
Apparently when you facing packed defense in the middle, you have two ways to break it: first, as you said, penetrate through it; second, attack the flanks. Also, some additional help comes from set pieces and long shots.
Which way is better? I will go for the second. It is shown here how much space Sagna had, he just could not use it. Decent wingers/full-backs who are capable of delivering good crossings (walcott clichy sagna are awful crossers, you have to admit) are much more helpful and will produce a threat that force the opponent to move their player wide, thus create space for central players as well.
Yes, if you are capable to break the hardest part of a stone, then you can go for it. However I just think that is too lack of change, and require a lot of effort – maybe too much. Let’s go back to your two examples, if you still remember it well, two of the goals in the 3-0 win against Hotspur came from crosses; and the Villa game, one free kick opened the defense, then one cross and a shot finished it. I cannot see these things support your idea really.
@Anonymous –
Can we really say that one approach is better? No. Anything that gets you the goal works.
But if you’re a passing team, set up the way Arsenal play, quality passing through the middle is fundamental.
In the game today, Arsenal’s clearest chance was when RVP put Nasri through with a brilliant pass. The officials made a wrong offside call.
Without the ability to replicate that a few times, then they’re reduced to relying on wing play which hasn’t worked recently & that reduces the team’s effectiveness overall.
By any means, with the best of crossing in the world you do not expect RVP & Rosicky to beat Vieira, Toure & Kompany in the air.
Playing through the middle was always going to be the way to do it.
@Ole Gunner –
No Ole Gunner no, when your opponent knows what you are going to do and sets up a tactic opposing to it, it’s no good to do it in their way – you think you are doing it your way, but you actually fall in their plan and you are doing it in their way, not your way.
Getting goals works? Apparently it doesn’t work today, or the days against Chelsea, or against United, is it?
Yes, today, RvP created a great chance, but just once, you don’t rely on once-a-match chance to win games, do you? You have to create as many chances as you can. With better flank attack, a lot more chances can be created, but obviously Arsenal are lack of ability to do this. When I say attacking flanks, I mean both wide play and cut-in play, it’s so important to create space everywhere by attacking from the sides. (Also, crossings includes high/low/back crosses – not always air competition, you know.)
Moreover, as I mentioned, set pieces and long shots help. You can see the direct free kick by RvP today, a good chance to turn things around. However, Arsenal are not good at taking FK chances especially indirect ones really – needs a lot of improvement. Ah, and long shots, Arsenal definitely need more and better of those. Denilson’s long shots already helped the team a few times this season though he is useless otherwise; and today, Diaby’s shot had another effect. It seems that Arsenal players are not encouraged to try shot outside of the area even when the opponent is parking the bus, don’t quite understand why.
@mcgie76 – Yeah unfortunately you’re reading it wrong. The numbers on the side of the Chalkboard always display the ‘overall’ data throughout the game, even if you change the time period – it’s only the on-pitch detail that changes.
How did Man City get to be fighting for 4th place with such negative play? Three holding midfielders? Terrible. Tevez is a real work horse, but he can’t have enjoyed playing in front of that.
Would Rosicky have fared better playing primarily in the middle? He did switch positions with Nasri quite a bit, but I think he still has more experience as a central playmaker, so he might have been able to find some killer passes. I was pleasantly surprised by his pace today though.
Also, Song played more offensively today than Diaby much of the match, although Diaby has more pace and dribbles and shoots better. Was Diaby staying deep to use his pace to defend against possible City counterattacks? Seems like the team was trying not to play players in their best position.
@Ole Gunner –
seriously now, who wouldn’t miss Cesc? Cesc is clearly the best player on Arsenal, and i say that with a high regard for RVP. Barca would miss Cesc if he was on their team.
That was torturous stuff. Mancini lending credence to the notion that Ialian managers are “negative” by refusing to commit midfielders in support of his attacking trio in either of his las two games. Adam Johnson, Tevez and Bellamy looking increasingly frustrated and separated from the rest of the team. I got the feeling that they are looking at the Spurs game as a play-off for fourth and that securing anything extra here was a bonus.
MrSpang – they didn’t they got to their position in league by not losing, and winning more games then have done in any other season, including getting a large amount of points out of the top 4!
We knew we couldnt lose to Arsenal. The point leaves in a good position behind spurs and villa, we have both teams to play at home, which is good for us. It was similar to how we beat chelsea. Hold the home team off for the 1st half and press in the second. Unfortunately, some players struggled to get into the game and we didnt do a lot going forward.
very well information you write it very
clean. I’m very lucky to get this information from you.
Thans
for the nice post.
Мир! Труд! Май!
pervoemaya2010
Hello does an existing member on here know how to insert pictures in my message? Any expertise gratefully received