Liverpool 1-1 Arsenal: Arsenal dominate, but only just grab a point
The starting line-ups
A crazy game that neither side truly deserved to win.
Arsenal’s side was largely as expected – injuries in the centre of midfield meant Jack Wilshere was deployed alongside Abou Diaby, who played a more conservative role than he likes. Laurent Koscielny made his debut alongside Thomas Vermaelen, whilst Marouane Chamakh also started.
Liverpool played a 4-2-3-1 with Steven Gerrard deep alongside Javier Mascherano and Joe Cole as the link player. Milan Jovanovic played an industrious, Kuyt-esque role on the left, ahead of Daniel Agger in an “unfamiliar” left-back role.
Arsenal started the better in terms of possession and territory, keeping the ball well, but struggling to create chances thanks to Liverpool’s back four who played well, and defended relatively deep.
Although in theory the two sides were playing the same formation, broadly 4-2-3-1, there were noticeable differences in how they operated. Arsenal played higher up the pitch and pressed more intensely, with the two wide players practically alongside Samir Nasri even when they didn’t have the ball. Liverpool’s wide men sat deeper, forming two banks of four and leaving Joe Cole in something approaching a free role, with few defensive responsibilities.
Difference in the performance of playmakers
Indeed, getting Cole involved in play was Liverpool’s biggest problem in the first half – in stark contrast to Nasri, who was probably the game’s central figure before half-time. Nasri completed 25 passes in the first half, compared to Cole’s 7 (below). That central player is pivotal in the 4-2-3-1, generally given the freest role on the pitch, and consequently responsible for a large part of his side’s creativity. To write off Cole’s chances of succeeding in that position would be foolish, but for all the hype about him playing in supposedly his best position, we must remember that never before has he consistently played good football in that position; he reached his heights when wide under Jose Mourinho. This is a new challenge for him.
Despite Chamakh being recruited to give Arsenal an aerial threat, something they lacked last season, he wasn’t particularly successful in this aspect of his game today – of the five aerial duels he contested against Liverpool’s centre-backs, he was unsuccessful on every occasion. He, like Cole, struggled to get into the game, and this summed up each side’s failings. Liverpool couldn’t get their playmaker involved so couldn’t create, whilst Arsenal couldn’t get their goalscorer involved so couldn’t find someone on the end of their moves.
One might have expected Cole’s red card to change the game, but as basic a point this may seem, the fact that he was so uninvolved meant that it mattered far less than many other first-half dismissals do. Even when Cole was on the pitch, Liverpool were looking to the other three attacking players more immediately – Gerrard hit a couple of terrific Xabi Alonso-esque passes out to Dirk Kuyt on the right, and the midfield playing quick, long balls over the top for David Ngog also seemed to be a tactic, although the Frenchman wasn’t timing his runs well enough to beat the linesman’s flag.
Liverpool continue to defend solidly
Since Cole was not particularly involved in defending, that aspect of Liverpool’s game didn’t change, although it allowed Abou Diaby and Jack Wilshere more time on the ball deep in midfield. And Liverpool went ahead almost immediately in the second half, when Wilshere’s poor touch presented the ball to Mascherano – he passed forward to Ngog, who finished from a tight angle.
Arsenal then played awfully for the next 15 minutes despite the extra man advantage – they were unable to work the ball into the final third, despite Liverpool being content to sit deep. Roy Hodgson used his wingers very defensively and Liverpool slowed the pace of the game whenever possible. The organisation they showed will be credited to Hodgson, a manager obsessed with refining positioning on the training ground, but it also had hallmarks of Benitez’s reign, when Liverpool frequently defended solidly despite going down to ten men.
The stats back up a tremendous defensive performance from three of the back four – Carragher won three out of four tackles, Agger won four out of four, and Skrtel won five out of five. Only Glen Johnson remains unconvincing, and it was his error in thumping the ball into the stands that indirectly led to Arsenal’s equaliser.
Arsenal push forward
Arsene Wenger was happy to concede his 3 v 2 midfield advantage (clearly feeling Arsenal would dominate possession anyway) as he brought on Theo Walcott and used him as a central support striker rather than in a wide area. He was unable to utilise his pace, though – Liverpool’s deep defensive line denied him space in behind, and Arsenal instead looked to play the ball into wide zones.
Here they found little joy – their two full-backs attempted nine crosses but didn’t find an Arsenal player once, and the deadlock seemed more likely to be broken through Nasri or substitute Tomas Rosicky from a central role. Liverpool were defending deep, but not particularly narrow when compared to, say, the way Tottenham dealt with Arsenal towards the end of last season. Nasri had a thunderous shot that was blocked by Skrtel on route to goal, whilst Rosicky’s wonderful footwork ended with a stabbed shot that Reina tipped over.
Fernando Torres’ introduction helped Liverpool provide slightly more of an attacking threat – Ngog was tired after playing the lone striker role for 74 minutes, and Torres twice threatened to get in behind Koscielny. Another substitute, Maxi Rodriguez, didn’t do much going forward but is extremely disciplined and helped Liverpool keep their shape in midfield.
Arsenal’s goal arrived in such ridiculous fashion that it’s difficult to draw too many conclusions, but we should note that it was a cross towards Chamakh (who scored 80% of his goals last season from headers) that resulted in the equaliser. Reina’s fumble over the line is hard to put down to genius attacking tactics, but maybe Arsenal wouldn’t have been so keen to chuck the ball into the box had they not been playing their new ‘traditional number 9′.
Conclusion
Despite one new manager and four new signings on the pitch, the game was largely as expected. Liverpool defended well but created very little, whilst Arsenal had plenty of possession but couldn’t score without the help of Reina carrying the ball into his own goal.
Arsenal fans will be reasonably confident that the lack of creative spark in the final third will be provided by the returnof Cesc Fabregas and van Persie, though it seems defending deep with two banks of four against them remains the best way to get a result, and they’ll have to break down this type of opposition more convincingly to challenge for the title.
Liverpool can also consider this a positive result having played half the game with ten men. As you would expect given the new manager, they are the side with more question marks about their formation and personnel – will Hodgson move to his traditionally preferred 4-4-2, or stick with this 4-2-3-1 system? Losing Cole for the next three matches might be one of the most important factors in this – if they reshape and find success under a different shape, then Cole’s much-hyped central playmaker role may have lasted only 45 unhappy minutes.
Liverpool 1-1 Arsenal: Arsenal dominate, but only just grab a point
I found at times in the first half that Liverpool, when out of possession, looked something like a 4-1-4-1 with Cole dropping beside Gerrard and Mascherano picking up Nasri. I think that helped check the creativity of Nasri somewhat, and after Cole was sent off Liverpool played a pretty normal 4-4-1 with their midfield four very deep.
Anyway, I never thought Cole would be that effective playing just behind the striker, he never seems to have good control in tight spaces. Whenever I see him play I notice he needs space to make things happen, and when he gets it he can be a real threat.
I don’t see what the problem is with playing out wide. Maybe people don’t think he’s disciplined enough (Ancelotti was a bit scathing of his tactical value) but that area of his game has improved.
Putting him in the centre of the three in a 4-2-3-1 puts an awful lot of faith in someone who hasn’t really played well for three seasons.
It’s funny because I watched the second half of the Tottenham – Man City game where you talk about how deep Tevez drops and after reading that I thought Cole would be a great left winger for City. His real value imo is his ability to fill space up front created by someone, not to gain possession and play a quick through ball. I really don’t know where that fascination came from.
ZM, why did almost all teams now seem to use 4-2-3-1? I notice that this formation is not enjoyable to watch, and makes football matches looks tedious.
I don’t know, but for me watching BPL teams field 4-2-3-1 is somewhat weird. I guess BPL’s 4-4-2 style is more direct, open football, as it is often marred with kick-and-rush attacking style trademark that is, in my personal perspective, more entertaining to watch.
Entertainment is not the main goal, they want to win games.
A system is a system, it’s not good or bad. that depends on how the team plays in/with that system.
a 4-2-3-1 can produce a very direct (counter attacking) style of football, and a 4-4-2 can produce the bus in front of the goal or a more fluid pass game. (It is more important how you play than what system you play on the paper. depending on the players?)
when Spain plays the possession football it can lead to a 5-0 win or to a boring 1-0, that depends on the opponent. but as long as Spain (or Barca) has the ball, the other team can’t score and (that’s more important) as long as you have control over the ball and play passes, the opponent has to run. That makes them tired, and when they are tired they make mistakes (that’s one reason why Spain scores late). Good defending is easy(ier), a good possession game is not that easy (but possible, even outside Spain and the Netherlands, like van Gaal proved last season).
When you have the ball you can wait for the opposition to make a failure, or even better you can force them to make failures.
without the ball you can deny them space or terrorise them with pressing.
denying space is keeping the opponent away from the goal and fait for a failure to get the ball (only pressure if they come too close). if you put pressure on the opponents centre backs or holding midfielders you are hunting for the ball (more entertaining than a team of waiting defenders), you win the ball back and you will have more possession.
with a 4-4-2 it’s hard to keep control (of the ball, the pace, the time, etc.) because you have to play the game were you have an advantage (and that is not in midfield when you play two strikers). When your personal advantage is in the opponents box you have to get there faster compared to an advantage in the midfield. When you control the ball and the pace in midfield you have a lot of options and more time to create chances.
the reason why 4-2-3-1 (or 4-3-3) is favoured is because of the players are better distributed on the pitch. but with clever movement this is not only a question of the formation.
Of course, that’s not including Germany’s mind-blowing performance during the last World Cup with that formation. I just miss the times when most of BPL teams fielding 4-4-2 and playing kick-and rush football, compared to Benitez-que 4-2-3-1 formation with both defensive midfielders sit very deep ahead of the defence line.
Germany’s 4-2-3-1 became something like a 4-4-2 when they were defending (against Spain) with Podolski and Müller playing left and right midfield and Özil a moving striker. They gave England the ball, becasue they knew they get it back and can attack on the counter. Against Argentina they scored early, so counter attacking football was a good choice.
Spain produced a lot of pressure and Germany was always defending.
As long as Germany can play possession football they play 4-2-3-1 but as soon as they have a strong opponent and Germany sits deeper, it becomes a 4-4-1-1 system.
I think it was a failure to play like that against Spain. They should have go on the pitch and say: ‘We press, and if we fail, we fail. But if we wait and defend, we are only a team like most of the others in the world and Spain knows how to play that kind of games.’
I don’t think Germany’s plan failed against Spain. Spain didn’t really threaten Neuer that much from play. Their goal was from a corner. With a bit more luck Germany could’ve won against Spain that day.
Well, I think it is part of Spain’s plan to be patient. they can wait, they know they get their chance (if it has to be a corner, so be it). as long as they have the ball, they won’t be in trouble. of course Germany had chances, but they were not forcing their luck.
Germany was defending and (more or less) hoping for Spain to lose the ball and get them on the counter.
I don’t like that words, but that is reactive.
the problem for Germany was, that the counter attack worked more than good against England and Argentina, so they didn’t change the strategy.
they may gave it a thought (watching Chile against Spain), but they sticked to counter attacking football. And to mention Mourinho and Inter: Inter lost their game in Barcelona too, they advanced because of the match in Milano!
I think if Germany went out and played pressing football (and they talked about the goal to play possession football all the time), they may scored one or two. And with one or two goal on your side you can start playing on the counter.
It is a great risk, but i think also a great opportunity to play like that against Spain.
(Maybe Löw remembered how they lost against Italy in the World Cup, and the last thing he wanted was holes in the back and easy goals for Spain.)
Cole was never a 10 more a creative striker who can do the best business in the box. His best role is as a withdrawn striker who can come in deep to bring the ball from midfield but needs service to thrive.not the best passer of the ball either.the problem is cole isn’t clinical or fast enough for the role. On the wings he can struggle because the final cross usually is lacking as well. The left wing could work for cole but he would need a better lb.
Arsenal dominate?
Uh…did you watch the second-half mate?
well i’m guessing what was meant was dominated possession, which they clearly did. liverpool controlled the game for 15 minutes after half-time, but a football match is 90 minutes + long. i’ll do the maths – that means arsenal controlled the game for at least 75 mins, which is a lot more than 15, which means all in all it’s fair to say that arsenal dominated.
they were still lucky to get a point as, despite their obvious domination, they did precious little with it. but they still dominated. obviously.
From my neutral perspective I’d have to say Arsenal dominated. Liverpool were working mainly on the break leaving the lions share of possession to Arsenal to “pick the lock”.
I think Sky showed a stat of something like 63% of possession to Arsenal in the second half which is a ridiculously high figure.
I’m not sure how anyone could come to a conclusion that Arsenal did not dominate, in terms of possession, territory, chances…
Possession w/o creating chances is useless. They passed the ball sideways and backwards for the most part while they kept the ball – how that is dominance, I fail to see ? The good part about Arsenal however was that they were willing to take shots from outside the 18 yard and not obsessed with walking the ball into goal.
maybe should add the basketball version of stopclock of 5 mins to soccer to prevent this
But that’s the point, if you remove the rose tinted spectacles for a moment and take a look at the stats you’ll see that Arsenal dominated in terms of chances created.
The sideways passes enabled them to keep posession so that they could work for a chance – this is generally more effective than hoofing the ball hopefully at the box.
“Possession w/o creating chances is useless.”
It’s not (asides from non-aggression pacts). You keep controll, the opponent can’t score, the opponent has to run and gets tired (that makes it easier for you to score). Maybe not nice to watch, and not every team that plays possession footbal does it because of their strategy, they do it because they have no creativety.
football is not a sequence of 30 attacks. it is 90+ minutes game with a 90 min strategy, you have to see thw whole game and not only three passes and the goal.
a 5 min. to score clock? oh man football is not only about entertaining people with Ronaldinho-like technique and solo.
All this ideas to copy from american sports (shot clock, time out) why? football ist football, if you don’t like it, leave it. Millions of people in the world like it the way it is.
But with an idiot like Blatter on top of the FIFA, who talks about banishing the draw from the group games (but supporting the referee with electronic tools is a problem). If you don’t like what you sell, don’t sell it. Go away and let someone who respects the rules (and the history) of the game take your place.
You ask:
“They passed the ball sideways and backwards for the most part while they kept the ball – how that is dominance, I fail to see ?”
Well, as commenter hwk said on August 16, 2010 at 9:26 am, “when Spain plays the possession football it can lead to a 5-0 win or to a boring 1-0, that depends on the opponent. but as long as Spain (or Barca) has the ball, the other team can’t score.”
I’m not saying Arsenal is Spain or Barca; what I am saying is that keeping possession can be defensive as well as offensive, and it definitely translates to domination. Have you ever played in a game when you ceded the majority of possession to your opponents? I don’t know how Mourinho’s Inter did it last year, because it is so exhausting, and not just for the muscles but also for the brain.
@Josef
‘…because it is so exhausting, and not just for the muscles but also for the brain.’
great point.
with the ball you have an active stategy of defending, without the ball not.
with the ball you can control the movement, the ball, and 70% of the pitch. without the ball you are restricted to control the space. very few teams are able to force the opponent to do what they want and not having the ball the same time.
“it seems defending deep with two banks of four against them remains the best way to get a result, and they’ll have to break down this type of opposition more convincingly to challenge for the title”.
Accepting this to be true, I feel I have to ask if that tactic is used any less or has a lower rate of success against other opposition. It’s a well-known tactic mostly used by inferior teams to even out encounters against superior teams.
I find it noteworthy that you don’t question how effective Liverpool’s tactics were as a means of winning the game. They were the home side, and they well might have held on to the 1 goal lead. But they did not. It is not surprising that they did not since they were much dominated by the visiting team.
Not quite sure what you mean with that final paragraph, but presumably their tactics were to defend solidly and try to nick a goal from a set-piece or a quick ball to Ngog. Which, to their credit, went quite well.
My point is that it is no surprise that Liverpool’s tactics yielded them a home draw, a less than ideal result, and I question (and encourage you to question) Hodgson’s tactics which didn’t seem particularly likely to yield a win. Surely, we haven’t forgotten that the primary goal in football is to win games, especially your home games. Surely, a club like Liverpool shouldn’t be seen to be playing for a draw at home?
They only had ten men, which is probably why he was happy with a draw.
I think Oliver is indicating that Hodgson set out with a strategy that hoped for a win but would settle for a draw, and he sees that as overly cautious for a Liverpool coach at home against the Gunners. I think it was probably wise, considering how Arsenal opened up last season against a team from the same city with similar quality.
Good analysis yet again. Arsenal seemed to be more willing to swing in crosses, and Sagna in particular seemed to cross with greater accuracy. In the last twenty minutes or so Vermaelen was rushing forward to join Chamakh and van Persie up top.
ZM, you were that saying hodgson’s preferred formation is 4-4-2 and it remains to be seen if he will revert to this. Do not think we actually saw a 4-4-2 today ? As mentioned, jovanovic and kuyt were playing very defensively, with cole given a free role. So with liverpool defending with 2 banks of 4 and cole not tracking, it is basically a 4-4-2 with one striker dropping off.
it was certainly a 4-4-2 when defending but very much a 4-2-3-1 when going forward. Maybe this is how Hodgson will find a way to compromise what he prefers and what he has available to him. You would think he’d be tempted to return gerrard to playing in the “hole” after his performance for England but I think he promised Cole that he could play central when signing him.
I wish I am not the only one who wanna see Gerrard play in Cole place ( at least half of the game)
sorry about my english
You aren’t.
Yes, that seems to be the way 4-2-3-1s are being deployed at the moment, by and large. See Germany with Ozil and Sneijder playing as withdrawn forwards. As Jeremy says, it varies when attacking and defending.
I think Hodgson has been fairly coy in not making radical changes at this stage. It was as much a 4-4-1-1 as anything and a formation that both the players and manager were extremely used to. Although 4-4-2 is Hodgson’s (probable) *ideal* formation, I think he’s wise enough now to realise that shoe-horning a perfectly acceptable 4-4-1-1 into a 4-4-2 just because he loves the 4-4-2 is just not the way to go.
I agree Riccardo.
For me it was more of a 4-4-1-1, since the wide players operated much closer to the central duo – especially when out of possession. This is the bread-and-butter of Hodgson’s entire coaching philosophy.
As ZM notes, Arsenal’s was more of a natural 4-2-3-1 since the wide creators pressed in tandem with Nasri, higher and further ahead of the central midfielders (though Eboue is too defensive to play in a pure 4-2-3-1 in my opinion, by inclination he tilts the midfield to take on a Dunga-esque look)
Do you think chamakh is the type of player that will succeed in the Premiere League? He was very active in building the play last year at Bordeaux but the French ligue 1 is not as physical as England main Championship. Not doubt he is a very talented player but is he good enough to score 20+ goals a season for Arsenal?
I’m not sure if he was meant to be the main goal scoring threat for Arsenal. I believe he only scored 13 or so goals in Ligue 1. I believe Wenger brought him in because of his link up play with a playmaker such as Gorcuff behind him. He’ll add a more direct approach to Arsenal’s style of play-kind of like Ibrahimovic for Barcelona.
I think Wenger will use Chamakh to get the best out of the rest of Arsenal’s attack, namely Fabregas, Van Persie, Arshavin, and Rosicky/Nasri. I’d honestly be surprised to see him score over 20 goals this season, but I think he will get accustomed to his role and be a valuable team mate for Arsneal.
I am looking forward to how he works alongside Van Persie and Fabregas. He seems to play well with Nasri and Arshavin already so that’s a good sign.
Thanks for the analysis ZM.
The Arsenal players in general have great technique, but I really hope this doesn’t turn into the same “60% ball possession, 0 point” season against serious title challengers.
I don’t think they are only one or two signings away from winning a major trophy. They desperately need to get the best out of all their players, especially Walcott, Nasri, Clichy, Diaby, Rosicky, and Denilson every week in every competition. Last season showed Arsenal can’t rely on just Fabregas, Van Persie, and Arshavin to make things happen and win them games.
With that overreaction out of the way, how do you see Wenger playing Fabregas, Nasri/Rosicky, Arshavin, Chamakh, and Van Persie in one formation?
I think they’re all key players and Wenger has to work on a Chamakh/V.Persie partnership but it will probably place more deeper, defensive responsibilities on Fabregas. If Wenger persists on his 4-3-3, I can imagine Van Persie on the right wing with Nasri/Rosicky playing a central role alongside Fabregas.
I’d like to see them revert to RVP as a lone forward, personally, with Chamakh a plan B, or used in home games when Arsenal can dominate possession with only two central midfielders, then go 4-4-2 with him alongside RVP.
Arshavin needs to have a good run too, or his place will surely come under threat.
I have to go with Ron here and say I’d love to see Van Persie starting from an outside forward role where he was impressive for Holland between 2006 and 2008.
As an Arsenal fan, I have to admit that I am a bit worried. Every time the ball entered Arsenal’s box, I couldn’t help but cringe. Almunia flapped twice and I think other keepers may have had the positional sense to hug their near post on N’Gog’s goal…however, I’ll blame that goal mainly on Wilshere’s poor touch. Arsenal’s defensive shape improved quite a bit and hopefully when Song returns, we’ll have a solid defensive midfielder with good anticipation and positional sense-Diaby didn’t do too bad, it’s just that sometimes he couldn’t get back quickly enough after making forward runs, there was one specific occasion where Sagna had to cut inside and occupy the space in the middle of the park. It was a crucial interception which halted Liverpool’s counter attack.
Think was the worst case scenario for Arsenal, for Wenger to be widely known as on the lookout for a goalkeeper, only to find himself still with Almunia. Can’t have done his confidence much good, which is kinda sad as he’s clearly a nice chap.
But Arsenal clearly need a keeper. A couple of his flaps today were alarming.
Surely it’s simply about time Wenger broke the bank because this problem has been apparent for years now. I know this isn’t the place for transfer speculation but there are surely the right level of keeper out there for Arsenal to poach. I thought the Slovenia keeper really impressed at the WC – Handanovic.
I actually think that the Liverpool goal was partly a result of Vermaelen being drawn out of position by Ngog. It reminded me of the article on this site late last season about his poor positioning. Of course Ngog was the ball receiver but I think if Vermaelen hadn’t been drawn up the pitch, Ngog wouldn’t have been able to turn him to get the shot. As an Arsenal supporter it isn’t reassuring to see he’s up to his old tricks again.
Arsenal played really poorly when Wilshire was on. He’s not ready at for that level of competition yet (the Mascheranos of the world). He wasn’t really an effective link between attack and defense. He’ll grow in cup ties and as Fabregas’s backup.
On another note: I just don’t see how Liverpool will be able to keep possesion against Stoke or Bolton playing a 4-4-2 especially with their destroyer (el jefecito)and kuyt leaving and Lucas replacing Mascherano. I’m not sure their physical enough for a long season.
Retain possesion and you mention Mascherano and Kuyt in the same sentence??!! You probably meant Regain Possesion.
How do you rate wilshere? I think if ramsey hadn’t have gotten his leg broken jack wouldn’t of had a look in for a couple of seasons.
Although, I was happy to see Wilshire start, from a tactical perspective, wouldnt it have been smarter for Arsene to have started Rosicky in his place? Nasri was clearly the creative outlet of the midfield three and Diaby was filling in the holding role (with a bit of his natural attacking instinct) so the last position of the three was for a positionally solid midfield who could link between holding and creative. Wilshire is capable of doing this but lacks the understanding to play his postion correctly from a defensive perspective and is a poor tackler. Rosicky would have faciliated the transition from defense to attack a lot better than Wilshire and is a much better tackler/tactical player in my opinion. I feel that Wilshire would play better in the free role creative midfield than within the constraints of the “linking” midfielder, as his creativity is not as important in the linking role.
Your right that Wilshere is defintly no real linking player. He is closer to a Dennis Bergkamp then to an number 8.
I think it was Ok to beginn with Wilshere, but he and Nasri should have swichted position.
Nasri can play both, 8 and 10, in my opinien he is maybe even more an 8, defnitly more a 8 than WIlshere, because he is the better tackler and more experienced.
And as you now, Wilshere as a very creative player would be better in the free role.
dino i thought exactly the same thing. was fantastic to see rosicky (eventually) play centrally once he came on, as he’s been shunted out to the left or right mostly in pre-season, where he is completely wasted. i think injury has robbed us of an absolutely world class player over the last three years or so, but now, dare i say it, he seems to be fit and strong, i think wenger should value him more highly. his awareness, vision, technique, positional understanding and intelligence are all terrific – he’s my favourite arsenal player to watch when he’s in his preferred position.
for blackpool i’d like to see (assuming they are fit):
almunia
sagna song vermaelen clichy
fabregas diaby
nasri rosicky arshavin
van persie
its a shame to move nasri on to the right as he’s been excellent in the middle in pre-season, but he’s far better out there than rosicky, and he’ll often come inside giving sagna the room to play almost as a wing-back against the weaker sides.
also, i completely agree with ZM about arshavin – in this formation he’s a liability against the better teams, and someone who offers so little in the way of teamwork and tracking back can only play in the sort of free role that joe cole had in liverpool’s 4-4-2 today. but wenger’s never going to play that way, so expect clichy to continue to be hung out to dry as he was today, completely and utterly exposed with the whole flank to defend by himself.
ZM, i’d be curious to know what you make of the subtle differences between the 4-2-3-1 arsenal played today, and the 4-3-3 they began with at everton last season. i think arshavin playing left of a front 3 wasn’t so much of a problem then because we had a left central midfielder in denilson who could go across and help clichy out, knowing he had song as the designated DM just behind him in the middle. i think the players arsenal have are much more suited to a 4-3-3 and when everyone is fit, against the bigger sides, a midfield trio trio of song, then denilson and fabregas is a must, with arshavin dropped and nasri playing with license to roam from the left. depending upon the opposition it would be chamakh/bendtner or walcott on the right, leaving a formidable bench of chamakh/bendtner, walcott, arshavin, rosicky, diaby and eboue.
sorry about the long post; was great to see you cover the arsenal game, much appreciated as always
I basically agree with everything you see there. I think last season, the change in shape was all about Fabregas – with RVP injured, he was Arsenal’s best attacking player by a million miles, and Wenger simply wanted to move him as close to goal as possible, so the 4-3-3 became something more like a 4-2-3-1, with Fabregas often more advanced than the wingers.
But I’m not sure it completely works without him. As you say, Arshavin is more suited to 4-3-3 thn 4-2-3-1. But I’d still rather see RVP as a the central striker, not Chamakh.
You’re dead right about getting Van Persie and Fabregas close to goal; without the former, the latter must take on way more responsibility, but when RVP is fit Cesc can move back to the midfield without worries about offensive production.
I think the 433 is better for them when everyone is fit, it was a threatening, attacking formation that produced good results and made for great entertainment. I worry that the people who will be benched might start to complain, but I’d like to see them go with
Almunia (or a new keeper)
Sagna, Vermaelen, Djourou, Clichy
Fabregas, Song, Rosicky
Nasri, RVP, Arshavin
Rosciky is a natural as an attaching midfielder but he is not as defensively aware as needed in the position of our 2nd holding midfielder. I remember last year how he was ball-watching and his lack of cover allowed a goal. Nasri, though not as good as Song or Denilson in the holding role, is still better than Rosicky. But I think the reason Nasri was moved back, allowing Rosicky to play as the 3rd midfielder, was that Joe Cole was off and we didn’t have to worry about covering for the opposition’s playmaker. Plus, we were dominating possession anyway.
Anyway, Wilshere has played out on the wings last season, and in the holding role in the preseason. He might be more used to the holding role than Rosicky/Nasri.
Just felt I had to bring your attention to the match of the day 2 pundits’ comments re. liverpool’s change to man-marking on corners.
the presenter said how liverpool fans will be pleased to see the back of something, to which mark lawrenson replied “the dreaded zonal marking”. they went on to say how daft zonal marking is and how liverpool won’t concede any more silly goals from corners now. then there were the usual throwbacks to the ‘good old days’ when lawrenson was playing when man-marking was the norm.
ridiculous.
haha yeah i noticed that too. also lawrenson, looking completely aghast, saying, “we still don’t know who was playing centre forward for man city – very strange”. funny stuff, once you get past how depressing it is that these ‘experts’ are getting paid fortunes
Zonal Marking has to be the biggest scape goat in football that fans and pundits alike take so much pleasure out of mocking.
Will goals Liverpool concede from corners now be put down to man-marking?
It’ll be interesting to see what happens. I’m slightly more of a zonal marking fan, but the general rule should surely be – it’s whatever the players are more comfortable with.
yeah, good point. it’s more their thinking that zonal marking is conceptually flawed that i have a problem with. both man and zonal have merits and weaknesses but they seem to think that zonal marking is just a stupid idea.
My favourite is when a team doesn’t put a man on a post and a goal goes in… “A man on the post would have saved that” then when there is a man on the post and it goes in anyway “he really should have done better”….
FFS! Most teams around the world use either zonal or mixed marking at defensive set-pieces!
Especially as Liverpool were employing a mixed system with three or four guys (including the beloved men on the post – that’s zonal marking as well guys) zonal and the rest man.
Looked like Liverpool were playing two men on posts with a man beyond the near post between the six yard box and touchline. Looked like Arsenal was playing that too and honestly I think it’s the best style. I employ my team to use it when I manage and I make sure I have that near post zone marker when I play (I play keeper). So many times a low, hard corner is taken and it’s impossible for me to get to, that zonal defender is vital. The rest we man mark, however.
Carlo ancelotti and mourinho share the same opinion about joe cole , he’s tactically inept-ala his skipper- and his one and only good season was 2005\2006 , and I firmly believe that he’s going to flop at liverpool.
Another problem with joe comes to the fore when he’s allowed too much time with the ball
skilful players tend to punish you , but most of the time he ends up looking stupid after trying zillions of needles stepovers !! sorry for my bad english and I really like your site keep it up , and if you have time can you write a piece about some unsung talents like marian pahars , fabio liverani etc ?
I would say it was a deserved draw, as Liverpool imo was clearly the better side during most of the second half, similar to Arsenal in the first. I cannot see how Arsenal should have deserved three points out of this (especially since Wilshere should have seen red as well way before Cole was sent off).
Also I saw Liverpool playing an 4-4-1-1 today, with the right side pushing a little bit more forward than the left – but both being visibly behind the more left-leaning Cole for most of the time.
That the right side with the always impressive Kuyt and Johnson is acting in a more attacking style is the main reason for me that Johnson doesn’t have such impressing defensive records. I don’t quite get why this is so often considered negatively. Johnson adds very important attacking options to Liverpools game and I don’t see him as that much of a security problem in the back as well.
In other news: Jovanovic seemed not to be ready yet. He was having a hard time adjusting to the speed of the game. That Liverpools left side was more defensive-minded and casted with two players not used to the game (Jovanovic because of adjustment problems, Agger because he simply isn’t a full-back) and Mascherano as a absolutely-not-offensively-oriented player was a reason why the left-leaning Cole was having problems connecting.
Also I want to add that Liverpool ended the game down to 9 or 9,5 men during the last 15 Minutes, after Agger got hit on the head and was visibly struggling to even stay on his feet.
wilshere was slightly late making a committed tackle, it was not a reckless, dangerous and two-footed lunge. to say wilshere should have been sent off is just being silly.
gerrard’s defense of cole’s tackle afterwards – something along the lines of “the player jogged out for the second half didn’t he?” – absolutely epitomises what a moron/scumbag he is. i’d love to see a replica challenge go in on him, and for him not to jog out for the second half. because that might just make him realise how incredibly stupid his comments are – on second thoughts, the irony would probably be completely lost on him.
we also heard the other classic line, “he’s not that type of player”. what , the type of player who makes stupid dangerous tackles? well he clearly is that kind of player isn’t he, because that’s exactly what he did. whether he meant to hurt koscielny player is completely irrelevant – yes that would have been worse, but that doesn’t make it less of a red card.
it’s a shame cole didn’t get hit on the head by the ball – maybe he would have struggled more to stay on his feet
Must agree with everything you say Steve, and if I can (rather aplty) stick the boot further into Gerrard – who remembers all the 2 footed lunges he used to get away with on a regular basis?
save the bitterness for football365 steve. it was unusual that cole got sent off, though it was a clumsy challenge. Wilshere went into a 50/50 with his studs up, not over the ball, but up nonetheless. unlike cole, he has previous in at 18 years as a dirty tackler. i reckon if cole had made his tackle in front of the Kop rather than the away fans he’d have stayed on the pitch.
later on koscielny escaped a red card for for pulling torres’ arm when he was running at goal (though perhaps there was a covering player, however no foul was given). arsenal edged the luck but made most of the play in yesterdays game.
Liverpool played almost exactly as they have played under Benitez for the most part, with the exception of the marking system at corners and Gerrard playing in midfield (and for the most part staying in position there) and get far less criticism from the press already!
The Koscielny arm drag on Torres is taking clutching at straws to the extreme. Plus the general consensus sees Cole’s challenge as a red and Wilshire’s not.
The general consensus says so, so it must be right – the site used to be good but it is turning into another guardian.
“the site used to be good but it is turning into another guardian.”
Jesus Christ…
Sorry ZM – your analyses for the most part are as good as ever. The comments section is turning into the Guardian
.
Erm, if you’d prefer – it’s pretty f*cking obvious that Cole deserved a red, I was merely being diplomatic. I hope I don’t detract from this site further.
i’m not at all bitter ian, i’m just concerned by the sheer stupidity of some players and pundits – their dim-witted attitudes put players’ careers in danger.
i don’t think that’s an unreasonable point to raise here – obviously it’s a website primarily about tactics, but i was only responding to someone else who brought up the issue of dangerous tackles and decisions.
“i reckon if cole had made his tackle in front of the Kop rather than the away fans he’d have stayed on the pitch” – sadly i have to agree with you there
I don’t care about what has been said afterwards by anyone. I’m just talking about how I see those fouls. Can we stick to that?
And you don’t have to make an even worse attack on Gerrard up, you can see one. just watch the replay from rosickys tackle. I’m not sure if he even got booked for that. If he hit Gerrard, it would’ve been the end of his carreer.
I consider the attacks of rosicky and wilshere far more dangerous than the one from cole, as they were obviously dangerous, if the opponents just move a few centimeters different. Cole on the other hand hit kosnielcys shooting leg with his second foot, something that I think is very hard to calculate. You can send cole off for this – OF COURSE. but as referee you have to be consequent with your decisions. if wilshere is still on at this point, you shouldn’t send cole off.
Can we be done with the talk about decisions now? Ta.
you are welcome to answer to my other points above.
What’s the point? Blaming refereeing decisions – yawn. Clear bias towards a particular team with no attempt at being objective – yawn.
Aha. So all the talking I did about the role of Joe Cole, Glen Johnson or the problems on the left side or about the interpteration of the system just never happened?
Also the chat about the decisions of the referee was not about blaming but about analyzing the decision.
deleted post
After watch the reply.
All I can say is
1. from the start Cole didn’t aim and had no intention to tackle the player he aim in advance to black a ball.
2. first contacted Cole still didn’t aim and still had no intention to tackle the player
3. follow through Cole didn’t care to evade and seem like want to drag the player down with him.
A yellow card is allow. but not a direct red card for sure.>> IF IF the ref can re a reply but he can’t.
My team have been quiting talking to a ref for many year.
Even when the ball cross the line and hit the net if Ref think it isn’t a goal we still obey him
Error is part of football. Intend error still part of football.
^_^
Can we keep the discussion to tactics, please.
There are numerous other sites and fora on which to debate refereeing decisions, player personalities etc.
I have to agree here in that I saw Liverpool playing as more of a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1, which would make sense because I think Hodgson played the former at Fulham and it’s reasonably similar enough to the latter that the transition from Benitez’ system would be relatively painless.
The referee came to the right conclusion on both tackles – to compare Wilshere’s (pretty crap) tackle to Cole’s suggests a clear lack of understanding about the rules of the game.
I agree with an earlier poster re:rosicky.i absolutely enjoy watching him play since he is quite a talent especially centrally.he is better than nasri hands down and i hope Aw values him highly to give him more responsibility.
Nasri shouldn’t play centrally. He can’t dictate the tempo properly in the way a Rosicky or Cesc will.He’s much better out wide.
Didn’t learn a great deal about either side today. Arsenal could easily have lost the game, but as they showed last season they have an increasing capacity to get things out of games when they aren’t playing well. The keeper is still a weakness and unless the requirements for winning the league drops they will probably find themselves a little short again.
While Liverpool still had 11 men they seemed to be trying to play a faster passing game with out much success. I found it interesting that no one seems to be commenting on their lack of width. If that was a Benitez side it would have been mentioned a dozen times before half time.
Once again we see 4-2-3-1 line up against 4-2-3-1, with one team more comfortable in possession and therefore the other sitting a little deeper in order to defend on the edge of their box. Until Cole’s sending off, the game looked liked it would end as a 0-0 draw. No real surprise as both sides probably see that as a good result, particularly given the absentees.
However, let’s imagine a world where Cole doesn’t get sent off, Liverpool don’t score immediately after half time and, shock horror, both sides actually want to win the game. It’s 55-60 mins on the clock and you are Roy Hodgson. What do you do to win the game in terms of changing tactics (as opposed to personnel)? Conversely, if you are Wenger (you have the better passers of the ball), are you content to keep going in the same manner or would you try something different?
The reason I ask is that both 4-4-2 and 3-5-2 have counter tactics (e.g. 3-5-2 or 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 v 3-5-2) that work well and the winning concepts are fairly straightforward. However, aside from having a 1 v 2 up front and therefore possibly not creating many chances, it appears that 4-2-3-1 is a pretty solid formation with few weaknesses.
Well If you were Wenger you could try to play in a 4-4-2 formation, because Arsenal would probably or maybe still dominate possesion, with Nasri and Diaby or Rosicky and Diaby in the center.
But i would`nt do that. You play in Liverpool, and you don´t have a real holding mitfielder, that risk would be to high in my opinion.
Also, evevn in a 4-2-3-1 chances are good that Arsenal creates a goal.
With Song maybe, maybe you could try somethink like a diamond, with Song as a holding player, Diaby left-central, Nasri right-central(sure more offensive), Rosicky as a playmaker and Arshavin a lottle bit drwan on the left. So you would still dominate possesion with 4 cetral players, but sometimes would have a 2-2 with you two stirkers(Shava-sometimes more on the left, to keep Glen johnson in the defense-, and Chamakh) against the two Liverpooler centre-backs.
Agger as a left full-back wont du much in the offense, so Nasri in right-central position could still be pretty attacking.
But even this is risky and I don´t know if this system would have better chances to creat a goal than the 4-2-3-1.
I wouldnßt do that.
So you wouldn’t change anything as Wenger? Chamakh looked pretty isolated up front with no service and Arshavin kept drifting into the centre where Gerrard and Mascherano were, getting in Nasri’s way and making it pretty easy for Liverpool. I think that Arshavin should have held the width and with Clichy overlapping, tried to get more crosses into the box.
Even then, it’s not a change of formation, just a change of playing style, something which Arsenal seem very reluctant to do. I remember that Inter beat them 3-0 at Highbury by sitting very narrow, allowing them the crossing opportunities which Arsenal didn’t take and it became very easy to defend. What is the point of buying Chamakh if you aren’t going to play to his strengths? He gives Arsenal a Plan B, which as noted in the article, lead directly to the goal, albeit through a spot of good fortune.
Of cours he gives them a plan B and they should have tryed more crosses, but it he also lost in all of his first heading-situations.
What Arsenal could have done is, to go back a little and try to make Liverpool attacking, so they have more room and can do quick counterattacks. With players like Walcott, Arshavin etc. that´s a very strog weapon.
I mean, come on, they play in Liverpool, you don´t have to make the game there.
I remember the CL-final, were Bayern had most of their big chances, or a lot of Chances, in the beginning, when Inter attacked and they were on the counterattack.
The problem may be, that Arsenal`defense is not that great, and I donnu if they would stay without a goal against them.
But you could try that.
I’d like more of an explicit 4123 in such circumstances from Arsenal – remove Eboue, Wilshire and Arshavin, bring on RVP, Walcott, and Rosicky, and play with Diaby behind Rosicky and Nasri all in the middle, with Chamak, RVP and Walcott up front switching positions.
If Joey Cole can’t make an impact against a side without a genuine holding midfielder (Diaby is not one), then he doesn’t have a chance against teams that do. Most teams play with at least one genuine destroyer in midfield, a lot play with two.
Joe Cole is one of the most over-rated players of the last few years. Ancelotti has done a lot of good things at Chelsea, but getting rid of Cole (who is inexplicably a massive crowd favourite at the Bridge) is probably the best of them.
You better tell that Gerrard.
lol. I’ll get onto it….
Good point re: destroyers…
It would have been really interesting to see how Cole handled playing against City where they play 2/3. Tempted to put some of the blame on the passes in to Cole but he just didn’t do enough to be involved in the game.
I think Cole was better than Kalou when they played wide right but in a perfect world neither is a starter for a team that has high ambitions
I was disappointed with Arsenal’s lack of inventivity going forward. No-one apart from Arshavin (unsuccessfully) attemtped to make any runs beyond Chamakh and Liverpool’s defence. There was no width from the attacking players, Eboue didn’t make a single run down the touchline (check Guardian’s chalkboards) and the whole attacking play was centred around a small zone in front of the box. Attacks consisted of the ball being fed in to Chamakh who would then play it backwards as he had no-one making runs around him.
The last half hour was much better, it was as much down to the substitutes as it was to the change in formation. Rosicky provided quick direct passes into feet around the box, RVP provided an extra link-up inside the box, Walcott looked to run beyond the defence. In fact I think Walcott is one of the most important players for Arsenal this season as his pace, off the ball movement and runs from deep make him valuable against teams that look to close down the gaps in the final 3rd and force Arsenal to play the ball harmlessly in front of them. The Arsenal team 10 years ago had Ljungberg and Pires who were experts at making runs into the box and creating a passing opportunity (Bergkamp throughball to Ljungberg was a trademark). Same goes for Fabregas in fact. I’m confident that with these 2 in the team we won’t be struggling to score goals in normal time.
As an aside I examined Arsenal’s pressing game on Sunday and it looks promising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P57N8YwUsn0
I’m also pleased that Wenger’s consciously decided upon a 4-2-3-1 this season with 2 distinct deeper midfielders. I think a Song-Denilson pivot provides the best defensive cover and best service to the more attacking players. At the moment Wilshere is a bit too ambitious/casual with some of his passes, particularly when switching the play.
Carlton,
You bring up excellent points regarding runs into the box. Last year’s squad more often than not had players who were very good with the ball at their feet and not as dangerous off-ball: i’d say Van Persie, Nasri, Cesc, and Arshavin are all better with the ball than without the ball though some of those players do make good runs from time to time (arshavin mostly). With Chamakh and Theo in the lineup, i think that element will be there more.
I admire Eboue for his dedication to the club and willingness to play multiple positions, but he’s a large part of the problems you identified. He came into the center of the pitch too often and only once received a pass back. Mostly he crowded Nasri and Chamakh. Ideally he won’t start at forward on the right too often and we’ll have to hope the other forwards stay fit and that Vela shows something this year.
As for the width, I’ve come to believe Arsenal absolutely need to start Gibbs and play Eboue at RWB more often. When Song plays, he almost acts as a 3rd CB/sweeper, which i know zonal marking has covered in its articles. That allows the wingbacks to get more forward and THEY are the width Arsenal require. Sagna’s defending is excellent so i’ll forgive his miserable crosses but Clichy is just not up to par. Start Gibbs, allow him to give Arsenal width on the left, and think about subbing Eboue for Sagna in the 2nd half if Arsenal need to score.
Also, for the midfield: the ideal player to play in between Song and Cesc would have Denilson’s passing ability and Diaby’s imposing figure and ability to disrupt the counter-attack. (i say in between Song and Cesc bc when Arsenal have the ball, Song is just as likely to switch places with a CB as he is to make a dangerous pass- so the 3rd MF is really a holding player closer to Song but with more ability when Arsenal’s in posession)
Since its unlikely Arsenal buys that player, which is a real shame because i think Diaby could serve as cover for Song and a Denilson/new signing combination behind Cesc would do wonders for Arsenal, I am closer to supporting Diaby than Denilson for that roll: last season Arsenal’s biggest problem was their defence- even in the big games when they didn’t score, it was often because manure or chelski got ahead by 2-3 goals early and were able to pack it in- and quite frankly Diaby’s a better player at winning possession.
Now, you could win me over with the argument that with Denilson Arsenal will keep more possession and give the opposition fewer opportunities to score, and that might work, especially if the speed of Chamakh and Walcott help Arsenal press the opponent further up the field, a la Barca. But I’m not sure Arsenal has that quality yet…
To be honest I was an advocate of the Song-Diaby-Fabregas midfield around February last season when the Frenchman looked to have finally hit some consistent form. For me he’d be suited to open games where he’d use his directness to open up defences. For me Denilson is better in tight games where the opposition compress the midfield, Denilson may not be very inventive but his possession retention is very good and the Barca home/Liverpool away matches last season showed that it’s the sort of game he relishes.
I have to say Diaby looked disciplined in his role as a deep midfielder on Sunday (apart from one dash upfield which left us exposed). If he continues like that I’d be happy for him to partner Song, but right now based on previous form, I think Denilson would do a more disciplined job.
Also I do realise that the fullbacks are the main source of width, but when they can’t get forward quick enough then at least one player should take it upon himself to stretch the play. It’s fine if Eboue comes infield as long as Arshavin is stretching the play on the left, and vice versa. But too often on Sunday Eboue would simply make the infield dribble regardless of the team’s situation.
I like the idea of having a Barca-style wingback system where both fullbacks push forward to create a 5 man-attack that spans the entire width of the pitch, the difference is they can get away with it because their potention retention is just that little bit superior, their fullbacks (particularly Alves) are more creative with the ball, looking to make inside/outside runs, playing throughballs rather than always crossing etc. Our fullbacks don’t have that variety to their play, and in truth they’re nowhere near as good on an attacking level.
We could get more width, when we would play something more like the Bielsa-favorite-system 3-3-1-3 when in possession.
Song drops, as he already often does, deep, and the full-back push forward to create a 3-man defense, you know how it works.
We often dont have enoght room in the centre, because of the lack of width, but with Eboue and Clichy/Gibbs pushing even more forward, so that the are aside of the trequartista(Fabregas) and at least one of the wingers also staying wide would a) create a lot of width and b) a lot of room for Fabregas, and I dont know how opponent would handle with it.
But our full-back should improve their attacking qualities.
We would just have two players in the centre of the mitfield, but I think against most of the opponents, we dominate possession anyway.
Against some top-Teams I´d still prefer to play more o the counter attacking, with our wingers dropping really deep, creating a 5-man mitfield staying pretty close to the back-4(to avoid to mch space inbetween the lines, and then making quick counter attacks with players like Walcott.
But this only works if our fense stands the opponents pressure, as mentionend in another post above.
Yes the counterattack is something we need to utilise as an active strategy, exactly the same way Chelsea/Man Utd/many other teams purposely sit back and allow us to come forward so they can counterattack. As you point out though, we’re not the sort of team that is comfortable sitting back and repelling everything the opposition launches into the box.
My main hope for this season is that Chamakh’s arrival will allow us to break through those parked buses via aerial play, without the need to become a counterattacking team ourselves.