Chelsea 2-0 Arsenal: Arsenal suffer from Cole-Drogba combination yet again
The starting line-ups
You saw this one coming – Arsenal dominated possession, but Chelsea were more clinical.
Chelsea’s side was unchanged from last week’s defeat to Manchester City – Yuri Zkirjov had replaced Ramires in midweek for the win over Marseille, but dropped back to the bench.
Arsenal fielded the expected line-up, with Lukasz Fabianski starting in Manuel Almunia’s absence, and Laurent Koscielny and Sebastien Squillaci at the back.
The major surprise was not in terms of selection, but in terms of positioning. Abou Diaby played very high up the pitch, and Jack Wilshere was deeper in central midfield.
This appeared to be part of an Arsenal tactic to press intensely in midfield, and they made the start of the game a fast-paced, frantic scrap as Chelsea struggled to work the ball through midfield up to the strikers. Chelsea were standing off slightly more, and Arsenal had the better of the opening game, their midfielders seeming more confident and composed on the ball.
Left-backs vital
Full-backs were always going to be important here, with such a congested midfield zone and a set of wingers who don’t defend particularly well. Gael Clichy was the man who got forward the most early on, as Nicolas Anelka happily let him drift forward. Andrei Arshavin wasn’t so keen to use him, however, and came inside and looked for goal, bringing a fine save out of Petr Cech midway through the half.
It was Clichy’s predecessor Ashley Cole who made the vital dash forward from full-back, however. His assist must have been hugely frustrating for Arsenal fans, not merely because it was Cole putting the ball across, but because it was so similar in nature to the two goals Arsenal conceded to Chelsea at the Emirates last season. Samir Nasri simply switched off and let Cole wander past him, and Cole’s low cross to Drogba found the net. Here’s a Chalkboard showing that similarity:
Defensive weaknesses
Cole actually had one of his more reserved days in terms of getting forward from full-back, but is intelligent enough to time his runs perfectly to make the difference when it really counts. Chelsea struggled to open up Arsenal in open play other than when he got forward – in the second half he had the ball in the net but was flagged offside. The decision was marginal (and probably right) but the point remains that Arsenal didn’t deal with him effectively. This (as discussed here) was surely a day for Arsenal to use Emmanuel Eboue on the right specifically to track Cole’s runs.
It’s also worth considering the differences between Arsenal’s 4-2-3-1 and Chelsea’s 4-3-3 in tracking full-backs – the wide players of Chelsea were no better at tracking full-backs than Arsenal’s were, but then they have slightly less responsibility to do so. At Milan and Chelsea Carlo Ancelotti has generally defended with a three ahead of a four (in a 4-3-1-2, a 4-3-2-1 or a 4-3-3) which means the three can spread across the pitch and the outside central midfielders can close down in wide areas. With Arsenal using only two holding players (Diaby was also playing, of course, but stayed high up the pitch and had few defensive responsibilities) there is less scope for this.
One of the first-ever articles on this site highlighted how Arsenal struggled with Cole, and it’s amazing that Wenger still hasn’t learnt his lesson.
Second half
The game progressed as predicted – Arsenal dominated possession but weren’t clinical enough, whilst Chelsea sat back and defended inside their own penalty area. One interesting factor was how often Arsenal crossed the ball, though the 4/22 completion rate is far from impressive. Still, the arrival of Marouane Chamkh has made them more of a danger in the air (and he should have scored with a late header when the score was still 1-0), though doubts remain about the crossing ability of the full-backs – Clichy, for example, failed with all five attempted crosses.
Arsene Wenger introduced Tomas Rosicky to try and get at Branislav Ivanovic, but Ancelotti immediately brought on Paolo Ferreira in Ivanovic’s place, and though Rosicky provided some good touches on the ball and a couple of efforts on goal, the general pattern of the game remained.
Alex’s thunderbolt wrapped up the game late on, and Arsenal were tempting fate by conceding five free-kicks in their own half within the last five minutes – indeed, last season’s 0-3 defeat to Chelsea was sealed by a Drogba free-kick from similar range. When Arsenal push forward they are liable to being caught out at the back and giving away cheap fouls – though it’s rare someone will take advantage as conclusively as Alex.
Conclusion
A stereotypical performance from both – the game was entertaining, but remarkable only for its predictability. Drogba scoring was inevitable, and his dominance in these games has been evident as long ago as the 2005 Community Shield match.
Interestingly, the last time Chelsea won a game when Drogba was in the side but neither scored nor assisted a goal was last November, away at Porto. That is a rather clunky statistic but does demonstrate how much Chelsea rely on him to come up with crucial contributions - they can play without him, as the vital victory at Old Trafford in the spring shows - but when on the pitch, he needs to play well for Chelsea to have success.
An equally bizarre stat is that Arsenal’s first eight defeats (from nine) last season all came in ‘pairs’, and this is another, following last weekend’s shock defeat to West Brom. Wenger showed more tactical flexibility than usual by using Diaby high up the pitch, and by pressing much more obviously than usual. Still, failure to cope with Cole and Drogba cost them, and for as long as that problem isn’t addressed, they’ll probably always fail to beat Chelsea regardless of what happens in midfield.
I disagree. The two goals were (lets face it) a bit lucky. If Arsenal had a “Torres” on their team the result could have been more different. Chamakh and Vela let the ball roll (twice) while they could have twisted and struck the ball at the goal. Arsenal lack finishing. Unless Van Persie returns this will be the case.
Football is bout scoring more. Not only defending.
Equally, as football is a two-team game, then it is about conceding less.
Wenker’s an awful tactician and this Arsenal team has hit a plateau and going nowhere fast. I’ve had enough, Chelsea are doing to us what we do to the Tottenham and as a Arsenal man that’s too much for my pride to take.
lol, and Diaby as the playmaker. Really, that made me laugh.
Diaby was playing a holding role, just further up the pitch.
He can’t be playing a holding role when so advanced; a holding midfielder, whilst not necessarily an indicator of defensiveness vs creativity (Pirlo?) is at least defineable by his tendency to stay behind the line of the ball at all times.
You could argue that Diaby was playing an advanced box-to-box role, or even that he was playing as a defence-minded No.10. a la Park for Man Utd.
positioning diaby there was actually quite clever. he was used as an outpost – strong and technically sound, he was played there to hold the ball up and enable arsenal to play the game in chelsea’s half. he was an aerial option to bypass the pressure of chelsea, and an option along the ground for song and wilshere.
this also meant chamakh wasn’t having to drop too deep to do all the physical holding up of the ball by himself, allowing him to concentrate more on getting in behind the chelsea defence and provide penetration – which, even though it never quite went for us, i thought there was a great deal more of than there has been in previous games against them.
sadly diaby is not on form and not all that fit, and didn’t have a great game, but i think Jedi Rage has completely missed the point by laughing at him being played there, and by saying he was the playmaker. clearly wilshere and nasri shared the playmaking role between them.
overall i was pleased with the performance, and am feeling optimistic for this season. and i’d like to see diaby play there more often both home and away, when he’s fully fit and more confident
@Steve: that’s because I don’t rate the ’super young’ trio of Eboue, Sagna and Diaby at all. The intention may have been right but knowingly putting an off-colour/off-form/unfit player in a totally different position leaves a lot to chance. I’ve never seen an unfit Park play that role for Man Utd. Even Anderson was substituted against Valencia.
Fair assessment. Obviously if Arsenal had had Fabregas and Van Persie the result could’ve been different as Chelsea did give a lot of space to Arsenal in the second half.
What a performance by Mikel. He is fast maturing into the best holder around, rivaled only by Busquets.
i agree.. in mikel essien and ramires i believe chelsea have the 3 best box to box mids in BPL
Arsenal lacked structure and discipline upon reflection of the performance. I was impressed by the way which Chelsea kept their shape and broke on the counter each time. Mikel gave the defence good protection and helped in the overall defensive performance. I agree that Arsenal do need to show more ruthlessness in front of goal, because they want to pass too much in key areas around the box instead of shooting.
You could have almost copied and pasted half of this from last years report (if there was one). Predictable.
So professional & disciplined from Chels.
great article as usual. fascinating stats in the conclusion. i suppose arsenal put up a reasonable fight considering they’re missing their best players in all 4 lines of the pitch- first choice keeper ( on paper ! ) , verm, fabregas & van persie ( & walcott who might have pinned cole back more ) . it’s the first ” fail to score ” of the season for them ( in lge anyway ) . they only have 1 clean sheet ( only wolves still have 0 ) . chelsea have 5 , citeh 4, even a leaky man u have 3..and amazingly wigan are next with 3 .
i don’t see the point of chamakh. doesn’t seem to be a top 4 calibre player. i had a french fantasy team last yr ,so tracked his progress & if you can only score 10 or 12 in the french lge, then you can probably halve that coming to the prem. or if you don’t score, be a great assister- he got 1 last yr in france in 38 games per wikipedia ! . his c.v. would be on a par with elmander & certainly less than djibril cisse’s. it’ll be interesting to see if Wenger sees him as better or worse than bendtner ( when he’s fit again )
Arsenal were sitting ducks. They took the game to Chelsea who sat deep and then counter-attacked with Arsenal apparently unable to know what to do. Chelsea are quicker and stronger but Arsenal were tactically inept. Arsenal were never going to outscore Chelsea yet they never looked like stopping Chelsea from scoring. This game is becoming too easy for Chelsea and that has to reflect poorly on Wenger.
The thing about Arsenal playing only 2 CMs in a 4-2-3-1, as opposed to the three in a 4-3-3; it needn’t be an issue if one of the midfielders is aggressive and quick enough across the ground; Flamini, Mascherano, even Vieira (although Arsenal weren’t playing this system when Vieira was still there).
Other examples; Bruno and Senna at Vilarreal. One will occupy a central area whilst the other rushes out to the flank which is being attacked.
Yes I think that’s a very good point. Flamini did that job very well for Arsenal.
Not really. They played defensively astute wide players – Rosicky, Hleb and Eboue. This allowed both Flamini and Fabregas to play box to box.
Hut, I think we were referring to those games when Arsenal were strictly using a 4-2-3-1 formation, which if I’m not mistaken, came into being at the FA Cup Final in 2005 and was further tested between then and 2008, although generally only in Champions League games, with the 4-4-2 format still being preferred .
You’re correct to say that, under the 4-4-2, the wide players would track all the way back (to within metres of their respective full backs) and Arsenal would form two compact banks of four. But the problematic adjustments have come with the 4-2-3-1 and even 4-3-3 system (and its variants) since 2008. The wide players, understandably, are detailed with pressing higher, and whenever Cesc is detailed too high up the pitch (too far ahead of the play at times in a 4-2-3-1 or even a 4-2-1-3) the central midfielders find it difficult to assist the full-backs.
Probably it is just a question of time and adjustment, but I don’t think Arsenal are instilling this correctly on the training ground. The problem, as I see it, is that the players are stationed high but without the concommitant pressing to make it defensively viable; though the Chelsea game was encouraging.
bear in mind, if these 2 holding players are against a 4 3 3 system with 2 attacking central midfielders to deal with, they have to track their runs and wouldn’t be able to get out to the flanks without leaving one of those runners free
I suppose all you need to do is cut and paste your report from the last match as the outcome, and Arsenal tactical naivety, are once again the same. Reading your report from December 2009 you make the point that Wenger keeps playing Arshavin and Nasri on the left and right when he plays Chelsea – and once again he does the same thing with an all too predictable result. Do you think that Wenger is so tactically dogmatic that he actually refuses to adjust the way his team sets ups against opponents, regardless of who they are? He rarely, if ever, makes an interesting change to his set up to suit his opponents – he is effectively the anti-Mourinho in this regard. He seems to be saying ‘this is the way we play and screw the consequences if we come up short’ yet curiously he has not always been like this. How the Arsenal fans must long for a return of Wenger circa 2002-2005.
Analysing Chelsea is pretty straight forward these days. We pretty much know the team and how they will play. It is merely a question of whether the players perform with regards to the outcome. Your comment on Drogba is very true. Chelsea require him to play well when he is on the pitch. If he is marked out of the game, like against City and Inter last season, Chelsea look rather one-dimensional and lacking in ideas. I would also like to make the case for Mikel being man of the match today. He was excellent. Calm in possession and excellent in the tackle. Ramires also had his best game in a Chelsea shirt; he looks like he will be a very good player with his constant movement proving difficult to track. He still lacks a bit of awareness of the way English teams press and tackle but I think he will just get better and better.
” How the Arsenal fans must long for a return of Wenger circa 2002-2005″
Does he have the players to revert to the set-up of old? Two holders, absence of pressing tactics, dropping off to form two relatively deep banks of four and then murdering teams on the counter-attack.
I didn’t necessarily mean return to the tactics or system of old (although he could do with revisiting the blueprint for success from that period) more that Arsenal fans probably long for a return to the more pragmatic Wenger of that period (i.e. one who covets success as well as good football). I really do believe that his tactical dogmatism in the face of growing evidence is hampering Arsenal’s development. He seems to be totally committed to one way of playing and unfortunately that one way objectively does not work against the best sides in the world (be that counter attacking sides like Man Utd, passing sides like Barcelona, or space controlling sides like Chelsea). As much as he would have liked he has not created the ‘Barcelona of Islington’ and is likely to never achieve that.
Yes they missed RvP and Fabregas but once again it is the Cole Drogba Axis of Evil that caused them problems. Why does Wenger seem to wilfully ignore this year after year? I think his arrogance has overtaken his judgement and he simply refuses to adjust to game situations preferring to rely on his fantasy of being able to “pass” Chelsea, or any other team, off the park. Even against Barcelona he refused to change that approach when it was clearly suicidal. The opening 30 minutes at the Emirates was the most comprehensive battering I have ever seen another team give a supposed equal and yet Arsene Wenger somehow seems to avoid any scrutiny because of his commitment to “good football”. Sooner or later people will start questioning Wenger’s clear lack of tactical nous. Now if they win the league this year I will have to eat a lot of humble pie!
Kabul,
Not that I possess an insight into the recesses of Wenger’s mind (does anybody), but I severely doubt that the man’s priority has become any less about winning than it ever was; his passion for the game marries an appreciation aesthetic with glory.
We’re beginning to buy into a caricature of Wenger as this capricious ideologue whose pursuit of beauty over functionality is holding back the club’s progress. Now, as a manager operating in the modern media age, he might be well advised to do something to dispell this image – substance does trump style and all that, but the role of PR is not something trifle – it does play a role in the game. SO maybe Wenger is not helping himself in this regard.
No, I really think there is no problem with the philosophy (do you really want to be Liverpool in a few years’ time; no trophies coupled with awful football, no home-produced players to speak of).
The matter is one of tactical adjustment. Arsenal now possess a glut of players to play this 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 (and hybrids in-between), many of whom are home produced, but there seems to be a disconnect to properly prepare them, rehearse them , drill them to make it water-tight.
Perhaps he could do with a technocrat like Henk Ten Cate to put the players throught their routines (which Arsene himself would oversee and design, all fitting into his broader vision of how he wants the team to play). Someone like Ten Cate who has experience in drilling teams who press high could be a laudable addition to the training staff.
Roberticus, as an Arsenal fan, the point of having a technocrat is spot on. I think a coach of that nature will bring an element of pragmatism to marry Arsene’s current philosophy will take them up a notch. I feel that this is the addition the team needs as opposed to stronger players, because providing the players with a greater tactical awareness when not in possession will lead to a stronger team mentally.
Good points on the need to drill his side more effectively. I am not sure where Ten Cate is these days actually.
I am actually a pretty big fan of Wenger and his philosophy – he is clearly interested in developing a team and an ethic which is all laudable. I do, however, think that he is pretty deluded, at least in the press, as he often seems to totally misread games. If he comes away from this game thinking that Arsenal had Chelsea “on the ropes” for most of the game then he really is setting himself up to be accused of being an ideologue.
On your point…I wonder what would happen if the Arsenal squad had a driller like Mourinho. Maybe that would take Arsenal to the next level? I mean they certainly have the players but I just wonder if Wenger is starting to look quite dated in his approach to tactics. Today’s game is, I would argue, more tactically sophisticated than his halcyon days of 2000-2005 and requires adjustment according to each match. However if they did follow that route what is to say they won’t pull a “Liverpool” and achieve short-term success only to end up lost, confused with nowhere to go, and no one coming through the ranks. It is a risk that if I was an Arsenal fan I would not want to take…
Ah the confusion of it all!
Also Kabul, I do agree that his attempts to implant a Barcelona-style system are not quite coming off, and were possibly even unnecessary. Though if any team are positioned to replicate the Barcelona set-up it is Arsenal, and the players they have on their books now are ideal for such a philosphy of playing. Besides, it’s not as if Wenger was previously wedded to 4-4-2 only; some of his Nancy and Monaco sides had played 4-3-3, 3-5-2 and so forth (admittedly that 4-3-3 was during a much less athletically-demanding era).
But I did love watching Wenger’s interpretation of 4-4-2 between 2000 and 2005; even that transition period of 2006-2008 with Fabregas making the central midfield even more offensive.
Maybe for certain games, he’d be better advised to revert to the older system and drop-off to create space.
I loved the 2000-2005 team as well. Pires, Ljungberg, Viera, Petit, Bergkamp, Henry…backed up by a brilliant back 5…what is not to love? Outside of Chelsea (I am a fan so it is not objective!) that team was my favourite to watch during the Premier League years.
The difference, made plain last season, is that Barcelona (and Spain for that matter) are a brilliant tactical team. They are style and substance…something I do not think you can say about Arsenal at the moment. They have a set system but they adapt, they press, they irritate, they form a back three, they have one up, then two, then three, then four, the full backs are very dangerous and always get forward. And this is all built on a solid defensive system…Barcelona have been the best defensive team in the world over the last few years.
Arsenal have not tried to implement this system, which requires lots of discipline from the players. There’s is a variant that is in turns brilliant, against poor sides, and completely flawed against good sides. Hence why I think that Wenger deserves scrutiny. Not of his philosophy but of his ability to implement it.
Couldn’t agree more.
You’re pretty much guaranteed no tactical surprises from him. I speak to my Arsenal friends and they seem completely unable to grasp how similar both matches against Chelsea have panned out.
It’s almost like they dismiss the defeat, only to make the exact same mistake the next time.
I think that’s generally accurate. I’m pretty sure that I read an interview with an Arsenal player last year in which he said that Wenger very rarely talks to his players about nullifying the opponent’s strengths before a game. Instead, he works on ensuring that Arsenal play to their own strengths.
I’m afraid that I can’t remember who the player was, or where I read it!
Fabregas said the exact same thing about Spain during the World Cup this summer.
Indeed. I found that a bit strange. Was reading a bit of Tony Adam’s autobiography and he said that Wenger didn’t talk about the opposition once (Newcastle) before the 1998 FA Cup Final. That’s probably a great sign of strength when you’re the stronger team (Arsenal were the best in the country) but when you have a problem overcoming a side (as Arsenal do with Chelsea) you surely have to be less naive.
I think you are misunderstanding some of Wenger methdologies.
The formations rarely change true – it the different players with different characteristics that allow the systems it’s flexibility.
Wngers way of counteracting Chelsea was to play the most physically imposing players at his disposal. This prevented arsenal from being bullied in the midfield and allowed them to dominate it. It also allowed Arsenal to when a surprising number of header everywhere on the pitch. Can’t find passing lanes in a packed midfield pass over it
Arshavin had a poor game and could do nothing against Ivanovic , with Walcott unavailable Arsenal could not get behind Chelsea with pace. In recent games Arshavin has been attempting to run at defenses when he get the ball to pull defendors out of possition but nothing worked for him except a shot Cech saved.
Without Walcott, Nasri is the best Arsenal player who can play wide right. Eboue has a confidence issue when going forward and his days at arsenal are numbered once Wenger gets a decent 2nd choice right back.
Ashley Cole has been the best right back in the EPL for almost a decade – you cannot nulify him anymore than you can nullify Glen Johnson, Sergio Ramos or Phillip Lahm but he was occupied for the most part and came forward far less than Clichy and Sanga in the 1st have but far more than Ivanovic whose job was to nullify Arshavin.
If Chamakh had the goalscoring prowess of Drogba, Arsenal would have one in my opinion. He may become that player later in his Arsenal career similar to how Henry and Drogba flourished in their second season.
Arsene sets out Arsenal to keep the ball and dominate the play – the more you have the ball the more chances you can create. Unfortunately the chances mainly fell to Chamakh and the defendors via headers while Nasri was the most clinical finisher of the squad available to arenal on the day.
“the more you have the ball the more chances you can create”.
For starters that is simply not true. Last seasons Inter are a brilliant case in point. Also both Chelsea and Man Utd allow Arsenal to have the ball. They do not want or need it most of the time and are happy to let Arsenal keep it, squeeze the space, and then break quickly.
I actually thought Arsenal played pretty well but I cannot believe they have the same problems year after year.
Also if you check out ZM’s chalkboards on The Guardian you can see that Arsenal’s system simply failed to work with no penetration achieved on the two wings – something that helps to pin back Chelsea’s fullbacks (especially Cole). Wenger is completely deluded if he thinks that Chelsea were “on the ropes” for large periods. Yes Arsenal had the ball and attacked a lot, especially in the second half, but Chelsea were always in control of the way the games was being played.
Yes, and Wenger has done a very good job of letting go of players which
Arsenal have needed (Gilberto Silva and Flamini), and not getting a decent Goalkeeper, and not having a good enough Striker to cover for Van Persie’s injury last season (or at least having one in Bendtner – who I rate, believe it or not – and not playing him consistently until the end of the season when it was all too late)……
The problem with being a genius (which I believe Wenger is) is that it’s always a fine line between genius and insanity, and unfortunately Wenger is now making decisions which are falling on the side of insanity and not genius anymore…..
Bendtner was playing when he was fit last year. He was injured at the same time as Van Persie. Bendtner’s only negative point is his first touch, if he improves that he will be really good. I am waiting for his return.If only RVP can stay fit. I can only dream.
Gilberto was looking pretty slow in his last season at Arsenal and Flamini wanted exorbitant wages. But even allowing that he should have replaced those players.
you have sold out, to the gambling industy sigh…………… first Johnthan Wilson now you.
ollie, stop being so american
I loathe comments like that
I would imagine that this website takes up a staggering amount of time and effort to produce – I know how much effort it takes me to put together one or two blogs a month in my spare time. Unless ZM is from a very rich family I would presume he needs to earn a living somehow and unfortunately on websites that often has to come from advertising. I am presuming from your moral high ground that you are beyond reproach when it comes to “selling out”.
Indeed. As enjoyable as the site is to run, it also needs to make some money for it to be manageable. The adverts don’t interfere remotely with the content, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.
Also, it’s quite nice that you’ve gone to the effort to clearly label “advert” above the ads, so that gentlemen like the one above don’t accidentally click on them :p
Although it was very similar to the games last year, in the fact that Arsenal didn’t deal with the threat posed by Drogba and A.Cole, I am not a fan of Arsene Wenger, but to be fair to him, he can’t help the fact that one of his players misses a free header from about two yards out. Had that gone in, we’ll never know what could have happened.
What we can do, is analyse from what happened after the miss, and the points that have already been made say it all really. Nasri is a very good player in my opinion, but he’s not good enough defensively to play right midfield, especially when the left back he’d be tracking is Ashley Cole, who attacks better than any left back in the world in my opinion. I’ve said that Wenger can’t help players missing chances that even Emile Heskey might put in the back of the net, but he can help making the same tactical mistake two years in a row. Did he learn nothing from last year? Tactically he is behind the likes of Ancelotti, Jose and Sir Alex, and Arsenal are going to win nothing with him in charge.
Unfortunately, it looks like tactically he has become more naive and there’s been too much talk of Arsenal’s style, compromises need to be made when they look this unlikely to win something. He’s already done his fair share of winning. Ligue 1 with Monaco, 3 EPL titles, 4 FA cups and a CL final with Arsenal. The difference now is how much criticism he gets for Arsenal’s lack of success since 2005. How valid are the excuses I mean. As you mention, this was similar to either of last year’s games. Chelsea were never challenged tactically.
ZM, what did you think of Mikel today?
I thought he was absolutely fantastic. Composed on the ball, always helping his CBs out and had no problem distributing the ball in tight spaces.
He really has come on leaps and bounds since Ancelotti took over.
I agree with you completely. Mikel has been my favourite Chelsea player so far this season. It is great to see a player develop so much. He is not a Makelele replacement, he is the modern-style defensive midfielder who is expected to protect the back four but also have excellent distribution and athletic ability.
I do not know what Ancelotti has done but Mikel has come on brilliantly since last year. It might well be that it is his natural ability coming through after a number of years getting chances in the first team but he does seem to be a guaranteed starter these days and I would argue was better than Essien today. Perhaps knowing he has the confidence of his manager helps. Plus there is no Michael Ballack to hold him back these days.
Very good, he’s s star. Great stats today as well.
Check out Paul Doyle’s article on Mikel in Saturday’s Guardian; a nice read which shares much of ZM’s admiration for the player.
Interestingly, the article reports that Wilkins and Ancelotti have been instructing Mikel “to hit a few more progressive passes” this year, because clearly the player possesses the technique to do so.
On the whole, I don’t share Paul Doyle’s oft-expressed hostile sentiments towards holding midfielders – he seems to place great value on CMs advancing with the ball- maybe this explains his love of box-to-box midfielders and his proposal that Raul Meirieles and Aquilani/Gerrard staff the Liverpool central midfield at the beginning of this season; but there always must be a midfielder who is adept at staying behind the ball, preferably close to the defence, since he is the epicentre of the team, without which it loses structure.
The new Pirlo?
Or the new Alonso?
Mikel gets a lot of stick but I think he’s good. When he was younger apparently he played in a lot more creative role for his club and Nigeria youth international teams, but having been converted to a defense-minded player he gets criticised for not scoring/setting up chances etc. That’s not his job! In the same way that Song, De Jong and Mascherano don’t try to really contribute much to attacks. Their main contribution to the attack is winning the ball back in the first place and starting it – and also protecting the defence to allow full backs to venture forward. He’s becoming a class player, he’s intimidating but can also play a bit if he has to.
I thought the first goal basically showed that Arsenal don’t work defensively as a team, they work independently of each other.
Malouda has the ball on the left, Sagna is dealing with him. Song comes over to try to help, leaving Wilshere as the only player in front of the back four with both Ramires and Essien (I think) free. When Song comes across, he has to get the ball, if he doesn’t and it is played back to one of those two players, then there will always be a player unmarked. When Ramires wins the ball in the challenge with Chamakh it falls to Mikel and Ramires receives it back again. Wilshere is unsure of whether to go to Ramires or Essien so ends up stranded between the two putting pressure on neither player. Not his fault as such, he is inexperienced, but Song has not sprinted back to get back into position. Furthermore, Nasri has fallen asleep and not tracked A.Cole’s run and Squillaci never really gets into a good position to challenge Drogba for the ball. Marvelous finish but a catalogue of defensive errors.
Arsenal look so inexperienced compared to Chelsea in that midfield area. Chelsea got men back so quickly when Arsenal broke, Arsenal were not so quick and Song’s lack of positional awareness is really costing Arsenal at the moment. Does Wenger’s philosophy include not knowing how to position oneself defensively individually or as a team? It really doesn’t reflect well on him.
For the record Arsenal have had this problem with Evra as well. Another LB that doesn’t get tonnes of assists but makes it count when he does break forward. In consecutive games (06/07 and 07/08 season) at the Emirates, Evra got forward and his run was not tracked, leading to goals for Rooney in the first game and Ronaldo in the second as I recall.
Wenger has never replaced Ljungberg’s defensive work imo. I don’t mind Eboué but he’s not an ideal player to line up in front of Sagna. Nasri, Walcott, Eboué or whatever need to put the defensive work in though, not sure they’re up to it atm and Man Utd and Chelsea always seem to exploit this.
One good thing which came out for chelsea yesterday was an improved performance from Ramires.hes extremely quick( outpaced clichy once )and so quick that in one of the chelsea counterattacks he was caught offside
. Also when lampard comes back, i think he can play as an backup inside winger for chelsea( a role which anelka is playing now )..
Diaby ALWAYS plays high up the pitch. Why does everyone act surprised when they see him sitting behind the striker/s?
Well, it’s the first time this season that he’s started as the most attacking midfielder of the three.
Actually, he doesn’t always play high up the pitch but that’s the place where he plays best. I’m always suprised when people compare him with Vieira. He is not only poor tactically and defensevily but is also not as strong as Vieira and his work rate is unsatisfactory for a Premier League midfielder. However his presence behind Chamakh was a good idea. In the first half Arsenal’s press has been good but the thing is that they use it in one out of five games and therefore they can’t execute it good enough. And not only that, but physically they were very tired in the second half because they rarely press so serious. I’m already used to the idea that Wenger won’t admit his mistakes and won’t change his plan A. But at least he should develop his plan A if he really wants his project to be successful. And the last 2-3 years his plan A doesn’t seem to get better.
ZM, one request… Could you take over AW??
Ha ha just joking. But one serious question… what makes wenger thinks putting Diaby so high up in the pitch will win the match? And this loss… is it down to psychological or just purely tactical, cos Arsenal miss so many chances, it is unbelievable. Even if eboue is around to shut off cashley, at most Arsenal can get a draw.
Arsenal played all the football and Chelsea scored all the goals; simple as that. Chelsea conceded the flanks as they knew Arsenal can’t hurt them from crosses. Chamakh did very well to win the ball in the air even against Drogba at times but was never on target and there will be no one else in the box for Arsenal.
Arsenal pressed hard from the top for Cech to put the long ball, but whenever Koscielny or Squillaci won the the ball the midfield was so high up that the loose ball fell mostly to Chelsea.
The goal threat was minimal as apart from Nasri there are not much goals in the Arsenal midfield these days and with him playing in wide areas that was also gone. Diaby played just behind Chamakh but was not to be seen in the box; did he even have a shot on goal?
I believe Arsenal dealt with the physicality quite well but the spine of the team is missing, I have seen Arsenal falter against efficient teams in years but I believe now they can cope better against physical efficient sides.
Nice one ZM. Thank you.
These three posts above look like they’re responding to nothing, because I deleted the initial post.
Please stop it.
I was wondering whether anyone agreed that arsenal have a problem at centre back not because of personnel but because of their style of play. Arsene Wenger has to buy/acquire extremely rare types of centre half that preform very specific roles. Fast, proactive (in the sense that they help the midfield defend the midfield area with bot their tackling and aerial ability) and good on the ball.
If you look at the Chelsea’s centre backs they both defended deep without being expected to do anything on the ball other than offload it to the midfield ball and with very little risk of getting turned, Arsenal’s played high up the pitch and have a responsibility to create space/attacking opportunities for the midfield, and as a result are turned and played through constantly. Put Alex and Terry in that situation and they are just as shockingly awful, take City’s goal, it’s one you’d be very likely to see arsenal concede. Another example is Vincent Kompany who has started the season really well; he defends with three defensive midlfielders in front of him and relatively deep. Vidic is another example especially against Everton this season nearly all of his blocks interceptions tackles etc were made were made within or on the sixteen yard line.
My defense of Arsene Wenger is He can’t out and buy some lumbering Mertersacker /Hangeland/Subotic/ who will dominate aerially and make a few more blocks than Koscielny/Vermaelen but doesn’t have the agility, speed and creativity to service arsenal’s midfield with a bit more bite defensively and creatively.
Even Pique and Puyol look like amateur (arsenal) defenders when Busquets presences is by passed.
Arsenal’s centre back always look raggedy, and they don’t hold a great line, as they look to charge out and jockey/hold off players or basically try and confront danger sooner, vermaelen/squillaci in particular.
their job is a lot harder than the likes of terry alex vidic kompany!
Watching the match yesterday one of the key differences I noticed (which has been alluded to higher up) was the difference in the positional sense of the holding players – Mikel had a strict mandate to screen the back four at all times, and drop in between for crosses a la Busquets – as such he was always facing oncoming attacks and able to break them up.
When you look at his opposite number, Song – the difference was stark. Song was all over the place, breaking forward often to join in with Arsenal attacks, and at one point in the first half pressing Ivanovic deep into the Chelsea half. This also meant that as Chelsea broke Song was always chasing the play and not in a good position to intercept. The Arsenal line-up today had 5 “attacking” players (not counting the fullbacks) so it seems Song was either instructed to go forward as a “wildcard” attacker to overload, or has no positional discipline. By the second half (when admittedly Arsenal were chasing the game) cover for the Arsenal back for was shockingly absent. Every time Chelsea attacked they could bring the ball all the way to the Arsenal back four with no screen to overcome beforehand – hence the fouls from the back four, and Chelsea chances late on.
While this has been happening for some time (witness Denilson V Man Utd last season), more baffling is why Wenger has not, and will not, address this problem. Surely if Song is stationed in front of the back four then Wilshere can go box to box knowing there is cover. Likewise the fullbacks are not as exposed when they go forward. As a manager who brought in the likes of Vieira, Petit, Diarra, and Gilberto,(and who makes no secret of his admiration for the Barca system – Busquets?!?) where has this myopia regarding the position come from?? As an Arsenal fan I’ve always stood up for AW but it’s getting tougher when a player as limited as Song is given remit to bomb forward as an auxiliary playmaker leaving the defence exposed to an attack as lethal as Chelseas… ZM what are your thoughts on AW’s tactical motivation for this change?
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Alex Song, who was either shockingingly ill-disciplined, or had been given quite bizzare tactics. He seemed to be everywhere and nowhere, doing nothing in particular except giving away fouls.
Second, while Arsenal do obviously have an issue dealing with what you mention (cole+drogba), their much bigger problem is simply finishing. Arsenal had the much better chances until they were chasing the game and started getting countered easily. If they had converted them, their tactics would have worked out fine.
As such I’m quite confused as to why you paint the picture of Arsenal being “out-tacticted”. Overall, they created the superior chances. Isn’t that all you can really do when it comes to tactics? There were flaws of course (Song, Drogba – not that Arsenal are the only team to struggle with him), but in most areas they were the better team. Except finishing, which is of course crucial.
Even if they had dealt perfectly with cole+drogba, they would still be unable to beat Chelsea, and that isn’t about tactics.
I don’t think your view disagrees particularly with the one stated in the piece – “This appeared to be part of an Arsenal tactic to press intensely in midfield, and they made the start of the game a fast-paced, frantic scrap as Chelsea struggled to work the ball through midfield up to the strikers…Arsenal had the better of the opening, their midfielders seeming more confident and composed on the ball…Arsenal dominated possession but weren’t clinical enough.”
But this only begs the question as to what constitutes ‘tactics’. ‘Clinical finishing’ can be practiced and to some degree coached (Chamakh needs to treat his feet like he does his head–just shoot), and some players have it more than others, and some days even those who do have it don’t–but I’m not sure ‘clinical finishing’ is a ‘tactic’.
Chelsea did what seasoned teams with mature players do–that is manufacture a goal out of a half-chance (and perhaps some poor officiating). I think Arsenal got their tactics right–hound Chelsea’s midfield, which was in short supply in the first 40 minutes, and only appeared in full about the 65-70 minute mark. I could see other teams going this route; and I do wonder what happens to Chelsea if they lose Drogba for even a short spell.
“I do wonder what happens to Chelsea if they lose Drogba for even a short spell”
I believe all you have to do is look back to January 2010 when Chelsea were without Drogba (and Essien and Mikel) for the whole of that month. Unbeaten I believe, loads of goals scored, and the juggernaut continued.
Yes Chelsea would miss him (who wouldn’t?) but they are objectively not a one man team by any stretch.
I seem to remember they had some pretty easy games when they were missing him. Saying that they had an easy start this season – but you’ve still gotta win them. Arsenal lost at home to West Brom, a team Chelsea scored for fun against. That’s the difference. They don’t slip up at all.
On Song I’m just surprised you didn’t comment on his sort of “defensive free role”, pressing Ivanovic at right back and such oddities. I found it very strange. Surely he should be staying in midfield?
On the rest, I just don’t understand the concentration on Cole+Drogba. Obviously theirs was the pivotal contribution, but I didn’t get the impression at all that it came about due to tactics. Cole did very little offensively in the game. What more can one ask for than that? Obviously a mistake was made, but that is not tactics.
Throughout the game Arsenal controlled possession and created many quarter-half chances and a few rather good ones. Chelsea created very, very little until a mistake + great finish put them ahead, and then the typical defend and counter routine could be played out. Even then, though, Chelsea were having to put in plenty of last ditch blocks and such.
So, I don’t really see what Arsenal did wrong tactically. They controlled the game, created chances, and did OK at restricting Chelsea’s. The only difference was Arsenal’s finishing was wank and Chelsea’s wasn’t. Except Anelka anyway.
Seconded on Song (see my post above)
which surely leads into your other point on tactics – the pressing worked for Arsenal but did they need Song to press so far up the field in addition? Surely if he’d been more disciplined (ie leaving others, esp. Diaby, Wilshire, to press beyond halfway) then the pressing game could have worked, allied to a stronger defensive base. If that had been the case maybe Chelsea’s first could have been avoided?
“Obviously a mistake was made, but that is not tactics.”
Not sure about that. Cole’s a considerable attacking threat, playing a ‘defensive’ winger up against him hardly would have been unreasonable. Nasri’s not very good defensively – Wenger played him up against probably the best attacking full-back in the world at this moment. So simply because Cole was only allowed all the time and space he wanted once, it makes it OK? One moment can change a football match, and it did here.
Don’t agree with the idea that “Chelsea created very, very little” before the goal either. Drogba going through with a narrow one-on-one with Fabianski comes behind, and their counter-attacking started long before the goal too, for exaple when Sagna had to come across and slash behind.
But Cole’s assisted three goals in the last three games against Arsenal now, all from exactly the same position, all when the Arsenal wide midfielder hasn’t tracked him. Such is the repeating nature, I odn’t think it’s unfair to focus on Wenger’s inability to learn his lesson there.
“Not sure about that. Cole’s a considerable attacking threat, playing a ‘defensive’ winger up against him hardly would have been unreasonable. Nasri’s not very good defensively – Wenger played him up against probably the best attacking full-back in the world at this moment. So simply because Cole was only allowed all the time and space he wanted once, it makes it OK? One moment can change a football match, and it did here.”
What should he have done? Played Eboue there? Where’s Arsenal’s threat going to come from then?
“Don’t agree with the idea that “Chelsea created very, very little” before the goal either. Drogba going through with a narrow one-on-one with Fabianski comes behind, and their counter-attacking started long before the goal too, for exaple when Sagna had to come across and slash behind.”
Don’t recall a Drogba 1v1 tbh. Don’t know the relevance of the latter. If Sagna slashed it behind then it wasn’t a chance. I recall very few instances before the goal, of a Chelsea player having a remotely decent shot at goal. IIRC Arsenal had blown 3 decent-good chances before Drogba sent a free kick into orbit for Chelsea’s first chance. Couple decent headed chances for Chamakh, a point blank unmarked header than Kos made a mess of etc. They should have scored at least 1 before Drogba got that half chance (it was nothing more, players almost never score those).
“But Cole’s assisted three goals in the last three games against Arsenal now, all from exactly the same position, all when the Arsenal wide midfielder hasn’t tracked him. Such is the repeating nature, I odn’t think it’s unfair to focus on Wenger’s inability to learn his lesson there.”
Does he have a choice though? Play Eboue instead of Nasri, stop Cole, but present so little threat that they get opened up elsewhere? Not having Cesc kind of forced him to play Nasri for offensive threat, no?
I ask these things because you say what went wrong, but not how he could have fixed them..
“What should he have done? Played Eboue there? Where’s Arsenal’s threat going to come from then?”
Yes, that’s exactly what he should have done, in my view. You’re acting like it would have been some massive shock, playing a player completely out of position – he’s started there twice already this season, so it’s hardly as if Wenger doesn’t think he can play there. Sometimes you need defensive players on the wing in games like these. Park Ji-Sung or Dirk Kuyt being good examples.
Not really sure how you can ignore the Drogba chance in all this, that’s just bizarre…the ‘relevance’ of the Sagna clearance behind was, as the initial post stated, in relation to your comment that the counter-attacking started after Chelsea went 1-0 up, when that wasn’t the case. I didn’t claim it was a chance, I claimed they were counter-attacking dangerously before the goal, as evidenced by that incident.
But yes, Eboue was the obvious choice. I said it before the game, for the record – http://betting.betfair.com/football/premiership/the-big-match-tactical-view-chelsea-v-arsenal-021010.html (second last para) so hardly as if it’s a surprise that Cole made the vital impact.
“Play Eboue instead of Nasri, stop Cole, but present so little threat that they get opened up elsewhere”
That doesn’t remotely follow – no logic there. So making yourself more defensive secure in one area of the pitch automatically means you’ll be more vulnerable elsewhere? No. Not sure about this “less attacking threat” lark after a game when Arsenal scored 0 (for the third game running against Chelsea) either…
I actually agree with Matt wholeheartidly.
If you would have actually played Eboue, you don’t understand how Arsenal work or what Eboue problems are.
“So making yourself more defensive secure in one area of the pitch automatically means you’ll be more vulnerable elsewhere?”
Eboue would allow Chelsea to dominate the midfield an push Arsenal back while not being an outlet for a counterattack. His form has been very very poor this season and he and Diaby stunk in the West Brom game. To play Eboue in a match against Man city, United or Chelsea is defeatist.
Arsene wants the team to boss the game. When the game was even they managed to do that, but Didier Drogba scored a marvelous undefensible goal and Chelsea was able to play cantenaccio in the 2nd half.
It’s funning that you mention Park Ji-Sung, and Dirk Kuyt. Man United haven’t had a good left-sided winger since Giggs lost his leggs and the other option to Kuyt is Maxi.
Listen your points well taken that you’d like to see cole pinned back but you allso fail to remember something in the 1st leg against Barca Nasri and Arshavin were switch so Nasri could track Dani Alves (before Arshavin went off).
“Wenger went with his standard line-up, but with Arshavin deployed on the right, Nasri on the left – presumably because Nasri is slightly better defensively and therefore better against the Alves-Messi combination down Barcelona’s right.”
Most Arsenal supporters will tell you that although Eboue is loved, He is simply not good enough for Arsenal.
Cole is an absolute quality left back I think you can partially negate him I haven’t seen a team yet who can STOP him.
What do other ZM readers think of this system.
Almunia (still better than Fab)
Sagna
Song
Kos
Clichy
Eboue
Denilson
Diaby
Nasri
Arshavin
Chamakh
Song is very comfortable playing CB, he’s good in the air, reads the game well, and he would be able to provide a physical challenge to Drogba, no way would he get bullied the way Kos and Squillaci were at times. The way I see it, with centre backs, one has to be the agressor, whilst the other sweeps up behind, Vidic and Ferdinand are the best example, but with Kos and Squillaci, neither are physically imposing enough to play the agressor role against someone like Drogba. But Kos would be able to play the sweeping role, as he has good speed, and he would have Song up against Drogba.
As for the midfield, take Nasri out of the right hand side, put him in his best position, which is in the hole behind the striker, and put Eboue on the right hand side with just one responsibility, TO DEFEND. And by defend, that means defend, every single run Cole makes, Eboue has to be goalside, no drifting in centrally leaving gaps for Cole to exploit. Denilson basically playing the Mikel role. Mikel is a big physical specimen, but how often does he actually use that? Not as often as you may think because his reading of the game and positioning is so good, he’s just always in the right position to break up play, and start another attack. People are normally critical of DM’s who barely get out of there own half, but for me, this is perfect for a defensive midfielder. Diaby needs to do a job on Essien, and cover the inside runs that Anelka makes, with Denilson likewise on Malouda. Nasri needs to support and get beyond Chamakh.
That system is similar in structure and organisation to how Mourinho’s Inter Milan were set up last year, and very much linking in with Mourinho’s philosophy of stopping the other team playing, and making sure that every player on you’re team is stopping the opposition. But Wenger is just tactically not good enough, And to be honest, Arsenal just aren’t good enough in general. All over the pitch they are lacking, Squillaci is poor, and Vermaelen is overated, Arshavin is massively overated, and Arsenal’s options for LM are just awful, and up front, RVP is just always injured, and Chamakh seems to me like he just can’t finish, should have scored with two headers yesterday, then had another chance but took too long and was tackled by Ramires.
For Arsenal to be successful, a new start is needed, Wenger has to go, because at the moment, they are just a world apart in quality from United and Chelsea.
TBH neither Denilson or Diaby are up to the task – they’ve had so many chances to stake a claim and failed at every attempt. But yes, a double pivot would be preferable to no pivot!
I can’t agree with you about Arshavin – I read a stat the other day that in his (after Sunday) 65 games for Arsenal, he’s scored 23, and assisted 23 more. He’s a class player.
Our centre backs aren’t bad player for player, it’s just that the formation repeatedly leaves them exposed on the counter – ZM has already highlighted Vermaelen being sucked into midfield elsewhere. But Kos, Schillaci and Vermaelen all have the requisite ability IF they were used as part of a more solid formation. Also don’t forget for the first two, they’ve been playing in English football for only 2 months.
Overall though, I think your key point here is about Arsenal needing to set themselves up tactically by at least paying some notice to the opposition’s tactics – in this case Cole’s overlaps that (like Evra’s) have undone the team on numerous previous occasions.
A world apart in quality from United, really?
You mean the United that was satisfied with a draw against Sunderland and Bolton?
Arsenal dominated possession?
That’s stretching it a bit.
They certainly saw more of the ball once they were one down. But that is nearly always the case. Arsenal dominated very little.
They did create enough to get on the score sheet. However, two shots on target from inside the box is nowhere near good enough.
Again, though, they were well beaten.
With serious issues still remaining (keeper, fullbacks, centreback, defensive midfielder, striker) Wenger’s team are becoming a parody.
These matches always seem to end in Arsenal what ifs.
Chelsea’s whats are based on a clear superiority.
One thing I have noticed over the past few seasons, Chelsea seem to play better on Arsenal’s bigger pitch. They can stretch their opponents more there. At the Bridge, they are more cagey.
Hi ZM,
big fan of your website & this is the first time I am posting. I am an Arsenal fan & my question to you is regarding our defensive problems. Inspite of having very good defenders & defensive midefielders, I am clueless to why our defending has been sub par for the past few years. Its easy to say that we don’t defend as a team but a deep tactical analysis from you would be highly appreciated.
Apologies, as I din’t know where else to post this request.
OK, a relevant link, but you’ve posted it twice now – stop it.
Please stop these annoying blog announcements. If your comments are that interesting I will go and check out your blog. Currently the chances of me doing that are pretty much zero.
Yes, no need to have posted it twice! You seem to like doing everything twice..even linking to your website twice!
This is the second time I have seen this happen. Gerrard did the same against Manchester United. That one was either extremely clever, or plain lucky. One player pressed against Fletcher and just as Gerrard was about to kick the ball he pushed away and Fletcher, as I suppose any one would, moved enough to leave a gap in the wall. An extremely clever routine, or just lucky? As much as I hate Liverpool, I was quite impressed with that.