Arsenal 3-1 Chelsea: Arsenal’s poor run against title contenders comes to an end
Alex Song, Cesc Fabregas and Theo Walcott scored the goals as Arsenal stormed to victory.
The starting line-ups
Arsene Wenger chose Robin van Persie rather than Marouane Chamakh, with Theo Walcott in for Andrei Arshavin, and Samir Nasri moving to the left. Lukasz Fabianski returned in goal.
Carlo Ancelotti lost Nicolas Anelka shortly before kick-off, with Saloman Kalou replacing him. The rest of the side was as expected.
The game started at a fast pace, and a familiar pattern for games involving these two sides. The home side had 63% of possession in the first half, as Ancelotti continued with his usual tactics against Arsenal – sit deep, narrow and get men behind the ball.
Walcott vital as Arsenal press
Probably the most surprising selection – Walcott over Arshavin – turned out to be key. He was disciplined defensively and dangerous when he got the ball (even if his touch let him down a couple of times) and gave Ashley Cole far more to think about than in the previous fixtures between these sides, when the left-back was a constant threat on the overlap.
The defensive job was not all about tracking runs into deep areas, however. The most important feature of Arsenal’s game today was not what they did with the ball, but how well they pressed Chelsea when they lost it. Walcott was important in this respect – compared to Arshavin’s lethargy, his energy and willingness to chase non-stop typified Arsenal’s approach as a whole. And ‘as a whole’ is the most important part there – Arsenal pressed cohesively, as a unit, rather than in ones and twos.
The difference between the two sides without the ball is demonstrated well by the different positions of their interceptions:
The natural result was that Arsenal played high up the pitch, and therefore Chelsea’s main (only?) tactic with the ball was to knock passes over the top of the Arsenal defence for their forwards to chase. There was little understanding between the runners and the passers, however, and frequently Chelsea were caught offside. More credit is due to Arsenal for working as a unit without the ball, but it’s also worth considering whether Anelka’s pace would have made a difference here, especially Kalou had a very poor game.
Arsenal keep ball
The use of van Persie provided Arsenal with another passing option when in possession, as he played as a false nine and dropped deep between the lines. (Consequently, Arsenal kept the ball very well – the whole side ended the game with impressive pass completion ratios; Alex Song on 93% and Samir Nasri on 91% lead the way in midfield.) Arsenal weren’t able to use this option to directly create clear cut chances in the first half, however – Fabregas likes to exploit the space created by van Persie’s movement, but Jon Obi Mikel played very deep, even for him, and stayed goalside of the Spaniard, forcing him into deeper positions in midfield.
The first goal was always going to be crucial – it came when Alex Song broke forward into the penalty area to finish nicely. It was Song’s fourth goal of the season, the clearest advantage of his newer role in recent months (rotating the holding position with Jack Wilshere, rather than being the sole holding player).
Second half
Ancelotti’s half-time switch, to remove Mikel for Ramires and put Essien at the base of the midfield, did little to help Chelsea stamp their mark on the game, and gave Fabregas more space, free of the close attention of Mikel. He took advantage of that freedom to storm past Chelsea’s midfield and defence to tap in Walcott’s cross, and then when Walcott harried Malouda (typical of the approach outlined above), Fabregas slipped a return pass and Walcott produced his standard finish – low across the goalkeeper into the far corner.
At 3-0 it should have been game over, but Arsenal wobbled slightly after Branislav Ivanovic’s header got Chelsea back in it. It was an incredibly simple goal – a header from a long-distance, centralish free-kick played in behind the defence, and similar in nature to Andy Carroll and Younes Kaboul’s respective winners in previous games at the Emirates this season. It was, however, the only shot on target that Chelsea managed.
The removal of Walcott resulted in Arsenal coming under pressure – his replacement, Abou Diaby, played very centrally which allowed Ashley Cole space on the left. This was a strange change considering the threat of Cole, and was eventually rectified when Tomas Rosicky came on for the final few minutes on the right, with Arsenal moving to a simple 4-5-1 to see out the game.
Conclusion
Arsenal were better both with and without the ball. They passed neatly and pressed efficiently, but most importantly were clinical in front of goal.
Chelsea were awful. Their approach was similar to in Ancelotti’s previous successes against Arsenal, but individual errors were too frequent, and there was not enough creativity or invention on the ball to simply get Chelsea up the pitch in order to relieve pressure, let alone to manufacture goalscoring chances.
After going behind they didn’t manage to turn the game around, finding it difficult to come forward from their deep, cautious opening, and set-pieces were their only route back into the game.
Arsenal 3-1 Chelsea: Arsenal’s poor run against title contenders comes to an end
Didn’t mention that Djourou was excellent, so consider that done here.
Chelsea looking stiff. How Essien and Malouda have become lifeless is incredible, I’ll put that one down to Ancelottis setup, people are hampered it seems by his tactical guidance.
Ramires… oh Ramires. Don’t want the ball from teammates, don’t want to get the ball from the opponents and can’t pass.. oh dear.
Yes, Mikel might as well have come off with a red card. I don’t remember a single contribution Ramires made to the game.
he helped the gunners win with his…stellar…play! If that’s not a contribution I don’t know what is
what about Solomon Kalou!? If I were Ancheloti I wouldn’t to late him play the game. as usual he was rubbish.
The bloke simply has nothing about him! OK, he’s a bit quick, but nothing on a Walcott or a Lennon, and he’s worse than both of them as a footballer.
..I shudder when I recall that we [Arsenal] were ’strongly’ linked with a move for Kalou to head over the Emirates last summer.
Ramires is probably the most pointless footballer in existence. Ok, that’s a tad far but I don’t see why Ancelotti would take off Mikel (who is so composed on the ball) for someone who is still to put in anything resembling a good display.
I don’t lay the blame with Ancelotti here. I think the reason that Essien and Malouda look lifeless and are making more mistakes is tiredness, rather than a lack of tactical inspiration from the manager. Both made big contributions to the team’s early season form and Malouda was excellent throughout the previous season. Now, however, Chelsea are paying the price for Abramovich’s cutbacks. In midfield, out went Deco, Ballack, Joe Cole and Belletti — all capable of playing in central midfield and/or on the wings in Ancelotti’s 4-3-3 — and in came just Ramires and Benayoun, who’s been out for some time due to injury. Zhirkov, too, is unavailable at the moment. A lack of depth is making Chelsea’s players very leggy in my opinion, compounded by the bad run of results and despite the break due to postponements. The most experienced player beyond their first choice 18 in terms of Chelsea league matches is Gael Kakuta; he’s played five times.
“tiredness” please, they just had a fortnight without a matchday
Not tiredness, no. No attacking midfielder. They lost Ballack/Deco/Cole in the same year and replaced them with Ramires who is not much of a scorer or play maker. They have good players in every position but no one in that position except for Lampard, who has been injured and Benayoun, ditto. Bad luck. And stupid if you ask me. You can’t put all your hopes on one player and hope he won’t get injured all season.
They don’t know how to get to the box, without trying to lob the defense or cross it from the flanks. Pressuring from the wing with fullbacks and wingers and wide-strikers… because there’s no one just outside the box. It’s not just poor play, but one dimensional.
This team, in this configuration, with Mikel in midfield, Kalou on the wing, Ferreira right back, Ramires whatever he’s supposed to be doing, it’s finished. I’m writing it off.
It doesn’t work like that though, does it? Do you think the argument that the winter break in the Premier League would favour the English national football team can be disregarded because there’s a four-week gap between the end of the season and the start of the World Cup?
I also think that thay lack depth.
I have to wonder at the lack of attacking options on Chelsea’s bench. Sturridge might have come in handy once they were down a goal or two. Perhaps due to the last minute injury to Anelka? Kalou surely would have been a sub with Anelka starting.
good point about the pressing as a whole, especially given walcotts’s post match comments…
Didn’t see that, what did he say??
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11670_6618741,00.html
apologies for brevity, on mobile.!
“Theo Walcott believes Arsenal made Chelsea look ‘average’ in their resounding 3-1 success over their rivals at Emirates Stadium.”
Great start by Arsenal to become title contenders by recording this victory. But remember that last season a diminutive guy nicknamed Leo made you guys look ‘average’ in Champions League, and it is very likely that history could repeat itself. Be careful with your words, Theo
Alex Song wasn’t there that match. Song marked Messi out of the game at the Emirates, and the only reason Barca scored 2 was because of Almunia being bad.
Stick a man on Messi and press just as hard as Barca do and this tie is more winnable than people think.
Last year’s game against Barcelona at the Nou Camp produced such a horrible result coz Silvestre played n Song didnt play. Ibra being injured, Pep played Messi thru the centre which caused trouble and Vermaelen’s bad positioning didnt help us either.
Messi was a mere nobody in the first leg when Clichy kept him out of the game, which was summed up when he was replaced in the final minutes when they needed a goal.
You stick a guy to Messi then you’ll have your whole team exploited; because you are making space for an even more dangerous guy named Xavi.
I think Song will play in midfield and is more likely to have clash with Xavi rather than Messi. You put Song at the back four than who will mark Xavi in midfield? In my personal opinion Arsenal MUST OBLIGED REQUIRED NEEDED to buy players (specifically in midfield, defence, or goalkeeper) in the January if they want to defeat Barcelona. Unfortunately, until now it seems that Wenger still thinks otherwise.
Or knowing he faces Barcelona, perhaps it’s Wenger’s strategy to concede the Champions League early so they can focus at EPL title?
“Song marked Messi out of the game at the Emirates, and the only reason Barca scored 2 was because of Almunia being bad.”
I see you’ve neglected to remember the opening half hour of that match. It’s OK though, I’d probably do the same if I was an Arsenal fan.
I’m a Chelsea fan, and that conclusion pretty much said it all, fair and frank article ZM. Saying that, am I the only one who cannot see how a player like Kalou can start for a side that are (supposed to be) title contenders?
I agree. Kalou sometimes looks good when Drogba and Anelka are running riot, but he rarely inspires Chelsea in tight games.
As per usual, I agree with you, but I feel Chelsea running hot could make (insert any popularly poor wide player here) look decent. He’s a fringe player at best, but it says a lot about the club at the moment – I miss the days of Robben, Duff and Cole, or even the hot and cold genious of Jesper Grønkjær!
Malouda was appalling. I cannot believe this was the same Malouda that has been nothing of breathtaking throughout the year. He chose the wrong time to be out of form. I have to say Chelsea were awful and they made an average Arsenal side look excellent. Chelsea started playing after going 3 goals down and i must say Gael Kakuta is a bright prospect. In conclusion, Arsenal deserved the victory because Chelsea were too poor – the poorest i have seen them this season. Today’s performance was worse than the Sunderland loss. Chelsea need to buy players in January.
Chelsea were poor because Arsenal out worked them.
Umm, not to take anything away from Arsenal’s victory, but need I remind you that this Chelsea is so poor, they lost to Roy Hodgson’s Liverpool and Birmingham… Hell, even Sunderland got a better result than Arsenal, they beat Chelsea 3-0 at the Bridge. Arsenal played well, but they can’t beat Man United yet…
Arsenal players need to hit the gym for two more months to beat ManUre.
How nice of you to conveniently forget that that we only lost 1 – 0 to manure WITHOUT first choice GK, first choice CB, first choice AM and first choice STR. And while the latter 2 do play at the end of the match, they lack of any team cohesion with the rest of the team due to long lay off.
This is the first time since the beginning of the season that we Arsenal can at least field out our preferred first 11. Heck, we have to shelved AA23 on the bench for once.
Write us off some more, so we can sell more humble pie comes May.
Oh God. I’m hearing it all now.
Arsenal ‘outplayed and outworked’ Chelsea is what I keep hearing now. Funny how in the previous 5 consecutive losses, it was a case of ‘Chelsea got lucky’.
Nothing like rose tinted glasses.
It was interesting how much Drogba dropped back into midfield in this game, trying to propel the attack. When your main attacking threat also has to provide impetus from midfield, it’s no wonder Chelsea were so lethargic.
no reason why it should not work better if he drops deep, works for Totti, Berba, Rooney, Messi….etc, Drogba use to stay up front and get isolated (which is a much larger problem IMO)
Koscielny was also great I think, other than being caught out of position once or twice.
Oh don’t worry, he contributed with the usual late challenges/stamps..
John Terry pulled quite a few Vermaelens (Vermaelen, noun, -reckless challenges that leave the center of defense exposed, while the (insert synonym of aggressive, euphemism for reckless) defender’s fullbacks play any opposing attacker onside). When the opposing side is keeping possession, the defense needs to maintain focus and shape, but chelsea didn’t do that, largely do to the movement of Van Persie (contributed a lot despite wasting chances) and the wide threat of Walcott and Nasri leaving the fullbacks in bad spots. Walcott’s goals are always almost identical to each other, where he sprints through the gap between fullback and center back before a low, composed finish to the far post. If only England had someone to play the initial pass… i’ll stop rambling now.
Glad you rectified that. Djourou has been better and better every game he plays and I simply cannot understand why he doesn’t get more playing time. I think he and Vermaelen could form one of the great defensive partnerships when he returns, although he also combines well with Koscielny. Also the Chelsea goal, as you rightly point out, is textbook for Arsenal to concede. Their set piece defending remains shaky. I cannot imagine how much stronger they would be with more emphasis on that.
Djourou hasn’t been playing in every game because he missed two years of football due to knee injuries, he’s only recently got fit and it could be very easy to overstrain his body again.
There’s only so much work you can do. In the end, Arsenal are just a really small team and will always suffer at set pieces, especially against a big team like Chelsea.
You mean like they yesterday suffered their 3:1 against Chelsea, conceding that one goal? Would not bother too much if they manage to otherwise dominate and score more often themselves. Ivanovic’s goal could have been saved by a more resolute goalkeeper, btw. Imagining what Oliver Kahn could have done in that situation
That was clearly an inexperience of Fabiański, I agree. But I quite don’t get your way of logic in what you said. Arsenal DID suffer at that set-piece. They conceded a goal. You won’t always score 3 goals, so you can have 2 spare scrappy goals to concede…
What I mean is, that Arsenal is in principle OK with suffering at set pieces, if it does not happen too often during a match.
Why is that so? Arsenal (Arsene Wenger) chooses to have a playing style based on mostly quick, agile, technically skilled and thus relatively small players. That’s Arsenal’s big strenght, when the players are fit, they can outrun, outpass and outdribble the opponent and keep so much possession that A) they score often enough in average, and B) the opposing team does not get forward too much (i.e., will not be fouled for dangerous set-pieces too often).
That is Arsenal’s plan. Pretty much similar to Barcelona and also Dortmund this season.
If you have such an approach, there are probably only 3-4 positions in your team that can counter/stifle any opposing areal threat at set pieces:
- maybe your striker or a defensive midfielder, but
- it is mostly the central defenders (Puyol, Pique; Hummels, Subotic). If you are fortunate, you got a central defender that can even play the ball well, like Pique or Hummels…
- Most important though, is surely your goalkeeper. Valdes and Weidenfeller are pretty big, mean machines, if you know what I mean, and they will sure go for such a header that Ivanovic easily scored.
Bottom line: Arsenal might need a better goalkeeper, and/or maybe some really good central defenders that can also play the ball.
Otherwise, it is not their plan to be particularly good at (defending) set pieces, because their plan A is keep possession, score many goals, and not be in defence mode in their own half anyhow.
I was very impressed about the way Arsenal could initiate her attacks. Chelsea didn’t answer on the crucial role that Song had on the midfield.
More on that in my (written in Dutch) blog: http://www.facebook.com/notes/harry-akkermans/goede-opbouw-bezorgt-arsenal-eindelijk-winst-op-chelsea/152827741433217
What the hell has happened to Chelsea!?
Firstly, they have a worrying lack of strength in depth, today Ramires was the one brought on to try and change the game, and he’s quite frankly awful, I am intrigued to know what he offers Chelsea… I said at the time, Chelsea would regret selling the likes of Ballack, Cole, Deco, Beletti. They may not be Chelsea’s best players, but they all offer something in there own right and could all do a decent job for the team.
As for Arsenal, massive credit. For once, Wenger got it tactically spot on against Chelsea. Playing Walcott was a very smart move, he pressed very well and worked extremely hard for the team, as well as getting his assist and goal, and playing RVP ahead of Chamakh was a good decision. RVP wasn’t involved in any of the goals, but as you elude to, he was dropping off well, and this causes problems for the centre backs, do they go with him and get dragged out of position, or do they let him go, and allow him time and space to do what he wants? If he’s passed over, then there’s more room for others, as you mention Cesc.
Slight shades of the German side about Arsenal tonight. The so called ‘holding midielder’ isn’t really a holding player, he has license to get forward, this applies to Khedera and Song, then you have Wilshire playing the Schweinstiger role of just drifting around the pitch, always providing an option and dictating play. Then of course Fabregas looking to get in behind the defence with the help of the striker helping to create space for him, similar to Klose and Ozil.
Could you do a review of 2010 please ZM, players of 2010, teams of 2010, key tactical points of 2010, that kind of thing?
Will do a thing about the best matches; never sure about the point in doing teams / players in a calendar year though
Always love your writings ZM, are you working in football newspaper or something? Or interested in football management as tactical advisor, perhaps? Try to send applications there buddy
Should go get coverage of Romelu Lukaku. He was 16 years old when he became top scorer of Belgian premier league. Oh and he scored in this year’s Champions League too. He’s a beast.
Lukaku was 17 when he became top scorer of the Belgian league. Also, he hasn’t played in the Champions League since Anderlecht didn’t qualify.
Loved that German side comparison. The second half goals too came in typical german counter attacking style.
I felt they were more similar to the Klose goal against England, in that it was defensive error that allowed them in, ie. Ashley Cole’s ballwatching
Though I haven’t seen this game, can’t say anything about a ‘German side’ comparison. but great to see van Persie back in action. I think he’s a great player and without his injury problems … he would be like Eto’o.
Kids should study their style.
An observation I had was how well Arsenal played without Arshavin. His quality cannot be doubted, but his lethargy and lack of focus makes it difficult for them to press high up the field. The industry and consistency of Nasri and Walcott were absolutely critical to get the Gunners over the edge, and despite Walcott’s shortcomings (and the disadvantages of having Nasri on the left rather than the right), I’d see him as first choice at this point against the top teams. Barcelona’s success is strongly linked to their excellent defensive pressing, and if Arsenal is going to move to the next level and be a trophy winner, they would do well to continue pressing the way they did.
Wenger also got the Djourou selection right. He was extraordinary today.
I also see van Persie quietly humming into form. He didn’t threaten so much in front of goal, but his first touch was great and his movement and smart passing to keep possession were also important in addition to the mercurial display of Song, Djourou, and Fabregas.
Yeah. To me Walcott and Arshavin have in common that both contribute a few moments of brilliance each match. The difference is that when they aren’t being brilliant, Arshavin is a passenger and Walcott puts in a good shift. The other difference is that Walcott’s pace forces the other team to play differently. A Cole wasn’t pinned back in first half so much by Walcott doing anything as by the awareness that if he got caught forwards Walcott would be off the races.
If it’s agreed that Walcott wasn’t particularly brilliant in the first half (decent, but not brilliant) then the difference between the two is: Walcott’s pace makes Arsenal better even when he isn’t playing particularly well, whereas Arshavin’s sloth makes Arsenal worse even when he’s playing brilliantly.
If Nasri can produce from the left wing, I’d be very happy to see that (or that +Vermaelen) as Arsenal’s starting XI this season–if such a thing even exists.
[As an Arsenal fan, I got a good feeling as soon as I saw the teamsheet. Indicated that Arsene had finally decided to make tactical adjustments in a game against a title rival. If we can be as tactically with-it for the remainder of the season we can be a very good side indeed.]
Arshavin is one of the few Arsenal players that is (or in this case, was) willing and able to take a shot on target instead of trying to tika-taka all the way into the net.
The others are mainly Nasri, Cesc and RVP. Now Arshavin has stopped trying to take a shot and he’s become a sort of a Zlatan in Barca.
Some Arsenal players really have to spend some time with a striking coach because their shots are pretty awful. If they did work on that, they would’ve easily been able to put 6 past Chelsea.
With Song fancying getting in the box and taking shots, and Nasri’s improvement in this area, the balance is pretty good now. Nasri/RvP/Walcott/Song/Cesc all fancy a shot, that’s a good proportion of the front players.
I don’t disagree, but Arshavin does have something extra over Walcott: higher technical quality. In certain matches that can be an important edge. In this one Walcott’s advantages were more important because Chelsea has an extremely dangerous left-back that needs to be put back, and then gave a little bit extra space in the second half for Walcott’s pace as they needed a goal.
That was the best I’ve seen arsenal defend in a long time. Great team performance, Wengers choices re: Walcott/arshavin/chamakh/RVP really ended up paying off.
The contrast of the strength in depth between the two sides is really something, isn’t it? Chelsea need to buy, buy, buy–arsenal could hardly fit another player in.
This is probably the most deluded comment of the lot.
You’ve lost at home to two newly promoted teams. You’ve lost to your main rivals at home despite taking a 2 goal lead into half time. You’ve also lost to a team playing CL football for the first time in their history. When you came to Stamford Bridge earlier this season you didn’t look like scoring in 270 minutes, let alone 90. A few weeks ago Ferguson deployed the same tactics he’s been using against Arsenal for years and Arsenal didn’t look like scoring.
The fact is that Chelsea are going through a bad patch. Sure, Arsenal deserved to win. But your claim that Arsenal ‘could hardly fit another player in’ is laughable. There’s still massive question marks over your entire defence. Even Vermaelen is suspect to poor positioning. Song is the hero of the day but he’ll soon leave his defensive position and expose you for all Arsenal fans to claim that you ‘need a Makelele to protect the defence’.
Arsenal will finish 3rd in the league. And they’ll soon be knocked out of the CL.
Chelsea managed one shot on target. If that is not good defending, than what is?
Yes, Chelsea were bad but this Arsenal side was very good and if they play like this for the rest of the season, they will surely be competing for the trophy. While Chelsea, in this current form, will not make it to the CL.
And while your comments about Arsenal’s performances this season are true, what is their relevance? The fact that Arsenal lost against Newcastle and West Brom bears no relevance to the fact that Arsenal were better all over the pitch against Chelsea and deservedly won. Nor does it effect the fact that Arsenal have perhaps the best substitutes bench in the league.
Btw, Chelsea have taken 3 points from the last 6 league games, how good is that on a scale from 1 to 10?
So saying Arsenal have a squad that ‘could hardly fit in another player’ refers only to one match? Oh right so should the same apply to United when they beat Arsenal or Liverpool when they beat Chelsea? It’s such a ludicrous comment and isn’t justified by one good performance.
Essentially, he’s making an argument in favour of a team on the basis of one performance. If Arsenal were so great, they wouldn’t have lost 3 matches at home this season. It’s easy to sit there and say ‘this team is fantastic’ because you’ve beaten a rival but in the grand scheme of things, it’s really not. The same old frailties will hit Arsenal’s campaign like they did in ‘10, ‘09, ‘08, ‘07, ‘06 and ‘05. A weak defence. How many clean sheets have Arsenal kept this season? If the defence was so great and ‘could hardly fit in another player’, then why can’t you keep clean sheets?
So yes, you can say ‘Arsenal have the best squad in the league’ based on one performance. And you could say ‘if they play like this throughout the season they’ll win the league’. But I’ve heard this argument for many years. And Arsenal have still not jumped into the top 2. They’ve also always lost against superior European teams. Playing well in one match does not mean you’re any greater than you were last season.
Arsenal fans will be calling for the heads of Koscielny, Squallaci, Almunia and Fabianski as soon as times get tough. Mark my words
1. I’m not claiming that Arsenal have the best defense in the world, I’m claiming they did a very good job against Chelsea.
2. You will be hard pressed to find a substitutes bench with Arsenals quality in the league. For example 3rd choice strike Bendtner would start in many other sides, and not to mention Arshavin.
3. As I see it, Arsenal are a better team than last year. Nasri and Walcott are better, the defense as a whole is better, the goalkeeper is less dodgy and the team has grown mentally.
4. The problems Arsenal have are not the individual quality of the players, but lack of leadership and teamwork. When Arsenal get everything right they are a very good team, as evident in this game.
5. Stop slagging of Arsenal, who obviously are a better football team at the moment than Chelsea.
Last night was the first time since September that Arsenal has been able to play with their best eleven. Plus Arsenal has more victories than Chelsea. If I were you I’d stop talking rubbish about Arsenal and start worrying that you don’t end up getting tossed out of CL contention by Spurs or Bolton.
not even their best eleven – Vermaelen is still out
Rubbish against Arsenal? How is that exactly? You’re all making out like this Arsenal squad is so fantastic with ludicrous claims that you couldn’t fit in another player. For the past 5 years your best position has been 3rd. You’ve never looked like making another CL final since 2006.
Yet just 2 weeks ago there were calls for Wenger to go after another loss to United. Chamakh apparently wasn’t good enough. Clichy was a liability. Koscielny just couldn’t cut it. Fabianski was one flap away from being sold. Song wasn’t disciplined enough. I even heard ‘this is our worst squad since God knows when’.
You win one game and you’ve now ‘got a better squad than Chelsea’s’. Funny how after 4 consecutive defeats to Chelsea we now hear that the Arsenal squad is better. Yet when Chelsea win it’s because they were ‘lucky’ or you lost because of defensive errors. Talk about being fair weather fans.
Using your lots’ theory, doesn’t that mean Tottenham are better than Arsenal? After all, they did beat Arsenal home and away in 2010. Or does that not count?
“Yet just 2 weeks ago there were calls for Wenger to go after another loss to United.”
the speed with which fans and team hierarchies act to offload managers is one of the most predictably silly things about professional football. the odds of a new non-mourinho manager coming in at arsenal and getting that team to perform better in the short term are slim, and reconstruction projects tend to be lengthy, expensive, and yield uncertain outcomes. arsenal fans would be fools to call for wenger to leave, and neutral observers who suggest it as the way forward impugn their own credentials as commentators.
Thus far during this christmas/new years period you’ve gotten beaten by Arsenal, you squeaked by Bolton and drew to a sorry Villa side. You’ll be facing Wolves away on wednesday with Terry, Cole, Malouda, Essien, Lampard and Drogba having played three games in a week. Let’s see how your squad deals with tired, ageing legs.
Let’s compare benches:
Chelsea:
McEachran
Kakuta
Kalou
Bosingwa
Bruma
Van Arnholt
Sturridge
Turnbull.
Arsenal:
Arshavin
Rosicky
Eboue
Bendtner
Denilson
Chamakh
Szczesny
Squillaci
Eboue, Denilson and Bendtner have more league appearances than your whole bench put together.
Ferreira got raped by Nasri and in general had a poor game. John Terry had poor touches, and Malouda kept losing balls. Drogba had a hard time receiving balls and where was Lampard? He was invisible.
Arsenal did a great job of pressing and Wilshere and Song did a great job rotating. Great finish by Song as well, hitting side netting. Arsenal had more eneregy and hunger than Chelsea.
I think Chelsea needs another CB or RB and a pacy winger because Kalou doesn;t cut it, Sturridge can’t play from the right side, and same goes for Malouda (although he tries to) Anelka is the only one who can but he doesn’t have a high enough work rate for that position. Ferreira shouldn’t be playing for Chelsea. Chelsea has 3 natural CBs so that is good enough to cover injuries and such. Ivanovic can play RB but injuries happen (ie. Alex) so he has to play CB and leaving Bosingwa as the only capable RB, so one extra back would be useful as well.
Using the word “raped” is inappropriate.
I think Diaby was put on mostly for set pieces after the goal.
What was your view on Gael Kakuta.? Movement off the ball and passing started causing problems for Arsenal, but as usual, Ancelotti starts our youngsters when the game is already lost.
If you wanna defeat Arsenal,
all you need is good defense & a fast winger/striker of good pace that makes fast counter attack possible.
today Chelsea lacked both
Chelsea made numerous costly mistakes at the back and their attackers were useless.
The Ballon d’ Or trio of Xavi Hernandez, Lionel Messi, and Andres Iniesta are waiting…
and we fans are waiting in anticipation
Full strength Arsenal playing with this level of commitment should be up for it. Interesting to see what combination of Centre Backs would be used. And whether or not Afellay would play for Barca (not sure if he’s cup tied). Arseal had serious injury problems last year in the CL Quarters. I don’t think they are that far behind Barca when they play their best and are full strength.
Anyway, the only one of that trio who even remotely deserves the Ballon d’Or is Xavi (and even then he deserves it less than Wesley Sneijder and Diego Forlan). That award is an utter fraud.
Afellay is not cuptied.
Want an explosive game? Then hopes that RvP, CF4 and SN8 are firing comes Feb.. We’ll throw you TW14 too and maybe AS17.
Sounds fair?
come again?
I’ll KISS .. ssince you have trouble understanding.
We are not afraid to go against Barcelona with our first choice.
I have nothing to add about the game that hasn’t already been said but this abbreviation of forename initial/surname initial/current squad number is becoming a pet hate for me.
I can understand R9 as it was unique in the sense that it became, to my knowledge, the first personalisation of a football boot and for most of his career teams were contractually obliged to reserve Ronaldo the number 9 shirt, it was also a self imagined nickname for one of the greatest players of all time.
I can even allow CR7 as it removed confusion between two incredible players with the same surname and he wore a number that is iconic for the club he played for.
It really became an annoyance about a year or so back when a member of an internet forum referred to Darren Fletcher as DF24.
I’m sure it’s a north-american fabrication due to their obsession with branding anything and everything but it’s unnecessary, lazy and some of the time it takes 10 seconds to work out who the poster is on about.
If Arsenal played as they did today it’ll be one hell of a match. Though I believe Barca will run out winners, it will be a very good game…
I thought Chelsea defended very well in the first half. The team basically fell apart after giving up the latter two goals.
Also, even though RVP starting was the right move, Chamakh came on and did a good job pressuring Chelsea’s back line. RVP seemed a bit tired, plus he wasn’t doing a good job holding the ball when we needed him to, in order to alleviate pressure. In general the whole team played really well today.
i think the two biggest changes made by wenger gave them the win djourou and wallcott . when you nullify chelsea’s fullbacks they seem to get lost because chelsea’s attack come from those area’s also with wallcott when he has the ball he far more dangerous and is technically better than what he is credited for . the most important factor was wilshere and song winning those one on one challenges in the middle of the park other than anderson i think wilshere is other one who shields the ball better . you may had written that chelsea played deep but for the for the first goal and the second goal they played the high line and were caught while arsenal pressed down the middle they rarely did and when in the second half they did they paid for it.kauta for me still need to develop and would be better for a loan spell . ancelotti has to do something of the midfield and play proper 4-4-2 rather than his system where on lampard doesnt has to sit too deep and by the time he come up field the ball is lost .
i hope wenger keeps on playing djourou because schillaqi cant cope with pace and physicality of premier league .
I think this represented by far Arsenal’s best formation. Arshavin provides a very unreliable attacking impetus on the left so that playing Nasri there with Walcott on the right allows Arsenal’s attack far more variety with sustained and consistent threats from both flanks and the centre. I thought that in the Man U game the lack of thrust on the left hurt Arsenal very badly in their attempts to breach Man U’s defence, as they were more effective when Walcott came on for Arshavin and switched flanks with Nasri. Hopefully we Gooners will see much more of this formation over the course of the season, particularly in big games.
Well, the obvious is that when you have an extra guy playing offense, there is a chance you’ll break even the best organized D. Tonight, Arsenal wasn’t getting through until BOTH Song and Wilshere got up front and made a neat one-two. People have been making comments regarding Song’s adventures further up the pitch this season – it is oh so important to have all 8 players involved in the build up (other than the goalie and two center backs). Once Song and Wilshere got involved, Chelsea did not rotate quick enough and there was an extra attacker in the box. Loved it.
Of course, the opposite is true when Arsenal did not have the ball. Both Song and Wilshere were excellent tracking back.
Special shoutout to Djorou – nothing was going by him tonight. Excellent. The last time he played vs Chelsea, RVP scored two at Stamford Bridge and Arsenal beat ‘em fair and square. Man U, bring it on…
Djourou and Walcott were excellent changes and made Arsenal much, much better. I slag Wenger off when he gets it wrong – which has been often – so I’ll credit him now.
Arshavin needs to show more if he wants back in for the big games. His lack of work leaves holes all over the place as the team gets pulled apart trying to cover for him. Or they don’t and poor Clichy gets raped.
What a talent Wilshire is. To be able to play such an important role at his age, against a strong Chelsea midfield, is extremely impressive.
the only thing that wenger should do know with this team is tell clichy that he shouldnt try to dribble opponent in his own half or when on defense which is criminal or else there is nothing wrong with this team going on to beat barca and winning the premier league .
I know Ancelotti needed to do something to stop the rot at half-time, but I thought it was interesting that after he took off Mikel both of Arsenal’s goals came from pressuring the area of the pitch Mikel occupied in the first half. I know Carlo couldn’t have done much with the bench he’s got, but doing away with Mikel’s calmness and shielding looked a bit suicidal.
That said, great performance from Arsenal and good pressing all over the pitch. And great write-up as usual.
The first goal was always going to be crucial – it came when Alex Song broke forward into the penalty area to finish nicely. It was Song’s fourth goal of the season, the clearest advantage of his newer role in recent months (rotating the holding position with Jack Wilshere, rather than being the sole holding player).
I only saw highlights, not the actual match. But the first goal happened, when Song and Wilshere exchanged passes near the edge of penalty box. If what you say is true about them rotating the holding player position, then at that point in time, who is playing in that role with both of them in the Chelsea third?
Just a question seeking your opinion, Michael.
Thank you.
“Their approach was similar to Ancelotti’s previous successes against Arsenal”
It wasn’t because although it is normal for Chelsea to not press arsenal high up the pitch and play on the counter, it was bizarre for Chelsea to combine this with a high defensive line, making it easier for arsenal to get in behind the chelsea defence.
Song was sitting back. If you watch the play again you’ll see that Song was playing between the center circle and Chelsea’s penalty area.
NOT the best of posts ZM. I think ‘The Backwards Gooners’ review is slightly more comprehensive
– http://mr-renoog-videos.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenal-3-1-chelsea-wenger-gets-his.html
I dare say it is, a site which focuses on one side is always going to be more comprehensive when talking about that side
I’ll just add that, Song’s goal was the first (and probably only) time that Arsenal managed to overnumber that area driectly in front of the Chelsea penalty box.
On that play, there were no less than 4(!!!!) Arsenal players in that spot…. RVP, Fabregas, Song and Willshere!
And the key was that Chelsea’s midfield didn’t track the forward runs from both Willshire and Song.
In a single momment there were 4 against 3 (Terry, Ivanovic and Mikel… Cole and P. Ferreira were late covering the middle)… and the 4 won.
In the 2nd half Chelsea opened the midfield a little bit, freeing Fabregas, and Song was more comfortable staying back, as he didn’t need to move up to support Fabregas and Wilshere.
This is a good point and shows what Arsenal should be doing against teams that sit deep and narrow against them. The problem is they lack the defenders to cover for them on the break. I remember in the Invincibles season it wouldn’t be uncommon to see 4 and 5 Arsenal players running into the opposition’s penalty area, and you just knew they were going to score.
Now that we’ve seen arsenal draw wigan, its quite evident that this club needs to replace Squillaci with a new experienced player. 3 EPL-tested CBs come to mind:
Phil Jagielka
Titus Bramble
Brede Hangeland
I doubt Arsene will bring in any of the above. He probably wants to give Djourou and Koscielny more room to grow and succeed. BUT with Vermaelen’s return not imminent, I fear Arsenal’s centerbacks are the weak link that holds them back. And quite frankly if Arsenal were to buy one of these players, they’d go deeper in the cup competitions which would provide more competitive games for all 4 CBs.
Thanks for an idea, you sparked at thought from a angle I hadn’t given thoguht to yet. Now lets see if I can do something with it.