Arsenal 1-0 Manchester United: second half Ramsey goal gives Arsenal the points
The starting line-ups
Arsenal’s recent poor run against Manchester United came to an end, thanks to Aaron Ramsey’s cool finish.
Ramsey was only playing because Arsenal were without Cesc Fabregas through injury. Otherwise, Arsene Wenger’s side was as expected.
Sir Alex Ferguson brought Nani into the side in place of Antonio Valencia, whilst Anderson also played in the centre of midfield.
Arsenal were dominant throughout much of the match here – in possession terms that’s what we’ve come to accept from battles between these two, but whilst usually United are threatening on the counter, they were blunt today.
Arsenal system / attacks
The use of Ramsey gave Arsenal’s midfield trio a slightly different tilt. Fabregas usually plays clearly at the head, with Alex Song and Jack Wilshere deeper in a double pivot. Ramsey played deeper than Fabregas does (especially in big games), in closer proximity to his midfield colleagues. Wilshere was also slightly higher up than usual, with Alex Song in a more clearly-defined holding role. He and Wayne Rooney spent the game picking up each other.
Ramsey in a deeper role meant Arsenal retained possession very nicely. No change there, you might say, but Arsenal’s passing at the Emirates actually hasn’t been very good on various occasions this season. Ramsey was key in this, coming short to collect the ball and playing passes to the flanks – Fabregas is generally keener to play the killer forward pass.
Ramsey’s natural tendencies mean Arsenal had to vary their attacking play. Robin van Persie often drops deep with Fabregas exploiting the space he creates, but this rarely happened. Instead, Ramsey hung back, and Arsenal’s main danger came when they got the ball wide in the first half. The crossing from the full-backs was not much better than usual, but Theo Walcott sent an excellent cross in, and Arsenal worked some good situations down the flanks.
Manchester United tactics / counters
United have been brilliant on the counter-attack on their last two visits to the Emirates. In 2008/09 in the Champions League, a move involving Rooney, Park Ji-Sung and Ronaldo produced a beautiful goal on the break, whilst in 2009/10 a similar move with Rooney and Nani – with Park making an important decoy run – resulted in a similar strike. Both goals involved three players darting forward in a 4-3-3 system.
United’s formation changed for this match. Whereas Ferguson insisted on 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 in big games until recently, now he’s comfortable with his 4-4-1-1 formation, with Rooney playing as an additional midfielder without the ball, dropping on Song. This changes the way United defend in the centre of midfield – last season with a central midfield trio, they played with one player deeper than the other two. Now, they rely on a duo at the base of the midfield, Michael Carrick and Anderson.
This also changes the role of the wide players. In a 4-3-3, their main job was simply to focus on stopping Arsenal’s full-backs. In a 4-4-1-1 like this, the main task is instead to drop level with the midfield players and form a second bank of four. Arsenal’s full-backs were given all the time on the ball they liked.
This meant that the United wide players were in a deeper position at transitions, and found it more difficult to become involved in breaks. Granted, United didn’t have any problems breaking against Arsenal when they played a similar formation in the FA Cup at Old Trafford, with the Brazilian twins on the flank. The difference there was that Rooney dropped into midfield unattended, and United became a 4-2-1-3.
With Song playing deeper and more specifically told to pick up Rooney (and doing a great job, see the chalkboard below, that also demonstrates how he ’swept’ across the pitch, rather than remaining in a duo with Wilshere), United couldn’t use their number ten to distribute the ball wide for breaks. In summary, a combination of the two factors made United less of a threat – the wingers were deeper than they’ve been used to at the Emirates, and Rooney wasn’t allowed time to play as he was at Old Trafford.
United substitutions
Ferguson has successfully turned various games around this season, but here his substitutions didn’t have much of a positive impact on the match. In fact, the first substitution came one minute before Arsenal’s goal. Anderson was removed in favour of Antonio Valencia, with Nani going left and Park coming into the middle of the midfield four. Park, not used to that position by any means, stood and watched as Ramsey had space on the edge of the box to play the ball into the far corner. Carrick was the man eventually closing the Welshman down, but he had tracked Wilshere’s run into the box – someone else had to be aware of the space on the edge of the penalty area, and Park wasn’t contributing anything to United’s defence.
Dimitar Berbatov on for Hernandez made sense – Arsenal were sitting deeper, Hernandez’s pace was less of a threat and he hadn’t enjoyed the best game – but Michael Owen on for Carrick deprived United of the man who was passing to the flanks and contributing to many of United’s better moves. United ended with Park and Rooney broadly in central midfield, and were prone to breaks down the centre – Arsenal’s decision-making on the break was erratic.
Clichy
In this fixture last season, United targeted Gael Clichy (indeed, it was really the first major game where right-winger Nani announced his step up to becoming a truly dangerous player) and the Arsenal left-back struggled, especially in the air.
There seemed to be a similar strategy here – United were more threatening when they worked the ball down the right (think of Fabio’s dart forward in the first half, and the cross that Hernandez almost got on the end of in the second). Arsenal needed to make much more interceptions in their left-back zone than in their right-back zone, but Clichy had a good game.
Conclusion
Arsenal were the better side here. They kept the ball well and defended resiliently when they had to – Laurent Koscielny had a good game at the back, and Song was excellent. Song was the key tactical factor in preventing United creating – he stayed on Rooney well, whilst the use of Ramsey gave Arsenal guile and balance in midfield. His deeper role (compared to Fabregas) was less of a direct goal threat, but ironically his tendency to hang back resulted in the goal.
United were poor – the transitions from defence to attack were lacking, Rooney was quiet and Hernandez was barely involved. The use of substitutions didn’t seem to help.
Arsenal 1-0 Manchester United: second half Ramsey goal gives Arsenal the points
There were a lot of poor individual performances out there from Man Utd, and except Park’s error for the goal Arsenal may not have scored, but it seems that at the root of this loss is SAF’s tactics for the game. Did he just get this one wrong?
It seems to me that Arsenal may benefit from Fabregas leaving. This is not a reactionary view after todays match, but for quite a while now he has been below par. I think he plays for himself rather than the team, which is not good, especially for a team captain.
He certainly hasn’t been world-class all season.
How many players who went to the world cup have performed up to their best this season? Whilst he has not reached the level of consistently excellent performances that he did last year there has been games where he has made a real difference (Chelsea at home springs to mind) this season.
Cmon, he has barely played at World Cup.
He trained every day though, it doesn’t give you enough time to recuperate.
He may not have played much, but it came at a time where ideally he should have been getting some much-needed rest. Don’t forget he broke his fibula a couple of months earlier, and was suffering from recurring hamstring injuries anyway (which have continued this season).
He’s been poor in some games and his goalscoring has been off compared to last season, but his creativity has been exceptional this season, 15 direct assists and a dozen more indirect assists.
@RA, because of the injury that Carlton is talking about, I think he surely hasn’t trained 100%. Also, during vacations you don’t do absolutely nothing. If he’s playing below par, I would rather blaim the never-ending “injureness” of Cesc, and not the all-around WC duties.
@Carlton, isn’t the injury you are talking about a perfect reason, why he’s playing relatively weak this season? Obviously WC has its part, but to put it as a main cause is a bit unargumented in Cesc’s case. Cesc’s problem is that he is constantly one of: injured, post-injured or pre-injured
.
He hasn’t been at his best. He is still an excellent player though. I think however, that the Wilshere/Ramsey duo (backed up by Song) is the future of Arsenal.
Ramsey’s a marvellous player. Is this a good time to say that I think he’s better than Wilshere?
Would I wide of the mark in saying they are different types of midfielders? Wilshere is a more all round midfielder with better defensive attributes; while Ramsey is a more playmaker-passer type, and seems to get more goals.
yes different types of players. But Wilshere isnt defensive as you say, as he is a very talented dribbler and makes driving runs similar to Iniesta, however Ramsay makes less dribbles and keeps things simple but very tidy, similar to xavi. Neither have great shooting ability.
Well, Ramsey had been on a good run of form before the Shawcross incident. And he broke into the first team earlier than Wilshere did, though I’m not sure if Wenger thought he was a better player or if Wenger did it because of injuries. Regardless, he’s a terrific player and looks to be coming back quite well from that dreadful injury.
well, I haven’t seen enough of Ramsey to judge since his injury, but last year he did seem to be ahead of Wilshire on the development curve.
Well, it must be said that Ramsey is 2 years older. Or, more like 1 year and a week considering their respective birthdays. They’re both incredibly good for their ages and will undoubtedly get better, and they certainly form a very natural partnership in midfield if they have a holder behind them.
Wilshere is better at traveling with the ball and is perhaps a bit tougher while Ramsey is more of a goal threat.
That being said though, I believe Wilshere will add goals to his game. Fábregas never used to score, it’s something that comes with age, maturity and that extra bit of power in the final third. Because Wilshere does get into good positions. In 2-3 years he will regularly reach 10+ each season.
he doesnt have to score any goals to be a world class midfielder.
Hmmmm. I want to see some more performances from him before I make up my mind, but he was marvellous today and if he’s better than Wilshere I’ll happily take that!
Seems like the perfect time. Apart from Barcelona at home I think Ramsey has looked more impressive when he’s started games for Arsenal. The game he played against Olympiakos last season was majestic.
Great ZM! Do an article on Rambo like how you did one for alves, I would love to read it!
i think a big reason for this is that he hasn’t had a summer off for so long. 2010 world cup, 2009 confederations cup, 2008 euro tournament. it’s no coincidence that one of his most creative performances for a while was tottenham, which he said was the first time he’d felt 100% in a long time. don’t believe the press, he loves barcelona of course, but this man loves arsenal so much and would do anything for them. that said, ramsey+wilshere+song is a very exciting (and massively versatile – 4-2-3-1/4-1-4-1) future midfield. i think arsenal fans accept that cesc will leave, and most with sense realise that it won’t benefit the team, but no one should be too worried about it based on yesterday.
sorry that looks like i’m saying you don’t have sense. i’m really not.
Thought it was a mistake to take off Walcott late in the game. He could have kept United’s left flank pinned and helped a lot on the counter when United were pushing for an equaliser. I also thought Ramsey was excellent. He was making a habit of those Lampard-like late runs into the box before he was shawcrossed. His passing and tackling were good. Very glad to see Arsenal having a central midfielder who works the flanks. Not sure the crossing (at least by Sagna) can really be blamed on the fullbacks ability. United typically defend crosses well and Arsenal didn’t use a striker who feeds off crosses.
Agree with the comment about the crosses in contrast to the comment in the main article “the crossing from the full-backs was not much better than usual”. Crosses are often delivered into the danger area but they are generally rendered ineffective by a combination of poor movement in the box/lack of players in the box.
Walcott had a typical Walcott-esque game: starts well and then fades. His work rate when we didn’t have the ball was poor and in the 2nd half he was making those forward runs that actually put him a position where he can’t receive the ball. Eboue, imo, should have come on much earlier.
Yeah, many times people and commentators complain of Arsenal fullbacks putting in bad crosses into the box. I think most times such people are talking from history not from that game’s perspective. On Sunday both fullbacks (even Walcot) put in good crosses. Clichy did two crosses early on in the first half, one a bending grass cutter that Walcot squandered; another a bending highball which van Persie skied. If people could concentrate a little they would not be making so many undeserved accusations to Arsenal fullbacks. Actually, I would argue that Walcot puts in unnecessary crosses into the box even when Arsenal do not have anyone to connect with such crosses, and there are usually better options e.g. for a cutback. It does not actually pay to make many crosses (however inviting they are) if you do not have somebody to meet them, and this is the case for Arsenal most of the times. This is because most Arsenal forwards are short except for van Persie, Bendtner (who does not play much and when he does he is pushed wide right these days) and Chamackh (when he plays, like he did early in the season, and we saw how he benefited from crosses mainly from the right).
But I also think that either because of his inclination or his understanding of his strikers, Wenger does not prefer high crosses into the box (as I believe he considers them wasteful). If you watch through out his stay at Arsenal you do not see much goals scored by such crosses. The exception was when Lungberg and Pires were at their peak, they benefited form shot exchange crosses (mainly on the ground) between them or made by Bergkamp.
Great analysis. Your way of analyzing the weaknesses and the strengths of a team as a result of how they line up is really insightful. Please keep up the good work.
Great performance by Ramsey. He isn’t a creative midfield player who delivers killer passes very often, but compensate it with excellent decision-making, and great teamwork and positioning -sort of player like Lampard or Ballack. A very “British” player. As a midfielder, it is important for him to maintain his consistency, and let’s hope he is not just a one-season star like Gibson or Macheda.
Nani’s having a bad game, held the ball too long. Always making poor decisions on final-third. Fabio could be the next Daniel Alves. Or Rafael? Because the twins are similar not only in terms of physical appearance, but also style-of-play (and both of them share the similar bad temper too).
Excellent analysis, dear Michael Cox. BTW I want to know what do you look like, so I have been looking for your photo in the internet but unfortunately I could not find any. Keen to share your picture with the fans of ZonalMarking? My suggestion is you had better replace Jose Mourinho’s photo above with yours.
I’m far too unattractive for that.
Our recent successes with this formation have really clouded Fergie’s judgement for this match. Previously, we have always done well against Arsenal (especially away) with a three-man central midfield. And that is essential because of Arsenal’s possession game and extra numbers in midfield. Thus it is really surprising that Fergie started with 4-4-1-1 formation. Sure, Rooney drops very deep to try to make up the numbers in midfield, but 4-4-1-1 is just not the same as 4-5-1/4-3-3 (as explained by ZM above).
And the substitution of Anderson and putting in Park in the middle of two man central midfield is extremely bizarre. What was that all about? Was Anderson injured? Not only did it contributed directly to the goal, Park was also really clueless in that role for the rest of the game..really really bizarre substitution.
Overall, I have to say Fergie has really got it wrong today. I hope he learns from this game. If we meet Barca in the Champions League final and use this formation, I can confidently predict that we will be given the runaround and get trashed soundly.
“I can confidently predict that [Man U] will be given the runaround and get trashed soundly.”
that seems likely against the catalans regardless of formation, I would concur, but you’re right that their odds would seem better if they eschewed the 4411.
This type of performance from Arsenal in the wake of having been so disappointing in the previous weeks makes one wonder if the move from 433 to 4231 with Fabregas moving up to always be at the apex of the central midfield triangle was really the right move. It seems to me that this variation on their formation, with Bendtner or Chamakh in the middle as the striker so that the wingers and full backs have someone to challenge for crosses, might work well as an alternate to the 4231. Then the gunners could either come out with (1) Cesc/Nasri/Arshavin/ in the middle as close support to Van Persie, with the latter playing as a false 9 and making room for runs from midfield into spaces he vacates, or (2) move Van Persie to the wide left spot, put in one of the bigger strikers, and have the wingers and fullbacks work crosses with the midfielders take turns making late runs into the box to support the striker and maybe get on the end of something.
Problem is, Chamakh became extremely poor after impressing in the first few months, while Bendtner has always been crap and never good enough to lead an attack. With someone like Adebayor in the club this idea could work, but not with the present options.
Bendtner’s scored 12 goals in 38 international appearances, so you’ll pardon me for taking the stance that it’s your ability to assess football players that’s crap, rather than Bendtner. He’s be stuck playing wide at Arsenal this whole year, which is clearly not his best position.
As for Chamakh, he’s clearly got it in him as he showed in his early performances, so it seems more participation in the team’s games would do him well.
I agree. Not taking anything away from Wilshere, but I think that if you compare Ramsey’s body of work to Wilshere’s (prior to the injury), he’s the better player. It mostly comes down to him being more assertive and direct in the opponent’s third of the pitch – which results in him being more of a goal threat from the same position. Matt is spot on in noting that Wilshere seems to have better defensive attributes, probably due to a willingness to enter 50-50s more often. Aaron seems to rely on his positioning more.
I’m certain WIlshere will add more of a goal threat to his game soon, but at the moment I believe that when both are compared at their respective bests, Ramsey is slightly superior.
I agree with most of that analysis, but I think the comparison is a little pointless as this point, for several reasons:
1) You’re comparing with Ramsey before his major injury, and although he has returned well so far, there are no guarantees he will be reflective of the player he was before that
2) They are both so young, and could develop in so many different ways
3) Wilshere has actually spent the season out of his best position; in the past he played wide forward or attacking mid. He’s been adapted to defensive mid because that’s where the gap was.
4) They play different positions
5) You would rather have Wilshere on the pitch in a possession intense game like Barcelona; Ramsey is better in against a tight defense like United’s
6) In a three man midfield they complement each other perfectly; take Cesc out of the equation and they are not in competition with each other
One thing’s for certain, this is the first time several of Wenger’s young players have shown a winning mentality: I’m thinking Ramsey, Wilshere, Szczesney. They have more steel and determination than most the rest of the team put together.
Toure, Cole, Henry, Ljungberg, Vieira, van Persie, Fabregas… they were all signed as young players… OK, if you compare to the most recent class of Denilson / Diaby / Bendtner, maybe you have a point, but the guy has been managing the club for nearly 15 years. these aren’t the first young players with a “winning mentality” he’s brought through, far from it…
Whilst you are right that all those players had a winning mentality, I ask you to look at the ages when they signed:
Toure, 21
Henry, 22
Ljungberg, 21
Vieira, 20
Van Persie, 20
None of these are young players in the same sense – they weren’t brought through the youth system, they arrived as part of the first team.
If anything, it demonstrates my point. Wenger has struggled to replicate that mentality when reverting to his younger Emirates era side. He’d only managed it on two other occasions as you say with Fabregas (somewhat of an anomaly) and Cole (whose mentality was nonetheless screwy enough to completely abandon the club). Wilshere, Ramsey and Szczesney represent something big.
The problem with the English thinking is that if you do not go into tackles full-blood (cue Wilshere), then you do not have a winning mentality. Totally wrong! So, in your opinion with the exception of Szczesney, Ramsey, Wilshere and Fabregas, the others e.g. van Persie, Sagna, Clichy, Song, Nasri etc are all useless! Good! No wonder Arsenal fans are always on the back of their players! You do not see this so much in other clubs.
I have a hard time seeing Ramsey/Cesc working together; maybe if they are paired with someone like Mascherano but a Ramsey/Cesc/Song midfield is far too lightweight. Fact is, Wilshere is irreplaceable to the current lineup and the aggression, workrate and grit he provides is something no one else in the current lineup can provide. Wilshere’s not a “alpha male”, he’s a water carrier type who is never going to be flashy, never going to score or create lots of goals. But you are not going to find many midfielders out there who can give what Wilshere gives to the current team. And Ramsey to me is a great player but trying to play both him and Cesc is like trying to play both Gerrard and Lampard.
I disagree completely. Wilshere already adapted this season to play besides Song and behind Cesc, he’s shown he’s a very intelligent and adaptable individual. Ramsey naturally plays the Fabregas role. Why wouldn’t that work? What’s the difference? And where did you get the impression that Ramsey is a lightweight player? He’s small in stature but very strong.
Comparing them to Lampard and Gerrard is ridiculous because Lampard and Gerrard are both Roy of the Rovers type players. They lack the intelligence to play together.
Besides, was the Song/Wilshere/Ramsey midfield lightweight against United yesterday? It didn’t look like it to me.
You do realise he talked about Cesc and Ramsey together, not Wilshere+Ramsey?!
xavi and iniesta are too lightweight to work as well!! lol
nothing wrong with Cesc + Ramsey. Ramsey is quite strong and intelligent defensively – played at right back for Cardiff a couple times, and even played centre back in the recent FA Cup quarterfinal after Djourou got sent off. I think he has the positional discipline to make it a successful partnership, sort of like Fabregas + Flamini (in a 4-4-2, so they didn’t even have the crutch of a third midfielder alongside them) the last time we mounted a title challenge.
I agree. Not taking anything away from Wilshere, but I think that if you compare Ramsey’s body of work to Wilshere’s (prior to the injury), he’s the better player. It mostly comes down to him being more assertive and direct in the opponent’s third of the pitch – which results in him being more of a goal threat from the same position. Matt is spot on in noting that Wilshere seems to have better defensive attributes, probably due to a willingness to enter 50-50s more often. Aaron seems to rely on his positioning more.
I’m certain WIlshere will add more of a goal threat to his game soon, but at the moment I believe that when both are compared at their respective bests, Ramsey is slightly superior.
Must be said that Walcott’s runs off the ball have improved immeasurably. Excellent run for the goal, pushing the centre backs deeper and opening up space for Ramsey. Something van Persie pretty much never does. Theo did something v. similar last time Arsenal beat United when Nasri got a brace. Never seems to get any credit for this. Also nullified Evra all game long.
I don’t think he does it consciously, he’s probably trying to work a goalscoring situation for himself. Either way it doesn’t matter, what’s important is that he’s making the run, and as you say he doesn’t get any credit for it. In fact I think most of Walcott’s plus points are tactical rather than individual, which a lot of pundits seem to miss. (pinning back left backs, preventing opposition defences pushing up, off-ball runs etc)
Agreed. On a bad day the mere presence of Walcott changes the way the opposition plays. On a good day he scores the winning goal himself.
You have a lot of good points, but van Persie not making space for others? He’s probably the beste false nine in world football (except Messi, but hes more like a superhero)in the way he drags the defenders around and create space. So right there I think you are wide of the mark!
The best false nine in world football should have been Marouane Chamakh. The reason why Nasri has stopped scoring goals is because he doesn’t have Chamakh there making space for him. Had Chamakh been able to maintain his form you can be sure that Van Persie would have been sitting on the bench a lot more. It’s a shame that something caused his season to go off the rails.
I said it before in the review for the FA Cup game and I’ll say it again. I find it shameful that United surrender possession to Arsenal so meekly. Fine, if they want to rely on the cut and thrust of the counter attack, by all means, do so. But being so lethargic all over the park, being scared to tackle, press (its not like the Schalke tie hangs in the balance) and attack is depressing to wtach especially against a side like Arsenal.
Let’s not forget that this is an Arsenal side that got hammered by Barcelona at the Nou Camp and that was before Barcelona became more adept at playing a counter attacking team thanks to Real Madrid.
United may have a faint chance in the Champions League final if Real Madrid get through but I don’t see how this bunch can overcome Barcelona.
As for Chelsea, United have brought this upon themselves and I would only blame them if they lose next weekend by adopting this same tactic that they used against Arsenal. I don’t care anymore, even if Martin Atkinson himself streaks across the pitch to give 5 Chelsea penalties.
I don’t get the point about arsenal being hammered by Barcelona. Who doesn’t get destroyed by them? In terms of playing style and personnel united are nothing like Barcelona either.
Losing a tie by 4-3 is hammering right? Arsenal have always been better than united at midfield and passing. Not a single game in 2010/2011 I was impressed with this United team.
And yes, you will soon be hammered by Barcelona.
Yes, it was a hammering. Learn to live with it.
If you want to bend the truth and label it as hammering then I dont have a problem. Truth is losing a tie against the best team in the world by 4-3 (winning by 2-1 in course) in aggregate is never called a hammering.
so if Man U lose to Barca by more than one goal (assuming they meet), what shall we call that? demolition? slaughter? massacre?
Jesus, the final score is not the only indication of how close the game was–you guys have hammered plenty of teams you’ve only beat 1-0. Certainly, at least, the second leg was a hammering. Surely you accept that? It’s not really that big a criticism of Arsenal–my Liverpool, even playing as well as they are now, surely would have been hammered as well, and Real Madrid (the second best team in the world) got truly massacred earlier in the year. And, I’m no Man U fan–I’d love to see them get demolished in the final.
We got hammered by Massimo Bussacca.
Lovely piece as usual Michael.
I weirdly thought Arsenal were more fluent today. As you said Ramsey’s habit of passing the ball out wide was something that I think benefitted Arsenal quite a bit. I still think Arsenal need a new full back or two because I think their current ones are actually overrated and that they could do with someone like Leighton Baines at left back who can really affect the attacking play, add a different dimension even if you sacrifice something defensively with playing him.
Was Valencia unfit to start today? I really think that pushing him and Nani onto Arsenal’s full backs really would have benefitted United today. With both of them pressing to win the ball higher up the pitch in the wider areas I think it would have disrupted Arsenal’s flow a bit more and it may have made Sagna and Clichy more reluctant to go forward.
Sagna is the right back in the PFA team of the year for 2011, the second time he’s been so honored, so I assume you’re not saying they need to replace him. As for left back, Gibbs and Traore are waiting in the wings if Clichy falls off.
As for pressing Arsenal’s fullbacks, ZM’s review noted that not doing so seemed to be a tactical decision from Ferguson…
First of all, I think Sagna’s overrated but no I wouldn’t replace him. Clichy I feel isn’t as good as people think he is. Gibbs may well turn out to be a brilliant left back so it’s too early to pass judgement on him. I still think they would benefit from someone like Baines or Coentrao who could give an added attacking dimension to them.
As for the second point I think it was a wrong decision.
I think Gibbs could really do with some regular playing time. The problem is, he has looked terrible this year (in part because he kept getting injured) so it would be a big stretch to just throw him out there as the 1st choice left back next year. And Traore I think has no future at the club – IIRC we accepted an offer to sell him to Benfica, but they couldn’t agree on wages or something, before he went to Juve.
Personally, I would sign a new, relatively young left back such as Baines or Enrique, have them compete with Clichy for the starting spot every day and send Gibbs out on loan. Clichy could take up a sort of left-sided utility role, like Eboue – other than his crossing, he’s got really good ability on the ball, gets involved in attacks effectively, and can pass with either foot equally well. I wonder if he could play as a central midfielder… it would mitigate his worst weakness, making stupid decisions in our own defensive third (if you make a mistake as a central midfielder, there’s still another line of backup before it turns into a goalscoring opportunity).
Great write up today. Song was outstanding on Rooney (clearly Fergie was not expecting him to win the match-up), and Ramsey’s positioning also helped Arsenal close down Man U as they came forward. No doubt that MU is suffering from too many games (just Arsenal in Feb/March), as they were flat and complacent
Seemed to me that Ramsey’s deeper positioning enabled Nasri/Arshavin/Walcott (or one of them anyhow) to pair up better with RVP. Especially when Arshavin entered, there were times that Arsenal looked more 442 (4411). RVP’s movement (he pops up in so many different places) causes problems for defenses, but also for Arsenal’s supporting cast, who can never be sure where and when to attack. But for once, there were three bodies in the 6 yard box, opening up space for Ramsey’s goal.
You do have to wonder whether the Wilshere/Ramsey pairing (with Song holding behind) is more fluid than Wilshere/Fabregas–who sometimes make similar runs but with awkwardly different rhythms. In any case, there was a better balance of direct and indirect play today.
Btw–thought bringing on Eboue helped to close down the right side. Owen was a sign of desperation–something you don’t usually see in Man U’s subs.
In theory, the Rooney-Anderson combination has the advantage against Arsenal, because Rooney can pull Song wide and leave the hole exposed for Anderson’s driving runs. However, Wilshire and Ramsey were very disciplined in closing the vital space in front of defense down when Song stuck to Rooney and got pulled into wide positions. With Rooney struggling to break free, and Park oddly ineffective (he’s usually a very reliable counterattacker, but he struggles to break down packed defenses, which is why he is more useful in Europe than the League) United’s counterattack badly suffered.
Good points. I wonder if the lack of midfield space, stemming from Ramsey’s inclusion, caught Man U by surprise and left them with the wrong starting 11. Although Berbatov found little room too. On the other side, you could see that Arsenal’s late counter attacks fell apart owing to the lack of understanding among the players–wrong runs and/or wrong passes.
I have been exasperated by Arsenal’s crossing for nigh on several years now, and today was no exception. They must score less than 1 percent of the time from it, so I do wonder why a scientist like Wenger persists with it.
When the ball is out wide with Clichy or Sagna, why not look to play a short pass along the endline? Is it because most Arsenal players, generally speaking, look hesitant to take on their defender? (Only Nasri and Arshavin seem to want to beat their man with any sort of regularity.)
I too hate watching the ball go out wide as I know the cross will inevitably make its way to Vidic’s head, Sagna has improved his crossing this year but Clichy’s is just abysmal. However the lack of success is also due to our players being short and not having many strikers who like to header the ball.
On the subject of taking on players I think its something to do with our approach to matches that gets rid of our directness. You notice it most with players like Rosicky and Arshavin who used to be extremely direct and take long shots but now just end up passing it around the box rather than take responsibility.
Actually as regards Rosicky I’d noticed the opposite this season – that he seemed to be eager to run at defenses. This is why I’d found the widespread criticism of his performances so odd. Maybe it’s just due to the selection of games I was able to watch…
Well I thought he has been extremely ineffective as usual. The only time I remember a bit of play that was like the old Rosicky was when he came on against liverpool in the 1st game of the season and wriggled through 2 defenders before shooting at goal. I haven’t seen him do anything half as direct as that since.
“(Only Nasri and Arshavin seem to want to beat their man with any sort of regularity.)”
It’s the other way round, Nasri and Arshavin are the worst when it comes to not wanting to beat players and being more happy to pass the ball on the edge of the box. Nasri in particular has been crap for months already, and it’s shocking that people still treat him as semi-world class and player of the season material for the club. Walcott is the only one of the wingers who seem to want to beat his man with any sort of regularity, and his contribution this season has been extremely underrated. I dare say that Wenger should be looking at shipping out Nasri and Arshavin and getting more proper wingers like Walcott into the club.
@Masterman, I have to agree with you. Nasri and Fabregas have been short of top form for a few months now. He doesn’t push the full backs, doesn’t cross and doesn’t come into the box from left any more.
I’ve heard he’s the 2nd fastest member of the 1st team but he only want ball to feet rather than using his speed. Watching him lately is simmilar to watching Ribery play for France at time. Dribbles 50 yards with a defender chasing, stops, slows the play down then passes back to a team mate after EVERYONE on the opposing team gets back.
Arsenals passing has been slow and non-inventive, teams no-longer challenge arsenal for midfield supremecy, they readily cede it but instead form a tight unit infront of the Arsenal midfield and block the passing lanes. To succeed Arsenal passed have to be sharp, and snappy.
you should look at the guardian chalkboards. Man Utd attempted 16 crosses and completed not a single one. at least we completed some crosses (3 to be precise)…
Much prefer this tight (but fluid) midfield trio to the more structured 2-1 we tend to play with fabregas on the pitch. I thought it looked better in both the attacking and defensive phases; defensively it placed a more collective defensive responsibility on the trio than when we have a clearly defined playmaker supported by a double-pivot behind. Maybe it’s just fabregas wishing he was elsewhere, or carrying an injury, because I’ve seen him scrap and muck in defensively in midfield, but too often he’s a passenger in the defensive phase in games I’ve watched lately so that we take much longer to recover the ball, are susceptible to overloads etc. Offensively it prevented us from having the problem of having our playmaker marked out of the game, ramsey and wilshere got to move into creative positions as and when appropriate for the situation and they got to do so from deep so that they presented momentary confusion over marking responsibilities which gave us that fraction of extra time to do something with the ball. Overall, I’d favour a fluid trio like this for the future and I do think, should we retain him this year, that it could benefit fabregas as well, for me he’s got the passing range to be more of a regista, he’s much more dangerous when he can get his head up and be out of the press of the trequartista role (a la against everton earlier this year). Don’t get me wrong, he uses his intelligence and immaculate close control to make a good, if unconventional, fist of being an out and out playmaker, but he’s more of a passer than an explosive dribbler so that a disciplined, athletic holder can keep him under wraps.
With those positives stated, I’m still unimpressed with out ball retention, I only watched the second half due to playing football IRL, and as soon as we scored, apart from a brief 5 minute spell, we completely lost control of the game and ended up defending against wave after wave of man u attacks, punctuated by some fairly disappointing counters. It strikes me that, for a side considered a possession side, we aren’t actually that good at monopolising the ball when necessary. BBC reckons we hadsomething like 42% possession by the end of the match and that put us under a lot of pressure; I was frustrated to see us forcing the pace so much, with the fullbacks making ambitious forward runs anytime a red shirt got a moment on the ball in the middle of the park. We just needed to put our foot on the ball a bit, close up into a tight proximity and look to suck man u up the pitch a bit with some keep ball since they were going to have force the pace. Instead, I remember a totally unneccessary scramble in midfield at one point with some head-tennis, then we lost the ball and ended up facing a 4 on 3 counter led by rooney that man u fortunately contrived to waste(sxufdisfjisny saved at the near post). Still I guess we can put that down to inexperience, adrenaline and in a positive way, a determination not to make any silly mistakes in possession near our goal. Obviously it would be better to hold onto the ball and really slow the tempo, but it was good to see some collective defensive focus and determination not to concede sloppily. Props to the whole team for this, and was really pleasing to see arshavin and van persie muck in on this front.
My final thought, related to this ball retention problem we have is to ask if there’s a genuine tactical or structural reason why we couldn’t hold the ball from goal kicks? Was it just poor distribition from szczesny? Or should we just expect this when van persie is up against ferdinand and vidic? Cos I feel like there’s something we ought to be able to do on this, perhaps get van persie to try and receive the ball against evra with a little support in very close proximity. So he drifts towards evra, then walcott and whichever of the trivot is closest gets nearby so that we can actually win some knockdowns and retain the ball a bit higher up the pitch and reduce the pressure.
Agree on all points. 1) Wilshere and Fabregas do not play convincingly together. 2) Arsenal should have scored at least one counterattack goal in the final 20 minutes, so the ball retention shouldn’t have mattered so much. 3) On the goal kicks, this is Szczesny’s big weakness. Esp. in the final 10 minutes-he just kicked the ball to VDS over and over…
Lee Dixon was interesting om Match of the Day – he showed what a poor job Rooney did against Song when Arsenal had the ball, contrasted with the success of the Song-Wilshere-Ramsay midefield trio.
Lee Dixon speaks alot of sense, in my opinion, he’s probably the most knowledgable pundit.
Understandable, but surprised to see Ferguson using 4-4-1-1 again today.
Scholes was out due to the detention and Giggs needed a rest, so the only option was Anderson-Carrick-Gibson midfield trio, and I think Ferguson didn’t think Gibson was enough to be named on the starting XI against Arsenal.
But still United should’ve used the usual 4-3-3 against arsenal yesterday. United were outnumbered in the cetral area and Ferguson hand to make his tactic extra-fluid so Rooney could drop even deeper and Park playing more a central-ish role, and these made United vulnerable from the flanks and difficult to lunch counter-attack.
This game clarifies my suspicions. Time for Fabregas to go. Ramsey’s energy and postivity won this game. Replace Clichy with Assou-Ekotta. Get Hulk or Cardoza and replace the French poodles currently present in the centre backs with some men of steel.
One game does not suddenly mean Arsenal do not need Cesc. Fergie simply overestimated his midfield and Rooney’s ability to play deeper which allowed him to be easily marked. They were without Fletcher who is not fully fit, Scholes who is suspended and he does not trust Gibson it seems, it worked into our hands in terms of nullfying their threat through midfield but as said earlier in possession we put needless pressure on ourselves especially in the 2nd half. Fabregas is a key player with possession but he won’t put in the workrate that Ramsey has and Fabregas is more experienced than Ramsey.
Why Fergie changed the tactics that worked for him so well I don’t know and Arsenal fans get frustrated by Wenger’s tactics at times!
“One game does not suddenly mean Arsenal do not need Cesc”
I agree 100% with this.It’s massively encouraging that Ramsey has come back in seemingly good form and it’s also very positive that this match shows how good his cooperation with Wilshere can be in the future.BUT that doesn’t mean that the team will be better off without Fabregas
I find it interesting to see so many play slagging of Cesc, despite him being the best provider for this Arsenal team (having made 15 or so assist), a couple of goals and generally running the midfield in a way only a few players in the world can. Not to mention his excellent work rate (he runs a longer distance than any other player).
He has scored 10 goals and made 16 assists in 33 starts this season. Last season he scored 23 goals and 19 assists in 41 starts. I think it is fair to say that he isn’t having as good a season as he had previously. That he is the best provider for this Arsenal team can very well be his biggest liability, because the team seems to be too reliant on him and certain players seem to expect him to create everything for the team. Without him the team doesn’t look better but with a Ramsey who is more well balanced than Cesc plus new wingers and full backs who are able to create goals the side could very well be better. A return to the English/French hybrid type of lineup could very well be better than the team trying to become a poor man’s Barca.
On Sky Sports before the game, the presenter asked Graeme Souness if he thought Sir Alex would take a draw, for some reason Souness said no! Of course Sir Alex would have taken a draw! A draw would mean not all the pressure is on the Chelsea game, where as now, if United lose, the title is most likely going to Chelsea! What a game it will be though.
Arsenal show too much work rate to cope. Anderson just have no clue when team do not have the ball so basically only Carrik and Park try to defend so midfield area is outnumbered badly.
Still with all possession, Arsenal make no impression on Utd side. Ramsey was very clever to exploit confusion come from Utd substitution. Park thought he play as wide midfielder so there is some lag in his mind before he slot in central area and Ramsey actually predict this confusion very well that is magic from him. Arsenal carefully draw game plan how to stop Udt 442 system and it is clearly work very well. Udt player lost most 50/50 contention and settle for draw in their mind I guess and it was backfired badly.
Man Utd’s central midfielders have had this problem for a long time. against teams that have midfielders who can make runs from deep (eg. Lampard for Chelsea, Toure for Man City, and Ramsey in this game), the Man Utd midfielders don’t really do their job defensively, tracking runners into the box. I guess the problem was exacerbated by the substitution that moved Park into the middle. call me crazy, but I think they’ve missed Hargreaves this season, and Fletcher when he’s been absent. I see all the talk about signing Sneijder to provide more creativity, but I wonder if they should go for a defensive midfielder as well (or combine both needs with a deep-lying creator, like Sahin or Modric).
I think that Alex Ferguson changed tactic because he did not had the personnel (Fletcher, Scholes, ..) or at least did not trust his available players either individually or as a unit (Gibson, Valencia, twin brazilians fullback) to employ it.
He also has a view on the champion’s league game.
As mentionned in the post is the fact that Song’s role to nullify Rooney took him by surprise. For once Wenger had the upper hand in term of tactics. When Alex Ferguson had to change things to attack, he did not had a game plan ready.
Agree, Strange thing is that Udt has been played without proper CM for long time. Fletcher was not available so there is no option. I don’t think Arsenal had enough cutting edge to score in this game however Ramsey summon clever idea which seal the game. One mistake furnished as a goal.
the first time this season ( in lge ) that man utd have BOTH failed to score… & lost. their prev 3 defeats they showed some resilience/fight by scoring i.e wolves 2-1, chels 2-1, liv 3-1. and 4 prev “fail to scores ” showed resistance by keeping clean sheets ensuring they didn’t get beat i.e sund 0-0, man c 0-0, spurs 0-0, newc 0-0.
man u have only 5 away wins, the same number as blackpool !
Hello! fgdbeee interesting fgdbeee site!