Manchester City 1-0 Arsenal: Both press early on, then tire, creating an open match
The starting line-ups
David Silva scored the winner in a match that should have produced more goals.
Roberto Mancini left out Edin Dzeko, which seems to be standard for big Premier League games. Gael Clichy was suspended so Pablo Zabaleta moved to the left with Micah Richards starting at right-back. Samir Nasri started in midfield over James Milner.
Arsene Wenger was short of full-backs and named an unchanged side from the XI which beat Everton 1-0 last weekend.
This was end-to-end and exciting – neither side ever had control of the game.
Pressing
Both sides pressed heavily early on – City started in a similar fashion to they did in the defeat at Stamford Bridge last Monday, and Arsenal closed down well in midfield. There were various consequences of the pressing: lots of interceptions, a few fouls that had Phil Dowd reaching for his yellow card, and plenty of space in behind.
City were better at exploiting that space in the first half. Zabaleta got forward well to cross into the space behind Arsenal’s defence for Sergio Aguero for possibly the best chance of the first half – Aguero and Mario Balotelli both looked to spin into that space in central zones.
Arsenal’s approach was different, because their pace was on the flanks. City’s full-backs stayed quite conservative, though, which meant few opportunities for the wingers to speed towards goal. Gervinho played deeper and was good with his short passing but wasteful in the final third, whilst Walcott was much quieter. Robin van Persie played up against Kolo Toure rather than Vincent Kompany, which meant he was to the left of centre. This meant that:
(a) van Persie was in a better position to combine with Gervinho. Those two linked five times in the opening hour (ie before Walcott went off) whereas Walcott and van Persie didn’t link up once – a surprise since they usually enjoy a very good relationship.
(b) Kompany was more often than not the covering defender, and therefore it was difficult for Walcott to find space in behind as he was up against two defenders.
Midfield battle
Aguero played high up which meant Arsenal often had 3 v 2 in midfield. When Yaya Toure and Gareth Barry looked to close down Alex Song and Mikel Arteta, Ramsey found himself in space but wasn’t really suited to the frantic end-to-end game, often picking up the ball with lots of space to motor into. He is better when he gets the ball into feet, and doesn’t look entirely comfortable in such an advanced role.
City had two midfielders coming into the centre – David Silva drifted across the pitch between the lines, whilst Nasri played a little deeper and sometimes acted as a third central midfielder. Those two weren’t as productive on the ball as you might expect, and them coming inside probably suited Arsenal’s makeshift back four, comprised of four centre-backs.
Equally, Arsenal weren’t as fluent as usual when they had possession, because neither of their full-backs was comfortable on the ball and capable of stretching the play to provide overlaps. In fact, with both sets of full-backs contributing little to the game in the attacking phase of play, the game was quite narrow overall.
Second half
Arsenal were forced to completely reshuffle their defence after Johan Djourou went off injured and was replaced by Ignasi Miquel, but they could have done more to stop the goal. A ball was played in behind their defence in a wide-left position, and Alex Song let Balotelli onto his stronger foot far too easily to get a shot in – Silva turned home the rebound.
City didn’t control the game very well when they were ahead. They continued to push for a second which was good for the neutral, but it was surprising Mancini didn’t introduce James Milner and Nigel de Jong sooner to give some balance and patience to their play in midfield. The game remained open, and both sides could have profited from that, but Mancini surely would have wanted a more ‘boring’ game after going ahead in the 53rd minute.
They still have a problem with giving the ball away too cheaply when Joe Hart is distributing – as shown below, they only really retain the ball when Richards can move high up on the right.
Arsenal fought back well and could have snatched an equaliser, but the two attacking substitutes (Marouane Chamakh and Andrei Arshavin) contributed next to nothing, and it’s difficult to understand why Yossi Benayoun remained on the bench – he would have loved the space between the lines. Thomas Vermaelen was a bigger threat than Chamakh or Arshavin with a couple of good long-range efforts.
Conclusion
This was a great game for the neutrals. So many of the matches between big Premier League clubs have been this season – we’ve had an 8-2, a 1-6, a 4-0, a 1-5, a 3-5 – and this could have been another high-scoring game.
But this should be praised only in terms of entertainment value. In tactical terms, teams may be ‘going for it’ more, but none of the big Premier League sides are good at controlling games. Ball retention is often poor, players aren’t capable of switching from an attacking mentality to a more conservative one, managers rarely use changes to slow the game down and protect what they have, and various clubs could do with another intelligent central midfielder to bring a degree of control.
This, in part, explains why English clubs have performed so poorly in Europe this season – they’re far too open, and seem to have regressed to style of play more fitting of English football ten years ago, albeit with more technical quality. That caveat means matches like this will be regarded as a positive, but had either side played like this against Barcelona or Real Madrid, they would have been soundly beaten. A good advert for the Premier League? Maybe, but not a good advert for English clubs on a broader level.
Why oh why does Wenger continue to use Arshavin? Has he contributed anything since his goal against Barcelona last season?
I agree. Watched Arshavin’s MOM performance. Was he playing for Man City or Arsenal? Wasted too many chances. Touch was a bit heavy or light when it should have been the other way round. Time Arsene sold him to whichever club comes calling. Else give Arshavin and pay the club that buys him. RVP performed 99%. Is the 1% missing because he did not want to hurt his prospective employers? Not suspecting his loyalty but….
Also compared to the other big clubs in the EPL – Man Utd, L’pool, Chelsea – Arsenal played better. They had as many chances to score as Man City. More of an open sort of game by both team.
Had City taken advantage of their chances, this game would have been over in the first half. Both Aguero and Balotelli were able to split the Arsenal defense with relative ease, and, had they taken their chances – the Aguero shot over the bar was a glaring example – City would have won in a cake walk.
Having said that, had both teams played this way against Real or Barca, this would have been a rout.
Liverpool played better against City than Arsenal did. Liverpool battered City in the 2nd half, and would have won comfortably if it wasn’t for Hart, whereas Arsenal should have been 4-0 down by half time.
You have to put into consideration the fact that Liverpool were playing at home and I believe City were down to ten men for the last 15 to 20 mins. It’s just two completely different scenarios. You can’t really compare the two games
Interesting analysis as usual, but I would venture that City had the game by the scruff of the neck directly after going one-up. You say that “nobody had control” of the game, but for 10 to 15 minutes after taking the lead, City carved through Arsenal in a dominant manner reminiscent of those exhilarating first 20 minutes at Stamford Bridge. The ball is not going in for them like it was a month or so ago, leaving us with nail biting games like this, where Arsenal played a full and committed part as they came back into what was an excellent game. Full marks to both sets of players and technical staff, for letting the flow continue in such an exciting way. Mancini’s boring tag has been well buried, possibly because he thinks this City side is so strong going forward, it can ride any hiccups at the other end.
True, but this was the first clean sheet since 1st October in the league for City, which is amazing. There’s obviously a danger of being too harsh on Mancini – saying he was too defensive last season, and too attacking this season…but there’s an element of truth to that, I think.
Thats the point: more exciting = less control, and that, sadly is where EPL sides fall short. Arsenal for the most part can only play one way, but City, under Mancini in particular, are surprising in that aspect. Perhaps its overconfidence, given their vast attacking resources, but it doesnt work in Europe, where most decent sides will pick them off on the counter.
One thing – not sure that’s true about City after the goal – Arsenal had two good chances straight away through Walcott and Van Persie.
You’re being a bit harsh. I think the quality was there and perhaps Mancini could have brought on a midfielder but that would have been a move which would have given Arsenal the initiative. Remember what happened when Guardiola took off Villa for Keita? Maybe Arsenal weren’t quite that force today but as an Arsenal fan I was hoping that Mancini would bring on a defensive player because then we would be able to control the game. Something we were unable to do because of the lack of thrust from the fullbacks. That was something that has hurt Arsenal a lot in the last few games.
But I don’t think the managers should be faulted for not changing their approaches. They both felt their sides could score and they were both comfortable with that. Man city actually took the more risky but the right approach I felt. They weren’t able to control the game but made sure that Arsenal didn’t become too comfortable either.
I don’t know – I think Guardiola’s move was wrong because he made it at exactly the same time as Arsenal went to playing without a holding player, which meant Iniesta would have got space. I think that was the problem there, not bringing on Keita for Villa in isolation, which broadly made sense.
Here I’m not sure there was such a situation. Surprising that he chose this game to play Aguero for the 90 for the first time here…would have thought this would have been the type of game he’d remove him in!
Guardiola’s move more or less amounted to the same thing: Barcelona weren’t able to take advantage of Arsenal pushing forward for a goal.
And today Man City could’ve taken advantage on a few occasions of Arsenal’s gung ho approach after they conceded. Aguero of course was at the center of their attacking prowess.
With De Jong on they might’ve had more solidity in midfield, but would have taken the edge off their attack, which would have allowed Arsenal to push forward more.
We can argue, of course, that a change in tactics might have made the last 20 minutes more comfortable for City, but the fact that he isn’t a bad thing, and had its own positive effect on their game.
Perhaps it was a statement of intent from Mancini. He wanted to shed the “defensive” image of his side and show that they are not afraid to attack Arsenal for 90 minutes.
I think it’s interesting that Mancini still isn’t starting De Jong, after he was so solid last year he’s gone off the radar. In the Champions League I think they were overconfident of their attacking prowess and left themselves exposed to counter attacks. But even since getting knocked out of the CL, Mancini has continued with the “attack as the best defence” – perhaps he’s ‘learnt’ this from Man Utd.
In the premier league this makes sense – teams never give up, even at 2-0 down with 5mins to play – teams will attack you until the whistle goes. So you’re better off to keep pushing forward – hence why city have been putting in 4, 5, 6.. goals. In large part it works because, as ZM says – teams are poor at keeping the ball… you’ll always get it back, there’s always time for another chance on goal.
In the CL though, teams are more intelligent. They can use a momentary error and punish you with alarming speed and precision, a la Cavani.
I would still have expected Mancini to play conservative in the big matches though, playing a deeper 3 in centre-midfield. Not least because Kolo Toure and Lescott are both prone to lapses.
Why play De Jong when Barry has been excellent. He rarely put a foot wrong or made an errant pass. When he’s closing down like he has lately there is no need for Mancini to even think about selecting De Jong over him. His distribution makes him an easy selection.
Coming from a non-Barry fan I thought he was quietly superb yesterday.
“He (Ramsey) is better when he gets the ball into feet, and doesn’t look entirely comfortable in such an advanced role.”
Totally agree with this and I’d go as far as saying ALL of Arsenals central midfield options (Ramsey, Wilshere, Arteta and Song) are not capable of excelling as an attacking midfielder higher up the pitch …. they are all more suited to playing deep and making play which is why I’m surprised Wenger has persisted with this system since Fabregas and, to a lesser extent, Nasri left. With Arsenal’s current personnel I would argue they are suited to more of a 4-4-2 ish shape (which Wenger has played previously with Parlour, Petit, Vieria & Overmars) with Song + Ramsey in central midfield, an attacking option on one flank and a more ’solid’ option on the other (e.g. Gervinho left, Arteta right) with RVP given a partner up front and allowed to roam … I’d love to see Walcott given a run as a central striker to see how he fared. His pace to stretch defences and work the channels and RVP’s intelligent movement in a free role could be devastating …
Agreed. If Arsenal are playing a destoyer, a passer and a creator – I think Ramsey, Arteta and Wilshere (for now) are all more suited to the second role
But Arsenal have benefited from losing their creative hubs… Maybe not Fabregas because he is a top player, but the likes of Nasri were inefficient. They had a really pretentious look about them last year, where the build up took forever.
Now they are more direct. You know exactly what you are going to get with Walcott (who always goes on the outside), and Gervinho( head down dribbling and sharp movement)
The approach has changed. They dont need a no10, since they have forgone the attitude to pick chinks in the opposition defence. This creates more space for V Persie.
So far as Ramsey he will be a top player. This is first stint at repeated starts. He is adapting and learning. I saw him at Webley for Eng v Wales, where he was bossing. I think he got potential to play virtually any midfield role.
They’re all top players, the point is they are too similar to really excel together in a central midfield 3
I’d suggest that Wilshere developed more as a creator and he’s learned the necessary defensive attributes through playing further back. I think when he returns he’ll be the more advanced role with hopefully Ramsey making late returns and Arteta doing an admirable team job sitting.
For me, whilst Song has improved his performance look better on TV than they do in real life and his positioning is still suspect. He could learn a few things off Arteta.
completely disagree w/r/t Song. He’s been playing fantastically and partners with Arteta really well.
When Arsenal let up the goal, I believe Song had lost the ball just outside the City box. City broke with alacrity and Arsenal did not drop back as rapidly as they should have, but when the ball wound up with (Nasri I think) out to the side, who had covered the whole field to close him down, when other midfielders with less far to go were still jogging back? Song.
I agree with Song taking a run way better than the rest of Arsenal, but the one that lost the ball was Gervinho. Just to clarify
I think Wilshere’s better than just a passer though. Enough foresight to pass killer balls and a Bolton-influenced defensive edge in his game. If his injury hasn’t dulled his abilities he should be first-choice in midfield.
On current form I’d definitely drop Ramsey. It might just be that he’s being forced too high up the pitch but he’s not better than Arteta deeper in midfield either. His striking feature (to me) is his relentless pressing but it sometimes looks a bit like a headless chicken act…
I’m eager to see a Wilshere – Song – Arteta midfield soon. I think Wenger buying a attacking midfielder to play at the head of the midfield triangle is a cool idea though. Eden Hazard? Mario Gotze? As good a time as any…
Arsenal have changed their approach a bit.
Normally this season the shape is more of a 433 than a 4231, with Ramsey, Arteta, Song all three playing relatively deep and close together.
The wings are now out and out forwards, who play higher up than last season, and play a bigger role in creating chances.
Wenger has pushed up Ramsey high up at times. Right now he has been pushed up because there is less thrust from the fullbacks.
What I think Wenger wants is an interchangeable midfield 3 with everyone capable of creating, passing, and destroying.
Wilshere and Ramsey have the technical quality and vision to create, they just need time to learn to play with their backs to goal.
Fabregas played a deeper midfield role too (in a 442) until he was moved up relatively recently. We can expect a similar path from Wilshere/Ramsey.
However, they are more well rounded midfielders than Fabregas.
Good gracious I sincerely hope that the 442 you describe is not attempted.
I do concur with ZM that perhaps Ramsey is not at his best in the attacking midfielder role; I would play Arshavin or Rosicky there.
I think once wilshire is back, then it should be him used as the attacking midfielder, ramsey as the passer and song as the destroyer. With wilshire and ramsey swapping positions throughout the game.
Had either team played like this against Madrid or Barcelona they would have been soundly beaten — but is this because both of the aforementioned are better at retaining the ball and more clinical in front of goal, as opposed to playing a less expansive game?
I think they just have a greater degree of control. All good sides, regardless of whether they’re attacking or defensive, look in control of games. Barca do that with the ball, Mourinho’s Inter (the antithesis of possession-based football, in a sense) did that with defensive positioning and not allowing any space in behind. It’s an impossible thing to measure but Premier League clubs don’t have that…
I could agree with that for City but I don’t think Arsenal’s tactical circumstances allowed them to control the game as you say. They were never in the lead for example.
@ZM PL teams used to have that with fabregas, ballack and scholes for example in my opinion, but yes now they lack it dramatically and look like ligue 1 teams actually
Just as always i’m praising the tactical analysis provided but i think there is a tiny mistake in the whole function. The reason why defences were high and the game too open is the lack of good full backs. Arsenal have possibly the most obvious example: Djourou and Vermaelen, two players that play primarily as centre backs. On the other hand, Man City have two very bad full backs (in my opinion). Richards’ only true attacking gift is his speed. He can’t cross well in the box, he barely has the stamina to sprint his flank all the time and he is undisciplined tactically and not only (as all of City’s players due to being such a “celebrity unit” team). Zabaleta is kind of better but his still lacks quality (for a club so strong as Man City right now he shouldn’t even be at the bench regularly). No width from the fullbacks equals no attacking from behind. That eventually forced the whole defence to march forward in order to cover this gap. Too much space behind equals more open midfield. And with no full backs able to push and defend high up the pitch the midfield was dominated by midfielders and forwards struggling to exploit the spaces between the lines. If you look the formations better you realise how this was operated: too much space between full backs and wingers of both teams so the opposing attacking players had all the time to come and work there. Full backs are now extremely essential and such lack from almost all the sides (besides those two Man Utd have also a similar obvious issue with their full backs). English clubs need an improvement at this part and although having lots of other issues this is the most important in order to match up better sides in Europe (Real, Barcelona, Bayern they all have superb full backs).
I totally agree and I think it’s generally rational to end up in the eventual situation. As about the tireness point on ZM’s great report I’d like to add this exact point. Because both teams deployed poor full backs that tire fast then the whole game seemed to tire fast. To conclude with, good job once more ZM!
A couple of my opinions on the game:
1. I thought Mancini picked the wrong starting front four. As highlighted by ZM, the narrowness of City’s attack played into Arsenal’s hands, as it allowed their out-of-position fullbacks to play very centrally. If Mancini had picked a natural winger (ie Milner or Johnson) and told him to stay wide, Arsenal’s defence
would have been more stretched, and City would have been better able to expose Vermaelen or Djorou individually.
2. Though it would be odd for an Arsene Wenger signing, to me Gervinho seems to be a player of pretty poor technical ability. He is quick and has good energy, but I always think that when dribbling his touch isn’t great, and his control certainly isn’t as crisp as a lot of players.
3.Though I never thought I’d say this, I think the area most lacking in Arsenal’s squad right now is their attack. Aside from the starting front three, Wenger has very few options. Arshavin and Chamakh are both useless, Wenger doesn’t really seem to trust Benayoun, and and he obviously feels that Oxlade-Chamberlain isn’t ready. In situations like today, Wenger has very few options. I think a winger and a reliable striker are needed.
Agreed: facing a defence of four centrebacks, it’s odd not to field one or two wingers. Mancini missed a trick.
I’m impressed by how much better ManU have looked now that they’ve been fielding Valencia again. Wingers work.
two years ago when Rooney scored 30+ goals it seemed like every other one was from a Valencia cross.
In the part in the article where you have links to the various high-scoring games, the 1-6 and the 4-0 links both lead to the Man U vs Man City 1-6 game.
Here’s the link to the 4-0 game. http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/09/18/tottenham-4-0-liverpool-tottenham-dominate/
I agreed with pretty much all comments and analysis of the post.
English teams have indeed become worse in the last couple of years or so at keeping the ball and controlling the games, something Manchester United excelled at (the retirement of Scholes and the lack of a suitable replacement has undoubtedly contributed to that).
In this particular respect it is no wonder that Tottenham have come a lot closer to the top teams due to Redknapp but also because they have Modric, and this year with Parker they are one of the best sides at ball retention. It is no wonder really that Villas-Boas at Chelsea coveted the little Croatian so much, and I would not be at all surprised if they attemtp to sign Moutinho from Porto in January, surprise for me was that despite being heavily linked they didn’t sign him in the last transfer window (probably because they came so close to getting Modric their preferred choice).
Manchester United, I believe, have a perfect replacement in Tom Cleverley and his injury is for me the reason why they have been less than impressive recently. No wonder they are being linked in to Sneijder, however I think the dutch master is much more suited to fill in the vacant role of Fabregas at Arsenal as he does play much more advanced, in a false ten almost false nine position, than he would at Manchester United where Rooney already fulfills that function.
But coming back to Arsenal, I have been crying out for Wenger to return to a 4-4-2 with Van Persie playing like Aguero does so well for City, with complete freedom behind a striker where he can create and influence the game. He is fine as a frontman, but against bigger teams with good defences he lacks penetration because the ball does not reach him often enough and the team suffers because he cannot get on the ball and use his creativity. Chamakh had a great start to his career with Arsenal and he is a good player, I think playing with Van Persie would really suit him. Another point I would make on the 4-4-2 formation and Arsenal is that Walcott is not, and it doesn’t look like he will ever be a winger. If Wenger were to rotate between him and Chamackh as and when the game and the opposition required it Arsenal could become a much more potent force. Walcott has got so much of the Henry in him and RVP of the Bergkamp I cannot understand why he insists on the 4-3-3 formation. Wilshere, Ramsey and Song alternating and competing for the two places in Arsenal’s midfield would also be good.
Furthermore, playing with two more orthodox wingers/side midfielders would provide much more cover to the full backs, even with Gibbs and Sagna, who are two excellent players, they are good at attacking but vulnerable defensively.
All in all, the game was entertaining, and the teams were level and even, but I conceded that Man City had the best chances. Against better passing sides, especially in Europe, they would indeed struggle though, as it was apparent when Man City played Bayern Munich, or even when Manchester United played Benfica. The quality of their individual players is undeniable of course, but that alone is not sufficient if the team is not balances, its tactical positioning is poor and they cannot retain the ball efficiently.
What about swapping arshavin for ramsey, and switching this 433ish shape for 4231? That gets a creator in for a passer, I think song and arteta is a very capable double-pivot and I think that kind of vote of confidence in arshavin would be good for him (might kindle some form).
Or… Rosicky could come in for Ramsey (is he injured?), and the shape could stay the same, suiting gervinho and theo more. Ofc, this is at least partly a mid-long term issue in the sense that ramsey is one for the future and Rosicky is obviously not.
Either way, I think Ramsey is the problem, not because he’s particularly bad, but because as pointed out, he’s a passer, and not the best of the ones at the club. Arsenal need a bit more central thrust from midfield attacking areas.
..did anyone else *not* enjoy this game? Both teams were blundering away in the final third throughout, and as ZM said, either team would’ve been trounced by the Spanish giants — and Munich, I’d add, and don’t see either being clearly on level with even AC Milan. Arsenal, with a clear midfield superiority, couldn’t build much of anything through interplay in the centre. I was bored. It was open not because of brave tactics or efficient playing but because of the inability for both sides to assert any meaningful ideas on the game.
I just couldn’t shake the feeling throughout that the game was open because of mistakes and a lack of identity on both sides. City still feels like individual gears separated from each other, and I haven’t an idea what Arsenal’s identity is at this point, besides “go go go van Persie”.
It might be for the best City was eliminated from the CL. An encounter with Munich, Madrid or Barca would’ve embarrassed them.
Seems odd for you to point out that Arsenal had a “clear midfield superiority”. Manchester City played such a terrific pressing game (esp. Toure and Barry) that all three Arsenal central midfielders often took only a few steps forward before being closed down. As an Arsenal fan, it was striking to me how the ball has to be repeated recycled by the defence and goalkeeper. It certainly wasn’t intentional, and it also showed in how little the front three got the ball.
The way I see it, the game was very open because both sides opted for it to be that way. Mancini wanted to convincingly kill off Arsenal with a second goal, Wenger refused to change his style (or could not, due to a limited bench) and was always susceptible to a talented City strike force. I seriously doubt City would play in such an open way against other giants, and I think Arsenal’s setup will work much better with natural full-backs.
It would have been interesting to see City play Madrid. Two teams with the personnel and willingness to be tactical chameleons.
Great write as usual
I really dislike how everyone get sucked up into discussion as far as to suggest alternate formation/ personnel choice. Not that I fully offend that , but when you cross the boundary that sometimes as if implying you know better than manager.
Give the team a break, they only lose 1-0 and Ramsey has filled in capably as advanced playmaker inb4 the game. You have to take into account this is not Arsenal at full force. Without fullback overlapping, there is more burden for Ramsey to create
On other note, KTBFFH. Cheers !
Do you think that with Arshavin’s repeated poor performances, Wenger might begin to use Oxlade-Chamberlain as an offensive sub? He’s got pace and finishing ability, and his defensive liabilities would be less of an issue when the team is pressing for a late goal.
As far as the midfield shape, I think we could see roles change when Wilshire comes back, but they will probably stick to the front three they have now which has generally been really effective. Interesting note about van Persie playing left making Theo less effective, wouldn’t have noticed that otherwise but it makes perfect sense.
Wenger clearly thinks he’s not ready for first-team football although with Arshavin and Chamakh’s performances, he may be the only decent back-up around. What’s happened with Park, anyway? Seems odd to bring a back-up striker and not play him for three months. RvP is on hot form but Park can play as a left-sided forward cutting in, right?
Well, I’ve had a read of the article and some of the comments, and although I respect ZM’s view and all of the respectible authors of the selective comments I will choose, I heavily disagree, further-more as this site and in general this century football is starting to slowly (in the British game at least) to become more analytical in the report with many fans now knowing what a “false 9″ is, it is fundamental that I point out my opinion to take the analysis even higher.
Let’s begin with the article.
“but had either side played like this against Barcelona or Real Madrid”
Of course you have given reasons for this (lack of controlling games, poor ball retention, poor use of midfield substitutions), but this is not logical or analysis, and let me explain why:
If football were linear, thus if human nature and the world were linear, then yes, giving these features in the paragraph before the last would make sense; and of course, if there were a team with very few flaws – and able to do what you have said the English teams cannot do, then yes, it would make sense.
But the world is non-linear – and analysts who work for banks, research firms, as the recent Moneyball film showed, “player analysis” at a club, and you have to be extremely careful with the comments you make.
Arsenal at the start of the season had no style – they were a complete mess, the defence was shambles, the attack no direction, the midfield was pushed up too much AND too down leaving holes between midfield and defence and holes between attack and midfield.
Yet given time, Arsene Wenger has constructed a fine team, who prior to this match had gone 8 Premier League games unbeaten – the point here is analysing the team now and saying they would be comfortably be beaten by Barcelona is in my view wrong, because Arsenal can still improve and are improving, comments like these
“Why oh why does Wenger continue to use Arshavin”
“they are all more suited to playing deep and making play which is why I’m surprised Wenger has persisted with this system since Fabregas and, to a lesser extent, Nasri left”
“I would argue they are suited to more of a 4-4-2 ish shape”
Are primeval and really show a poor understanding of the sport, they need to be eradicated.
Wenger uses Arshavin for many, many reasons – and today had Wenger, in my view, been more bolder, he would have started with Arshavin or Benayoun in Walcott’s place as Walcott did not have the technical ability to perform in this game and gave the ball away many times. Arshavin offers more technical ability, a better passing option, and more dribbling ability.
The second comment is particularly hilarious – considering both Nasri and Fabregas, when young, started out as deep players. Nasri at Marseille would often drop deep and Fabregas started out in the MC/DMC role that Guardiola had – ZM produced a superb article analysing how Fabregas has changed positions from MC/DMC to MC to MC/AMC to AMC to AMC/FC in his career. The point is, what if everyone thought the same way when Wenger was slowly pushing Fabregas higher and higher up the pitch or played Song more often? What if we all said “they are suited to this shape” or “all players are better in X rather than Y”? We would of course be showing no logic – football is incredibly complex to analyse and understand due to the fact that you have 22 humans on the pitch, as fans we forget that this all the time.
Arsenal began with a 4-3-3 this season and are playing this way now, but in time I hope, with Wilshere’s return, the club will slowly revert to the more attacking 4-2-3-1.
Ramsey may not look superb as AMC right now – but he was up against some great defensive midfielders (Yaya Toure, Barry). Any AMC would struggle there – Silva struggled against Chelsea recently, is he not suited to the position?
Further-more, as an analyst it is wrong to say that a club would have been beaten by another club or two, Barcelona this season have problems – and they have been exploited by many teams, as do Real Madrid.
When Arsenal played Barcelona last year and won 2-1 in the first leg of the first knock out stage, the previous year Barcelona had won 2-1 in the QF stage yet they played exceptionally well at the Emirates, many pundits, fans, football-blog websites, were predicting a Barcelona white-wash, based on linear logic such as this:
If A were better than B then, then A increasingly better than themselves last year means they will be EVEN better now than B.
Arsenal of course won the match 2-1 and many pundits just could not understand, some felt it was the “wrong” result, Xavi entitled as a “footballing accident”.
There was no accident – as humans we try to make everything logical and in linear terms, when in reality the world is non-linear and we cannot say “Barcelona would have comfortably beaten Arsenal today”.
Barcelona would have comfortably beaten Arsenal today…
The way Barca played in Yokohama, they would have kicked the living crap out of the Gunners today. Wenger himself would even admit it.
Barca would’ve had something like 184% of possession.
Eh feel free to abuse logic. A one high-school or college level semester class on “Logic” and you would understand. I don’t know what’s more stupid, me trying to explain, or the mass not understand my post.
The post by Jdw is interesting and again abuses logic. So the way Barcelona payed in Yokohama means they will play the same in Manchester, and in London. The environment in Yokohama is also the same as the environment in London and Manchester.
Barcelona played well because they are a superb team, but also because the opposition wasn’t very good. However, lets continue:
“Wenger himself would even admit it” is a poor psychological “fix” to convince the person arguing to conclude that his argument is correct. Again, it abuses logic.
This is no troll – this is a piece based on opinion and with no real analysis on it whatsoever. It’s a good piece – and ZM is arguably the best football blog writer I have seen for the past 10+ years, but this piece will be grandly misunderstood if we take it anything more than just an opinion with no evidence, logic, fact or analysis used.
This is no troll – often logic seems absurd and that is why it is considered one of the hardest graduate courses in the world let alone college. Not surprising to see some who cannot even begin to understand.
This is just astoundingly arrogant and dumb. I’ve taken UG logic, and, hell, I got a freaking perfect score on the LSAT, and I agree your posts are those of someone who’s a troll and doesn’t even realize it. You basically said “waa, this is just opinion without fact backing it up” and then spouted off a bunch of undefended opinions. It’s not even that your opinions are stupid (they’re perfectly reasonable), but that your tone and attitude are absurd. Just because you’ve figured out that counterfactuals are impossible to absolutely prove, you think you’re saying something meaningful and deep (and then, of course, throwing in your own counterfactuals).
Well if we are to talk about accomplishments in education which give us some validity in presenting an argument, UG Logic and the LSAT are both impressive; and I do not wish to stamp on your accomplishments but compared to higher level education they are nothing. Logic is so much more than if A then B, but applying counterfactual conditions is interesting, let’s see:
If A then B, that is, the case that if A is achieved, then B is a follow-by result, counterfactual conditional says A is false, i.e. not true, but let’s imagine it is true.
This is not my argument – and expressing it in symbols and mathematics is incredibly difficult given just how non-linear football is. Thus in this case, you must use logic not to prove anything, rather to disprove; as you cannot prove, but you can disprove.
Neither am I arrogant or dumb; it is easy to insult someone when you don’t agree with their opinion or their ideas, and as a form of security to yourself you can even call it a “troll”, I don’t necessarily agree with ZM’s view but I respect it and do not call it “dumb”.
In response to “polkadotclown”, insulting someone on low knowledge of logic textbooks, not so good grammar & syntax achieves nothing.
And the comment you refer to that I wrote makes perfect sense – otherwise the comments and the original article would not be in the state that is it now.
“Not surprising to see some who cannot even begin to understand”
Pot, kettle, black…
I can appreciate that you clearly spent most of your time studying logic textbooks (apparently to very little effect), but a basic grammar and syntax class wouldn’t have gone amiss either…
This really reads as a dressed up troll.
your last two paragraphs are spot on, We don’t expect Barcelona style passing but the ball retention has been awful, even the arsenal side with a midfield of hleb,fabregas,flamini and rosicky would easily out-possess most 4-5-1 and Liverpool under Benitez with Masch and Alonso were very good at retaining the ball but people don’t remember.
Man City – At the back, Toure had a tough time dealing with Van Persie, getting dragged around by his movement and losing out in the air a few times. Luckily for city, this never resulted in a goal as no arsenal players exploited this. Kompany also did a good job of covering for his teammate, sweeping up really well. Zabaleta had a great game defensively shutting walcott down, but was stopped from getting forward which stifled city in attack. Richards looked like he had more space, but seemed a bit off form, never really going for those rampasing runs and seeming a bit reserved (maybe a injury).
Barry and Toure didnt struggle in midfield despite competing with a three man midfield. Barry kept an eye on ramseys runs and his passing was great, keeping possession well and switching the angle of attacks well. A very good performance today. Yaya was also great, pressing arteta and disrupting arsenals best passer. He also kept the ball excellently but struggled to offer much in attacking sense.
Silva and Nasri were poor, struggling to create good chances. Nasri played too deep and didnt get close enough to goal. Silva also played too deep and it left city playing infront of the arsneal attack when they should have been more direct, especially when agaisnt out of position fullbacks. Aguero played too high up at times and didnt drop deep to get on the ball and create, though he got into good scoring positions. Balotelli did a great job though, holding up the ball excellently with goos strength and quick feet, and also creating good chances with sly passes. His main improvement has been his awareness of his team mates, he has become much more of a team player.
Overall, Man city, were comfortable in defense as Arsenal didnt really attack creatively enough (making it easy to defend), were able to compete in defense as Barry controlled the midfield and Toure stopped arsenal playing (disrupting arteta) and in attack, they did well to play off balotelli (who is bang in form) but struggled with silva and Nasri playing too deep and Ageuro playing too high, so there wasnt enough link up between them.
I agree there isnt much control with City today, they managed to keep possession well, but couldnt dominate, because they were playing two strikers high up the pitch. Nasri played very deep, but gave away the ball far too much, while Silva has started to get a lot of attention now, so he will have to learn to deal with the pressure or he will fail to stamp his authority on the game. Teams are starting to predict his movement, so he needs to up his game, and sometimes be more direct.
ZM, I’m having trouble pinning down what type of player Gareth Barry is, and what he brings to City.
You and others have discussed City’s need for a “regista” this season, in order to dictate play from deep and succeed in European competitions. Gareth Barry is not considered a regista because he doesn’t really create, doesn’t make the killer pass from deep. But on the other hand, Barry’s been described on this site as “primarily a passer…he has played alongside at least one, sometimes two, holding midfielders who do the dirty work whilst he plays slightly more offensively” (from the Carrick article 3/3/10). The idea that Barry is a deep-lying passer, but not a creative one, is interesting to me. What does he bring to City, then?
Work rate, for starters, as the stats show he often covers more ground than anyone else for City.
I also read an article you might find interesting here: http://www.eplindex.com/increasing-importance-gareth-barry/ The stats here show that Barry has been contributing significantly more to City’s offense this season (more of a presence in the final third, more through balls, more chances created) without at all sacrificing his defensive contributions.
Any thoughts on Barry?
Yeah, I’m interested in this too. Not sure how to characterize Barry.
I did think he was very good with his passing today. The ball to Zabaleta, in particular, was perfect.
I don’t think he’s a great player, has done Ok this season. I’d say he brings a bit of ball-playing ability, but also physicality…
Thanks for the response, and great write-up on this game (as usual!).
He is a strange player to define. His best attribute is his positioning i think, he reads the game well and make a lot of interceptions, while also reducing the space that attacking midfielders work in.
His passing is good but not great, he is guilty of being to conservative and choosing the simple ball, which is neccesary sometimes but not all the time.
I would say he needs to improve his long range passing and look to be more creative (might be too laye for a player of his age).
Surprisingly i would disagree with ZM, and say he doesnt really use his physique alot, he doesnt clatter into opponents or win the ball in the air that much.
“This, in part, explains why English clubs have performed so poorly in Europe this season – they’re far too open, and seem to have regressed to style of play more fitting of English football ten years ago, albeit with more technical quality. That caveat means matches like this will be regarded as a positive, but had either side played like this against Barcelona or Real Madrid, they would have been soundly beaten. A good advert for the Premier League? Maybe, but not a good advert for English clubs on a broader level.”
And this is where Italian teams utterly excel. Italians are ooh so tactical, that stuff like this is what they relish. That’s why defensive changes are always dubbed so “Italian” I guess…
As well as Gareth Barry has been playing, City could really do with a passer next to Yaya Toure. As you said, somebody who could slow the pace of the game if need be, and give the team more “control”. At the moment, they are a bit top-heavy in my opinion, looking to get the ball to Silva and co. as quickly as possible, rather than relying on a possession (i.e control) based game in the middle of the park. Nevertheless, their current approach works well in the Premier League. Man United are the same, with their central midfield’s job to get the ball wide as quickly as possible.
For City to be a contender in Europe though, they will need to get somebody in there who recycle the ball in the middle of the park, even somebody like Gago would be a good addition.
Could City throw a curve ball one game by playing Silva further back in the deep lying passer role who can slow the game down when necessary?
Arsenal – were poor today, not really better than city in any department, which is worrying.
In defense, Kol is improving every game he plays, he played very inteligently and his reading of the game has really improved. He kept an eye on Aguero and stopped his pace being a big issue. Mertesacker had a tougher time against Balotelli, struggling to follow his movement across the pitch and he left gaps in the defense. He is still yet to impress me, and verm and Kol are a much better partnership. The fullbacks were CB’s and this really harmed arsenal going forward, they could stretch the play as much and lacked ideas going forward. And this was a game crying out for that, city moved there wingers inside and there was plenty of space to get forward, so Arsenal will feel unlucky due to their injuries.
In midfield, Song did a good job of pressing Barry and stopping city dominate. Arteta got the same treatment from yaya so they canceled eachover out in midfield. Ramsey should have been the difference, but he is still learning his position, and needs to leanr to be more direct still.
Walcott stayed too wide, where he became isolated. This is a weakness of his, he isnt great at cutting inside. Gervinho did better and should have got a goal himself. Van Persie was isolated and couldnt link with the rest of the team, though he remained a threat.
Overall they lacked ideas going forward, walcott ran out of ideas, and gervinho was wastful. Van Persie was isolated as the midfield didnt get forward enough (ramsey was at fault here, though song could have got forward a bit more). In defense they were solid apart from mertesacker but lacked the fullbacks to support the attack.
I actually agree with all of your analysis with the exception of your opening line.
van Persie has looked very isolated in many games this year, yet he’s still scoring goals because he is such a good player, but against better teams he cannot do it alone.
Since Arsenal do not have a suitably competent attacking midfielder now that Fabregas is gone, I really believe RVP shoulf fulfill that role and have a striker playing up front with him.
However, I disagree with people here that say Arsenal do not have an attacking midfielder a la Fabregas, I think Ramsay will become better and Wilshere can play there, they are just too young, as as you correctly pointed out still learning.
The biggest conumdrum of this team for me is Walcott. His value and talent is inquestionable, but he has underperformed on the wing time and time again, he has only shown what he can do in glimpses, and often when he comes in to the middle and runs at defenders. Personally I think he is wasted as a winger, but I realise that Wenger is possibly playing him there as a learning exercise in tactical discipline, positioning and learning to shield the ball, however I too would love to see him being given a chance as a striker,
http://opitacoboleiristico.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/diferenca/
Barça at 3-1-4-2.
I think that conclusion is a fascinating commentary on English teams in the Champions League. However, I’m still at a loss as to why the regression has occurred. What with Manchester United building towards victory over Barca and Chelsea as focused as ever on securing the European Cup, it is bizarre that both teams (along with City and Arsenal) have abandoned the tactical principles that have served them so well in Europe.
Interesting analysis. I would argue that Arsenal lacked proper passing options from midfield because of their lack of recognised full backs. It’s been noted that Sagna and Santos perform a key role in giving the deep lying midfielder lateral passing options and that pressing them (Dortmund as an example) really hampers Arsenal’s approach. Arsenal in possession play something like a 2-5-3 with the full backs providing the wide out ball.
As to City, where is their Arteta/Busquets? That player who stitches the whole thing together is missing for City – possibly because such players are rare or unappreciated. That if anything suggests why they have struggled in Europe. Something to fix in January (though I can’t think of a player they could prise out of a CL side to improve them) perhaps?
Suggesting that Barcelona & Madrid would batter them if they played this way is disingenuous. Barcelona in particular like to squeeze play into their opponents half and both City and Arsenal’s defences are much better when they are denying their opponents space. Neither side could or would even contemplate playing in this manner against such opposition.