Arsenal 1-0 Manchester City: City lose the midfield battle – and probably the title
The starting line-ups
Mikel Arteta’s long-range strike settled a match Arsenal could have won by more.
Arsene Wenger made one change from the side that lost to QPR last weekend. Aaron Ramsey, who looked uncomfortable out on the left in that match, was dropped and replaced by Yossi Benayoun, a player who more naturally drifts inside from the flank.
Roberto Mancini was without David Silva, so used Samir Nasri, James Milner, Sergio Aguero and Mario Balotelli, who almost always starts big games ahead of out-of-form Edin Dzeko. Pablo Zabaleta played at right-back, with Micah Richards on the bench.
Arsenal made this much harder work than it should have been – they hit the post, missed an open goal, had a goalbound shot by one of their own players. The win was never certain, but they were clearly the better side.
From the line-up, it could have been assumed that Manchester City were playing the 4-4-2ish shape they’ve played in most big Premier League games this season, with Balotelli upfront and Aguero behind. But instead, Mancini was being a little more cautious and seeking to match Arsenal in the centre of midfield. Nasri was the attacking midfieler, with Milner on the right and Balotelli high up on the left – the role he played away in Napoli, for example.
That was an attempt to compete in terms of possession. City enjoy more possession, on average, than any other Premier League throughout away games – but Arsenal have more than any side in home matches.
It didn’t remotely work, however, with Arsenal completely dominant in the opening stages, and prospered through the unlikely approach of hitting crosses into the box. Bacary Sagna got plenty of freedom out on the right, with Balotelli generally staying high up the pitch and not defending the left well (though when he did, his tackles were often reckless, so he was probably best off staying high up). A couple of Arsenal corners also threatened.
City's changes when Pizarro replaced Toure
Toure off, Pizarro on
The first half changed when Yaya Toure went off injured, and the obvious man to replace him was David Pizarro. He could quite easily have played the Toure role (or at least the Toure position – they’re clearly different players), but instead Mancini took the curious decision of playing him at the top of the midfield three. This meant that Nasri moved out to the right, Milner came inside to a left-centre position, and Barry became the right-centre midfielder. It caused mass disruption to the shape of the side, when it could have been quite a simple change.
But it helped City get some degree of control in the game. Pizarro didn’t look for space in between the lines like Nasri had in that position. He dropped deep and helped City retain the ball in midfield, with his reverse movement encouraging the likes of Milner and (to a lesser extent) Barry to move past him towards goal.
When Pizarro got the ball in deep positions, he played a couple of good long straight passes in behind the defence, trying to exploit the space in behind defence (due to their high defensive line). Wojciech Szczesny had to sweep.
However, City now had none of their midfielders or forwards in their favoured position. Nasri was right when he likes being central, Aguero alone upfront rather than with a partner. Balotelli prefers upfront to the left, Pizarro likes to be deeper, Milner likes to be more of an attacking player, while Barry is better on the left of the midfield two.
Playing Barry on that side of the pitch was probably because Tomas Rosicky was drifting there, with Yossi Benayoun moving inside from the flank into that zone. City had to be tight there, rather than on the other flank, where Theo Walcott was high up against Gael Clichy, with no midfield support needed.
Second half
City changed again for the second half
Mancini changed things in the second half. Pizarro dropped back to play as the deepest midfielder, with Barry to the left and Milner to the right. These two essentially played as blockers, looking to move up high and close down Alex Song and Mikel Arteta deep in the Arsenal midfield, giving space to Pizarro.
This worked reasonably well and City were OK at the start of the second half. Pizarro swept one wonderful ball out to Clichy on the left.
But the move affected City defensively. Pizarro is clearly not best as the primary holding player – he’s a fierce tackler but lacks the positional sense to play there, and isn’t particularly mobile. Arsenal started to get space between the lines, with Rosicky free in that zone. When he stayed there and drifted either side of Pizarro (rather than dropping deep into midfield), Arsenal created some decent opportunities.
The second result of Pizarro being brought deeper was Song’s role. He’d been fairly cautious in the first half and saw Nasri, then Pizarro, as his responsibility. But now City were 4-3-3 without a real attacking midfielder, so Song could be more of a playmaker. He drifted into a good position to play a (trademark?) chip over the top to Robin van Persie, and Arsenal hit the post. Later in the half he was found drifting out to the left wing, then into an attacking midfield role – pretty much anywhere where he could find space. He and both Rosicky were getting time on the ball, and now Arsenal were clearly dominating.
Mancini needed to make a change, and his first move was odd – Nasri off, Aleksander Kolarov on. City now moved to a 4-4-2ish shape, with Kolarov left, Milner right and Balotelli told to join Aguero upfront. Later, Carlos Tevez would replace Aguero in a straight swap.
But this was a game contested in midfield, and won in midfield. Having helped to stabilize City in the first half, Pizarro made a mistake to let Arsenal in for the winner. He lost the ball, Arteta got space in front of the defence, and thumped the ball in.
Conclusion
A disappointingly tame performance from City, in a game they really had to win. Mancini left Edin Dzeko on the bench for the entire game and Carlos Tevez only played five minutes while City struggled to create opportunities, which doesn’t help Mancini shake off his reputation as a defensive coach.
Mancini could quite rightly argue that City didn’t need another attacker on when they were struggling to compete in midfield, and that the obvious type of switch (Dzeko for Milner, say) would have furthered City’s problems in the centre. But they neither won the midfield duel nor offered a significant attacking threat on the break, and it wasn’t really clear what their gameplan was.
Arsenal started with their usual system and played it throughout the match. There was nothing particularly interesting tactically about their approach (although the use of Benayoun worked well, with Arsenal returning to the team they used against Tottenham), they rather just played their own game and let City struggle with the positional adjustments and unclear strategy.
Arsenal won this fixture but if you are interested in keeping up-to-date with all of the latest Arsenal Scores for their upcoming games, then make sure you head to Footballscores.com today!
Yaya Toure seems the only player that links the attack – when he went off injured, I figured that would seal the contest. ZM, curious to see your thoughts on Hargreaves and if you think he could’ve helped City’s midfield during their run-in…
Well said! Exactly what came to my mind as well….
I’ve never been a fan of City’s 4-4-2ish shape, even though it’s a necessity in the run and run EPL. In big games, I think they’d be better off with the boring but effective 4-5-1 of last season with De Jong, Barry, and Toure basically sucking the life out of games.
And against AFC it would have been the most obvious choice, as they have a hard time playing against a such midfield.
Interesting approach by Arsenal. They pushed their full backs up and played with plenty of width, pinning City into their own half in a way reminiscent of Barcelona. Mancini probably expected Arsenal not to provide a threat from crosses, especially with their centre back pairing, and planned to hit Arsenal on the break, but Arsenal won back the ball quickly when they did lose it, and van Persie managed to get two very good headers in. Arsenal could probably have fashioned more chances if Walcott had worked the channels better in tandem with Sagna though, especially since the midfielders had enough time to pick out passes.
agreed, especially when 2nd half, sagna gone mad with forward runs. i think he is natural winger rather than isolated walcott in this match. mancini should drop de jong to face arteta, and pizarro can shackle song. arsenal honestly can be exploit from the flanks, too bad city don’t play with natural wingers to took advantages from these situation (although gibbs totally sloppy and get caught by zabaleta in 1st half)
Does anyone know why Ramsey played on the left wing against QPR and for the last 10 (?) minutes in this match too? I can’t make head or tail of it.
I was wondering if Wenger is trying to find a way of fitting him into the side long term, assuming Wilshere will be first choice in the middle along with Song and Arteta. Either that or Arsenal don’t feel he is disciplined enough to play in the midfield 3 at the moment.
Perhaps he is copying the approach from Diaby, where he is focusing more on individual development than what is best for the team overall in the individual game.
Either that, or Wenger will exploit the opportunity to overload in certain areas. This works for certain periods, but once the opponent gets adjusted, we experience lack of width.
No matter what, I hate it. Ramsey has overall been really poor this season, and perhaps the most disappointing player at AFC. He should be loaned out to improve discipline and work ethics.
I agree, but let’s not be too harsh on Ramsey. He was good in the fall, but I can’t help but feel that the death of Gary Speed must have been very, very tough for the lad. He is still a young kid and Wenger will get the best out of him.
I disagree. He had few good games, a lot of average games and a bunch of poor games. In the first 1½ months of the season he was awful. There is no doubt that the talent is there, but as long as he defensive work ethics and his patience in the game are so poor, he is not even a good sub for us. Loaning him out could perhaps help solve these problems.
i think you can question ramsey on a few fronts, but on work ethic? the guy runs about the entire pitch when in a central role!
Again no. Not without the ball. When we have the ball he works hard to get into good positions, but without the ball is a completely different story.
It’s not just Diaby. Fabregas, Denilson, and Flamini all played a lot of games as a wide midfielder (albeit in a 4-4-2) at the beginning of their careers. That’s not even mentioning the players like Nasri and Rosicky who, while naturally central players, at least had a lot of previous experience playing out wide.
Wenger always talks about how he believes that blooding central players out wide helps them develop their game, so yeah, it’s frustrating right now, but if it helps Ramsey develop into a better midfielder in 2 or 3 years (when we are actually fighting for a title), then I’m all for it. To some extent, playing Wilshere as a deep-lying midfielder last season was the same type of experiment, and he quickly developed into that position. It’s harsh to judge Ramsey after, what, 5 games (half of them as last minute cameos)?
After watching that game I couldn’t tell *who* was supposed to be wide left, because Ramsey seemed to just be joining in with the other central midfielders, and Rosicky popper up out wide a few times.
The one reason i really don’t understand that what’s so special mancini sees in balloteli that he picks in all the big games even when he cries out loud that he’s not trustworthy ..to win big games u need winner mentality & city’s most definitely lacking it..
also many people believe that city should hv used tevez more after come back to win title but i actually think the coming back of tevez disturbed the rythm of city , players do lose respect for coach when mancini doesnt honor his own words “i will not play tevez again” ..
Yes by all means, lets move from blaming it all on Mario to blaming it on Carlos.
Mancini is both a prima donna who loves drama (his stay at Inter is well documented) and as a player as a quitter.
There is little Mancini can say about players like Tevez when he as a player QUIT during a game.
He was playing for Sven at Sampdoria and when the ref didnt give him a PK against Inter, he LEFT THE FIELD while Sven was screaming at him. Got suspended for two months I believe.
Having him lecture players about such things is like having manager Joey Barton complain in a few years that someone is a dirty player and a distraction.\
Poor man management, poor game management and personnel decisions he took are the reason for the failure, not one player.
Its too easy to blame it on one person.
And you cant see what is so special about Balotelli? Cmon, really?
Then you have a weak grasp of football.
We know who Balotelli is as a player and as a person and the fact that he is such a talent means that people will always be tempted to believe they can tame him. That’s arrogance. “You” know better than other managers and “you” will succeed in getting the most of the talent while keeping the crazy to a minimum.
If Balotelli or any other player wasnt that talented, they would be throw overboard and forgotten.
Riquelme is a poison, a cancer worse than Balotelli and he always found someone willing to overlook that little problem because of the talent. The same goes for many, many, great players.
Mario has pleeeeeeeeeenty of faults but its rare to hear people say they dont see whats so special about his talent.
Think this game shows how a clear strategy is always much better than trying to experiment mid game.
Arsenal seemed well suited to how City played today.
In defence, Verm and Kol easily dealt with Aguero who hardly saw the ball all game. At fullback, Arsenal tend to keep Gibbs back and get Sagna forward, which worked excellently with Balotelli poor defensively against Sagna. This seemed a strange decision, as Milner surely would have done a better job at keeping Sagna quiet.
In midfield, Song dealt with Nasri by getting tight to him and not letting him turn, while Arteta were given far too much space with Barry staying far too deep initially. Then as city changed their shape in midfield, they ended up giving Song far too much space to get forward as ZM has mentioned. In the second half, Milner was guilty of not tracking Song and concentrating too much on Rosicky and Benayoun.
Higher up, Rosicky and Benayoun managed to combine well with Van persie to help Arsenal keep the ball high up and maintain possession. This was especially evident in the second half as Pizarro was overrun. Walcott remained a more direct option, and with Sagna overlapping they could both overload Clichy at LB.
This all combined for a great Arsenal performance that puts them in the driving set for a top four finish.
I wrote about the race for a top four finish here if you want to read about it http://thesubstitution.tumblr.com/post/20644660788/forget-pride-the-race-for-a-top-four-finish-is-mostly
Spot on.
As you say, Mancini was probably looking to use a surprise element, but you cannot surprise an old fox as Wenger.
Zabaleta always had good games against Arsenal and I was surprised when I saw him on the RB instead of LB, in which he often contained Theo very well. Barry was also very innefective and his lack of pace was very telling in many cases when he had to deal with Rosicky.
Arsenal fully deserved their win and with little more luck and clinical finishing, this would have been a 3 or 4-nil smashing.
Personally thought Pizarro and De Jong would have been a better choice against Arsenal. Some good breaking up of play mixed with good ability to spray balls forward and catch the Arsenal defence out quickly
Yeah I also noticed on all the crosses Arsenal were launching into the box, perhaps with that approach Chamakh could of been of some use.
Any stats available on just how many goals Arsenal score from all the crossing they do?
Van Persie isn’t a great header of the ball, and Sagna and Walcott aren’t particularily good crossers anyway. It seems kind of aimless most of the time.
Don’t know about stats but here is a good related piece
http://arsenalcolumn.co.uk/2011/05/18/crossing-is-footballs-greatest-divide/
Something maybe more tactically ‘interesting’ from Arsenal to look at in the future, is the role of Andre Santos? Here when he came on he didn’t seem to play like a typical fullback, or at least not when attacking. Made runs towards the centre and took up positions like an attacking midfielder would around the box.
Something else I though Arsenal did very well was the wide players tracking back and winning the ball. Benayoun’s impressive run back for the slide tackle on Aguero, and Walcott nicked the ball in the run up to the triple chance that Arsenal should have taken.
Santos’ tendency to drift centrally was making me nervous as he was leaving a huge gulf along the flank.
Agreed, the tracking back/winning individual battles was superb, definitely a sign of a well motivated team.
Evra has somewhat similar movement patterns, but he’s smarter about it. He does it later on, when the wide midfielder is in possession near the touch line. Those diagonal runs of his are extremely difficult to defend.
Man city were poor. Defensively their CB pairing did okay against Van Persie, but couldnt deal with runs from midfield that were poorly tracked. Clichy was overloaded at LB with Balotelli not bothering to track Sagna. Zabaleta I think could have got forward more against Benayoun who moved inside a lot and left a lot of space. Maybe Richards would have been a better option today, was there any reason he didn’t start?
In midfield they chopped and changed too much. There initial set up left Arteta too much time on the ball with Barry not pressing him enough. Then they moved Barry to the right to deal with Rosicky and Benayoun but he didnt get much help. Milner was moved centrally and he did a better job against Arteta, meaning Arsenal couldn’t dominate as much in that small preiod. But Pizarro high up made little sense, he offered good possession, but offered no threat and left Song free to get forward into dangerous positions. Then City changed again in the second half, moving Pizarro deep into his natural position this worked much better at getting Man city flowing again, providing the best passing for city in the whole game. But again he was offered little help in dealing with Rosicky and Benayoun.
Nasri seemed unmotivated in any position, while Aguero was marked out of the game and Balotelli was having a poor game, rarely doing anything right. For me it seemed a weird decision to play him against Sagna as Balotelli rarely tracks back.
I would have kept the defence (maybe with Richards in at RB) but changed the rest of the team:
Pizarro and De Jong in deep midfield to provide a solid base in front of the defense, then Silva on the right (despite looking tired I think he was needed for this game) and Milner on the left to track back against Sagna, then Aguero and Tevez up front, both interchanging between striker and second striker.
This would have had the solid De Jong against Rosicky and Benayoun, Pizarro providing good balls forward, Silva room to move inside and press Song, and Tevez and Aguero could move Verm out of position and create holes in the defence.
I know ZM loves Zabalta, but if I were Mancini Richards would be ever-present (and my starting CBs would be Kompany and Toure).
Richards has been in great form this season and I think his stamina going forward could have exposed Benayoun on the left wing.
Toure and Kompany would be a good partnership, though I think Lescott hasnt done much wrong this season and seems to have a good partnership already with Kompany.
Yeah I was confused about the City midfield shape. After Toure went out Macini should have gone straight to a 4231 with Pizarro and Barry holding and Milner, Nasri and Aguero as the advanced 3, Milner being more reserved, Nasri in the middle, and Aguero high up, then Balotelli challenging the Arsenal CBs.
On another note, Balotelli was lucky not to be sent off and if the EPL reviews the ridiculous studs-up tackle of his that was not adjudicated in any way, he might face a retroactive ban. I love his offensive verve (like the attempted bicycle kick, which was inches from being a wondergoal) but the man’s tackling is dangerous. Also, it was hilarious when Santos told him to be quite.
As for Arsenal, I thought there were stellar performances from the central midfield three and Sagna. Rosicky seems a better fit with Song and Arteta than Ramsey on recent evidence, though of course how Wilshire will fit in should he ever return to fitness remains to be seen.
It’s interesting how well Arsenal’s return to last season’s system (4-2-3-1 with Song and a passer playing in a double-pivot, Walcott on the right and a creative player cutting inside from the left) has worked recently. Playing a more direct game (with Gervinho and Walcott) suited Van Persie but means they struggled to control games as well.
It’s especially that it’s working so well with inferior players – Fabregas and Nasri are clearly better players than Benayoun and Rosicky (though that’s obviously off-set by Koscielny’s form, Vermaelen’s return, Song’s development, Arteta playing the quiet passing role more effectively than Wilshere and Van-Persie’s sheer ridiculousness this season.) They’ve also showed a mental toughness in recent big games which was lacking last season.
I thought Arsenal were superb at times last season and put up a good challenge before capitulating in the last couple of months with injuries/loss of confidence after the League Cup Final. In my opinion, they had the strongest starting XI in the league but a poor squad (especially significant given how injury-prone Fabregas/Walcott/Van persie are.)
Now they have good options in defence (not perfect, but an improvement on last season) and midfield (Arteta, Gervinho, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Benayoun signing, Ramsey coming back, Rosicky playing well.) They are only a few astute signings off of really, really challenging next season. A good striker, a good creative midfielder (perhaps Gourcuff) in particular would put Arsenal in a good position going into next season.
Their recent revitalisation is slightly ironic given that it’s come with the move back to a system abandoned for most of the season. It’s also ironic that they now have a better, more balanced squad but are missing the individual brilliance of Fabregas and Nasri.
It works well against opponents playing without a dedicated defensive midfielder, marking our dedicated offensive midfielder. But against teams playing with a dedicated defensive and disciplined midfielder (such as QPR) we experience huge problems, and Song is often forced to gamle in his play, leaving the space in front of the defence open. We’ve seen this a number of times this season, unfortunately.
For me the preferred solution is using two multifunctional midfielders, who can work in both directions. Such midfielders are of course harder to find (Wilshere is one though), but the system will be much more flexible and more stable in the defence.
True about Nasri and Cesc, however not surprising. Nasri simply didn’t fit the wing-role, as he was more a midfielder, dragging into the pitch than a natural attacking winger seeking the deep runs. As for Cesc, he’d gotten into a role we last saw Henry have: Everything HAD to go through him, which really was a problem when he was tightly marked. And especially when Nasri helped making our game too narrow. Moreover he didn’t work as hard in the defence that Rosicky is these weeks.
Rosicky has been just as good as Nasri this season, though not as scintillating as Nasri’s first half of last season admittedly.
I’ve recently felt that the missing link in Arsenal’s midfield, at least in terms of becoming a complete competitive squad for knock-out tournaments and an increasingly tactically variant league, is one more quality, dedicated central defensive midfielder, especially one comfortable serving as a lone full-time anchor directly opposite a world-class number 10.
The talk of Yann M’vila being smuggled out of Rennes is reassuring to me because he seems like someone more comfortable with a midfield tilted for one holder than Song, who is now constantly looking for space to produce his chipped passes and whose willingness to drop back permanently and inhabit the space between the lines has waned. While it’s improbable that Wenger ever intends to make a single holder system his first choice again, not having the personnel to secure one makes us vulnerable when the tilt of our midfield is allowing too much space, as in the game against QPR, and makes us more predictable to shut down when Rosicky, or whoever serves as the highest midfielder, is having a bad day.
Well, that solution will make it even easier to shut us down, when the offensive midfielder is tightly marked, as Song is not really good in the short passing game. That will again force the midfielders to gamble more in the offence.
I’ve always thought that until about the middle of last season, Song’s clear strength was in his balance and his short passing, while his longer deliveries have only gained consistency this season.
Regardless, I think that in a situation where we have a clear highest midfielder and the two holders take turns moving forward they both become more conservative in their running, limiting the drive from midfield to some extent. This is exacerbated when the 10 is having a hard time holding on to the ball in advanced positions and Van Persie is having more of an out-and-out striker kind of day. Add to that Walcott’s horrendous touch and one of the more direct left wingers, like Gervinho or potentially Poldi, and you have trouble maintaining possession in threatening areas and/or a lack drive from midfield.
With a midfield tilted to allow two midfielders to move higher, like Barca’s or Juve’s, the drive from midfield can be shared without creating any confusion about who shields the center backs, and it becomes more difficult to man-mark, say, Rosicky out of effectiveness in the hole. This is not entirely preferable to the current system, but could offer situational advantages against teams with out-and-out tens or out-and-out anchors. Not to say this isn’t possible now, but the trend in the behavior of Song and Arteta indicate that neither would be particularly comfortable playing a more static role, especially as Song has emerged to ease the collective creative burden this season.
This game, in fact, illustrates how much more effective Song and Arteta both become when neither of them is confronted by a high central playmaker or second striker, as Pizzaro’s introduction saved Song the trouble of staying goalside of Nasri for the full ninety minutes.
Short passing as one of Songs strenghts? Not at all. While he is good at breaking pressure on own pitch, he too easily loses the overview when we’re on the opponents half. He simply doesn’t have the vision that players such as Arteta and Wilshere have. And i definitely don’t agree that Song is not comfortable in a static role. His best periods have been when he was used as a dedicated shielding defensive midfielder.
Regarding the proposal it seems like I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were looking for a dedicated off. midfielder, a dedicated def. midfielder and Song. But it seems like you look for something similar to what I’m looking for: A dedicated and disciplined defensive midfielder and two more box-to-box type of players, both been able to be creative and take offensive runs, while still working hard in the defense. We saw something like that last season when we beat ManU.
I’m very much a neutral observer when it comes to Premier League matches, but this was the most impressive Arsenal performance I’ve seen in a long time over 90+ minutes. They made City look completely average.
It is really nice to see such a talented player as Rosicky back at his best. He has always been a fantastic watch when healthy and on form, which has been unfortunately rare throughout his prime years. He and Benayoun were outstanding, and their work rate was really phenomenal. They were far from bystanders without the ball, and that is the key to making attacking systems work.
I did not like the Ramsey substitution because he dropped too deep from his left position, and made Arsenal more negative when they were already in control of the match. Benayoun worked his socks off, but I thought he was good to run more. Ox-Chamberlain would have been a better “like for like” substitution if Wenger was intent on removing the superb Benayoun. There was no reason to change shape. I think Arsenal might try Ramsey in a deeper regista type role for the future. I see him as more of a Busquets/Bruno Soriano/Pirlo type of midfielder.
As for Wilshere’s further projection in such a system, he can easily occupy the Rosicky role. Arsenal will need him too given Nasri and Cesc have gone, and that Rosicky hasn’t exactly been a model of longevity.
I concur about how excellent it is to see Rosicky tear it up.
Can’t agree with you about Ramsey though, registas have to have vision.
This shitty game instead of Real vs Valencia hahahah typical EPL fanboy your site is going down the “shitter”.
Quality doesn’t matter, so long as a game is interesting. I’m sure the author would have no qualms making an article about Ebbsfleet v Braintree, so long as it was televised and was interesting enough tactically to warrant a write-up.
Football tactics and formations do not begin and end with Real Madrid, don’t ya know?!
Thought this game was relatively dull actually, and I’d rather hear about what Norwich have been up to than AFC (and that’s as a gooner!).
I’m working on it now. I was working at the Arsenal game, so clearly did that one first. Thanks for your kind words.
Chin up, ZM! The rest of us love you!
Mancini is clearly out of his depth. The only reason why he has won trophies in Italy is Calciopoli. With all the money City spent, Mancini fails to deliver when he needs to
Is this down to tactical ineptitude or just a failure of man-management? (or perhaps both)
Both, City will be better off with a 4-4-1-1 formation with Aguero and Ballotelli upfront. Moreover if Mancini decides to use Tevez again, he should used him more often, especially after his great performance against Chelsea. The combination of Tevez and Aguero should be very promising
Why not Real Madrid – Valencia??? You never do Valencia matches.
because he’s a epl fanboy yo
Maybe an article’s in the pipeline, and it just hasn’t been posted yet?
Maybe ZM just didn’t watch the game?
Maybe it wasn’t particularly interesting from a tactical point of view?
Maybe as an English writer, it’s only natural for English matches to be the main focus of his attention?
Maybe if you don’t like it, you can stop trolling, write your own tactical analysis of the Real game, and show ZM how it’s done?
He’s free to cover any matches he wants… Most of his readers are EPL viewers, so most of his articles are on EPL matches. But he does a lot of matches from other leagues as well. And he has specifically said he doesn’t always like La Liga, so I guess that’s a reason for lack of Liga coverage (although personally I find tactics in Spain much more intriguing than in the EPL).
Hush, the analysis here is too deep for a simpleton like you.
Not that trolls usually care about facts, but it seems you’ve missed the numerous Valencia game recaps in the past year or so, and for this reason I collected 5 examples:
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/03/03/valencia-0-1-barcelona-tactics/
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/03/10/schalke-3-1-valencia-tactics/
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/04/10/valencia-5-0-villarreal-tactics/
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/09/22/valencia-2-2-guardiola-emery-gets-the-better-of-guardiola-early-on-but-barca-fight-back/
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/12/06/chelsea-valencia-villas-boas-deep-tactics/
Interesting to see City play a midfield system similar to Juventus: a regista in front of def (Pirlo–>Pizarro) with two “blockers” in front of him. The main difference here is to see how crucial the blockers are in performing their roles well. Vidal and Marchisio do this perfectly: the perfect balance b/w running and shielding Pirlo (mostly Vidal) and providing a late offensive runner from deep (mostly Marchisio).
City clearly didn’t have the players to do this
(sidenote: it would be lovely if this website got the Disqus commenting system. It’s really nice)
>his first move was odd – Nasri off, Aleksander Kolarov on
Not a city fan but to defend Mancini a little, I figured this was b/c Sagna was getting so much joy on the right w/ Mario’s indifference in tracking back. At the time to me seemed inevitable that if AFC scored it would be through Sagna, with Rosicky helping overload that side of the pitch. Yes, it’s a defensive move that is a bit weird given the need to get 3 points but I just figured that at that point in the match given the asskicking that was going on Mancini figured he’d take the point away from home rather than do a Sir Alex and go balls by throwing on all the strikers.
In retrospect I agree he should have pulled Mario, put in De Jong and played 4-5-1 w/ Milner marking Sagna. I think he wanted to play it both ways, he thought Mario was his best hope to steal it at the death. Glad it blew up in his face.
“I think he wanted to play it both ways, he thought Mario was his best hope to steal it at the death. Glad it blew up in his face.”
You hit the nail on the head. This is interesting for me because Mancini seems to be more and more taking the approach of selecting a team that tries to nullify the other teams approach while Wenger has always been one to build a team to function a certain way and not deviate from his game plan just because he’s playing against this team or that.
Interesting comments on Rosicky and Ramsey. I have watched Rosicky produce good performances over the past two years, Villa away for example. His change of pace, direction and receiving ability in advanced areas is and has been far superior to Ramsey’s.
I believe Arsene was left with no choice (his own fault ammidetly and Wilshere’s injury) but to start Ramsey at the start of the season. This, combined with Gervinho’s and Walcott’s poor receiving ability often left Arsenal struggling to control possession and rigid in their play. The move to Rosicky, Benayoun and Oxlade-Chamberlain gave the team greater fluidity and a WF/Winger/AM who actively looked for space infront of the back four to contrast with Theo Walcott. The return of the full backs has also allowed this player in Arsenal’s front three to drift inside and overload the midfield area. This player has also pressed better and with more intelligence.
I have visions of Ramsey moulding into a Frank Lampard, box to box midfielder, despite his poor finishing he often times his runs well into the box and has a huge engine.
Greater squad depth, injuries permitting and hopefully Arsenal will challenge next year.
Problem with Ramsey is his extremely poor work ethics once the opponents have the ball. His willingness to make those tough defensive runs on opponent counter attacks is just so hard to find. If he can improve this and the patience and calm when he has the ball (look at number of turnovers!) he can be good, as he indicated last season against Manchester United. But these are key concerns. He will not be a successful part of a 3-man midfield before he has solved these problems.
He also needs to stop attempting backheels.
YES! I saw one game where he must have tried 15 or so, to the point where the whole bar would groan when he’d attempt another one.
His… work ethic? I feel like that’s Ramsey’s biggest strength at the moment. I agree he needs to significantly improve his decision-making and composure on the ball, but… let’s not forget how bad players like Song looked in that department for the first few years of their Arsenal career. I think these stats sum him up:
1.8 Key Passes per game (3rd, behind Arteta and RVP)
86.7% pass accuracy (2nd among non-defenders, behind Arteta)
2.8 times dispossessed per game (1st)
1.7 turnovers per game (2nd, behind Walcott)
Still, to be one of the best passers overall, with his relatively little experience, is still impressive.
I’ve always thought that Wenger playing Ramsey high up in the hole or to the left is almost a kind of paternal torture, like camping or learning to whittle. Ramsey just doesn’t have the instincts to play with that little space, and certainly not the touch or speed. Everyone except Wenger suggests playing Ramsey further back, but there must be something in Ramsey’s vision or the timing of his runs that is baiting Wenger into his ritual of jamming passing midfielders into their least favorite roles.
Thankfully I can’t really see where Ramsey fits next season in the AM or Auxillary WF/Midfield Role.
AM- Wilshere,Rosicky, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Benayoun (if retained)
WF- Podolski, Walcott, Gervinho
The depth and competition slightly deeper will need to improve if Arsenal are to challenge. This is where Ramsey can hopefully make an impact.
@Ryan: I cant see Ramsey either but you forgot Arteta.
I dont see Benayoun as a starter on a healthy team.
And Rosicky has had one good game and were supposed to forget all the years he hasnt? That spells bench player.
Throw in Song and hopefully MVilla with the rest of the offensive midfielders and I dont see Ramsey coming within a sniifing distance of starting in midfield.
Maybe left wing is his best bet.
Bobby – you are a moron.
1. Get out of here with your M’Villa BS.
2. Arteta is not an attacking midfielder, so Ryan didn’t forget him.
3. Rosicky’s had tons of good games. See http://vimeo.com/user4667037/videos for video evidence.
Yes, his work ethics. I’m fully aware that he works hard once we have the ball. But please notice how little he contributes when we don’t have the ball. Notice how many times only Arteta and Song is to be found protecting the defence. Notice how many times he simply stops tracking back once the opponents win the ball an go for the counter attack.
Comparison with Song doesn’t make sense, as the fulfill completely different roles. The last two stats you are commenting is exactly what I’m worried about. When playing with a 3-man midfield makes it dangerous to lose the ball high up field.
learn to read, chief.
“Problem with Ramsey is his extremely poor work ethics once the opponents have the ball.”
I’ve observed in some games, though admittedly my sample size for this season is only maybe half of Arsenal’s games overall – he runs all day on offense to find space or make space for his teammates, but when the ball is won by the opponents he does not move with the same zeal or alacrity.
Not related to tactics, but the Arsenal fans doing the Poznan after effectively ending City’s title challenge was a nice touch. Really rubbing salt in the wound.
United did the same to them in January I believe and since its the Poznan move that they took recently, I dont see much irony. If it was their move, Id say yeah, its cheeky but they took-stole it from another club. Im only surprised that they didnt pay for someones elses trademark.
Anyways, THAT has to be the stupidest celebration in football.
ESPECIALLY at 1-0.
Your team just scored and there are less than 5mins left in a one goal game.
What do you do?
Turn your back AND NOT WATCH the last few mins!!! Sorry but that is simply idiotic.
At 3-0, I would do it but at 1-0, I am keeping my eyes ON THE EFFING GAME!!
Heck, why not do the same during penalty kicks during competitions? Turn your back and dont watch the PKs. (I think the english fans already do it!)
I needed to thank you for this wonderful read!
! I certainly enjoyed every little bit of it.
I have got you book-marked to look at new stuff you post
Very interesting analysis as usual – the big question for Arsenal over the next few months will be RVP’s staying or going. If they can keep him then the next few seasons for them look very bright with some very good emerging players breaking through and Rosicky finally re-affirming what made him such a great player around 8 years ago. Without RVP then they may have to rebuild the squad yet again to compensate but Man City were pretty awful. They lacked any ambition in the game and thoroughly deserved their loss – Mourinho must be a shoe-in for next season.
To be fair to Pizarro, he positioned himself perfectly for an easy pass to feet, but Clichy decided to lift the ball over Rosicky instead into a no-man’s land ahead of Pizarro, who then had to run to catch up to the ball. Pizarro made a judgement error in letting it bounce (higher than he expected) instead of catching it out of the air, but place the blame where blame is due- on Clichy for a needlessly risky bozo pass.
Ironically, Clichy’s hyper-conservative passing always used to infuriate me when he was at Arsenal.
It was Gareth Barry who passed that ball
On Sunday Mancini reverted to type and that costs him the game and the EPL title.
Arsenal are Ill at ease when facing either a team that press them high or a team that soaks pressure and counter attack quickly.
Manchester City did neither.
Everybody blames Balottelli, bur surely a manager of Mancini’s experience should have either substituted him at half time or changed tactic and played him as a central striker rather than a midfield player.
To play Mario in midfield with tracking responsibilities is asking for trouble.
Ramsey has had a poor season. His work ethic is not in question but his decision making is. Arsenal does not need a box to box player. Their play is much more subtle and every players need to be aware of their defensive responsibility. Playing him on the left or higher up the field lessen the opposition goal scoring opportunities when he abandon his defensive duties.
Hi Michael,
As usual, I find myself agreeing with almost all of your analysis. There is one point though (isn’t there always?):
“Arsenal started with their usual system and played it throughout the match. There was nothing particularly interesting tactically about their approach”.
There is a common tactic by visiting teams to defend centrally against ‘narrow’ Arsenal. Usually, Arsenal try to break them down by good movement from forward players on and off the ball. Generally, Arsenal try the option of crossing the ball more as the game wears on. On Sunday, Arsenal knocked in 38 crosses as compared to season average of 23 before this game. Most came from the right, and most came in the first half at the start of the match – as you have correctly pointed out (“and prospered through the unlikely approach of hitting crosses into the box”).
While the crosses were dealt with effectively by Lescott and especially Kompany, it did have the effect of making Balotelli defend deeper. I think from all of Mancini’s gesturing in the opening minutes, this is what he was instructing Mario to do, to try and stop Walcott/Sagna moving forward so freely. It took away City’s threat on the left side completely, until around the 20 minute mark when Arsenal’s tempo slowed a little after a quick start and once Pizarro started retaining possession in midfield.
My question is: Do you believe this ‘unlikely’ attempts at crossing the ball were something that Sagna and Gibbs just took upon themselves, or part of Arsene Wenger’s plan to stretch the City defense and stop their attacking left sided player from getting forward?
I would think that Wenger noticed that none of Kolarov, Richards or Dzeko started and realized that this meant City were surrendering the flanks. Although for Wenger to develop such a strong game plan based on information he could have only discovered a few hours before kick off suggests that Wenger is a lot more “seat of your pants” that I could have ever imagined.