I don't have a florid beginning to this entry, no historical lead in or seemingly unrelated topic that is brought back at the very end to give an extra bit of meaning to the whole thing. Let's just get right to it.
Since the FA Cup Semi-final I've engaged in a series of discussions and one round of nearly handbags on twitter about Arsenal's continued use of the 4-3-3 or nominal 4-5-1 when defending and how that formation has its problems. The reason I've been pondering it is that it seemed that opposing sides had sussed how to deal with the formation and how its lack of width save from the fullbacks had left Arsenal open to counter attacks, especially when Arsenal play that ridiculous high defensive line that sees the centre backs across midfield and the fullbacks in the opposing penalty area.
Much was made post-Wigan about how less-turgid Arsenal looked when both Giroud and Sanogo (I can't type his name without thinking of De La Soul) were deployed up top of the formation. I think it could be called a 4-1-2-1-2? It wasn't a 4-4-2, not in the Tim (Gooner) Sherwood or Roy Hodgson sense, but it was something a bit different.
Much has since been made about Lukas Podolski's role or lack thereof at Arsenal after back-to-back braces against West Ham and Hull City AFC. After he was substituted against Wigan, he was in a bit of a strop, and every ITK Arsenal blogger said something similar to this: "We can't play him, he doesn't defend! We LITERALLY cannot play him! He makes it too difficult for the fullbacks!"
That's tremendous, isn't it? You have a player who, unlike all other available Arsenal forwards, actually SCORES GOALS but he CAN'T play because he doesn't DEFEND. I guess a similar argument should be made for Sagna. He defends but he doesn't score! He puts too much pressure on the forwards by not scoring! Yes, we know he's a defender, but here at the Arsenal we expect goal scorers to play like Jaap Stam and our defenders to score like Gerd Muller! TOTAL FOOTBALL!
Conventional wisdom has forced tremendous backtracking from Arsenal supporters over the years. The most recent example would be "Aaron Ramsey is shit; oops, I mean he's Welsh Jesus." After the Wigan match, conventional wisdom was all about Poldi's defending. Then four goals in two games and everyone's saying "Hmm, can a team starved for goals from the forward position afford NOT to play him?"
I have a question: Why are the fullbacks Arsenal's only option for providing wide attacking play? It's not a rule. It's not in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or even the Talmud, to the best of my knowledge. My near spat on twitter (with one of my favourite Arsenal bloggers, no less) seemed to suggest that playing Podolski automatically means that whoever is at left back will run himself to death with no cover and will decide to leave the club and Arsenal will have to re-sign Traore because nobody will want to play for Arsenal under those conditions, or something to that effect.
This question ties into what appeared to be a two striker formation in the Wigan match. I heard no comments that suddenly Arsenal were horribly exposed down the left even though it was not put upon either of the forwards to cover the opponent's right wing.
The lovely fellows at Tuesday Club made a very clear and rational argument for more flexibility in the formation choice in their most recent podcast. You can listen to it if you like, it's quite entertaining. My biggest issue with the 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 is that the way Arsene deploys it, the 3 midfielders are all centrally deployed playmakers or pivot players or destroyers and the other two are dying to be central strikers unless Rozza starts at the top of the second 3. The Ox can offer some width but again he likes to attack from the inside.
Nobody anywhere has ever said that only the top 2 wide players should defend the flanks in this formation, but I think that it's clear that the personnel that make up Arsenal's midfield don't have the capacity nor the inclination to play wide in a 4-4-2 or 4-1-2-1-2. Arsenal are built to be narrow and attack through the middle right now, and the only attacking width comes from pushing the fullbacks so high up the pitch that a misplaced cross or loss of possession against a good team will mean punishment at the other end.
Yet there is Poldi, "all he does is score goals." I've never seen people chastise Dzeko for not being a conscientious defender, but this received wisdom that Podolski has no value because he doesn't defend has become an unshakeable truth among Arsenal supporters. I'm tired of seeing Giroud miss chance after chance (yes I know he does other things, yes I know he scored a great goal against WHU) and wail in Gallic frustration. Poor Sanogo isn't yet ready to lead the line and score much or at all. And yes, I know that Ramsey is now back and scored against Hull and he plays perfectly off of Giroud but again, there is a question of width when facing teams that pack the box and play tightly and try to hit Arsenal on the counter.
Even if Wenger did want to "experiment" with a two-striker formation (experiment? How many titles did the man win playing two?!!), he hasn't bought the players to make such a shift. There's no flexibility in the squad sheet so there really can be no flexibility in the tactics. The away loss to Stoke comes to mind when I think of a match where some tactical freshening could've helped.
The oddest thing about all this is that Wenger played midfielders who really did attack down the flanks on the tiny pitch at Highbury, and has eschewed this option at the Grove. There's a logic in there somewhere, I'm sure I'll find it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In light of Liverpool's early coronation as champions, many Yanks are donning red shirts and professing love for all things Scouse, Stevie G, the tactical genius of Brendan Rodgers, the tragedy of Hillsborough, the Beatles, and a lot of shit about which they really know nothing. With this being NBC's first season broadcasting or streaming every match, this is for many of us an introduction to English football and there seems to be some bizarre romanticisation of Liverpool by the novice.
Yanks don't understand the loud-mouthed, know-it-all, "we invented the game, Shankley, Paisley, Alan Hansen was the fastest player in the history of football, what do you know about football you idiot Yank?, John Barnes was the greatest player ever, Ian Rush was the greatest player ever, King Kenny, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" Liverpool fans. Christ they never fucking shut up. I'd rather listen to Teddy Sheringham read Glenn Hoddle's autobiography than have a discussion--or rather ATTEMPT to have a discussion--about football with a goddamned Scouser. Yanks have no idea, this was the most hated club in English football long before United started running the rule over the top flight.
The worst thing about it is the horrible pro-Liverpool bias among the English press and media. These people have this romantic memory of the greatness of Liverpool and how it will never be that good again and they spend column after column verbally wanking over a team led by a bitey racist and a serial diver. (No, they're not one and the same.)
You don't understand it, Yanks. They don't want your support. They don't like you. They think you're stupid. They think you don't know anything about the game. And on that point, they may be right.
Liverpool winning the league is bad for football. Arsenal haven't won the league in over a decade (and haven't played in the States in 25 years) and yet the number of Arsenal supporters routinely outnumbers all other clubs. This says that nobody becomes an Arsenal supporter because they're glory-hunting day-trippers. The number of Liverpool supporters in the USA will swell like rats from an abandoned house and will be just as annoying and vile and obnoxious.
You don't know what you're doing, Yanks. You simply don't know what you're doing.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Monday, April 07, 2014
11 from 33 = Failure
The former American basketball coach Bobby Knight used to stress that he coached his players to make the fewest mistakes as possible in a game. His theory was that even if your shot isn't falling or you're facing a team with more talent, making fewer mistakes than your opponent would keep you in the contest. I've heard many theories on coaching from hundreds of coaches and managers and one theme that kept popping up was that you can't coach from a negative perspective. Knight didn't believe this.
By a "negative perspective" I mean, it's more difficult to teach a player not to do something, to avoid an action, than it is to teach him to actively do a thing. A simple example is that it's easier to say to a player "Run fast!" than it is to say "Don't run slowly!" Putting a negative thought in a player's head makes him less decisive, forces him to start considering things instead of being instinctive, or so the theory goes.
Where Bobby Knight is concerned, let's put it in its most basic terms: He would lose his mind when a player made a mistake. That's not an exaggeration, either. Nothing, not even incompetent officiating, grated on him like seeing a misplaced pass, a missed assignment, a forced play, a silly foul, or anything that can be classified as a "mental mistake." As such, he tended to recruit players who were perhaps less physically talented than others but had a greater mental acumen for the game, and his teams tended to play in a fundamentally sound style, no matter the changes in the team sheet over the decades. (Knight's lunacy and lack of self control are another subject for another writer.)
There were of course other aspects to Knight's teams but it always came back to avoiding the mistakes that kill momentum or give your opponent easy scoring opportunities. That was the foundation--everything else rested on it. Knight had much success in his career getting good performances out of teams that were less talented than those they defeated.
I bring this up because of what I saw in the latest Arsenal away defeat to a "top" club. Well, what I watched of the match, anyway, as I got to the point where I simply had to switch it off. Abject performances in big matches have that effect on me.
The mistakes that Arsenal made, both of omission and commission, undid them. This is aside from an overall tentativeness in attack that I'll leave for either another post or for someone else to describe. What I find galling about the losses that Arsenal have suffered this year where they've conceded 3 or more goals is that they've shown none of the organisation and "pragmatism" that saved them during last season's run in.
I was so disgusted after the opening home loss to Villa that I turned to my group of Gooners in our New Orleans pub and said "If this is the best we can do then Wenger needs to be fired." What made me furious was the way that Arsenal conceded in that match. There it was--the ridiculously high defensive line again. Leaving essentially one CB to try to defend 3 attackers running at full speed straight at Szcz. The same old mistakes that we thought had been eliminated since February of 2013 were there again, the exact same ones, Groundhog Day and all that.
That, and not the loss in and of itself, is why I was furious with Wenger. That August fury has faded into a sad realisation that I was right, that Wenger cannot set out the team to play with the requisite toughness and help them minimise the mistakes that have cost them a league title this season.
Mistakes cost Arsenal first place in their CL group. A simple, pragmatic, even Teutonic game plan against Napoli would have settled it, we all thought going in that it was a fait acompli that we would win and avoid one of the big teams in the knockout phase. Instead, silly mistakes settled that and the rest, once again, is history.
The loss at City was one I could walk away from and say that, while it was hardly a glorious battle, it easily could have finished 4-4 and that would have been a fair result given the way both teams played. Of course that can't be said for the away defeats to Liverpool and Chelsea. Again, it wasn't about being outclassed, but rather it was down to silly mistakes and that insane high defensive line. (Pardon me for going all Stewie Robson on you by repeating that.)
So that brings us to "the biggest match of the season Mark VI" or whichever one it was away at Goodison. The team started out a bit more compact and the fullbacks didn't bomb forward like the bleeding Light Brigade, but again the mistakes crept in and led to the first 2 goals. I haven't seen the third and don't care to, but the first two were down to incredibly poor marking and a lack of composure around our own 18 yard box.
Mistakes, the same mistakes, over and over, season after season, simple, correctable mistakes are our undoing. League Cup against Birmingham City? A mistake cost us a trophy. Mistakes, errors, gaffs, comical cock-ups, whatever you want to call them, they are the recurring theme in a decade of failure. Enough is enough, really.
I used to find it easy to blame the mistakes on the players--Gibbs falling over versus MUFC, Clichy continually doing something stupid, Alex Song leaving an huge gap at the back as he galloped forward like a riderless horse--but after so many years of seeing them, I can't do that anymore. Last season I thought Wenger had rid himself of all of his bad habits (tactical intransigence, misplaced loyalty to failing players) when he took the team to Bayern and benched Szcz and TV5. It seemed as though this was a new Arsenal, a new old Arsenal, a new old George Graham at his peak Arsenal. I wrote that Wenger had finally merged his need for Gallic flair with Teutonic pragmatism. In other words, "Just win, cheri."
This run in has undone all of that good will. There is none left. This post simply addresses in-game errors and doesn't even begin to treat on the transfer window miscalculations. Arsenal are a tactical mess right now. What is the point of a side that pleads inequality in spending but is set out to attempt to overwhelm supposedly much more talented opponents? Why not continue to pile up results with pragmatic tactics that keep the flaws in the side hidden and actually minimise the potential for mistakes?
And that's it, isn't it? You have to hide the flaws in your team and find a way to play to whatever strengths you have. Mertesacker has no pace but is masterful at reading the game. Why have him knocking it about in the other team's half? Sagna is tops at winning headers but is rather crap at crossing. Is it sensible to have him stationed in the other side's penalty area when they've been sent out to hit you on the counter? These are schoolboy mistakes, and quite frankly they're unacceptable after so many years.
Arsenal have taken 11 points from the last 11 league matches. 11 from 33. Mistakes piled on top of mistakes have destroyed what was a very pleasing season for the club and forced Wenger's supporters (I had counted myself among them) to be rather harsh in our assessments. These in-game errors are avoidable and a manager with Wenger's experience ought to have cut them out after the opening match of the season, but here we are and there they are, and nothing seems to have changed.
Last weekend I had to shamefully say to my friends that "right now, Pulisball > Wengerball." What a vulgar and disheartening thought.
By a "negative perspective" I mean, it's more difficult to teach a player not to do something, to avoid an action, than it is to teach him to actively do a thing. A simple example is that it's easier to say to a player "Run fast!" than it is to say "Don't run slowly!" Putting a negative thought in a player's head makes him less decisive, forces him to start considering things instead of being instinctive, or so the theory goes.
Where Bobby Knight is concerned, let's put it in its most basic terms: He would lose his mind when a player made a mistake. That's not an exaggeration, either. Nothing, not even incompetent officiating, grated on him like seeing a misplaced pass, a missed assignment, a forced play, a silly foul, or anything that can be classified as a "mental mistake." As such, he tended to recruit players who were perhaps less physically talented than others but had a greater mental acumen for the game, and his teams tended to play in a fundamentally sound style, no matter the changes in the team sheet over the decades. (Knight's lunacy and lack of self control are another subject for another writer.)
There were of course other aspects to Knight's teams but it always came back to avoiding the mistakes that kill momentum or give your opponent easy scoring opportunities. That was the foundation--everything else rested on it. Knight had much success in his career getting good performances out of teams that were less talented than those they defeated.
I bring this up because of what I saw in the latest Arsenal away defeat to a "top" club. Well, what I watched of the match, anyway, as I got to the point where I simply had to switch it off. Abject performances in big matches have that effect on me.
The mistakes that Arsenal made, both of omission and commission, undid them. This is aside from an overall tentativeness in attack that I'll leave for either another post or for someone else to describe. What I find galling about the losses that Arsenal have suffered this year where they've conceded 3 or more goals is that they've shown none of the organisation and "pragmatism" that saved them during last season's run in.
I was so disgusted after the opening home loss to Villa that I turned to my group of Gooners in our New Orleans pub and said "If this is the best we can do then Wenger needs to be fired." What made me furious was the way that Arsenal conceded in that match. There it was--the ridiculously high defensive line again. Leaving essentially one CB to try to defend 3 attackers running at full speed straight at Szcz. The same old mistakes that we thought had been eliminated since February of 2013 were there again, the exact same ones, Groundhog Day and all that.
That, and not the loss in and of itself, is why I was furious with Wenger. That August fury has faded into a sad realisation that I was right, that Wenger cannot set out the team to play with the requisite toughness and help them minimise the mistakes that have cost them a league title this season.
Mistakes cost Arsenal first place in their CL group. A simple, pragmatic, even Teutonic game plan against Napoli would have settled it, we all thought going in that it was a fait acompli that we would win and avoid one of the big teams in the knockout phase. Instead, silly mistakes settled that and the rest, once again, is history.
The loss at City was one I could walk away from and say that, while it was hardly a glorious battle, it easily could have finished 4-4 and that would have been a fair result given the way both teams played. Of course that can't be said for the away defeats to Liverpool and Chelsea. Again, it wasn't about being outclassed, but rather it was down to silly mistakes and that insane high defensive line. (Pardon me for going all Stewie Robson on you by repeating that.)
So that brings us to "the biggest match of the season Mark VI" or whichever one it was away at Goodison. The team started out a bit more compact and the fullbacks didn't bomb forward like the bleeding Light Brigade, but again the mistakes crept in and led to the first 2 goals. I haven't seen the third and don't care to, but the first two were down to incredibly poor marking and a lack of composure around our own 18 yard box.
Mistakes, the same mistakes, over and over, season after season, simple, correctable mistakes are our undoing. League Cup against Birmingham City? A mistake cost us a trophy. Mistakes, errors, gaffs, comical cock-ups, whatever you want to call them, they are the recurring theme in a decade of failure. Enough is enough, really.
I used to find it easy to blame the mistakes on the players--Gibbs falling over versus MUFC, Clichy continually doing something stupid, Alex Song leaving an huge gap at the back as he galloped forward like a riderless horse--but after so many years of seeing them, I can't do that anymore. Last season I thought Wenger had rid himself of all of his bad habits (tactical intransigence, misplaced loyalty to failing players) when he took the team to Bayern and benched Szcz and TV5. It seemed as though this was a new Arsenal, a new old Arsenal, a new old George Graham at his peak Arsenal. I wrote that Wenger had finally merged his need for Gallic flair with Teutonic pragmatism. In other words, "Just win, cheri."
This run in has undone all of that good will. There is none left. This post simply addresses in-game errors and doesn't even begin to treat on the transfer window miscalculations. Arsenal are a tactical mess right now. What is the point of a side that pleads inequality in spending but is set out to attempt to overwhelm supposedly much more talented opponents? Why not continue to pile up results with pragmatic tactics that keep the flaws in the side hidden and actually minimise the potential for mistakes?
And that's it, isn't it? You have to hide the flaws in your team and find a way to play to whatever strengths you have. Mertesacker has no pace but is masterful at reading the game. Why have him knocking it about in the other team's half? Sagna is tops at winning headers but is rather crap at crossing. Is it sensible to have him stationed in the other side's penalty area when they've been sent out to hit you on the counter? These are schoolboy mistakes, and quite frankly they're unacceptable after so many years.
Arsenal have taken 11 points from the last 11 league matches. 11 from 33. Mistakes piled on top of mistakes have destroyed what was a very pleasing season for the club and forced Wenger's supporters (I had counted myself among them) to be rather harsh in our assessments. These in-game errors are avoidable and a manager with Wenger's experience ought to have cut them out after the opening match of the season, but here we are and there they are, and nothing seems to have changed.
Last weekend I had to shamefully say to my friends that "right now, Pulisball > Wengerball." What a vulgar and disheartening thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)