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.
No comments:
Post a Comment