Arsenal Tactics

IIRC, Giroud also dabbled with drifting out wide last season, assisting Özil's first career header goal, played in Ramsey for his Norwich volley.

Also, he's got a great understanding with Özil. They've connected to score a bunch of times since he came.

Happy to see him get praise, Cazorla as well.

And happy with our squad atm. We got our CB and DM, even if it was later than we'd have liked. Think we'd all agree we still expect some reinforcement in our midfield the summer with Diaby and Flamini surely goners + Arteta injury prone even if he does stay.

'Alexis Sanchez could be the forward Arsenal have been searching for' by Michael Cox

http://t.co/drDlonqBQl

Very good read.

Alexis certainly does have the raw qualities for the role. He gives you what Walcott does, but also adds more creativity, flair and unpredictability, plus a fantastic work ethic. In theory, if you ensured he wasn't isolated, allowed him a freedom to roam and got players in advance of him it could work. In other words: don't bother with the traditional centre forwards role.

If you put a three of Ozil, Ramsey and Walcott behind him, you'd have three players who know how to make good forward runs.

Or we could, you know, try that diamond I've been banging on about for ages. It's the one formation that can put Cazorla, Ramsey, Ozil and Alexis - our four best players - in their best positions. Never gonna happen, though.

Maybe swap Wilshere and Ramsey. But that's a good looking team

I would go with Joel upfront for few games and hoping to pull a Coquelin.

Alexis up front means Walcott is a must start, as we know Alexis has his tendencies to drop deep at times when he is uninvolved and Walcott could replace him as the CF during said times.

Ultimately the 4312 Jay keeps mentioning is the formation which pretty much suits all our players, however that is too much change for Wenger to even consider so Alexis up front paired with Walcott would be the closest thing to that.


So when Alexis drops deeper when isolated, Özil moves right and Walcott becomes the CF like this


Wenger just got to try this, despite recent results being "positive" as Wenger said, we have not played that well at all.

Starting sanchez upfront is something Arsene always has in mind. He has tried it before quite few times but it didn't work for one reason or another. It's maybe because our style doesn't really suit Sanchez to be the striker since his performance upfront for Chile is always good as they play a different style to us.

It's same as Low starting Goetze upfront. It works quite well for Germany. But it will never work that well for us. Our runners depend on the striker to hold up the ball. It's like the same issue we have when we start Walcott.

But saying that, Sanchez is an upgrade to Walcott as a ST since he brings far more. But it's not magically going to work out so it's probably something we need 5 odd games to make it work. Perhaps something we should have tried in pre-season (obviously we couldn't since Sanchez came in late)

El Gunner wrote:I just don't know if we should start experimenting.
I mean I know we've played shit so far this season, but I'm scared the experimenting won't work out and then we're 15-20 points off the lead come Christmas.
It's basically YOLOing and I don't see Wenger doing that.

Something I would think would work is to revert to that 4312 kinda formation in the second half of games when we are finding it hard to score. Then at least we're trying something different during the game and maybe just maybe the players will pick that style/game up and we can integrate it as our main formation slowly over the season.

But then again that doesn't sound like something Wenger would do. So *bleep* it

What does it matter, we are not winning the league as it stands. City are far beyond everyone else and maybe a change like this could rejuvenate us like such a change did to Liverpool in 13/14.

Atleast we'll be doing something which can help us challenge instead of the usual top 4 finish.

True enough, it's going to be 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 with Wenger, and maybe 4-4-2 if we're chasing a game. That's been his style for twenty years and he's not going to change it now, not when the life-cycle of this current squad is at "peak" age. In a couple of seasons time when the squad has to be refreshed there's a slim hope he, or even a new manager, might take the team in a different direction, tactically.

Still, no reason why he can't try to improve this team's usage of the ball, and what they do without it. The current team is a lot better tactically than it was a couple of years ago, but still has a long way to go for it to compete at the highest level.

When we play Walcott up front with Sanchez, Ozil and Ramsey behind they end up switching positions anyway so it would be exactly the same as starting Sanchez up front with Walcott, Ozil, Ramsey behind. Just tell them to switch around more.

Don't like diamond formation. We already play too congested in the midfield - why make ourselves even more predictable. It would discourage any sort of width.

Giroud has become such an integral part of the attack simply because without someone to hold up the ball, our midfield have no idea what else to do. We can't expect every game to be FA Cup final against Aston Villa where they opponent has to win, and has to attack. Opposition teams are going to sit back and park the bus.

Since we're finding it so hard to score goals, I'd actually recommend 4-4-2. And until Ozil gets some balls and learns how to shoot the ball and become an actual SS, I would suggest:

silver wrote:...without someone to hold up the ball, our midfield have no idea what else to do.

This limit on the team's collective cognitive capacity is one of my biggest gripes. And it is not even to do with Giroud - it is only circumstantial that it is a style which Giroud fits well with.

We have been doing the same for way too long. And unless we evolve to deal with that shift mentally, there is no way a Messi/Suarez/Sanchez/Walcott mould of player would work in our 'system'.

Didn't know where to put this or whether to start a new thread,so the mods can do whatever suits 'em.

Has AW gone for a bigger gamble this season than the 3 CB gamble of last season?

Not only are we short of CFs & DMs,we also ended up signing 0 outfield players(The only one to do so in Europe).

Was this partially because AW expected his players to carry on the form of last season?

Alexis,Oezil,Ramsey,G-Rude,Cazorla,TJW to name a few were in exemplary form towards the *bleep* end of the season & so did AW probably think they'll continue to be good and so didn't end up signing any outfield players?

If yes,doesn't it sound ridiculous on the part of AW to take such a big gamble?Or is there something more than what meets the eye?

Now don't come up with the AW-style argument "The players in the market are no good".We all know there were decent replacements that could've been signed a la Krychowiak and players to were ready to sign for us and we seemed to missed it.

And now for the other part of the argument,let's consider the players in the market are not as good as what we've got.But why do we do the comparison with our first teamers?

So,let's assume we've a player T in the market who is supposedly inferior to G-Rude but is better than the other striker we've got.In that case,shouldn't we be signing player T since he improves the squad if not the team?

If we're gonna argue he's not gonna settle being second choice I guess no player would agree to be second choice.So,we give the other player a fair chance & if he's any good let's play him instead of G-Rude if not he continues to be the second choice.

If the above argument seems plausible,then we could've signed Jackson M who's better than our so called second choice striker(he's even better than G-Rude IMO) and Krychowiak who's better than our second choice DM.

We wouldn't be sweating over Coq's injury and neither would be arguing on why a pseudo-striker should be starting over another striker.

For people saying Welbz was 'two weeks away' I guess it's high time AW realized that his medical teams calculation ETRA{Estimated Time of Return to Action} is almost always wrong.It's an open fact that players never return to action on time for Arsenal and that's how the Welbz case should've been seen as well.

So,why did AW go forward with such a gamble?

Alexis,Oezil,Ramsey,G-Rude,Cazorla,TJW to name a few were in exemplary form towards the *bleep* end of the season & so did AW probably think they'll continue to be good and so didn't end up signing any outfield players?

If yes,doesn't it sound ridiculous on the part of AW to take such a big gamble?Or is there something more than what meets the eye?

It doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Wenger saw, and most fans saw, a collection of very good players potentially developing into a very good team and as such didn't need many new signings.

Should a manager not expect his players to be replicate their previous form? Should Wenger not trust Alexis to keep scoring, trust Ozil and Cazorla to keep creating, trust his team will have the same work rate and discipline and desire as before? Doing so is hardly taking a gamble.

And now for the other part of the argument,let's consider the players in the market are not as good as what we've got.But why do we do the comparison with our first teamers?

So,let's assume we've a player T in the market who is supposedly inferior to G-Rude but is better than the other striker we've got.In that case,shouldn't we be signing player T since he improves the squad if not the team?

If you replace squad players with other squad players you don't improve the quality of the squad. Squads get better when you're first team players are bumped down to the bench and are replaced by better players.

For example, we had Ospina in goal last year, who replaced Szczesny. So we had two decent keepers. This year, we signed Cech, who's benched Ospina. So now the team, and also the squad, is better.

Indeed, someone like Krychowiak is as good as if not better than Coquelin, so by signing him, you relegate Coquelin to the bench, which then pushes Arteta out the squad. So you improve the team and squad. Not signing someone here was a mistake.

For forwards it's different. You don't want the Wenger argument of their being a lack of quality but I'm going to give you it anyway: the striker market is thin, there's not a lot of quality there, and £30mil for a 29 year old doesn't sound particularly appealing.

So,why did AW go forward with such a gamble?

Ultimately, it's about faith in his players. Transfers aren't a magical fix to all problems. They help, but there are other ways to grow and improve a team. Wenger has confidence in the players he has. Some of that confidence is misplaced, some of it is thrown back in his face, and some of it is rewarded, but that's how he manages the team, always has and always will whether you agree with it or not.

I thought we finally get a denfensive unit to play high line and pressure game ( ah the good old day of pre 2011) and suddenly realize our forward line is actually the problem or maybe Wengers gave up on that.

I mean we got one of the fastest defense 4 and solid, I really dont think high line could be a problem for those guys. We got Le Coq who's perfect to be a wall in front of them. If we ever get back to play high line, pressing game ( Damn u Fabregas, those beautiful football) what should be our top half. I guess Sanchez and Ramsey got in due to their work rate, the rest i'm really not sure.

It's a shame cause we finally got CB pair and really quick fullback to play high line.

To play a high line you need a GK who is quicker than Cech imo or you get caught out too often especially in big games against creative players like De Bruyne, Coutinho, Oscar.

We could try a highline next season with Szczesny if he keeps up his form with Roma.

@GoonerJay29,

Consider the same Ospina-Szczesny example.We bought Ospina coz we felt even he's not better than our first team GK,Szczesny he's gonna be good enough as second choice.

And then with Szczesny woeful form,Ospina became first choice and backed his selection with good performances and showed he was good enough to be first choice.

So,as I put up in my previous post,had we compared Ospina with Szczesny he didn't seem very good but when the comparison is done with our second choices he seemed good enough and we ended buying him & he did give some very good performances.

We are having a similar scenario here.What is Theo is injured/loses his form?

Your second choice striker is definitely no more better than the players that you could've signed in the transfer window.

Let's hypothetically assume a player T.

G-Rude>player T but Player T(as a CF)>Welbz,Walcott, Sanchez(as CF).So,we should logically be signing this player shouldn't we?

Similarly for in case of DM,had we signed Krycho we needn't be fearing the prospect of seein Flamini start games right?

And Jay,with the TV money it's high time we start to spend a wee bit more.This season has been a perfect example of how the TV money has diminished the differences between the top tier clubs and bottom tier clubs.A West Ham wouldn't have thought of signing someone like Payet,5 seasons ago.But today he's one of the most influential player for WHU has been the reason for their away victories over the table toppers of this season and the FA Cup winners of last season.

Further with our scouting stronghold of France now being thrown open to a whole lot of clubs,we need to buy at a higher price than before coz now everyone knows stuff about every player.

I'm not saying we spend Kaka-money on players but slight overspending is not gonna harm us.We're always in the green wrt money and had we probably signed a Jack M we wouldn't be thinking of Walcott v G-Rude rather we'd be thinking of a Jackson v Walcott.

Let's hypothetically assume a player T.

G-Rude>player T but Player T(as a CF)>Welbz,Walcott, Sanchez(as CF).So,we should logically be signing this player shouldn't we?

No, because Player T is not better than Giroud. If Giroud is assumed to be better than Welbeck and Walcott, and Welbeck and Walcott are already on the bench, then why sign another player to sit on the bench? You don't solve the fundamental problem of Giroud not being good enough for a title winning team.

Essentially all that ends up happening is that Giroud doesn't perform and we replace with a striker that, in this scenario, isn't as good as him. That's no different to what we're already doing.

No,firstly we assume the player ain't as good as G-Rude which might prove to be false.And further,if we signed Martinez as a striker and let's assume AW thinks he's no better than G-Rude and so he's in the bench.But he's definitely better than the other second choice options we've for CF(Welbz,Theo or Sanchez) and so has more chances of winning us games as a sub than the others.

"Essentially all that ends up happening is that Giroud doesn't perform and we replace with a striker that, in this scenario, isn't as good as him. That's no different to what we're already doing."

Though he maybe not as good as G-Rude he's still better than the other options we've got on the bench.

So,let's assume there is one very difficult chance to score and win a game,who do you expect out of Welbz(playing as a CF),Theo(playing as a CF) and Jackson Martinez,where we assume all are inferior to G-Rude.

We'd be more confident with Jackson Martinez than others.

We signed Ospina though he was no good than Szcz but better than Emi and thus,we had two solid options as GK.Similarly,let Jackson be inferior to G-Rude,he's certainly better than Welbz and Theo.Buy him.So,now you've not one but two solid options as CF right?

We all wanted a Vieira-esque/Gilberto-esque DM,but then why did we settle for Coq?

When you compare him with Vieira/Gilberto he's inferior but when you compare him with Flamini he's miles better.

Similarly when you compare a player with your first choice player he may seem inferior but he's better than your second choice player,sign him.

Improving the squad ultimately will result in improving the team at some point right?

One player i have heard alot about is apkom i think if he might be to us what coq was. But he is at loan doubt he will come bck.

Areta needs a ramsey 11-12 2nd half of season with him who wants to work for his team not run to goal line evry time arsenal attack.

I prefer cazorla to play centrally more advanced role with coq and ramsey (in disciplined roles) behind him. Sanchez left wing and ozil right with walcott upfront. That creates amazing balance . But bcoz of ramsey not sticking to his position it creates problems.

On the other hand if we really play against lower sides we could 4 2 4 *bella gutman formation. Again i would prefer coq and ramsey in the 2 man mid. If ramsey accepts to limit his forward play.

boyzis wrote:I prefer cazorla to play centrally more advanced role with coq and ramsey (in disciplined roles) behind him. Sanchez left wing and ozil right with walcott upfront. That creates amazing balance . But bcoz of ramsey not sticking to his position it creates problems.

On the other hand if we really play against lower sides we could 4 2 4 *bella gutman formation. Again i would prefer coq and ramsey in the 2 man mid. If ramsey accepts to limit his forward play.

That's a big if.