Two men up front or just one? Three midfielders or four? There has been a good deal of discussion regarding the formation that The Arsenal should adopt not only against West Brom on Sunday, but also next season once Podolski has joined the squad. There are some gooners, learned and wise in the ways of the game, who feel Chamakh should play up front alongside RVP this weekend, to provide our Dutch Master with adequate support and make the most of what goalscoring opportunities come our way. Those who despair of the Moroccan don’t feel this to be a viable option, largely because he doesn’t look as though he could score in a Bangkok brothel these days.
It has also been suggested that Podolski be deployed as the second striker in a 4-4-2 in August. This would certainly provide RVP with the opportunity to play in the role that Dennis ‘the Lord God Almighty’ Bergkamp thinks he is best suited for, that of the withdrawn striker in the manner he himself used to play. I’m not convinced that Arsene will want Podolski in that kind of role. It may be – and I’m only guessing – that he may have more of a Wiltord-type role i.e. a floating forward who drops deeper and wider when we don’t have the ball, and moves to a more central position when we do. Whether or not a 4-4-2 would be effective, the real question is - is the Manager likely to change formation to accomodate the two front men (assuming RVP doesn’t have his head turned by some pimp in a Barca tie, or a fascist from Franco’s favourites from the Spanish capital)?
I should point out at this stage that – and if you’ve read any of my previous posts you’ll be aware of this already – I have all the tactical insight of a fruit basket. Not only that but I have no sources or contacts in or around the club, and no access to privileged information. So I’m not going to pretend I really know what I’m talking about. But nevertheless, it seems unlikely to me that Le Gaffer will change to a 4-4-2, given the season that RVP has just had. He seems to be very much in a “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” mindset these days. Of course, the only problem with that philosophy is being able to recognise when something is actually broken. On the evidence of this season, it would seem that we have to ship eight goals for this particular penny to drop.
Personally, I’m less interested in formation and more interested in shape – a distinction drawn very nicely by @arsenalreport on Twitter this week. I suspect that Arsene is also less interested in formation than many might expect. So at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, let me offer the following observations. Players are given roles in certain positions, but they’re expected to make decisions for themselves and use their initiative. That’s all very well, unless players aren’t capable of using their initiative wisely. The emphasis on formation can cloud the issue, however – you can’t retain your formation if you expect your full backs to get forward. But you can retain your shape if a midfielder covers the space left by the attacking full back. On the other hand, when we lose shape – particularly in midfield, the defence is exposed and we find ourselves in big trouble.
I would argue that our failures this season have had more to do two particular issues rather than formation or positional difficulties. The first and most blatantly obvious of these issues is inconsistency of performance. Put simply we’ve failed to show up far too often. Why this is the case, I’m not sure. Is it a coaching/preparation issue, or a problem with individual players (though one might argue the latter results from shortcomings with the former)? I rather suspect it has been a combination of the two, but as I say I’m not privy to any great insights or insider information from Colney, so I’m not going to pretend I know the answer.
The second issue can be summed up by paraphrasing the great Prussian strategist and the architect of victories over Austria (1866) and France (1870-1), the elder Von Moltke. Despite his genius for detail and mastery of logistical preparation, he fully understood the need for operational flexibility:
“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
If you’ve seen ‘A Bridge Too Far’ you may remember Gene Hackman making the same point to Dirk Bogarde in a fateful planning meeting before the Arnhem operation. It’s all very well educating players in a particular method. But if they don’t have the ability to adapt when your gameplan is frustrated or the opponent doesn’t behave in quite the way you’d like him too, you’re in big trouble. It seems to me that at the moment at least, we have certain players that are not able to adapt as appropriate.
The example of Alex Song is appropriate here (for an excellent read on Song have a look at 7amkickoff, at the Aston Villa post on page 15). He’s regarded as a defensive midfielder, but if you watched him play these days that’s not a description you’d apply to him. He’s clearly been given licence to get forward when appropriate, and I don’t have a problem with this, as long as he picks his moment and there’s someone else to cover for him. When Arteta was fit, this was the case, as the Spaniard has the experience and the kop on not to leave his defence exposed.
But since Arteta has been absent we haven’t won. This is not because we’re using the wrong formation, it’s because players like Song have not adjusted their mindset. Song appears to be a tad dazed and confused. He gets himself out of position over the hills and far away and experiences some form of a communication breakdown with his teammates. The next thing you know, our defenders have been trampled under foot. And all because poor old Alex hasn’t been able to adapt to the loss of Arteta – in other words, the Song remains the same.
I’m not picking Song out as the root cause of our failure to secure third place. I’m merely suggesting that our defensive problems don’t originate from our formation, but with our mindset and our discipline, and our frequent inability to cope with opponents who don’t do what we expect them to do, or who don’t want to allow us to move the ball as quickly as we would like. Our game is based on the rapid movement of the ball. The defensive side of our game should be based on pressing the opposition, but on too many occasions we’ve failed to do this effectively. When we play with urgency and a high tempo, with and without the ball, we can beat anyone, and for me this has more to do with mindset and discipline than formation.
Ironically, it could be argued that the mindset issue has been less of a problem this season that in previous years, given the number of occasions we’ve managed to force a result from a losing position. We’ve certainly picked up points in a number of games that would have been lost during the preceding three or four seasons. But I’m certainly glad Bouldy has got the No. 2 job next season. I’m not expecting a massive overhaul of our defensive system, like some others seem to be. But I am hoping that his influence will more clearly be evident in the focus and approach of certain players, and that on-field discipline and professionalism will improve. Because if it doesn’t, we’re going to see more fuck ups of the Norwich variety, and I’m certainly not looking forward to that.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
