Nine Jimmy Rimmers – Arsenal and Football

With all the changes in personnel, there is fresh debate on what would be the most effective formation.  Many believe that Arsenal’s switch to 4-3-3 was solely designed to fit a team around the massive talent of Cesc Fabregas.  But that now Cesc is gone should we revert to good old 4-4-2!

Actually the debate has been around a while, even before the departure of Fabregas.  Playing a loan striker makes it very difficult to maintain the form of a second striker, blunting the attack when that second striker is called into action.

The debate has been given fresh impetus this week by the comments of Robin Van Persie that he enjoys the free role that he has in the Dutch team.  Some pundits point to the four goals Van Persie scored during the 11:0 demolition of San Marino as an example of what Arsenal are missing. Given San Marino’s record in international football I don’t see that this proves anything.

Equally unconvincing is any blog post contrasting Arsenal’s tactics with experience of a tactic tried out playing FIFA Football on a games console!

But despite these two rather spurious arguments, the debate is a real one.  Robin Van Persie does tend to drop deep, linking with the midfield.  Sometimes this means that we don’t have a player further forward in the box and some chances get wasted.

But is a return to 4-4-2 the answer?  If you look at how most successful club and international teams are playing, it isn’t 4-4-2.  Most are playing with one or even two holding midfielders and a lone striker.

The most successful formation at the last World Cup was two holding players and a fairly fluid group of four in front of them.  This is how Manchester City are set out now, with De Jong and Yaya Toure providing a tough shield and turning regained possession into forward movement.

It isn’t actually too far off what Arsenal had when the centre of it’s midfield was patrolled by Petit/Gilberto and Viera.

The challenge of playing this way, and incorporating two strikers, is that in the fast moving Premier League you will need attacking players athletic enough to roam all over the pitch to give you the width when you want it.

Using the Arsenal squad this way you could play something like this (injuries allowing of course):

_______ Walcott _______
_______ Van Persie ______
__ Gervinho ______ Arteta _
_____ Song ___ Wilshere __
Santos _ Verm _ Mert _ Sagna
________ Szczesny _______

What do you think?

If that’s too defensive for you, and expecting too much running from Arteta, how about:

_______ Walcott _______
_______ Van Persie ______
Gervinho __ Arteta _ Ox Cham
_________ Song _________
Santos _ Verm _ Mert _ Sagna
________ Szczesny _______

Either way you’ve got five contesting the midfield when possession is changing and that is where games are won and lost.  I  think that playing four across the middle against Chelsea, City and other top teams would see us being taken apart.

————————————————-
Please note. The author has no idea whether these formations will help you win at FIFA Football.

This has been Robin Van Persie’s most successful season as a club striker. More goals per start than he has achieved before. I’m sure he shares the fans feeling that it’s also been the most frustrating of seasons too.

So if our top gun has been on top form why haven’t we had a pay-off in points. For all Van Persie’s efforts we haven’t won enough games. Part of the answer is the defence and there will be plenty to write about that. Part of it I think is an attitude problem that brings any winning run to a crashing halt.

But I think that another significant issue is the way we play up front and the game against Villa illustrated this. When Squillaci came off (no loss) for Chamakh we looked a lot more dangerous and Villa had to work harder.

Playing both Van Persie and Chamakh made things more complicated for the Villa defence because they had to cover two strikers who play in different ways. The pressure on them would have been greater of course if we hadn’t gifted them a two-goal cushion but that’s a different issue.

Not only does playing a second striker pose different challenges, I think it actually suits Van Persie. I know that Van Persie can take the ball on a forward run, control and shoot in a couple of touches, but his natural instinct seems much more to drop deep. Having another striker ahead of him could open up space or provide another route to a goal.

Playing two strikers would also keep more than one striker sharp. Often this season when Bendtner or Chamakh have come on as subs they have missed chances to score and taken some stick as being not good enough. Well, maybe we can do better, but strikers need time on the pitch to stay sharp and they don’t get much. And if we can do better, do those better players want to come and keep the bench warm?

One argument for the current formation is that these days the game is won and lost in midfield and without five players there we will be outnumbered. But I’m not suggesting that we should always play with two up front, plus a forward that drops deep adds to the midfield when we don’t have the ball making it six midfielders with no outlet.

Another argument has been that Theo Walcott isn’t up to the job of being one quarter of a midfield four. But if that was true before I think he has shown greater strength and discipline this season. Plus if it’s still true, he may not be the player we need. Personally I think he’s up to the job now.

So, new striker or new formation? Well maybe there is a new striker out there fir Arsenal, but I think our priority for new players lies elsewhere in the team and if we rigidly stick to one mode of attack again next season we are in for more frustration.