Hello all. I am back from the wilderness and from a very pleasant and memorable trip. Yellowstone is just a breathtaking place in so many ways and we were very lucky with the weather as well. Mendocino too was great fun as we went there with a close friend and his family. Don’t know how but I managed to pick up a flu bug soon after returning and that’s kept me down for the last couple of days. Seems to be getting better now so it’s time to focus on the season review series. But first a Thank You goes out to Martin Fulop and a belated happy St. Totteringham’s day to all readers. And just in case you haven’t seen it, ArsenalVision’s photo special on the subject and the related media coverage throughout the season is an absolute must see.
Moving forward, I guess few will forget 2011-12 in a hurry. Yes, there were some forgettable moments but those scars run so deep they’ll take a while to heal completely. Then there were some absolutely amazing games that spread waves of delirium across the Arsenalsphere. It was a roller-coaster all right and it’s come to a stop on a relative high with qualification to the Champions League secured without the hassles of the play-offs or reliance on Bayern, which would have been fatal as some team found out.
Broadly speaking this was one of the most entertaining Premiership seasons in recent memory with many surprising results and extraordinary performances. Technically and/or tactically many teams were arguably weaker but from the point of view of competitiveness and drama it was just sensational till the thrilling climax in injury time on the final day.
The following discussion has a somewhat arbitrary division of the season into three parts but it provides some talking points. To begin with, Arsenal were abysmal in the first few games. Questions about a relegation battle were ill-advised and premature but the possibility of a title challenge in the League was defenestrated very early on. After the first 7 games i.e. after Arsenal’s loss at White Hart Lane early in October, the Gunners were 15th in the table and 12 points behind the leaders.
At that stage the voices of doom and gloom were out in full force. The late signings were being dismissed by many as panic buys. Only the truly faithful believed in the Gunners.
Of course, the previous summer had been a disaster as far as transfers were concerned. Cesc, Nasri, and Clichy were big departures. The replacements were late and not necessarily in the same class although the newcomers did bring their own valuable qualities to the squad, not least of which was experience.
A couple of new signings took a month or so to gel with the starting eleven but once they clicked Arsenal’s commendable turnaround began in earnest.
The following table is from the 3rd of October to the 10th of April. It includes 25 or so games played by all teams during that period, which is roughly the same as two-thirds of the season. And so as not to limit this to only the successful periods for the Gunners, it also includes the horrific time they had in January when all the full-backs were injured and all three League ties were lost.
Take a moment to reflect if you haven’t seen this or a similar table before. Arsenal actually collected more points than the Premiership champions City and scored more goals than Mancini’s side in this period. Even defensively Arsenal were not that far behind the eventual top two. Only United bettered the Gunners. Spurs, Chelsea, and Newcastle were a fair way behind.
Such an effort does lead many to question the timing of the signings. Why couldn’t Arteta and Mertesacker, for instance, have been signed earlier? Was it simply a matter of a few million pounds or were other factors involved? Since the real facts behind these transfers are not available it would be unfair to ascribe any blame to individuals but the questions remain pertinent.
However, while valid, any inquest should not take anything away from the manager or the players who produced this remarkable fightback. Depending on one’s mindset this can be seen as a lost opportunity, an inspiring revival that fuels hope for the future, or just a balance of positives and negatives that are bound to exist in every season.
Finally, in money time as Arsene might say, the Gunners once again saw a slump in form. In the final 6 games they only managed 9 points and will remain thankful of the slender buffer they’d built up over so-called title-challengers Tottenham.
Arsenal, United, Spurs, and Newcastle will all think they could have done better during that period. Chelsea were distracted by crucial Cup ties so their performances are probably excusable. Only City ended the season strongly but they too needed a last-gasp push.
Arsenal lost 12 points more than champions City at the start and 9 more at the end. The two gained in the middle still left a hefty 19 point differential. United too had a blip at the end but they’d gained 6 more over the Gunners in the central period to go with the dozen at the start.
All teams saw a dip in form at one point or the other. For City those blips were tiny ones while for United there was just one costly drop towards the end and a very small one in between. Arsenal had a very difficult start and a poor end. Similarly, the other teams in the top six also had relatively large periods of struggles. Once again it highlights the difficulties in finding consistency at this level. Sir Alex knows how to get points in the Premiership, Chelsea and now City have reached there after spending nearly half a billion pounds. Few others have found the consistency needed to challenge for the title every year since the arrival of Abramovich.
It’s also worth looking at the League table between the top 6.
There is no denying the fact that the league is contested by 20 teams and 3 points against a big side are the same as 3 against a relegation candidate. But looking at the table above one can get some indication of how the teams stacked up against each other.
City were clearly the outstanding side as they did the double over United, Tottenham, and Newcastle while sharing points with home wins and away defeats against Arsenal and Chelsea. The negative goal difference of so many sides was down to the number of uncharacteristically high-scoring tussles that we saw this year and the fact that the bottom 3 in that list only managed 2 wins each in 10 games.
That table could be the basis for a long and interesting debate but I don’t want to dwell on it too much at this moment . Of the four games that Arsenal lost, 2 came in the opening period of 7 games when the side was really suffering. The loss away to City was hard fought and compensated by a similar win at home. The only other defeat came against United at home during that torrid run in January.
A never-say-die spirit seemed to typify Arsenal’s season although a pattern of one defensive gaffe after another ran it a close second. The Gunners recovered an astounding 24 points from losing positions but that also indicates that they routinely found themselves behind in games. Arsenal also lost 13 points from winning positions which was worse than all bar Chelsea in that table. As an aside, United, Newcastle, and Tottenham were the three teams at the bottom of the Points Gained When Losing table with 3, 4, and 6 respectively. Ferguson’s side probably didn’t get into too many losing positions but the other two could surely have done with some of Arsenal’s spirit and mental strength.
On a related note, it is worth noting that even in the middle of strong runs the results were more of the ground out variety than a consequence of outstanding dominating football. For instance, even in the 7-game winning streak, the result at Anfield was a smash & grab while the team needed late winners against Sunderland and Newcastle and had to battle for a win over Everton. In all, there were few games that Arsenal completely controlled from start to finish and that meant the opponents almost always had a hope. This was not the case with the top two and that is a gap the Gunners have to make up.
A good indication of this comes from the fact that Arsenal only managed to win 9 games out of 38 by 2 goals or more. Spurs had 15 such wins, United 18, and City 19. Interestingly, in contrast, the Gunners only lost 2 games with a margin of two or more goals. Both of these were in August, one against Liverpool at home and that game at Old Trafford. The other 8 losses were by a single goal. In total, 27 or Arsenal’s 38 games were either drawn or decided by a single goal. For City, United, and Spurs this number was 19,18, and 19 respectively. The Champions didn’t lose any game by a margin of two or more goals. 2 of United’s 5 defeats came from a margin greater than two goals. Spurs had 4 such defeats.
Considering this was another season of recovery after losing big players Arsenal’s results were laudable, but for the side to be considered genuine contenders they’ll have to impose their quality on matches a lot more often. That will of course demand much better defending as a unit as well as a more potent attack that has multiple threats. Improvements will have to be made on the training pitch and possibly in terms of squad strength as well.
More detailed analysis of defending, attack, tactics, Cup performances, and some players’ efforts will be covered in forthcoming articles under this season review series.
Follow @goonerdesi
Arsenal Season Review 2011-12: Tactics
May 31, 2012There is no need to repeat the details but it seems safe to say most, if not all, Arsenal fans were seething with disappointment, anger, or worse after the way events transpired last summer. Of the millions of words written on the transfer business and the subsequent season, few have covered the fact that Arsene Wenger had a massive tactical challenge in front of him after the departure of his talisman and captain, the player who could have taken his place in midfield, and that of a very hardworking and reliable defender who – even though popular opinion was to the contrary – remains one of the best at his job in the League.
Granted, Wenger might have contributed to the mess in some way through his indecision. Leaving aside that debate due to the lack of verifiable facts, we must acknowledge that the task in front of the Gunners’ boss was monumental. Judging him in May, as he’d like done, it would seem Le Boss has gotten the exceptional value out of his squad at least as far as the League is concerned. The Cups are a different ball-game so let’s leave them out of this discussion.
Arsene often says that he tries to adapt the tactics to suit the players that he has. But given the fact that Gervinho was signed early in the transfer window along with Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, it would not be unwise to think he had some change of tactics in mind irrespective of the events of the transfer window. How the team would have lined up had Fabregas and Nasri stayed is anyone’s guess. It’s also difficult to figure out if Arteta and some of the other players would have been signed. But whatever happened happened. We can’t change it and there doesn’t seem to be any fun in examining the what-ifs in detail.
Many fans voiced an opinion last season that the Gunners lacked pace and needed a more direct approach as the tiki-taka wasn’t working. Maybe Arsene saw a semblance of an argument there, or he just had similar ideas of his own. The Gunners started the season with two quick wingers around and three midfielders behind Van Persie. That’s how they lined up for most, if not all, of the first half of the season.
The wingers were constantly looking to get in behind. Walcott had done it fairly effectively in the previous season and Gervinho brought in the ability to dribble and run with the ball with a change in direction at pace. The transitions were quicker or at least that’s what the attempt was. Many opportunities were created with balls being cut back from the byline, or penetrating runs down the middle through the space vacated by RvP. The players were still getting to know each other so the efficiency wasn’t quite there but they were doing enough to string a number of results together to embark on a positive run.
Interestingly, and in contrast to the perception of a few fans, this so-called direct football wasn’t achieved by playing fewer passes. Yes, there was an attempt to use the pace on the break, and to an extent it worked. But by and large Arsenal’s game was still based on dominating possession and pushing the opponents back. The vertical football, as some describe it, wasn’t here to replace the tiki-taka but to augment it.
As a matter of fact, the Gunners actually made more passes this season from open play and they had a better passing accuracy.
While both these increases were marginal it does validate the point that Arsenal weren’t trying to turn football into basketball, if you will. This seems a simple enough argument but some fans don’t quite understand the importance of the passing game and still want Arsenal to score goals in 3 or 4 passes every time they regain possession.
It is no coincidence that the teams at the top are generally the ones who make the most passes. Through this ball rotation and with the related off-the-ball movement, top teams control the play and impose their tactical will on the game. They push opponents back and constantly drag them out of shape. Such adversaries, when forced to focus their energies on defending, are not able to muster as big a goal threat as they otherwise might if the game were an end-to-end battle rather than one based on midfield dominance. It also explains why smaller teams are able to do better at home where they see a lot more of the ball.
Make no mistake, possession is vital in modern football and, while Cup ties might be won by parking the bus, League titles usually demand greater technical quality.
So when Arsenal lost some technical quality on the wings they compensated for it by creating a different role for Arteta and putting a greater burden on the midfield in general (I’d touched upon this earlier in the season in different ways here, here, and here).
Moreover, it just so happened that the departures of Cesc and Nasri when combined with the injury to Wilshere and Ramsey’s lack of form left Arsenal with fewer creative options down the middle. Consequently, the role of the midfield was modified to a more conservative one. While last year you might have seen Cesc, Nasri, and Wilshere playing tiki-taka around the opposition penalty box, and even Song got into the act at times (see his goal against Chelsea for instance), this season the midfielders stayed relatively deeper. Song and Arteta, in particular, were pulling the strings from a few yards behind the attackers. Even Ramsey, who started many games as the advanced midfielder, played a more disciplined box-to-box role rather than the kind of free role that Cesc had in the preceding couple of years.
The idea probably was to have a couple of midfielders shielding the defence at all times and also looking to ping passes that found the runs of the attackers. After that, if possible they were supposed to join in the attack. Song’s prolific through-ball attempts were part of this tactic. More on that when I look at the midfield in detail.
The thing with such a system was that balance was hard to find. If the midfield took a conservative attitude the front three lacked support and goals dried up. When the men in the middle took a bit more risk the defence was exposed. Even when the Gunners turned things around from early October onwards, they weren’t completely dominating the games or playing the opponents out of the park. As discussed in the previous post, most of the wins were of the ground out variety.
Since there are so many different events that happen in each game and these again vary with each fixture, it’s difficult to generalize, but the tactical changes meant that Arsenal did have a problem with maintaining their shape. The gap between the lines wasn’t always ideal and it allowed the opponents more room to build their attacks. The problems with the shape of the side also meant that the Gunners weren’t always able to transition from defence to attack as quickly as they might have liked to despite having players with blistering pace.
It’s difficult to capture this in stats and the following numbers are not solely down to the problems with the tactical structure of the side but the difference between the number of duels, not their success rate but simply the number of duels engaged in, does hint at positional weaknesses.
Across the board (Ground duels, Aerial duels, Tackles, and Interceptions) there is a clear drop in 2011-12 when compared to the last season. The success rates are marginally better but in general the Gunners were involved in fewer duels. Now the whole of this drop is not related to positional issues but there were many occasions where the positioning of players was questionable. Fans were often left wondering why a midfielder wasn’t around to win the second-ball, for instance.
Given the way the defence was exposed time and again, it’s no surprise that the number of defensive errors increased from 16 to 31, although they didn’t all lead to goals. The defenders also deserve tremendous credit for protecting the goal with last-gasp efforts as Successful Last Man Tackles increased from 3 to 25! Without these Arsenal might have conceded a lot more and even Europa League football might not have been possible. More on this in the article on defence.
After Gervinho went to the ACN, and with all full-backs injured around the same time, Arsenal also started struggling to get any value out of the left side of the attack.
To his credit, Wenger noticed this system wasn’t working quite as well and introduced the changes which played a pivotal part in Arsenal’s seven game winning run and a relatively solid end of the season run-in that helped secure third spot.
Starting with the away game at the San Siro where Rosicky was pushed out to the left, Arsene started reverting to the use of a technical player on the flanks. Benayoun didn’t exactly offer the work rate and technical contribution of a midfielder but he did provide better balance on the left. Initially it was in away games and against big sides but the Israeli soon ended up starting all games as the Gunners fought for every single point.
Looking back at the season with the benefit of hindsight, it would seem Arsene never completely found the right balance. The players still deserve credit for fighting hard. Van Persie provided wonder goals whenever the creative spark threatened to fizzle out. The defenders, Koscielny in particular, kept the Gunners in the race with many vital last-gasp tackles. Again this wasn’t about Arsenal playing like a side that was good enough to challenge for the major titles but one that showed tremendous mental strength and the spirit to defy the odds. Of course, as stated earlier, the events of the summer had made the manager’s job an extremely difficult one and the performances of Dalglish, Redknapp, AVB, and others showed us that Wenger still did a marvellous job even if it wasn’t at the level of title winning sides.
Finally, apart from the overall tactical discussion based on Wenger’s favoured system, it’s important to note that this season many fans again sensed a lack of flexibility. Why wasn’t Chamakh used more often when things weren’t working out in attack? Why didn’t the defence and midfield drop back to hold on to vital leads (Norwich for instance)? Why did the players run out of ideas after going ahead and why did they start so many games with the handbrake on? And so on.
My theory is that the tactical structure of the team introduced a degree of fear into the players’ psyche as they were being exposed far too often. What might seem like a complacent start was often a more conservative start with the players unsure of the degree of attacking intent that they could exhibit without completely opening the route to their own goal. This induced safe passing and off-the-ball movement which in turn created the impression that they weren’t trying hard enough to win. After going behind they didn’t have anything else to lose and could play with greater freedom.
If you flip the argument around, the Gunners faced a similar dilemma after taking the lead and often seemed bereft of a clear tactical approach. For instance, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was having a good game against Norwich but completely stopped playing after the Gunners scored the third goal. It was as if he didn’t know whether to take players on and continue attacking or to sit back in a defensive position. Same happened to many players and it affected the quality of football they could produce in attack as well as defence.
Before next season Arsene will have to find a system, develop a tactical identity for the side, that encourages his players to express themselves without providing the opponents with easy opportunities to threaten the Arsenal goal. That will be the first and most important step in creating a side that can challenge for the major trophies.
Stats from EplIndex.com
—–
On an unrelated note, through emails, comments, and some stats available on the dashboard, I have noticed that a number of people visit this blog regularly via google search or book marks to check if a new post has been published. While there is nothing wrong with that, and I do apologize for the tardiness in posting, you could try different approaches if that seems like an inefficient way to follow the blog. One option is to subscribe to the blog by email. A follow button should appear at the bottom right. Adding your email will ensure you get new posts as soon as they are published. You could also follow me on twitter – Follow @goonerdesi . Finally, you could ‘like’ the DesiGunner Facebook page (link will be remain available in the sidebar on the right). In all these cases you will get links to new posts as soon as they are published and won’t have to waste time due to my current inconsistency in posting.
13 Comments | Comment | Tagged: Arsenal F.C., Barclays Premier League, English Premier League, Football, Soccer | Permalink
Posted by desigunner