Page 109 of 215

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:30 pm
by theHotHead
aniym wrote:Auba would have signed for more money, just like every other player. At the time, and pretty much right up until Ramsey got injured, Top 4 and a good EL finish were both very realistic. West Ham got Dmitri Payet to sign an improved deal 7 months after signing him. Of course he left 12 months later, but the club doubled their money on the sale.

As for Ramsey's deal, is there anything conclusive to say Emery killed it? He started Ramsey in plenty of games, and he appeared in almost every PL game until his injury.

I thought the deal was on the table and Emery pulled it. He tried to play Billy big bollocks - like he did by alienating Ozil - and it backfired. He then had to reintroduce Ramsey and beg Ozil to come back and play for him.

Emery was a f***ing speng.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:32 pm
by theHotHead
DiamondGooner wrote:A lot of people here are missing the point.

If Arteta is making the right decisions, playing the right players, playing a formation suited to the players, improving our defence etc ........... what more can a manager do?

If they're still not winning then its the players, simple as that.

Until Mikel starts making decisions I disagree with (which is why I turned on Emery) then no other manager could do any better without refitting the team, something the board won't do.

Mikel has his style of play, he has his formation, he has his expectations, now all we need is to back him with getting rid of who can't cut it and get him a few players he wants and we'll be fine.

Stop acting like clueless children, there is no quick fixes to building a winning culture at a club which was devoid of it for a year solid and where the board won't just buy the manager a new team unlike City etc.

............. when / if Arteta starts making stupid decisions or allows crap performances from players etc then I'll have an issue, but so far I like everything he's doing.

Simply put, :clap:

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:43 pm
by ag6789
Also had to deal with a lot of injuries and lack of form of important players we thoy would carry us through. Example, Holding, Bellerin, ( injuries, loss of form), Laca, and really pains me to say Ozil, past his prime now. Another stupid decision he has live with is loaning out Mikhi, an experienced player, who could come very handy in current situation.
Our biggest problem isn't defense really.
It is the midfield. You would expect on a normal season, 5-6 midfielders ( regulars as well as bench players) would contribute about 30-35% of the goals ( in a 55 game season, say out of 110-120 goals, 70-80 comes from forwards , about 30-35 from midfielders and 5-10 from defense.
But currently, Xhaka, Guen, Ozil , Torreira contributes null, zilch. Willock and Saka have scored an odd goal here and there but essentially , the problem squarely is in the middle. They neither defend well nor attack or link up the defense w/ attack.
We really need a decent experienced CM to improve the current situation.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:33 pm
by theHotHead
I agree, our defense was getting over-exposed, the systems Emery employed and Wenger, were shite and never addressed it. Thats why I am so pleased with what I can see Arteta trying to do so far, that should've been the first thing Emery did - fix our defending.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:14 am
by yadunoe
he has good tactics and man management but like all coaches he can only go so far with the players he has

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:52 am
by Tony Adams
yadunoe wrote:he has good tactics and man management but like all coaches he can only go so far with the players he has
Please give examples of those good 'tactics' and 'man management'.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:35 am
by Sims
Tony Adams wrote:
yadunoe wrote:he has good tactics and man management but like all coaches he can only go so far with the players he has
Please give examples of those good 'tactics' and 'man management'.

We have a rigid structure in place with a compact defence without the ball.

With the ball we shift into a 2-3-5 formation with AMN tucking into midfield and being able to help pressure and prevent any counter attacks once the ball is lost

Our LB becomes part of a front 5 when we’re on the front foot with Xhaka dropping in the zone he vacates

Lucas Torreira has been played in his natural position and is the first option to receive the ball from the CB’s

Otherwise David Luiz pushes up and tries to find Ozil in between the lines in space as with Kola/Saka & Pepe hugging the touchlines it forces the opposing team to free up space in the middle of the pitch

Players average positions are rigid and part of a coherent system

Man management:

Reassuring Xhaka and enabling him to play at some level until he eventually leaves in the summer - he is now our second best deep midfielder

Has the players already fawning over him and buying into all his methods - despite this being his first managerial job

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:06 am
by theHotHead
Whatchoo talkin 'bout Sims!! There has been no improvement over Emery!!

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am
by Ach
theHotHead wrote:Whatchoo talkin 'bout Sims!! There has been no improvement over Emery!!

Pretty much this

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:39 pm
by Marsbar100
Better team shape, more compact, better pressing.

Very early days, the mess emery left means we need a good quality 6 players and getting rid of a few.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:45 pm
by DiamondGooner
Not like it wasn't obvious anyway but further proof Arteta is going for a possession style but hopefully aiming more for City level incisive attack rather than late Wenger era 7 passes and fizz out.

Also interesting Ozil's statement of under Emery they weren't in control of the game opting for forced over paced attacks which they weren't good at and defending in a way they weren't good at.

You see they tried to change the style of the club without refitting the players, these players were bought to play skillful and possession football, Emery wanted us to play like a Mourhino team, Arteta wants us to play like late 2000's Arsenal and City.

Its easy to see why the players prefer Arteta, take something they know and up the level, shine it up, get more organised and set the standard higher .......... or ask them to play an alien form of football? ... g-21282197

Ozil suggested Arsenal were not in control of games under Emery, and that the squad is much happier under new manager Arteta.

“It is basically getting us back to the old Arsenal virtues," said the former Germany international in quotes reported by The Sun .

“Fighting and having possession, being in control of the game, having the ball all the time.

“These are the things that he is working on with us and you can see it — everyone is smiling, laughing, enjoying their time — it has made us successful.

“I think he is the right man at this club.”

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:29 pm
by Losmeister
good article from the AThletic...

Following Cities NHL MLB NFL NBA CFB CBB Soccer Motorsports MMA • • •DiscussionsVideoPodcasts
Michael Cox: The Premier League’s top sides have been playing with a front five for three years – you just didn’t notice…

By Michael Cox 6h ago 62
Football formations have always been, and will always be, a simplification. The movement of individuals, particularly in the attacking phase, has always meant the formation changes considerably as the game progresses — and in the era of complex pressing traps, sometimes the formation is harder than ever to decipher without the ball, too.

Perhaps the most curious thing about the nature of a formation is that it is almost exclusively used to refer to a side’s shape without possession. We all agree that Liverpool, for example, are generally using a 4-3-3 this season, but we also all know that Trent Alexander-Arnold and Andy Robertson are key attacking weapons, and spend much of their time scampering forward on the overlap, effectively forming a front five. Rarely is the formation given in the attacking phase of play, and yet Liverpool spend far longer with the ball than they do without it.

And perhaps this limitation has meant that a crucial trend has gone slightly overlooked over recent years — almost every top-level side is attempting to play with a front five, recalling the old days of the 2-3-5 “pyramid” formation that dominated the early 20th century.

There’s plenty of logic behind this development.

Top-level managers have begun to understand football and create systems according to a division of the pitch into five vertical strips. These are, broadly speaking, considered to consist of: the centre (the 20-yard strip designated by the width of the centre circle), two wings (the areas on the outsides of the penalty box) and two strips between the centre and the wings.

These final spaces are sometimes referred to as “half-spaces”, a translation from the German term which originated because that was the “space” where the “half-backs” played. The term “channel” isn’t precisely the same — that was more frequently used to describe the space between centre-back and full-back — but it feels a more natural word to use in English.

Look at the training pitch used by Pep Guardiola when he was in charge of Bayern Munich, for example, and you’ll find it divided into these five strips. “The only important thing about our game is what happens in those four lines,” Guardiola told Bayern’s squad in his first week in Germany. “Nothing else matters.”

There are also more complex horizontal lines, which effectively split the wings into six areas of equal size. For now, though, the five vertical strips are most relevant.

The five vertical strips that leading coaches divide the pitch into
To summarise, Guardiola never wants more than two players in the same vertical strip, which means an emphasis on covering the width of the pitch equally. He is renowned for changing his system regularly from match to match, but the same fundamental principles apply. Whether forwards, attacking midfielders, wingers, wing-backs or full-backs, Guardiola’s sides usually position five attackers across the pitch. His City predecessor Manuel Pellegrini once summarised the approach succinctly by saying that his team must position an attacking player in each of the five vertical strips — they just didn’t need to be the same player each time.

There have been three truly outstanding sides over the past few years in the Premier League; two have won the title and a third will almost certainly follow this year. Antonio Conte’s Chelsea, Guardiola’s Manchester City and Jurgen Klopp’s Liverpool have all recorded 90-plus points and helped to raise the tactical level of the Premier League.

All have, in a way, played similar systems because of the presence of a front five.

However they have all formed the front five in very different ways.

Conte famously switched to a three-man defence early in 2016-17, and the system that was often considered 3-4-3 was actually far more like 3-2-5 in the attacking phase of play, or 2-3-5 when David Luiz or Cesar Azpilicueta stepped forward into midfield. Marcos Alonso and Victor Moses were given strict instructions to push forward on the overlap, keeping the width and effectively playing on the last line of the opposition’s defence. Chelsea often scored by switching the play across the pitch to find one of them at the far post, unmarked, after the opposition back four had become sucked inside.

Take Alonso’s opening goal in a 3-1 win over Arsenal in February 2017, for example — the back four gradually becomes drawn across to close down each of Chelsea’s five attackers, which leaves him entirely unmarked at the far post. Eventually, Alonso storms in at the far post to overpower Hector Bellerin, who has just been challenging Diego Costa for the initial header. Opponents couldn’t cope with Chelsea’s fifth attacker.

What’s interesting, though, is that the attacking shape of Conte’s 3-4-3 wasn’t actually that different to that of the 4-3-3 he started the season with. In the first half-dozen matches of the campaign, Conte threw right-back Bransilav Ivanovic and left-back Azpilicueta forward to bookend the same three-man attack, while a three-man midfield was given strict instructions to remain as a tight unit and cover the width of the pitch. N’Golo Kante shuttled between defence and midfield — so, before and after the switch, Chelsea were using a 2-3-5/3-2-5 system.

The below image is from Chelsea’s first league game under Conte — even before the switch in system, the effective front five is clear.

The difference, of course, was that Chelsea defended in a different shape, and the defensive transitions were smoother after the formation change, with more mobile players out wide who could get back into position more quickly.

Guardiola’s all-conquering City side also used a front five — but in a completely different manner.

Whereas Conte’s front three drifted inside with wing-backs overlapping to become the wide players, Guardiola instructed Leroy Sane and Raheem Sterling to hug the touchlines, stretching the opposition defence and creating gaps for Kevin De Bruyne and David Silva to exploit either side of Sergio Aguero. This was the front five.

To compensate for emptying midfield, the full-backs would generally tuck inside and form the 2-3-5 system, although this has sometimes been 3-2-5 too.

Here’s the build-up to City’s opener at home to Manchester United last season — the quintet of Sterling, Silva, Aguero, Mahrez and Bernardo is clear.

Guardiola’s many variations stick to the same approach.

When Benjamin Mendy is used as a rampaging left-back, for example, it’s almost never been with Sane ahead of him — that would generally mean them covering the same vertical strip. It’s been more common for Guardiola to use Mendy behind someone who can drift inside — for example, in last weekend’s 6-1 thrashing of Aston Villa, Gabriel Jesus was deployed from the left, but effectively acted as a second striker in the left channel, allowing Mendy to hold the width.

On the other flank, the combination play between De Bruyne and Riyad Mahrez or Bernardo has been the key part of City’s campaign. Although Mahrez and Bernardo are left-footed and therefore naturally drift inside, they have generally been told to remain in wide positions, ensuring the opposition are stretched enough for De Bruyne to play in the right-hand channel.

When right-back Kyle Walker has been handed a more attacking role, it’s often been when De Bruyne has been absent, and Mahrez or Bernardo are drifting inside more to play in that channel.

Liverpool’s attacking follows many of the same principles. Klopp generally uses 4-3-3, like Guardiola, but the front five is formed with the full-backs overlapping, which allows Mohamed Salah and Sadio Mane to tuck inside into goalscoring positions. Last season, Alexander-Arnold and Robertson were the side’s highest assisters, and Salah and Mane the side’s joint-top scorers.

Like both Conte’s Chelsea and Guardiola’s City, Liverpool can look like both 2-3-5 and 3-2-5. Fabinho is capable of dropping between the centre-backs to form a three-man defence, while increasingly Jordan Henderson can effectively become a temporary right-back to cover for Alexander-Arnold. It is, in possession, much the same system as Liverpool’s two predecessors as Premier League champions — broadly speaking, 2-3-5.

Here’s a goal they scored against Red Bull Salzburg earlier in the campaign. It’s converted by Robertson, popping up in a centre-forward position, and therefore there has been some switching of roles between players here. But it’s nevertheless an interesting situation because of how far removed this ‘front five’ is from the rest of the team, who are all out of shot.

It’s worth remembering that Guardiola bought into this concept so much he literally used a 2-3-5 on occasion at Bayern, filling his side with five outright attackers because he was so confident they would dominate possession so much that they may as well consider their attacking shape their default formation. The defensive transitions asked a lot of the wide players, but Bayern played the system with great authority and fluency.

On the back of all these success stories, it’s been significant that the two most notable managerial appointments of recent weeks have both attempted to get their side playing with an effective front five, from a starting system of 4-2-3-1.

Jose Mourinho’s debut with Tottenham Hotspur saw him pushing right-back Serge Aurier forward aggressively on the overlap, while left-back Ben Davies tucked inside. On paper they were both full-backs, but on the pitch one became an outside-right while the other became a left-sided centre-back.

In turn, Mourinho’s left-winger has stayed wide, while his right-winger has drifted inside, ensuring the five vertical strips are all filled.

Mourinho hasn’t entirely stuck to this approach — the ankle injury Davies suffered against West Ham and the manner of the 2-0 home defeat by Frank Lampard’s Chelsea appear to have forced him to reconsider, but it was interesting that he appeared to be learning lessons from the likes of Conte, Guardiola and Klopp.

It was much less surprising that Mikel Arteta borrowed some of Guardiola’s tactics upon leaving his Manchester City staff to take charge of Arsenal.

His approach has been similar — purely in terms of player positioning — to Mourinho’s initial approach with Spurs, albeit a mirror image. Arteta’s overlapping full-back has been on the left, Sead Kolasinac or Bukayo Saka, while his right-sided full-back Ainsley Maitland-Niles has narrowed his positioning and becomes a right-sided central midfielder rather than a right-sided centre-back, maintaining the 3-2-5.

The overlapping of the left-back has allowed Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang to play in the inside-left channel, while the conservative nature of the right-back means Nicolas Pepe or Reiss Nelson has stayed wide, while Mesut Ozil fills the inside-right channel.

Arguably the most significant thing about Arteta’s approach is not that his “front five” is a surprise, it is that it’s entirely as expected — this has become the default approach for top clubs.

With such similarities between many of the elite sides, maybe we’re talking about football formations the wrong way around. We should think of them in terms of their structure in possession, and the differences come mainly in terms of the defensive transition.

Modern football’s dominant shape isn’t 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 but 2-3-5 — a throwback to tactics from 100 years ago.

Thanks for your input, this will help us continuously improve our product.

Michael Cox has written for the Guardian and ESPN, primarily focusing upon tactical analysis. He has written two books - The Mixer, about the tactical evolution of the Premier League, and Zonal Marking, about footballing philosophies across Europe. Follow Michael on Twitter @Zonal_Marking.

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:49 pm
by Zanatos3
MUSTI-XHAKA-OZIL-(Confirmed) the 3 Fecetoes !!! ___________________----Against MEN OF STEEL---______________

Massive L Predicted....

Arteta to RE-LEARN what the definition of DEADWOOD is!

#Buy1get2free !!!

Maybe with the flaws shown in this match & Chelsea. the fans who Always Forget the errors & Forgive these players... maybe they will remember


Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:56 pm
by Nuggets
theHotHead wrote:Whatchoo talkin 'bout Sims!! There has been no improvement over Emery!!

:clap: :clap:

Re: Mikel Arteta, Arsenal Head Coach

PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:51 pm
by Dejan
This is why I disagree with people claiming "massive improvements".

Very average once again.