It depends how you define playmaker. The playmaker role has turned more into the "pivot" role epitomised by players like Xabi Alonso, Xavi and previously by Guardiola. I would say Arteta is our playmaker, and Wilshere will be our playmaker in future. Both these players can be in a more attacking position because their passing gives them versatility.
I'd tend to agree about Arteta - he 'glues' midfield activity together. Coordinating play from backs to forwards, or moving the ball around the middle side-to side. The objective being to pull players out of position in order to make that telling pass forwards He doesn't necessarily make the final through ball, but works on creating that possibility. I value him highly.
Hopefully, we will see a more attacking, forward playing Arteta next season, especially if M'Villa comes.
I wouldn't class any of those players as "playmakers". Alonso maybe was a deep lying playmaker, as was Cesc for us. A playmaker is someone who tends to feed others, create lots of chances for others to score. Iniesta is a play maker, I wouldn't say Xavi is. Totti is another classic playmaker. Guardiola definitely wasn't a playmaker, he didn't get many assists. Arteta for us isn't a playmaker (sits far too deep and doesn't create much) but for Everton he was.
I think Arteta's role is more important though. Schweinsteiger would be another example of a pivot, or like BDM says: the glue of the team. The best teams seem to have one, and until we can rely on Wilshere in that position, Arteta is all we have. While we have both, it might be better having Wilshere in the attacking playmaker role you describe though, he seems to share a lot of traits with Iniesta and Fabregas. I think Rosicky will manage until he's back.
Totally agree, that "glue" role is vitally important. I also agree that maybe we can leave Wilshere as the AM and keep Arteta as the glue, Wilshere drifts past players like hey are not even there, he has that burst of pace you can't keep up with.
I'd go back to 4-4-2 and have Wilshere and Arteta in the middle.I'd play RVP and Giroud up front.RVP was bought because he was meant to be the next Bergkamp not for him to play up front on his own
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7835550/? According to that source Malaga want Bendtner. A club like that could easily give us £10 Mil for him.
CYM - thats interesting - and I'd agree - RVP has altered his game to become a lethal finisher of not always great supply. We seemed to have a few possibles as the front man - none came off. Its been a great transition and achieved in the face of some injury problems too.
I've always thought we were better with a 4-4-2.I never understood why Wenger changed to a 4-3-3. Was it a case of the players to suit a system or a system to suit the players ?
I know pace is not everything but a strike force of Grioud and RVP is hardly the quickest. They will have trouble getting in-behind defences.
I can't see us playing RVP, Giroud and Podolski at the same time, especially with Walcott/Oxo on the right. It's like playing 4 strikers. Wenger is giving himself options. He now has the option to throw on a quality striker if we need to chase the game (like United so often did last season with great success). He now has backup if RVP should get injured or tired. He now has the option to play 2 strikers from the start. It's not a matter of playing 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's a matter of picking the right team to beat the opposition. If we buy M'Vila we'll have the option to play 2 defensive midfieders, which we can't do currently. This works for Man City, and they still manage to play good football. It should be another option for Wenger.
Its not coincidence we changed to 4-3-3 after getting whopped by Barcelona in the CL, but we don't have the players to play it as well as Barcelona, we can't impose our will on teams like they can. I think a 4-1-4-1 would work well if we have to play with a DM, I would definitely NOT want us to play with 2 DMs - I don't even like the idea of playing with 1 DM. If we get M'Vila which would be my DM of choice: M'Vila Wilshere - Arteta - RVP - Pod Giroud We can swap Pod and Arteta if we desire greater pace with Walcott or OXO. We can drop Arteta to M'Vila's spot if the need to have a pure DM is not required in some games. But what we must not do is leave our midfield open as it was so badly last season. If we play with 2 midfielders sitting (M'Vila and Arteta), Giroud up front and RVP feeding him, that leaves 2 players to provide width (OXO and Walcott), or just bodies in midfield (Wilshere and Rosicky or Wilshere and Walcott - Walcott roaming finding space). Actually, thinking about it, 2 DMs isn't a bad idea at all.
To be a playmaker one has to have a brain. Diaby main problem lies between his ears. His decision making is pretty poor, despite of his physical abilities he is completely unable to dictate the game, and if you look closely he usually succumbs to a supportive role. Diaby as a playmaker would be worse than Arshavin as a central defender.
Wenger given up on RVP ? - goes in for Lopez.. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/903023-arsenal-preparing-10m-transfer-bid-for-adrian-lopez http://www.footballgossip.org.uk/in...l-transfer-news-and-rumours-saturday-23-june/ http://www.tribalfootball.com/artic...rsie-20m-after-cheshire-house-hunting-3261271
