I think it's too defensive to use against a side battling relegation. We should have been at them from the first whistle and only Arteta is required to play in that holding midfield role. Too negative.
Playing both Flamini and Arteta may achieve a more defensive minded midfield, but it also reduces our ability to attack. This invites better attacking teams to attack us in the safe feeling that there will be less coming back in return. That's why it pays to have just one defensive minded midfielder shielding our defence, allowing us to play our naturally attacking game. Playing against your natural instincts will only put you at a disadvantage and this was highlighted perfectly against Napoli, where we nearly got knocked out of the Champions League.
You guys live in a rich fantasy world where you can dictate the results of your tactics, you are completely perfect, and you are completely invincible. What I find funny is that you expect us all to accept that fantasy without a single doubt. We have a manager with 17 years experience who picks a team that wins a game 2-0. However, your immediate reaction is not, "Wow, we won that game with a team that I wouldn't have picked, he must know something I don't." It is, "If we had played with the team I would have picked, we would have done even better." That just amazes me. I really admire your self-confidence.
Take a chill pill it's just a football forum where people share their views on everything football related. We are not claiming to be better than Wenger but neither is Wenger perfect and sometimes even he makes mistakes. Also, I am not stating in my post that we would have won, but I think a team should play to their strengths, and our strengths are clearly attacking. We are not a Mourinho style defensive team and if we tried copying their style wouldn't get us anywhere. Playing two midfield's with defensive mindsets would not be a good idea when our style of play depends on free flowing attacking football.
I agree, but in this instance (Cardiff) the options were very limited. With no Ozil, Ramsey, Rosicky, Oxo, or Giroud Wenger had to play either the Flamini / Arteta combo, or start Nicky B and play Pod wide left. Starting Nicky would have left no strikers on the bench to come on and add to the threat, leaving playing both Flamini and Arteta as the only viable choice really. Not a combination I think should really be played at home in future however if it's avoidable.
You're right. If memory serves me correctly, wasn't Arteta by nature a more attacking midfielder than the role he plays at present with us? Wasn't he more attacking for Everton and quite a decent play maker?
I'm perfectly chill, just amused. You can repeat your point of view all you want, but it doesn't mean it is correct. I am sure you know that I find these hypothetical tactical discussions pointless. There is no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong (although based on qualifications, I have a pretty good idea). I just liked the twist that even when Arsenal get it right (and win 2-0) the doomers still have the balls to assert that they know better. It's pretty funny.
Yeah, right.. free flowing football. Give us free flowing football Arsene!! On a wet pitch, on a rainy 1st of Jan, when our two best attacking midfielders and our main striker are out. When they play two games a week... We had almost 70% possession against Cardiff, 88% passing accuracy, 28 total shots. So you think, we played "Mourinho style defensive football"? Because we had both Arteta and Flamini on the pitch? BTW how do you know that the players you wanted on the pitch instead of Flamini or Arteta were feeling well, did well in training last week, were 100% ready, did not have a flue?... Did you watch them closely in training all week, every day? I guess not. I just think that we can critisize the game because we at least have seen it. But the team selection - often we know wery little about the true reasons behind a team selection.
Arteta was, by training, a "Pivot" when he played for Barcelona, so essentially a defensive midfielder. He transitioned to being more attacking when he played for Rangers as he was by far and away the most skilled midfielder in the team at the time. Following his performances there, he signed for Everton, where he continued in this more attacking role. It was only really after he signed for Arsenal that he transitioned back to the more defensive side of the game. I thought when Flamini signed that the combination of him and Arteta would see Flamini playing as a DM, with Arteta more box-to-box, and a dedicated AM up top in a 4-3-3 formation. I haven't managed to watch them play together enough this season really, but I don't think that's how it's set up, and it's been more of a "double pivot" with both of them sitting a little deeper?
When exactly did I criticise the game? We played well and won, but they played due to our lack of available players. The game I did criticise was the Napoli one when we clearly played a slow and defensive game.
That was another of the complaints I heard during the game, that we were not shooting enough. Shortly afterwards there was the complaint that not enough of the shots were on target. No one picked up the irony, because if the players were taking more low-percentage shots they would (you would think) miss more. And this is the real issue, If they completely ignore any negative possibilities for their tactics, even when they happen in front of their eyes, then of course they are going to think their management insights are perfect. I never come onto the forums during the games right now, but I always read them afterwards. Funny stuff!
