Question, RVP is not played as a target man although he spearheads our attack in the middle. We encourage wing play all too often but either never produce a final ball or there is never anyone to convert the crosses. Do we need a big target man in that case ? The style of our play suggests we do, but all too often we get to position to cross then slow the play down, insisting on going back across the pitch and passing the other team to death. Do you think if we had a proper target man in the box, what Chamakh is supposed to be, we would play a more direct form of football ? My memories of Chamakh are of him forever dropping deep and not being in the box, the same went for Bendtner when he played up front. We certainly need to play more direct football, I think the players have forgotten how to shoot what with all the tippy tappy football they play.
I think Chamakh could still become that target man. He certainly looked good in that role when he first joined, but his confidence and form have deserted him. I think we're quite effective when we play direct football. Some of the balls over the top to RVP have led to goals and guilt edged chances. If we had someone spearheading the attack as you mention getting on the end of balls over the top and crosses whipped in, I think we'd score more. We'd probably have to change our formation to suit though, as I don't see anyway that we could leave RVP out of the team. Personally, I'd like to see us play 4-4-2 more often, as we did with Bergkamp and Henry.
Wow - I agree with Piskie. More direct football is essential - we are SO SLOW in attacking. Build up telegraphs our approach and defences are now better organised to cope. I'd like to see 4-4-2 sometimes, especially against the 'better' defences- where it becomes a last third fortress we cannot breakdown. I do see a problem with balls over the top as the only means of reaching the paired strikers. We MUST work on the really poor 'crosses' if that's what the last ball played by Walcott and Geronimo are supposed to be. Walcott is never going to make it as a striker in our team, so he should either be sold, or has to improve the poor service from the wings.
When Walcott is on form, he is really dangerous. The goal against Chelsea was a classic example of how he can slice through defences in a way that very few other players can. I think Gervinho offers something similar from the other flank, but the trouble at the moment is that other than RVP, most of our other attacking players are off form. I'm not proposing that we play a simple long ball over the top game, bypassing the midfield, but against QPR, there were a few times when a ball over the top from the flanks in MF simply took out the defence and presented RVP with chances. I think paired strikers in the Berkgamp, Henry role would work for us again. With RVP sitting behind an out and out CF.
if Chamakh were to be played, he should be played right up top, and told to stay on the shoulder of the last defender. Driving the defense back and creating space behind. Then play RvP in the hole as a striker / AM and play two proper CM's who can both attack and defend (right now that's Arteta & Song), freeing up RvP of any defensive responsibility. Keep playing Theo & Gervinho on the flanks as they have the energy to get up and attack, and support the full-backs. This SHOULD work against other teams playing 4-4-2, which tend to be the lower teams, and thus the teams you'd want 2 strikers on against. Against the bigger teams, you can drop Chamakh and put an extra man in midfield to try to control the game more.
Ideally you want someone reasonably tall and quick - like Henry. He could hold the ball up, win it in the air, but also had that blistering pace so you could feed him in behind. Chamakh isn't that type, but he can win flick-ons for Theo or Gervinho to latch on to with their pace. Campbell is only 5' 10", but there's still time for him to grow a little. This change would also make the formation and personnel less predictable, and make it harder for teams to set up to play Arsenal.
PISKIE thats our problem I think, if we are only going to play one up top in the middle it would have to be RVP, unless we played a 4-3-2-1 where RVP was one of the 2 and Chamakh was the 1. This would mean Walcott and Arshavin would be battling for the 2nd 2 place. As I seem to recall, when we played 4-4-2 with the Invincibles, Pires played as a winger wide but Ljungberg didn't, he mostly made his runs through the middle of the park, so it is not set in stone that we have to have a balanced attack - 2 wide men, one on each side. The 2 could go hunting for the ball and if we had overlapping full backs they would always have someone to aim for in the box - Chamakh.
what all this boils down to - is the need to develop PLAN B, and C. We are always SO predictable, and do not change during the second half if we are getting nowhere.
Plan 1: Used against more difficult opponents - 4-3-3 // 4-5-1 Play 3 in midfield, 2 wide men frequently interchanging positions, RvP alone up front. More emphasis on defensive solidarity & runs in behind from the fast wide-men. Plan 2: Used against lower sides who will pack men behind the ball and look to counter-attack - 4-4-2 2 CM's in midfield who can both attack and defend. 2 wide men who can fill in at full-back when required if there is an overlap, and can cross. RvP playing in the no10 / AM role with no defensive responsibilities. More emphasis on crosses.
Agree with you guys playing 4-4-2. It's very difficult for strikers to get any form from making occasional appearances from the bench but if there was an extra spot for Park and Chamakh to fight it out for then I'm sure you'd see an improvement in the team. The trouble is in midfield where I'm not sure you have enough of the right players to play 4 across. Walcott-Song-Wilshere-Arteta, maybe? I guess that's make Coquelin backup for Song, Ramsey for Wilshere, Benayoun and Rosicky for Arteta and AOC and Gervinho for Walcott. I'm not sure you'd get a lot of good balls into the box from any of them apart from Arteta, though.
We used to play 4-4-2 really effectively. I think your comment about it giving a boost to our other strikers is spot on. At them moment, they get very little game time so their form is sketchy and they get slated by some of our fans when they do play, when in fairness, if they were played more often, they would probably start to deliver the goods. As for the MF, I think we've got good options. We could either play Walcott-Song-Wilshere-Arteta / Oxo-Arteta-Song-Arshavin / Walcott-Wilshere-Arteta-Gervinho or any combination with Ramsey, Rosicky and Benayoun also in the mix. I think we've got enough options there to play a solid holding type of MF, a flat four, two wingers - and we could even play a five man MF if needed with RVP sitting in the hole, a la Bergkamp. I think Wilshere and Arteta are our two playmakers who can thread defence splitting passes into the front men. Although I still think we need one more top quality player in there, whether it's someone like Goetze to replace Fabreags or a left sided attacking player.
I don't want to see Chamakh dropping deep, he is not Sheringham, he needs to be in the box. If we are going to play with wingers we should have a traditional type CF to convert the crosses.
picking up on that point PISKIE, and digressing slightly. do you think the players that aren't getting regular first team games should be playing in the reserve games rather than the youngsters to keep them match sharp? my opinion is that the youngsters should be loaned out asap to get them first team experience, and the second string should be playing in the reserve league. it might be a lower standard, but it'll keep them fitter than just training will, boost confidence with wins, and help them to form partnerships. sometimes i think Arsenal are too focussed on developing what might be, rather than concentrating on what is.
Yes, I think that's a really good suggestion. I'd much rather players like Chamakh, Arshavin, Park, Squillaci etc would really benefit from regular game time, instead of sitting on the bench and being expected to hit the ground running (so to speak) when they're thrown into matches. It might present a problem with training though, would they train with the first team, the reserves, both, or all together? I think there's definitley scope for some of our players to get more game time with the reserves, even if they trained with the first team though. Even if were just one or two games per month, surely it would be better than none at all?
Not sure Gervinho would be any use in a 442 but fair enough if you think he's so a job on the left still. At the start of the season I thought Wenger migh surprise us and go 442 with Walcott becoming the striker people reckoned he'd become. I'm guessing Walcott or Gervinho would also fill in as the 4th choice striker that you need in a 442.
Train them with the first team - the whole squad of 25 (plus under 21's) should be training together. When the games come about, pick the team from those players that haven't been playing regularly for the first team. Give those that are regularly on the bench 60mins, and those who aren't playing a full 90. If you impress in the games, you could play your way into the match day squad. Essentially first team & reserve games are played by the squad. This leaves a gap between under 18's level, and reserves. At 18, I think a decision should be made whether to promote a player to the first team, send them on loan, or cut them. A squad can be kept for a while for the FA Youth Cup to see if they impress before either promotion or loan. This way only the best are kept after the age of 18 - those that are almost certain to go on into the first team.
Jayram, I think Chamakh would be much better if he stayed in the bloody box and stopped dropping deep. He can obviously score goals, he was for Bordeaux and he did for us, but the goals he scored were from when he was in the box. Alas ... chaps .. I think therein lies the problem, this was last season when, no doubt, some of his goals were created by Cesc who is no longer here, do we think this might be the reason why he has looked so bad ? who is creating the chances for him ?
