Arsene Wenger's comments following Walcott's injury are interesting: "Up front we lose Theo as a potential central forward and that's maybe where we have to look outside." I.E. his chief concern is losing Walcott's ability to play through the centre, not out wide. "We have Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain back and we have many other players who can play on the flanks ......." Why is it that there is near uproar on here when anyone other than a "recognised winger" (e.g. Snodgrass, Redmond, Pilkington) is asked to play on the flanks? Are Cazorla, Ozil, Wilshere, Rosicky et.al. "recognised wingers"? Do e.g Everton have ANY "recognised wingers"? How many "recognised wingers" actually play on a regular basis in the PL? We need good flank players, not wingers.
Not semantics at all. It's about different styles of playing and different types of "wide" player performing different roles. If you don't think there is any point in discussing it, just say so but don't dismiss it as a mere difference of vocabulary.
I think it's purely because Arsenal play with so much attacking freedom that the players who start wide will be able to drift all over the place and play their natural game. In their 4-2-3-1 it doesn't matter who the nominated wingers are, the front 4 will go where they want. When we play that way our wingers tend to be stapled to the side of the pitch, which makes non-wingers deployed there less effective as they aren't playing their natural game. We saw Fer really struggle to get into games when played wide, so he drifted inside, causing problems on the flank when the opposition had the ball because none of the team planned for it, so nobody was covering his wider area. Also, we haven't got the riches in attacking midfield that they've got. We've got a slow Wes Hoolahan (you need at least some pace to play as a winger generally), and Howson, who's injured.
Thank you for engaging with the question DH -- and bringing to the fore what I am really getting at. There is a view being propagated that CH deliberately imposes rigidity on our play (implicit in your phrase "stapled to the side of the pitch"). Yet his lineups (inverted wingers, strikers --- e.g. Elmander -- or midfielders -- e.g. Howson, Hoolahan, Fer -- starting on the flanks) are in fact more in keeping with a manager wanting players to move freely, interchange position and so on. It seems to me that any rigidity is more in the minds of the players than coming from the manager. CH's preferred systems require movement, so it seems unlikely that he actually discourages it.
Perhaps "stapled to the side of the pitch" is an exaggeration, but our wingers do feel that they've got to stay wide and either cut in to shoot or cross. And generally they only cut in within a couple of yards of the penalty area. Whilst I don't watch every game in full, in those I have I can remember very few occasions where either of our wingers ended up in the middle of the opponents half linking up with Howson/Hoolahan, or them ever swapping wings. That's been a season-long problem, so if CH wants the players to play with freedom, he's doing a very poor job of encouraging it.
Pilkington does it on a regular basis, and quite often drifts right over to the right. Snodgrass less often, but he does do it. So does Redmond. I think a lot depends on whether the players feel they have the opposition on the back foot or not.
Actually I'd say there are clearly some games where they do and some games where they don't. The games we have looked best have been where Redmond and Snodgrass have switched wings and been very flexible, but clearly this system is considered too fragile when we play certain teams.
I agree with Robbie on this one. Many people, particularly 'outers' insist that CH is using very defensive formations, but I don't think that this is true. His preferred formation, IMO, is the 4-3-3 where the striker is flanked (not winged) by Snods and Pilks (or Redmond) and backed by a midfield 3. When the ball is lost, the 'flankers' track back with two midfielders to form two ranks of four until the ball is won again. Away from home, the 4-2-3-1 can be used as well, where the sole striker is supported by deeper flankers and the player in the 'hole' (ie. Elmander, Howson or Wes). This is the point of the 'inverted wingers' (who are really 'flankers'). Thus playing 2 strikers doesn't necessarily mean using a 4-4-2. Robbie's point is a very valid one, IMO.
Thank you Rick. Rob, I agree that the degree of movement varies from game to game. Unlike you though, I attribute most of that variation to the opposition, not instructions from the manager. The more our players feel they have the opposition on the back foot, the more freedom and movement they play with.
I'd say Pilkington does (and has been good at it this season, one of our few attacking plus points), absolutely no way are Snodgrass and Redmond doing as part of a complementary tactic. Flanked as far as I'm concerned means those wingers go past the central striker. Something which barely happens because they are inverted and so have to pass before even getting level. You will very rarely see Snodgrass and Redmond progressing past those in the middle, it is one of the prime reasons we do not create good chances. I agree that Pilkington does however.
I agree that Pilks is the best at this, Carrabuh, but Snodgrass does as well when he takes on the FB and gets to the by-line to cut the ball back. Even Murphy did the same to cut the ball back for Snodgrass's goal. This is an area that Redmond really needs to work on, IMO.
Snodgrass very rarely cuts the ball back for two reasons. 1. He's generally already put the ball in the box before he reaches the area 2. He's left footed (and really only left footed) so finds it difficult 3. He just doesn't make those runs (with any regularity or intent) to receive the ball deep into the opposing area. Pilkington is a lot more comfortable closer to the goal because he's more agile, better with both feet and doesn't need the space Snodgrass does to make a run. I've been critical of Pilkington in the past for his lack of patience and ability to pass. I think those failings are still there but he looks so much brighter and more inventive than Snodgrass and Redmond.
There seems to be general agreement on here that, for all he sometimes goes missing in matches, Pilkington has a much wider range of skills (and a more imaginative approach?) than our other options.
Pilks has the major advantage that he is two-footed. Him going missing has been less obvious (though maybe that's because he plays less and less...) but it is clear that he brings a lot of "behind the scenes" type play onto the pitch. He certainly brings out the best in Olsson. Actually, Snodgrass often does try to beat his man on the outside and I see him frequently try to "scoop" the ball with a feint before making space for the cross on his right. The problem is his delivery is just simply not good enough with his right for this to be effective frequently. I have recently been thinking that Snodgrass might be best if he is played more centrally, but he will need more immediate support - I could see him and RvW working as the front 2 in a 4-4-2
I think Pilks does have a wider range of skills, but when Snodgrass gets to the by-line, the cut-back is more of a pass than a cross, and he does pass well with his right foot. Snods is also better at tracking back when the ball is lost (another area Redmond needs to work on, especially against Coleman today). To play Snods centrally though, does mean losing his ability to track back because his role is different.
