It is my firm belief that the failure and near misses of the past six years actually really go back to 2006 when we left Highbury. Not because we left the spiritual home of football, although the smaller pitch did help, but due to the gradual change to a winning formula.
The 1998, 2002 double winning sides and the 2004 ‘Invincibles’ were all made up of 4-4-2 formations and it is only since Arsene Wenger has changed to 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 to accommodate Cesc Fabregas in an advanced midfield role and to a lesser extent, Theo Walcott, Andrey Arshavin, formerly Samir Nasri and now Gervinho in wide striker roles that our fortunes seem to have changed. Coincidence? I think not.
All three championship winning sides operated with attacking and hardworking wide players, none of whom were traditional wingers and two central midfield players, one slightly more adventurous than the other. However, I feel that 1998 is the team and formation that truly teaches us the most and can give us a pointer for 2011/12 and our current crop of talented underachievers.
There is no need to dwell on the defence at this stage as we all know the strength and dominance of the back five Wenger inherited, but the key is the four first choice midfielders. In the centre we see Emmanuel Petit sitting and Paddy Vieira playing the more advanced role. Of course as they proved not only for Arsenal, but famously in the World Cup final, they were interchangeable and each new when to support the other or cover. On the left we had Marc Overmars and on the right our very own home-grown Ray Parlour. So why are these four players, or in my opinion, the two wide players so crucial and what can we learn? The significance was the total difference in Overmars and Parlour and what their style and flexibility did for the team and crucially the formation and how they interacted with the strikers, Dennis Bergkamp and Ian Wright and latterly Nicolas Anelka.
In Marc Overmars on the left we had a skilful dribbling speed king with ice in his blood in front of goal and when one on one with the keeper. On the right we had a hard working, tough tackling, committed engine in Ray Parlour, with growing passing ability and confidence under Wenger. So in Overmars we had a far more attacking wide man and on the right the more conservative Parlour either side of two strong central midfielders in a 4-4-2. It was the fundamental differences in the two wide men that provided Wenger with the key to success because whilst Overmars was always likely to over commit and effectively become the 3rd striker, Razor would always naturally tuck in, like the central midfielder, he originally and ultimately was, and seamlessly turn the 4-4-2 into an exciting 4-3-3 when were on the attack. In essence therefore it was the players we had at that time that effortlessly and fluidly changed the formation during the game.
It’s simple…4-4-2 won 3 Premierleague and 4 FA Cup. Unfortunately 4-3-3 won NOTHING!!! It’s true 4-3-3 create a beautiful game but honestly for me I am feel boring to watch all the possession without any end product. Sometime you feel so frustrated about that.
nothing is beautiful about 2 wingers who do nothing for the whole game
“Ferguson will change systems from game to game dependent on the opposition and the form of his players” – That’s the attitude I believe AW needs to imbibe. Both formations have their merits & demerits. I like 4-4-2 but I also want my team’s manager to be proactive and less predictable!