It is my firm belief that the failure and near misses of the past six-years actually 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 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 Wenger changed this system to a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 to accommodate Cesc Fabregas in an advanced midfield role, and to a lesser extent, Walcott and/or Arshavin 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 2 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 the 2011/12 campaign 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 4 first-choice midfielders. In the centre we see Manu 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 knew 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 from them? The significance was the total difference in Overmars and Parlour and what their style and flexibility did for the team, and crucially the formation – how they interacted with the strikers, Bergkamp and Wright.
In Marc Overmars on the left, we had a skilful dribbling speed king with ice in his blood in front of goal when one on one with the keeper. On the right we had a hardworking, 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 system. 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, Ray would always naturally tuck in, like the central midfielder he originally was, and seamlessly turned the 4-4-2 into an exciting 4-3-3 when were on the attack. Therefore, in essence, it was the players we had at that time that effortlessly and fluidly changed the formation during the game.
It was not too dissimilar in 2002 and 2004 when either Pires or Lungberg joined the attacking two, the other would moved slightly infield to support Gilberto and Vieira in midfield.
Click here to continue to page 2
I completely agree about the formation being to blame for our shameful failures. While it has its merits against tougher opposition, we do not need to play a three men central midfield at home against Blackburn. Also, when van Persie drops deep, which is a main part of his game, we are essentially playing a 4-6-0. Wenger the Loser won’t change though, the stubborn, deluded old git!
WENGER OUT!
Despite the fact the last game of the season we played more or less a 4-4-2?
When Wemger realised the season was slipping away he began to tinker, it was too little too late and the formations didn’t gel.
He needs to be less stubborn next season and mix up the play more. If Bendtner/Chamakh are brought on don’t shove one of them/Van persie off to the flanks, change the formation.
My brother, I totally agreed with everything you said, but that Fool Wenger will never do anything to reverse to the old formation. I think it is time Wenger leaves us
isnt it a bit ironic to say he is too stuborn and never changes while at the smae time talk about how he changed the formation.
442 is dead in the modern game, at least with the players at our disposal!
This article has been written by a very knowledgable Student of Football,and i agree with it wholeheartedly.I sincerely hope somebody on the Arsenal Staff has read it too.
Agree completely with the formation but our midfield would eb comlpetely overrun with Ramsey Nasri Wilshere Walcott
If Walcott goes up top, with Nasri in the Overmars position (especially with the speed her proved he has last season) and a holding midfielder alongside Wilshere this might work.
But not with those four alone.
Also can we PLEASE get rid of Squillaci and sign two centrebacks, this is where the money should be spent on he squad.
Two out of Subotic, Jagielka, Cahill or Samba.
Preferably Cahill and Subotic.
I agree with the return to 4-4-2 but not with the personnel you’ve chosen to make it up. A Wilshere/Nasri CM partnership won’t echo the ’98 vintage at all. Wilshere will be wasted as a water carrier and Nasri’s too attacking to be Vieira. Instead, Song and Wilshere should be the CM partnerhsip with Nasri on the left and Ramsey on the right. The strike partnership should be Walcott and RVP.
Another way would be to have Walcott on the left (as you suggest) and have Nasri play just behind RVP as a Trequartista.
There is also the possibility of playing Wilshere in the “Parlour role” on the right and Ramsey centre. Wilshere is more technically adept than Parlour was but possesses all of Parlour’s tenacity and tackling ability.
Happy with that Rider. Walcott infront of RVP,Nasri on left and Song or Parker.
You can talk about the formation, which contributes to our decline. However, you all fail to bring up another point. We haven’t won the league since 2004, which is the year Abramovich brought his money and since then Liverpool and City have brought in some rich owners and we haven’t won the league since.
Money makes the football world go round – don’t believe aything else. How else can anyone explain Man City going from a middle table to relegation team into the top three in just 2 seasons since Mansour?
Totts have outspent us in transfers in the past few seasons and now they’re no longer the North London whipping boys. We’re actually losing to them now when it used to be a guaranteed win or at least draw. Sure we have better salaries but it doen’t matter how much you can or cannot pay the player, if you can’t meet the club’s transfer fees then the player isn’t going to your team anyways.
In the 90s and early 2000s it was either us or the Mancs – the common thread? We both had the spending power and we used it. Sure Arsene still bargain binned players but for every 500k Anelka, he also bought an 11.5M Henry, which was alot at the time. Wenger hasn’t spent that kind of money recently. 15M for Arshavin is just common nowadays – even some nobodies in bush leagues have those price tags – it’s not until you hit the 20M+ that you get quality players that help you win things.
So while the formation and personnel doesn’t help, the financial spending from other clubs and lack thereof of ours has had a bigger impact on Arsenal’s slide down the hierarchy.