Also want to say I'm glad AW didn't come back to take a seat on the BoD.

He would not have enjoyed the style of play seen this week remembering after the 2005 FA Cup win he said he'd rather not win again than to do so playing in that manner. IIRC there was some comment later about the players not following his instructions and being forced onto the back foot.

Anzac wrote:

Also want to say I'm glad AW didn't come back to take a seat on the BoD.

He would not have enjoyed the style of play seen this week remembering after the 2005 FA Cup win he said he'd rather not win again than to do so playing in that manner.  IIRC there was some comment later about the players not following his instructions and being forced onto the back foot.

That is not fully accurate. Many of his best performances in the following season's Champions League were founded on a strong defense and counter-attacking football. And that Arsenal team was shaky in the league. Henry adapted to a 1 striker system really well

Claudius wrote:

Anzac wrote:

Also want to say I'm glad AW didn't come back to take a seat on the BoD.

He would not have enjoyed the style of play seen this week remembering after the 2005 FA Cup win he said he'd rather not win again than to do so playing in that manner.  IIRC there was some comment later about the players not following his instructions and being forced onto the back foot.

That is not fully accurate. Many of his best performances in the following season's Champions League were founded on a strong defense and counter-attacking football. And that Arsenal team was shaky in the league. Henry adapted to a 1 striker system really well

IIRC that run to the UCL Final was Keown working as a consultant working with a make-shift back4 that set a UCL defensive record.
 

Keown's magical work that season gets all the more legendary for each passing year. The man apparently transformed our defence in Europe but couldn't stop us from losing every week in the league.

Wenger had priors when it came to transforming players out of position and forging great defences. He took a makeshift Kolo Touré and turned him into the best defender in Europe, a Lauren who used to be a midfielder and turned him into the best rightback in the league. The invincibles defence did not contain a single player he had inherited and it was the best we've ever had at this club by far.

Great performance yesterday. Fully deserved with tactics spot on. Would be very sweet if we managed to win FA Cup and simultaneous prevent Spurs getting any European football.

I wonder if the lack of fans made it a little easier for us to implement these tactics. An actual crowd would reduce the audibility of the instructions from Arteta and between players, plus emotions may have run higher leading to more reckless challenges etc. Either way, we took advantage and sets a good template for dealing with better possession based teams in the short term.

Klaus wrote:

Keown's magical work that season gets all the more legendary for each passing year. The man apparently transformed our defence in Europe but couldn't stop us from losing every week in the league.

No need for embellishments - the back4 that did most of the work in the UCL run included Flamini as a make-shift LB and Senderos at CB.
They conceded 2 goals in 12 games going into the Final and had a record 10 consecutive clean sheets, during which we won at RM in R32, and then beat Juve in the Q/Fs.

Klaus wrote:

Keown's magical work that season gets all the more legendary for each passing year. The man apparently transformed our defence in Europe but couldn't stop us from losing every week in the league.

Wenger had priors when it came to transforming players out of position and forging great defences. He took a makeshift Kolo Touré and turned him into the best defender in Europe, a Lauren who used to be a midfielder and turned him into the best rightback in the league. The invincibles defence did not contain a single player he had inherited and it was the best we've ever had at this club by far.

Sorry - I call BS on this = the part about being the best defence we've ever had by far.

Anzac wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Keown's magical work that season gets all the more legendary for each passing year. The man apparently transformed our defence in Europe but couldn't stop us from losing every week in the league.

No need for embellishments - the back4 that did most of the work in the UCL run included Flamini as a make-shift LB and Senderos at CB.
They conceded 2 goals in 12 games going into the Final and had a record 10 consecutive clean sheets, during which we won at RM in R32, and then beat Juve in the Q/Fs.

What I'm saying is that Wenger is the one who gets the credit, good or bad, for what we did that season, not Keown who was at the club for a month or two to work on his badges.

Anzac wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Keown's magical work that season gets all the more legendary for each passing year. The man apparently transformed our defence in Europe but couldn't stop us from losing every week in the league.

Wenger had priors when it came to transforming players out of position and forging great defences. He took a makeshift Kolo Touré and turned him into the best defender in Europe, a Lauren who used to be a midfielder and turned him into the best rightback in the league. The invincibles defence did not contain a single player he had inherited and it was the best we've ever had at this club by far.

Sorry - I call BS on this.

Really? You'd rather have Dixon than Lauren, Adams over Campbell, Winterburn over Cole? All of them were clearly a tier below the invincibles as players. Lehmann was better than Seaman too, although that one was a much closer call.

Klaus wrote:

Anzac wrote:

No need for embellishments - the back4 that did most of the work in the UCL run included Flamini as a make-shift LB and Senderos at CB.
They conceded 2 goals in 12 games going into the Final and had a record 10 consecutive clean sheets, during which we won at RM in R32, and then beat Juve in the Q/Fs.

What I'm saying is that Wenger is the one who gets the credit, not Keown who was at the club for a month or two to work on his badges.

The talk I had heard was that Keown had been brought in as an SME from the days of The Legendary Back4, as they wanted his input to specifically work with the defence in the UCL.  IIRC he was supposed to do his badges carrying on from that season but the offer was never made and he's never been offered a coaching position at the club since.

I think your recollection is wrong, Anzac.

Klaus wrote:

Anzac wrote:

Sorry - I call BS on this.

Really? You'd rather have Dixon than Lauren, Adams over Campbell, Winterburn over Cole? All of them were clearly a tier below the invincibles as players. Lehmann was better than Seaman too, although that one was a much closer call.

I'll give you The Invincibles were better as individual players, but IMO The Legendary Back4 & Seaman were the better defensive unit, and lasted longer.

Klaus wrote:

I think your recollection is wrong, Anzac.

Then my apologies if so.

Xhaka has been so good these past few playing months

Bit nerdy but heres a video on cruyffs tactics when he managed barca in 88 with pep in midfield.
Cryff had 2 systems at the time the 4-3-3 with inverted full backs pep uses now. And the 3-4-3 arteta uses now. And you can see how it all works.

@lorddulaarsenal wrote:

Xhaka has been so good these past few playing months

It's a wonder he can play without all the booing. 

Anzac wrote:

Klaus wrote:

I think your recollection is wrong, Anzac.

Then my apologies if so.

Yeah, that's an urban myth. We've seen several ex-players return to the club for their badges, none of them had any involvement in the tactics. Logically - why would they?

The 06 Champions League run was pretty freakish. Eboue was never that good before or after for example.

Thought it was common knowledge that Keown had significant input into our defensive training or whatever during that season. Or just an urban myth??

Its as real as the myth when our defence improved for a short period of time after Bould became assistant.

speedy wrote:

Bit nerdy but heres a video on cruyffs tactics when he managed barca in 88 with pep in midfield.
Cryff had 2 systems at the time the 4-3-3 with inverted full backs pep uses now. And the 3-4-3 arteta uses now. And you can see how it all works.

Big difference being Cruyff played his 343 with a narrow diamond midfield, with Guardiola as the 6 and the CAM/#10 acting more like an Enganche with back to goal as we see with Laca's role as false9.  In Cruyff's system the front 3 were all attacking roles and were supported by the 2 CMs.

My personal feelings are that 3-4-3 is a bad formation, mostly employed as a temporary fix by bad teams that aren't good enough going forward, because it's the perfect way to minimise the strengths of a 4-3-3. That's us down to a tee presently so you can't blame Areta for using it, but I really hope we're not seriously pursuing this in the longterm. Wenger and Emery both tried it too to cover up for a lack in quality and creativity, and it didn't end well despite some initially positive response.

Agree with that, i have always viewed us like a wounded animal protecting its soft underbelly. You hope its just a placeholder solution, but the concern is that we're stuck with a weak/outgunned squad for another year and we stick with it in the interest of survival

The big issue with a flat 343 is the 2 CM midfield. A midfield diamond fixes the centre but then leaves you narrow and lacking width.
One thing I have noticed being used is a 3421 with twin CAMs/SS behind the lone CF to give 2 more men in the centre. Alternatively you can use the CF as a false9 to not only drop deep to link with the CMs when in possession, but also to provide an extra body in the middle when defending from the front.

The main concern is that Arteta does not get the funding required to remedy the issues that caused the change to the 343 in the first instance.

Klaus wrote:

My personal feelings are that 3-4-3 is a bad formation, mostly employed as a temporary fix by bad teams that aren't good enough going forward, because it's the perfect way to minimise the strengths of a 4-3-3. That's us down to a tee presently so you can't blame Areta for using it, but I really hope we're not seriously pursuing this in the longterm. Wenger and Emery both tried it too to cover up for a lack in quality and creativity, and it didn't end well despite some initially positive response.

I don't think they had the personnel to make it work = too many AM types and the Defence was screwed without BFG.

https://arseblog.com/2020/07/tactics-column-arsenal-2-0-man-city-pep-beaten-by-pressing-and-patience/

Klaus wrote:

My personal feelings are that 3-4-3 is a bad formation, mostly employed as a temporary fix by bad teams that aren't good enough going forward, because it's the perfect way to minimise the strengths of a 4-3-3. 

Not only do I disagree with this, the latter part of the statement contradicts the first. How can it be bad if it's the perfect counter?

Conte won a league title with this "bad" formation.

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. It's a formation used to minimise the strengths of someone else rather than a formation to build a strong attacking game on your own. An equivalent of parking the bus basically, which is what we've been doing with that five-man defence.

It’s designed to counter the 442 family of formations by pushing a man forward through your own formation, Klaus. In reality, it’s built to be an attacking formation. What happens with us is we have bad defenders and midfielders, so we keep getting pulled back. But in an effective formation, you’re seeing a lot more aggression from both Xhaka and Luiz, with the knowledge that the other two defenders can cover massive distance as well.

Our build-ups are too wing focused, so we get pulled back and circle along the back to find a wing. In an effective 343, there is a higher percentage of vertical and diagonal distribution from both Luiz and Xhaka.

It's too generic a criticism. Plenty of teams have had success with 343 as their main formation maximising their own strengths even from 2 or 3 decades prior.

Yeah it's not about the formation, but about how you choose to use it. AMN can play as a midfielder as well while Saka can also play as a winger, so obviously that they're playing wingbacks doesn't mean we have to play with five defenders. Against City and Liverpool though, sure that's the right choice.

These systems are so flexible these days it's hard to keep track. Cox highlighted that in possession we switched to a 4-2-4/4-2-1-3 almost, with Tierney moving to LB, AMN pushing up the wing, Auba moving up top and Laca dropping deeper.

I'm with Klaus, I'm not convinced by the back 5, only because it means you have more defensive players than attacking. At the moment it's helping us to get forward with more confidence so it's fine, as Luiz and Arteta said, it's a process. But ideally, and I'm sure Arteta would agree, I'd like to see more midfielders/attack minded players in there so that we're able to be more bold without compromising control and stability.

Klaus wrote:

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. It's a formation used to minimise the strengths of someone else rather than a formation to build a strong attacking game on your own. An equivalent of parking the bus basically, which is what we've been doing with that five-man defence.

Cruyff changed from playing a 433 to using a 343 with a diamond midfield - I don't think he had any inclination to park the bus.
Likewise for many people the 4231 is inherently seen as being a defensive set up.
Point being it's not so much the shape as opposed to the roles that are used within it.  

goon wrote:

These systems are so flexible these days it's hard to keep track. Cox highlighted that in possession we switched to a 4-2-4/4-2-1-3 almost, with Tierney moving to LB, AMN pushing up the wing, Auba moving up top and Laca dropping deeper.

I'm with Klaus, I'm not convinced by the back 5, only because it means you have more defensive players than attacking. At the moment it's helping us to get forward with more confidence so it's fine, as Luiz and Arteta said, it's a process. But ideally, and I'm sure Arteta would agree, I'd like to see more midfielders/attack minded players in there so that we're able to be more bold without compromising control and stability.

In open play under Arteta with either the 4231 or 343 we basically look like a 235 or 325 respectively.
Regardless of whether we use FBs or WBs we look to have them heavily involved in the attacking 3rd.  IMO whilst the WBs in the 343 do become a back5 at times it is little different to how we look like a 442 in defence when playing with a back4.
Again it's all about the roles and just because the players are more readily recognisable as defenders does not necessarily mean we are automatically playing with a back5.

With our squad it suits most of the players. We have a defence that is currently without players you can rely on so using numbers to try and counter their individual weaknesses makes sense (the only downside being they are also quite error prone). In midfield we lack numbers and quality so it works to have 2 in there instead of 3, we have no one who play number 10 competently so it doesn't make sense to keep shoving square pegs in there. Up front it pushes Auba and Pepe closer to goal which is a good thing and takes the pressure off Laca/Eddie. A shame Martinelli is injured because this would suit him too.

Its a good sign that Arteta adapted the team shape to fit what he has available. Hopefully we recruit in a way that suits his long term vision but we aren't City and you can't just throw money at the perfect player for each position, compromises have to be made.

It all depends on how you deploy players, and the aggression with which they attack and defend; there are no 'bad' formations.

343 is clearly the best way to win games with our players. Might be the same for next season as well unless we get some top defenders in. Luiz/Mari and possibly Saliba all look more comfortable in a back three.

spaceman spiff wrote:

It all depends on how you deploy players, and the aggression with which they attack and defend; there are no 'bad' formations.

343 is clearly the best way to win games with our players. Might be the same for next season as well unless we get some top defenders in. Luiz/Mari and possibly Saliba all look more comfortable in a back three.

I'm thinking Arteta might fancy it as a way to ease Saliba into the PL too given his age, inexperience and the expectations on him.

Qwiss! wrote:

spaceman spiff wrote:

It all depends on how you deploy players, and the aggression with which they attack and defend; there are no 'bad' formations.

343 is clearly the best way to win games with our players. Might be the same for next season as well unless we get some top defenders in. Luiz/Mari and possibly Saliba all look more comfortable in a back three.

I'm thinking Arteta might fancy it as a way to ease Saliba into the PL too given his age, inexperience and the expectations on him.

Same potential benefits for most of the youngsters other than at CM.