Has Arteta Truly Turned it Around?: Page 173 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Has Arteta Truly Turned it Around?

Anzac

Qwiss! wrote:
Anzac wrote:
At this point I do not expect to get anything from games v CFC, MC or LFC.

Why not? They are all dropping points against teams outside of their bubble. I wouldn't be demanding we beat any of them but we should at least be competitive in some of those games.

I don't think we have the self belief as yet re the top3 - partly because we still seem to be searching for a formation and selection that 'works' for us & this 442/4411 is still early days as yet to say if it is the right mix. Likewise I think both BHA and CPalace are both more 'fit for purpose' as a team and tactic, even if we have better quality.
That said I do think MU and TH are winnable games and should improve our self belief to be able to have more of a go at the top3 in the return fixtures. The concern being if Arteta reverts to his cautious style and more so if Xhaka plays.

Qwiss

Brighton have one of the least "fit for purpose" squads in the league, its why they regularly dominate games and still fail to win. Neither Palace, nor Brighton are any more "fit for purpose" then we are.

Anzac

Qwiss! wrote:
Brighton have one of the least "fit for purpose" squads in the league, its why they regularly dominate games and still fail to win. Neither Palace, nor Brighton are any more "fit for purpose" then we are.

No offence but I think you are mixing 'fit for purpose' with quality. That they regularly dominate games means as a team they are capable of executing the tactical style, but failing to win is more likely to be the lack of a quality goal scorer or set piece taker etc.
IMO we are not 'fit for purpose' as individual components in a team, but we have quality - much as seen at MU. Our biggest issue is the disconnect between our preferred midfield that has Xhaka as the primary conduit, and the attack that is totally reliant upon supply and space and cannot create for themselves as a unit. We are currently using both CFs to cover the role that 1 should/could/would do if 'fit for purpose'.

QuincyAbeyie

I think you're removing quality and this "fit for purpose" of yours a bit too far from each other. Do you not think our players are capable of executing both Palace's and Brighton's tactical style better than them?

Qwiss

Anzac wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
Brighton have one of the least "fit for purpose" squads in the league, its why they regularly dominate games and still fail to win. Neither Palace, nor Brighton are any more "fit for purpose" then we are.

No offence but I think you are mixing 'fit for purpose' with quality. That they regularly dominate games means as a team they are capable of executing the tactical style, but failing to win is more likely to be the lack of a quality goal scorer or set piece taker etc.
IMO we are not 'fit for purpose' as individual components in a team, but we have quality - much as seen at MU. Our biggest issue is the disconnect between our preferred midfield that has Xhaka as the primary conduit, and the attack that is totally reliant upon supply and space and cannot create for themselves as a unit. We are currently using both CFs to cover the role that 1 should/could/would do if 'fit for purpose'.

Brighton have no striker, thats what makes them not close to "fit for purpose". Do you think you'd be saying we had a "fit for purpose" squad if we were playing Maupay up top or if we had Duffy passing out of defence, or had Moder or Gross playing possession football instead of Xhaka/Lokonga? There is absolutely nothing more "fit for purpose" about their squad.

Anzac

Qwiss! wrote:
Anzac wrote:
No offence but I think you are mixing 'fit for purpose' with quality. That they regularly dominate games means as a team they are capable of executing the tactical style, but failing to win is more likely to be the lack of a quality goal scorer or set piece taker etc.
IMO we are not 'fit for purpose' as individual components in a team, but we have quality - much as seen at MU. Our biggest issue is the disconnect between our preferred midfield that has Xhaka as the primary conduit, and the attack that is totally reliant upon supply and space and cannot create for themselves as a unit. We are currently using both CFs to cover the role that 1 should/could/would do if 'fit for purpose'.

Brighton have no striker, thats what makes them not close to "fit for purpose". Do you think you'd be saying we had a "fit for purpose" squad if we were playing Maupay up top or if we had Duffy passing out of defence, or had Moder or Gross playing possession football instead of Xhaka/Lokonga? There is absolutely nothing more "fit for purpose" about their squad.

By the same token we have both PEA and Laca. Both are proven quality goal scorers, but neither of them are 'fit for purpose' in terms of the current role required by Arteta, to the point we are currently playing both centrally to achieve that outcome. Likewise the type of ST/CFs they are do not fit the deliberate passing style seen in both the transition and build-up seen from our CMs when Xhaka plays, and both are primarily final 3rd players. PEA prefers quicker delivery where he can exploit his pace 1v1, whilst Laca likes to exploit pockets of space in the opposition area.

Anzac

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
I think you're removing quality and this "fit for purpose" of yours a bit too far from each other. Do you not think our players are capable of executing both Palace's and Brighton's tactical style better than them?

Not at all.
We have better quality players but they are less suited to playing either style as both those teams have been developed/signed by their current managers for that purpose. Yes we are very much now Arteta's team and we have better quality players, but we are not as developed/mature as BHA, and we are not as purpose built as Palace in terms of the spine to the team being suited to the tactic/formation and complimenting / tying the team components together.
IMO we are also behind WHU in terms of being 'fit for purpose' but they have issues re depth outside their starting XI/match day squad. IMO we are very much like MU in terms of quality but a lack of cohesion as a team and a lack of a defined style or tactic. IIRC this is now our 3rd or more formation change this season and in this current run we're seeing a change in tempo and composition with using 2 CFs centrally.

Qwiss

As purpose built as Palace? For Vieiras style? How many of those players did he get to sign?

This "fit for purpose" stuff you repeat ad nauseam is very hard to nail down. Its essentially meaningless if Palace and Brighton have FFP® squads and we don't.

Anzac

Qwiss! wrote:
As purpose built as Palace? For Vieiras style? How many of those players did he get to sign?

This "fit for purpose" stuff you repeat ad nauseam is very hard to nail down. Its essentially meaningless if Palace and Brighton have FFP® squads and we don't.

IIRC most of Palace's transfers in the summer were made after PV joined?

For clarification 'fit for purpose' primarily means 3 things to me:

as a balanced component of a team - Defence, Midfield or Attack being capable of executing their function without needing to rely on another component;
as a balanced team where each component compliments each other's strengths and mitigates and weaknesses without detracting from the preferred shape, style or tactic;
lastly as a team (both components and the whole) being suited to the manager's style of play and tactic.

None of this has anything to do with quality as opposed to the types of players and roles. Quality as a team or player/s only becomes a factor when you are missing any of the above, and/or when you are talking about wanting to either win things or to achieve top4/UCL etc.
Likewise you can have a team that is FFP but it lacks the quality to step up to the next level. AFC have been the poster boys for having individual quality but not having a team that is FFP.
That said this season we are closer to being FFP than MU who are still working on individual quality.

Burnwinter

You ought to be happy with Arteta over Wenger, Anzac.

Wenger made his name out of shoehorning mix-and-match technical players into his front six, often shuffling natural midfielders out wide where they'd complain about their roles.

Arteta by contrast seems fixated on spending up to craft a high quality, balanced 4-3-3 and refers to this vision quest by the term "specificity" … which seems rather similar to "fitness for purpose".

One can see a few pros and cons of both approaches, but you've been a strong critic of Wenger's requirements around "player intelligence" for over a decade now, so I assume the slow and steady development of an XI made up of specialists is preferable for you.

Qwiss

Anzac wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
As purpose built as Palace? For Vieiras style? How many of those players did he get to sign?

This "fit for purpose" stuff you repeat ad nauseam is very hard to nail down. Its essentially meaningless if Palace and Brighton have FFP® squads and we don't.

IIRC most of Palace's transfers in the summer were made after PV joined?

And how many of those transfers make up the regular match day squad?

Anzac wrote:
For clarification 'fit for purpose' primarily means 3 things to me:

as a balanced component of a team - Defence, Midfield or Attack being capable of executing their function without needing to rely on another component;

as a balanced team where each component compliments each other's strengths and mitigates and weaknesses without detracting from the preferred shape, style or tactic;

lastly as a team (both components and the whole) being suited to the manager's style of play and tactic.

And as I said its crazy to think Brighton and Palace have this and we don't. Every team has a less than perfect player for a certain role. The difference is that their managers have turned their imperfect squads into more than the sum of their parts despite their problems.

[/quote]None of this has anything to do with quality as opposed to the types of players and roles. Quality as a team or player/s only becomes a factor when you are missing any of the above, and/or when you are talking about wanting to either win things or to achieve top4/UCL etc.
Likewise you can have a team that is FFP but it lacks the quality to step up to the next level. AFC have been the poster boys for having individual quality but not having a team that is FFP.
That said this season we are closer to being FFP than MU who are still working on individual quality.
[/quote]

So where are we not "fit for purpose" our brilliant striker who scores frequently despite shoddy service most of the time?

Uniteds squad is plenty "FFP" too, it just has a poor manager who is tactically inept and can't handle the characters that he has in the squad.

Anzac

Burnwinter wrote:
You ought to be happy with Arteta over Wenger, Anzac.

Wenger made his name out of shoehorning mix-and-match technical players into his front six, often shuffling natural midfielders out wide where they'd complain about their roles.

Arteta by contrast seems fixated on spending up to craft a high quality, balanced 4-3-3 and refers to this vision quest by the term "specificity" … which seems rather similar to "fitness for purpose".

One can see a few pros and cons of both approaches, but you've been a strong critic of Wenger's requirements around "player intelligence" for over a decade now, so I assume the slow and steady development of an XI made up of specialists is preferable for you.

Yes and No.

One of my areas for concern during AW's tenure was regarding the imbalance within the squad, and that his recruitment strategy only suited his preferred style post the move (intelligent, technical players to playing rondos through the middle and an emphasis on zone14, with numbers in both attack and defence). IMO this saw AW continually compromise on team balance in regards to the defensive capability, and has hampered both Emery and Arteta and represents 3+ years 'wasted'.

I'm happier we are signing players better suited to their positions/roles and the tactical expectations involved, but less so about the time it is taking to do so. I've already been critical about not getting business done and that IMO there is less time in the cashed up EPL to take 3 seasons to rebuild a team, as most managers do not last 3 seasons in their time at any club.

Meatwad

anzac, you should like this Juego de Posición training pitch.

i wish arteta luck because this takes a while. barca can't pull it off without la mesia players.

Anzac

Qwiss! wrote:
And as I said its crazy to think Brighton and Palace have this and we don't. Every team has a less than perfect player for a certain role. The difference is that their managers have turned their imperfect squads into more than the sum of their parts despite their problems.

So where are we not "fit for purpose" our brilliant striker who scores frequently despite shoddy service most of the time?

Uniteds squad is plenty "FFP" too, it just has a poor manager who is tactically inept and can't handle the characters that he has in the squad.

I'm not saying either is 'perfect' regards to being FFP, just that they are better suited to their basic roles and what is wanted by their manager. A champion team v a team of champions. That said I also think the criteria of the style Arteta wants to play is similar to AW's in that both are difficult to achieve, and we are making things more difficult than needs be regarding our transfer activity along with Arteta's learning on the job.

That PEA scores is more a reflection of his quality as a goal scorer, however the type of ST/CF he is is not suited to the role required under Arteta in that he struggles as a link and playing back to goal. That Arteta is now using both PEA and Laca centrally at the same time indicates that neither provides what he wants at CF (but in playing both to resolve that issue IS an example of him actually adapting to his resources but it's also about 2 seasons late), let alone that it is not his preferred 433 system and roles.
Similarly or midfield is still not 'FFP' in that we lack an effective DLP/DM who is 'press resistant' as well as playing with a tempo and verticality in transition that suits our forwards in addition to providing effective cover to the Defence.

The MU supporters I know all complain about their midfield as being their main issue in the 4231, in that it doesn't provide effective cover for the defence, and likewise does not provide creativity for the transition nor support the attack.

Anzac

Meatwad wrote:

anzac, you should like this Juego de Posición training pitch.

i wish arteta luck because this takes a while. barca can't pull it off without la mesia players.

I'd say they cannot do it without Guardiola.

This is my biggest criticism of trying to implement the style when the team/match day squad is so poorly balanced in all areas and requires such a massive financial commitment to address, and more so if the latter is going to be spread over more than 2 summers.

Pep took a couple of seasons to implement the style at MC and he inherited a squad that had previously won the league much like both Conte and Tuchel at CFC. Whereas our situation is more akin to post SAF MU ineptitude or pre-Klopp LFC regarding the size of the changes required (although I'd say Klopp's style is easier to implement and achieve via training and transfers as the criteria is more focused on physical attributes).

banduan

Meatwad wrote:

anzac, you should like this Juego de Posición training pitch.

i wish arteta luck because this takes a while. barca can't pull it off without la mesia players.

that's the project - build a Citeh squad without Citeh spending.

and yeah best of luck Mikel cos that looks hard.

I get annoyed seeing the persistent rondos in these vids cos of how wayward our passing can be at speed.

Anzac

TBH I didn't think I saw anything in that video that had anything to do with Juego de Posición other than the markings on the pitch.
I also hope that wasn't indicative of the intensity of the physical training in general.

For me the biggest difference in our style of play post AW is we are looking to use the flanks to create overloads, whereas under AW post The Invincibles the only players outside the half spaces were the FBs on the overlap and everyone else was inside the width of the penalty areas.

Ricky1985

This is since those first 3 games against Brentford, Chelsea and Man City. The first of those 8 games was the 1-0 win against Norwich, and we fielded Ramsdale and Tomiyasu for the first time, and also partnered Gabriel with White for the first time.

I'm not claiming all is great now - we still have lots to improve on, and this is a young team that will have ups and downs. But I think it's fair to say we have seen a steady improvement in the team as the XI has moved closer to the one that Arteta had in mind when he was formulating transfer plans with Edu in the summer. And I think - actually, I'm adamant - the club made the right decision not to panic after three games and fire him.

Ray

Lets see at the end of the season, if he lasts that long.

banduan

Ricky1985 wrote:
I'm not claiming all is great now - we still have lots to improve on, and this is a young team that will have ups and downs.

I love the project but we have a fuck ton to improve on. We still very much play with handbrakes - if we don't we instead start ceding possession. We therefore end up having low scoring games we dominate, or games we lose control of and either ride our luck or get battered.

« Previous Page Next Page »