Originally Posted by IBK
I think with Arteta the annoyance is in picking favourites regardless of form or even to be honest ability, being Galaxy brained and needless overcomplicated on one hand but not changing things when it matters on the other hand. I attribute where we are more on the money we’ve spent rather than any particular ability on Arteta’s part to bring the best out of players or being revolutionary tactically.
For what it’s worth I don’t disagree with you regarding Guardiola, it’s hard to judge his success because he’s always had plenty of money to spend. But a lot of the things I don’t like about Arteta are for me clearly evident with him at City as well.
The thing is a coach is only as good as their last result, you’ll get a lot of Liverpool fans criticising Klopp despite what he has achieved with them.
I feel a lot has been spent on defenders and we are now in a situation where we lack really anything approaching a traditional fullback which I think is madness, it also means we’ve struggled to recruit in crucial areas such as a striker and a box to box midfielder.
As for this, giving us our identity back. I’m not even sure what that means. Do I personally want Arteta gone? Yes I think too often he is singularly responsible for us dropping points. Do I see much justification in getting rid of him currently? No. Although I’m still very hyper alert that with a difficult run of fixtures that could change.
But I suppose as much as Arteta himself, what annoys me is the apologists for him. And I don’t really mean anyone on here, I don’t think anyone on here is of the opinion that he can do no wrong. But there’s this weird online atmosphere that often permeates in a cult like regard. People talk about having total and complete faith in him? They support him without question and the reason players like Havertz have been poor is because of fan negativity about him.
Get behind the team is for me an injunction not to criticise, you get behind the team…don’t tell me what I should or shouldn’t do. I’ve long since grown out of the idea of these players being heroes, they are employees/functionaries and like the coach are eminently expendable.
I feel slightly sorry for Havertz because all the time in the world won’t turn him into a central midfielder. It’s not what he is
But if his inclusion in the team is a net negative for our play and our results, I’m not going to feel too badly if he gets stick about it online.
A fair post. Personally while I have my frustrations with Arteta's team set up, I do feel that football is evolving, and many teams are now playing with inverted rather than traditional full backs. I think this point is also illustrated by the fact that we couldn't offload Tierney - still one of the best in the business at the traditional full back role - to an EPL club. I think I would rather have a coach in the vanguard of these tactical developments rather than one behind the curve. Where I do think that arteta has got things right is the recognition that a high level of technical ability is a must in all areas of the pitch - and that bigger, more physical players are generally in demand. That said, I feel as i've said before that you can take 'Swiss army knifing' too far, and that specialist players are still needed along the spine of the team. It was obvious for me on Saturday that the return of big Gabby improved us a lot.
I agree with you that our recent success correlates to a large degree with money spent - but by this measure we were 4th biggest spenders in the EPl last season, so the manager exceeded expectations...We were 3rd biggest spenders in the transfer window just closed but if you discount the Timber fee (reasonable to do if correlating spend with success) then we were only 4th again - almost level with Sp*rs in 5th. We also need to remember that the value of Citeh's team is already astronomical. The manager is clearly doing something right by this metric.
As for our identity. Under the best Wenger years we were regarded as a young; dynamic and technically excellent team. We lost our lustre for years after this, and now we have it back again. Plus we are again competing for the league having had years where 4th was our 'trophy'. We are back in the CL and the Emirates is once again almost impossible to get tickets for - plus being more vibrant than it has ever been. Not sure how much more this point can be illustrated.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
The question needs to be asked what is he, then? Don't think he is a striker...
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
He definitely isn’t a striker, I think his time at Chelsea proved that. I also don’t think he’s a CM either, he’s not robust enough nor does he have the engine.
I think he’s an Ozil type, with perhaps more inclination to get on the end of an attack. So an attacking mid essentially who plays off the strikers. A role that is pretty much non-existent in our team.
A luxury player as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think he’s a bad footballer, technically he’s decent but I think he’s a passenger at the moment. Hopefully he proves us all wrong but I’m struggling to see it.
I think if we were to play two up front, he could well operate as a striker, perhaps a more deep lying one…but as I say repeatedly he’s the only player in the team who can hold up the ball and has aerial ability. He doesn’t match the current system but actually could see him functioning reasonably well in a two up front partnership with Edward and genuinely think this would be worth trying out in either the league cup or champions league.
So to break down each point
Tactical evolution - I’m not at all convinced that the inverted full back is more than just a luxury fad, if there is any measurable benefit to it I can’t see it. What it gives you in extra midfield coverage it takes away with the assumption that you can force wingers to cut inside rather than get a cross in or get in behind the defence. But if that fails to happen the winger is left with a hell of a lot more space. The traditional fullback role has already changed to incorporate an attacking overlap with the wingers, this is nullified with inverted fullbacks and often means players like Martinelli who don’t drop deep to win the ball are often taken out of the game for periods.
I absolutely agree that a high degree of technical ability is required in all positions but then this is what makes me question us signing Declan Rice who is not very technical at all in terms of passing or ball control.
I don’t think under any reasonable metric we should discount the Timber transfer, it’s like discounting the Havertz transfer because he’s proved to be useless.
As for Identity, yeah I still don’t get it. First of all if he has given us an identity as an attacking team it’s a very recent turnaround, as until the last year our goals to games ratio was exceptionally poor under Arteta (and I’d say in no small way contributory to this, is the fact that we’ve not bought a single out and out striker since he joined us)
The only identity that matters to me personally is one of winning. I tend to favour younger players over older players on the whole because the pace and athleticism is there, and in terms of useful lifespan at the club they have much more of their career in front of them than behind them. But ultimately I’m not especially interested in the players nor can I identify with them. I look at them as little more than tools.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/vide...nalty-decision
Now I've calmed down I think this is an interesting watch.
Clearly Taylor thought AWB tripped Havertz on the first lunge, but the VAR told him that wasn't the case which is why he's overturned it.
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
OK (because I'm bored). This is an excellent explanation of the evolution of the inverted fullback role https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DkIL1OWXkM
As for your opinion, this is valid. The point I was making is that personally I am cool with a manager who is progressive tactically. I think that the video explains well how an inverted FB system is intended to create overloads in MF - alternatively a route for quick balls to wingers - as a means to counter opposition teams packing the central final third area - that we tend now to decsribe as a low block. As I said before, the majority of teams will play this way against us, so it is going to be much harder for our wingers (or FB's) to 'get in behind the defence', and the low block is also more effective against crosses into the box. We saw this against Manure - who effectively played a low block - and it's interesting to note that in this game, Martinelli was actually one of our more effective players - he tends to combine well with Zinchenko - the epitome of an inverted FB.
I have no problem at all with using Rice - whose principal role as No 6 is to break up and intercept play; provide security for our back line, but make forays into the opposition box when possible. I dispute that he lacks the requisite technical ability for this role.
Discounting the Timber transfer is not at all like discounting a player who is available but not yet effective. If we are collating league positions with money spent (and judging the manager's performance by this metric) then it is IMO perfectly reasonable to factor in the fact that a big signing is out for the whole season. As I said, we were 4th biggest spenders last season so Arteta out performed his expenditure.
A team's identity is not governed by its striker. Neither is winning an identity. If it was, then only 1 team per season has any identity at all. All I can say to add to what I have said before is that 60K plus fans at the Emirates - and countless more who cannot get tickets clearly think that we have our mojo back...
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote