What is the point of "The Ox"?

[I am invisible]

Wenger talking about how he sees Ox as more of a box-to-box CM and, perhaps more interestingly, 433 being a good fit for him...

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...s-vital-for-ox

I still think 4231 is the best fit for our best players, but 433 would solve a couple of problems? I can see it being a great fit for Ramsey and Wilshere, as well as Ox (pick any 2 and have the usual DM as the 3rd, deepest midfielder), and it might even give us an indirect way of giving Özil a rest without necessarily needing a like-for-like replacement?

[selassie]

Wenger talking about how he sees Ox as more of a box-to-box CM and, perhaps more interestingly, 433 being a good fit for him...

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...s-vital-for-ox

I still think 4231 is the best fit for our best players, but 433 would solve a couple of problems? I can see it being a great fit for Ramsey and Wilshere, as well as Ox (pick any 2 and have the usual DM as the 3rd, deepest midfielder), and it might even give us an indirect way of giving Özil a rest without necessarily needing a like-for-like replacement?

Interesting. Yeah agree with your assessment, I suspect OX will only be in the 4-3-3 when Ozil is rested.

Worryingly a number of our home growns appear to be turning into "jack of all trades". Jack, OX, Chambers & Ramsey to a lesser degree don't appear to have nailed down a dedicated position, Walcott too...but to a lesser extent.

I know Wenger likes moving players all over the place but in the case of Jack, OX & Chambers, I think they need dedicated positions. Ramsey to a lesser extent.

[I am invisible]

Interesting. Yeah agree with your assessment, I suspect OX will only be in the 4-3-3 when Ozil is rested.

Worryingly a number of our home growns appear to be turning into "jack of all trades". Jack, OX, Chambers & Ramsey to a lesser degree don't appear to have nailed down a dedicated position, Walcott too...but to a lesser extent.

I know Wenger likes moving players all over the place but in the case of Jack, OX & Chambers, I think they need dedicated positions. Ramsey to a lesser extent.

I don't think it's a problem with them being jacks of all trades, so much as they all seem to model themselves on former players and redundant roles that none of the top sides really use any more? For example, we touched on it the other day, but the top sides don't really want a Steven Gerrard type midfielder any more, who's going to charge around wherever the play is - it's too indisciplined. And they don't want a small, goal-poacher type striker from the days of classic 2-man strike pairings - that shit is 10 years out of date. The modern game demands defensive and holding midfielders who can control the play - midfield 'specialists' and deep lying playmakers. It demands lone strikers with wide forwards either side of them - no one gives a shit about 442 any more.

What worries me isn't so much that they don't have it in them to perform one of these more modern roles - I absolutely believe that they do - it's that I never feel like they fully embrace the roles that they're given, because they're holding out for their ideal role to suddenly come back in vogue? It's like they think the game is going to revert back to the one that they grew up watching, 10-15 years ago, just because that's how they want to play? You contrast that to a lot of the foreign lads, and you never here them going on about how they're really a striker, or a central midfielder, or dropping little reminders to the manager into interviews about how it's great to get a run out in their 'best position' so they can 'show what they can do' - they just quietly get on with any job their given, and try their best to make it their own.

[selassie]

I don't think it's a problem with them being jacks of all trades, so much as they all seem to model themselves on former players and redundant roles that none of the top sides really use any more? For example, we touched on it the other day, but the top sides don't really want a Steven Gerrard type midfielder any more, who's going to charge around wherever the play is - it's too indisciplined. And they don't want a small, goal-poacher type striker from the days of classic 2-man strike pairings - that shit is 10 years out of date. The modern game demands defensive and holding midfielders who can control the play - midfield 'specialists' and deep lying playmakers. It demands lone strikers with wide forwards either side of them - no one gives a shit about 442 any more.

What worries me isn't so much that they don't have it in them to perform one of these more modern roles - I absolutely believe that they do - it's that I never feel like they fully embrace the roles that they're given, because they're holding out for their ideal role to suddenly come back in vogue? It's like they think the game is going to revert back to the one that they grew up watching, 10-15 years ago, just because that's how they want to play? You contrast that to a lot of the foreign lads, and you never here them going on about how they're really a striker, or a central midfielder, or dropping little reminders to the manager into interviews about how it's great to get a run out in their 'best position' so they can 'show what they can do' - they just quietly get on with any job their given, and try their best to make it their own.

Yeah I hear ya and you've touched on an interesting point regarding them not really embracing their roles, especially Theo & Ramsey

[IBK]

I don't think it's a problem with them being jacks of all trades, so much as they all seem to model themselves on former players and redundant roles that none of the top sides really use any more? For example, we touched on it the other day, but the top sides don't really want a Steven Gerrard type midfielder any more, who's going to charge around wherever the play is - it's too indisciplined. And they don't want a small, goal-poacher type striker from the days of classic 2-man strike pairings - that shit is 10 years out of date. The modern game demands defensive and holding midfielders who can control the play - midfield 'specialists' and deep lying playmakers. It demands lone strikers with wide forwards either side of them - no one gives a shit about 442 any more.

What worries me isn't so much that they don't have it in them to perform one of these more modern roles - I absolutely believe that they do - it's that I never feel like they fully embrace the roles that they're given, because they're holding out for their ideal role to suddenly come back in vogue? It's like they think the game is going to revert back to the one that they grew up watching, 10-15 years ago, just because that's how they want to play? You contrast that to a lot of the foreign lads, and you never here them going on about how they're really a striker, or a central midfielder, or dropping little reminders to the manager into interviews about how it's great to get a run out in their 'best position' so they can 'show what they can do' - they just quietly get on with any job their given, and try their best to make it their own.

Interesting, but then you look at the likes of Leicester and Watford, who play in a more traditional way, and are profiting from it. For me, its as much about players themselves recognising their strong points - and playing to them - but also being prepared to work their asses of without the ball. Its this latter trait that has lessened the gap between the EPL teams more than anything else. In our team, the likes of Campbell; Coquelin, Bellerin; Monreal and even Ramsey epitomise this. The Ox's main problem is that he doesn't defend/hussle well when not on the ball. I'm not sure that this issue will be addressed simply by playing him centrally. Wenger has always tended to 'blood' players out wide in preparation for more central roles, but I'm not sure that this is always the right blueprint.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think it's a problem with them being jacks of all trades, so much as they all seem to model themselves on former players and redundant roles that none of the top sides really use any more? For example, we touched on it the other day, but the top sides don't really want a Steven Gerrard type midfielder any more, who's going to charge around wherever the play is - it's too indisciplined. And they don't want a small, goal-poacher type striker from the days of classic 2-man strike pairings - that shit is 10 years out of date. The modern game demands defensive and holding midfielders who can control the play - midfield 'specialists' and deep lying playmakers. It demands lone strikers with wide forwards either side of them - no one gives a shit about 442 any more.

What worries me isn't so much that they don't have it in them to perform one of these more modern roles - I absolutely believe that they do - it's that I never feel like they fully embrace the roles that they're given, because they're holding out for their ideal role to suddenly come back in vogue? It's like they think the game is going to revert back to the one that they grew up watching, 10-15 years ago, just because that's how they want to play? You contrast that to a lot of the foreign lads, and you never here them going on about how they're really a striker, or a central midfielder, or dropping little reminders to the manager into interviews about how it's great to get a run out in their 'best position' so they can 'show what they can do' - they just quietly get on with any job their given, and try their best to make it their own.

I think Atletico Madrid sometimes play a 4-4-2 sometimes and they are top of La Liga. Juve made it to the final with a two striker system. I agree with IBK on this one. Football moves in cycles. Maybe 10 years ago the game demanded a holding player but now we're seeing more box to box players coming back with nobody just holding like the old Makelele types. I think it's just as dangerous to assume football is going to go a certain way. But I don't think the players think that deeply about it. They just need to be the best they can possibly be and they'll find a spot. I don't think a player like Gerrard is redundant. If the game required him to be more disciplined I don't think he'd have a problem adapting. Systems change but players adapt. Would players like Henry, Zidane be redundant in the game today even though they played in totally different systems? Even old fashioned strikers like Wright, Shearer and Batistuta would find a way to play in the modern game today. Take Giroud as an example. He has the style of an old player but he makes it work.

[AFC Leveller]

The Ox is talented and can be a real star for us. However, he is definitely NOT a CM as he can only run in straight lines with the ball and doesn't move the ball quickly enough. He is very much like Gibbs, with the ball at his feet, he can only run in straight lines and looks uncomfortable in posession.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Wenger seems to have issues with width, I can't stand Arteta but the fact remains we looked better in central midfield when he came on, on Saturday. With Ox there we looked shapeless as he was drifting wide anyway.

[Power n Glory]

The Ox is talented and can be a real star for us. However, he is definitely NOT a CM as he can only run in straight lines with the ball and doesn't move the ball quickly enough. He is very much like Gibbs, with the ball at his feet, he can only run in straight lines and looks uncomfortable in posession.

Far too early to judge what he can or can't do in that position to be fair. If he manages to clock up a good number of games in that position, then judge.

[I am invisible]

I think Atletico Madrid sometimes play a 4-4-2 sometimes and they are top of La Liga. Juve made it to the final with a two striker system. I agree with IBK on this one. Football moves in cycles. Maybe 10 years ago the game demanded a holding player but now we're seeing more box to box players coming back with nobody just holding like the old Makelele types. I think it's just as dangerous to assume football is going to go a certain way. But I don't think the players think that deeply about it. They just need to be the best they can possibly be and they'll find a spot. I don't think a player like Gerrard is redundant. If the game required him to be more disciplined I don't think he'd have a problem adapting...

I think box-to-box abilities and attributes are coming back, but not necessarily box-to-box midfielders, if that makes sense? First and foremost, I still think we're looking at these guys being holding midfielders - positionally disciplined players who keep the team's shape, and can control the ebb and flow of the game - we're just looking at a new breed of holding midfielder, who can also suddenly surge forward with the ball once they've won it (and if it's safe). It may very well just be a question of discipline, like you say, but that, for me, is a small but significant difference. It means that there's a primary job to do first, and that we're not just giving them a free role to charge about all over the pitch, with everyone else as their supporting act.

...Systems change but players adapt. Would players like Henry, Zidane be redundant in the game today even though they played in totally different systems? Even old fashioned strikers like Wright, Shearer and Batistuta would find a way to play in the modern game today. Take Giroud as an example. He has the style of an old player but he makes it work.

Yeah, I agree - that's pretty much what I was trying to say. I see no reason why any type of player can't find a way to apply their talents to a new system and a new role, provided that it's not radically different - it just feels like some of them fight any kind of change a little more than others, and it usually seems to be the British lads? I've never heard a word out of Arteta or Cazorla, for example, about being pushed into a deeper, more defensively disciplined midfield role - they just quietly got on with it - but when you ask Walcott or Ramsey to play on the right, they'll do it, but they won't be able to resist mentioning that they're really a central player, and they'd rather be playing there. It just makes me feel like they're not really committing to the new they've been given?