Match Reaction v Fulham

[dazthegooner]

I really don't give a fuck about the Fulham match anymore, anyway.

On we go!

Come on The Arsenal

[Power n Glory]

This is probably the single logically correct statement on this thread.

Also, if it had worked out, some would have used that to argue that the tactical idea was 'proved' correct.

I have no problem with us trying to win back possession. That makes sense. But I don’t agree with the players he took off and subbed on. I could understand if he took off Ramsey and Arteta for Rosicky and then Yossi. Those two were totally knackered. Plus the way to control a game and win back possession comes from a strong central midfield. If you want to look at the Chalkboard, you can see that Arteta, Song and Ramsey weren’t getting in enough tackles and interceptions. Those guys were flagging and couldn’t cope with Fulham. They couldn’t win the ball back or find our outlet players.

But I can’t understand how we’re supposed to win back possession and retain it by taking off wide players. That makes no tactical sense to me. Gervinho and Theo were wasteful in the final third but were still getting up and down the pitch and weren’t losing the ball in their own areas. Plus, they are good at tracking back and fast enough. I could understand it more if Wenger took off RVP and brought on Chamakh to regain possession. He’s a blunt knife in front of goal but when he drops deep, he’s able to do the simple pass and move stuff and will track back to defend. If RVP was dead on his feet why not make that decision? Not a popular move when fans want goals but I could understand it more. Taking off wide players to gain possession is like someone taking off both full backs because they want the defence to be more solid. That’s tactical suicide if you’re playing against a team that have fast and tricky wingers. Slow CB’s would get ripped. We brought on slow paced central midfielders. Made no sense.

Anyway, on to the next game. Wenger’s tactics and subs have always been his weak point and this is another example.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The problem with taking off Van Persie and replacing him with Chamakh is that you take away any threat to Fulham of us scoring a goal. Without a viable option up front, you simply encourage them to attack even more.

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

People are confusing tactical ideas with tactical success. If he tried something and it didn't work out, it doesn't mean the idea was wrong.

It does if the foundation of the idea was faulty- and the foundation of this idea was, for us to win back possession in a subjugated/adverse position we'd have to flood the area we want to dominate/win back possession, with naturally retentive players- ok. But how do you retain something you don't have???
My point is in a position of strength, the foundation of the idea would have been logical, holding on to the possession we already controlled. But according to all of you, we were in a subjugated position by the time the subs came, and almost everyone blames it on the jaded performance of the midfield and not on the actions or non actions of the widemen. So why leave jaded mfs on and weaken the attack all in order to dictate play from an adverse position? Should the focus not have been getting yourself into a position of strength first if you wanted to implement such a tactic. Again, pointing to the game, how did Fulham get out of their subjugated position, was it by flooding the cm, or was it by getting every area of there team performing to par and taking full advantage of our jaded players and established weaknesses?

[Niall_Quinn]

The subs we brought on have enough experience by now to be able to tie down a game and see it out. But they didn't, they fucked up. 3 games in short order was too much for our threadbare squad to deal with. Doesn't bode well for the end of season scramble. We need to strengthen, and we won't.

[Coney]

The problem with taking off Van Persie and replacing him with Chamakh is that you take away any threat to Fulham of us scoring a goal. Without a viable option up front, you simply encourage them to attack even more.

True. Also the reason I don't like to see us defending a 1-0 by just beefing up the defence. If the formation we are playing has given us an advantage why change it - and, as you say, a dangerous striker up front creates a threat preventing the opposition pushing so many players forward. Attack can be a great form of defence.

Also, that's why I prefer a 4-4-2 over a 4-5-1. While 5 can dominate/challenge a 4-5-1 opposition, a 4-4-2 means that the opposition even in a 4-5-1 must have their midfield hanging back a bit to compensate. We should dictate the play, not bow to the opposition.

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

This tactic of 5 CMs is something peculiar to AW that he has done dozens of times- and i said it is logical in a position of strength.
He uses it a lot in the CL and TBF it usually works. But in the EPL everytime he uses it, it seems to invite far to much pressure and throw away any advantage we had earlier. I think it's because of mentality differences, most english clubs don't acest they've lost till the final whistle.
Anyway in general i hate the tactic, not only because we seem to be boring and predictable with it, but mainly because i kind of see it as an admission of weakness, i mean to me the fact you need to unbalance your team to protect a lead says a lot. And i know other managers have started noticing.

[Power n Glory]

The problem with taking off Van Persie and replacing him with Chamakh is that you take away any threat to Fulham of us scoring a goal. Without a viable option up front, you simply encourage them to attack even more.

Couldn't the same be said for taking off our two wingers? Didn't it encourage Fulham's wingers and fullbacks to push forward? Regardless of how poor they were they are still a threat. RVP was having a poor game as well.

[Power n Glory]

It does if the foundation of the idea was faulty- and the foundation of this idea was, for us to win back possession in a subjugated/adverse position we'd have to flood the area we want to dominate/win back possession, with naturally retentive players- ok. But how do you retain something you don't have???
My point is in a position of strength, the foundation of the idea would have been logical, holding on to the possession we already controlled. But according to all of you, we were in a subjugated position by the time the subs came, and almost everyone blames it on the jaded performance of the midfield and not on the actions or non actions of the widemen. So why leave jaded mfs on and weaken the attack all in order to dictate play from an adverse position? Should the focus not have been getting yourself into a position of strength first if you wanted to implement such a tactic. Again, pointing to the game, how did Fulham get out of their subjugated position, was it by flooding the cm, or was it by getting every area of there team performing to par and taking full advantage of our jaded players and established weaknesses?

Some good points made there.

[Kano]

Didn't it encourage Fulham's wingers and fullbacks to push forward?

no, having two non full backs ensured that happened.