Arsenal tactics review part 2 – Ball playing defenders « Untold Arsenal: Arsenal News, supporting the club, the players and the manager
By Phil Gregory
Continuing from where I left off in the first article (which looked at the centre backs and set pieces), lets continue from the back.
In that article I talked about centre backs and why I didn’t think we need a typical English clogger centreback, à la Shawcross. One thing I mentioned was an emphasis is placed on ball playing defenders, and I’ll develop that a little more now. Ball playing centre backs are valued because of the prevalence of the parked bus tactic against us: we now come up against it in a quite a few games in the season, not just versus the traditional bottom three.
When this happens the opposition defend deep, so our entire team moves up, leaving our centre backs perched on the half way line, and our fullbacks even further forward. In that situation, a brutish centreback is an utter liability as the defenders are then either bringing the ball forward or playing forward passes. Neither is the strong point of a Shawcross type, and at best that sort of player would only weaken our offensive game, and at worst it’d cost us goals on the break if our defenders give the ball away when we are heavily commited going forwards. A good ball playing centreback also reduces the need for a midfielder to come short and bring the ball forward – the defender can do that himself. When we’re looking to pick the lock of a packed penalty area, the more men that are options for our attack the better.
Another Arsène favourite in defence is the interception. Dark Prince mentioned this in the comments to the last article and I’m glad he did, as it’s a very valid point. For me, I’d rather have a defender whose strong point is interceptions rather than tackles. The reasoning is simple: if you tackle a player, you may or may not end up with the ball at your feet. If you do, then great but more likely is that the ball will go loose, taken by another attacker and the attack continues, albeit delayed or slightly off course.
The interception, on the other hand guarantees you have the ball at your feet, and under control too. You’re also probably moving away from your own goal to make it, so have a directional advantage over any opponent who would like to nick the ball back off you. The key point here is that interceptions aren’t as eye-catching as thundering tackles, but they are a hell of a lot more effective, and potentially tee up a great attacking opportunity if done in the opponents half of the pitch.
Those two reasons then are why I think we favour ball playing centrebacks, and I set out my reasons in the previous article why I’m not in favour of an aerial monster of a defender unless they have other abilities too. It’s easy for fans to scream “we need a X. Y and Z” when we concede a goal, it’s harder to look at the benefits we get from our current ball playing defence. That said, ball playing defenders, especially ones such as Koscielny who were chosen for their footballing intelligence, should be able to mark effectively at corners and free kicks, so hopefully we see some improvement in that regard after the summer. Then we’ll see the best of both worlds.
Another issue that we’ve seen in the second half of the season has been distribution from the goalkeeper. For all his strengths, Szcznesy distribution isn’t the best I’ve ever seen. That makes life a little bit more difficult: a poor pass from the goalkeeper puts the receiving player under more pressure, risking the opposition stealing possession.
The problem is compounded when you consider that a long punt almost always means gifting the opposition possession given our lack of height in attack (something that’ll be looked at in another article). This is a big issue for Arsenal: the Bolton game was a great example of how we can ping in 30+ crosses but not win a single header. It’s the same issue when the keeper has to play the ball long, headers aren’t won and we rely on pressing the second ball, hardly the most elegant of build up play.
That forces us then to build up from the back. Naturally, the opposition can make that sort of build up play tougher by pressing the back four, but if anything I’d be delighted to see a Stoke or Blackburn type side press us, as they’d not be sitting so damned deep all the time. A side coming out and battling for the ball can be passed around unless they do the pressing supremely effectively, like Barcelona. Even if the defensive pressing is perfect, most Premier League sides wouldn’t have the legs to press like Barca do, as Barca do it for a hell of a lot less time than a Blackburn would due to the ability of the Catalans on the ball.
That then leaves us with a situation where we play it out from the back relatively easily versus a side sitting deep, but then hit a brick wall (or parked bus if you like). Walter’s recent stats show that we are the masters of scoring inside the six yard box, but often it is frustrating trying to work the ball between a massed defence when it doesn’t seem to be working. Short of options, the fullbacks stay wide and we play the ball to them, and see an ineffectual cross put in, headed away by the opposing defence for us to try again. Thus the cycle continues, with us either working our way through (or getting a very lucky break from a cross) and winning the game, enduring a frustrating draw or losing thanks to a breakaway or set piece goal. The problem is a lack of height offering us more options in attack.
That leads us nicely to the deficiencies in our attacking game, and the third article in this tactical review series which will be written soon!