Does Stoke call for 4-4-2?

Over the last couple of years, the effectiveness of the 4-2-3-1 formation that Arsenal play has often been called into question. Normally when results have not been going the Gunners' way. I have never really had a problem with it. I don't think that it has been to blame for the poor defensive record Arsenal acquired. I think however, that it might be time to change for the last couple of games of the season.

Arteta's injury is a big blow for the Gunners

There has been a terrible recent history with regards to Arsenal and injures, and just when there was a need to maintain momentum and secure third place, that jinx has struck again. Walcott and Arteta, two of the standout performers in Arsenal's resurgent team, are both out until the end of the season.

Arteta has been crucial to Arsenal's balance between defence and attack, suppressing his attacking instincts to play a holding role alongside Alex Song. His signing was questioned on deadline day, many were sceptical about his ability to replace Cesc Fabregas (Arteta really tried to distance himself from being Fabregas' replacement and has played much more of the Wilshere role this season). Fast forward a few months, he has been one of Arsenal's standout performers, and has chipped in with a few spectacular and crucial goals. Ramsey was drafted in to replace him against Chelsea, but did not impress many.

Theo Walcott has been in very good form since scoring a brace in the superb 5-2 victory over Spurs, scoring against QPR, Wolves and Aston Villa since then. Arsenal saw earlier on in the season in the home draw with Wolves how much Walcott's pace and width was missed when he is unavailable. He has been subject to a fair bit of flack over the season but had been playing well and looking like completing a full season for the first time in an Arsenal shirt.

I think that in order to retain the defence/attack balance and width that Arteta and Walcott provided the Gunners may need to switch to formation to 4-4-2. I think that there are a number of reasons for this:

1) Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain: A very promising player with good technical ability, Chamberlain has displayed tactical naivety when playing out wide. He has a habit of dropping back into the central midfield role he prefers. You might be able to do that in League 1, but not in the Premier League. He also can be reckless with the ball, trying to take on one man too many, again he has not quite worked out that he is playing against Premiership defenders now.

2) Gervinho: I am not a fan of Gervinho. He lacks a first touch, any finishing ability, any ability on his weak foot and is unable to cross a football. I do not feel that he keeps up with play and is poor defensively too, often leaving his tracking back until it is too late. I would also question how well he will be able to handle Stoke's physicality.

3) Aaron Ramsey: Ramsey is never going to be at his best playing in the Arteta/Wilshere role. He is a more creative player and does lack some defensive discipline.

I believe that a 4-4-2 offers Arsenal a way out of these problems. In theory, it can work without much width (unlike what is shown in the suggested team below) which would eradicate the issue with the lack of wide players. I think that Arsenal should field the following team versus Stoke:

My team selection vs. Stoke City

 There are some changes that could be made, Chamberlain could be picked ahead of Benayoun for example. I think that Chamakh's aerial presence would be advantageous against a tall Stoke side, he would be able to act as a pivot for Robin van Persie to operate off of.

 

Another alternative, which may suit the players Arsenal have available better is to play a 4-1-2-1-2, as demonstrated below:

 

The 4-1-2-1-2 option

This might work better for the likes of Ramsey and Benayoun, allowing them to play a more central role. Both formations mean that Gibbs and Sagna would be required to provide all the width but provided Song is disciplined enough to play the holding role all game it could work.

 

Would you go 4-4-2 or stick with 4-2-3-1? Let me know through Twitter (@Goonernl) or the comments below.

 

Arsenal, Barcelona & Chelsea

Watching Barcelona passing the ball around the edge of Chelsea's penalty area for 85 minutes on Tuesday gave me a strange sense of déjà vu. That Saturday, Arsenal had spent a fair bit of time in possession, but not really going anywhere. The game plans that Arsenal and Barcelona have are very similar, amounting to pass them off the park until a gap appears in the defence and a beautiful through ball can be played. But what happens when that isn't working?

Arsenal have, on occasion demonstrated that they do have a plan B. Sort of. You know that Arsenal are being frustrated and are desperate for a goal when Marouane Chamakh comes on for the last 20 minutes and the tactics supposedly change to lump it into the box as often as possible, and hope someone gets their head on it. The point that Thomas Vermaelen starts playing up top too, is when you know things are going really badly. The thing is this is a ploy that has been working fairly well for Arsenal, wins against Newcastle and Manchester City demonstrating Arsenal's increased resilience and decreased reliance on passing the ball into the net, but what about Barcelona, what is their backup plan?

Watching Barcelona getting nowhere against Chelsea in the second half, you couldn't help but realise one of their main weaknesses. They're too arrogant. Los Blaugranas pass the ball around, expecting a gap to appear in the defence, too proud to try anything else. There seems to be this swagger about them that says: "We are the best team in the world. Your defence must let us score by presenting us with a gaping hole between the centre backs!" Chelsea didn't, Torres scored. Barcelona crashed out. But there was one thing that Barcelona did not try that may well have won them the tie; shooting from range.

In the second half, I think that Barca had two cracks from distance. Someone blazed one miles over the bar from a position where he was never really going to score and Messi hit the post. I spotted several more opportunities than that after I started trying to spot them on about 60 minutes, but Messi and co were just too proud to stoop to that level. It was the same at Stamford Bridge, pass it around, get nowhere. Other than Messi's penalty, the closest Barcelona got to scoring in the second half was when his long range effort smacked off the post. For me, Barca should have been doing that much more, get someone in space 20 or 25 yards out, and just hit it. If you do that 10 times in a game, one of those is going to go in. The law of averages says so. Forget Messi's missed penalty, forget Chelsea's resolute defending, if Barcelona had been pragmatic, they would have changed tactics, allowed themselves to shoot outside the area, and quite possibly reached the final.

Messi & Barcelona crash out of the Champions League

I do not want to take anything away from Chelsea's defensive performance, it was heroic (especially after John Terry's stupidity) but Barcelona made it easy for them. If Chelsea knew that Barca were going to take pot shots, they would have had to defend higher up the pitch and that would have given Barcelona the space that they needed to play their normal, beautiful game. It is something Arsenal have realised this season, sometimes, you just have to win ugly.

As for John Terry, he is an idiot. Not only to commit the offence in the first place, but to then claim it was an accident after. He knows full well that there are a vast number of cameras filming the game and that pundits will analyse the replays, how he thought that 'it was an accident' would cut it, I would really like to know. There was some speculation in the papers yesterday that he would not be allowed to lift the trophy were Chelsea to beat Bayern, something that was later dismissed by UEFA, but if I was in charge at Chelsea I would not let him. His stupidity so nearly cost them a place in the final he does not deserve to hold it aloft.

I have heard some people criticising the timing of Pep Guardiola's departure from Barca, but I do not think that this is a recent decision. I suspect that he has been planning to step down for some time, and recent results have maybe made that easier to do. He confirmed that in his press conference this morning too: "At the beginning of December I announced to the chairman that I was seeing the end of my era at Barcelona. Obviously we couldn't say that publicly. Now we are out of the two main competitions it is a good time to announce this. I did not want to continue with the confusion. The reason is simple: four years is enough. The new coach will give things that I am unable to give any more. To be in front of the media every three days for four years is very demanding" The Barcelona job comes with immense pressure, managing the best team in the world isn't easy. It means you are the side everyone else really, really wants to beat. Not only that, the expectation is for silverware every season, and that is never, ever easy. I am sure he'll be successful wherever he decides to go next, and I would not be at all surprised to see him back in the Barcelona dugout at some point in the future. We all forget that he is only 41! He will be replaced by Tito Vilanova, who is currently Guardiola's assistant.

Do you think that something else cost Barca? Should Terry lift the trophy? Let me know your views through my Twitter (@Goonernl) or in the comments below.

Arsenal Confirm Eisfeld Capture + Miyaichi & Gibbs

Arsenal have officially confirmed the capture of the young German Thomas Eisfeld. A 19 year old attacking midfielder, Eisfeld has six goals in twelve appearances for Borussia Dortmund's under-19 team this season. The youngster has signed on a 'long-term contract' for a reported £400k.

Wenger has said that Eisfeld has "the attitude and technical ability to be a valuable addition to our squad." He has already trained at the club and it is rumoured that he will be involved in the reserve game against Swansea tomorrow. It is unlikely that he will have any first team involvement this season Wenger stating that the club "planned to get him at the end of the season but we got him a bit earlier because he was at the end of his contract." The rest of this season is being described as an "adaptation" period.

It was reported yesterday that Eisfeld was subject to an extended medical, following a torn anterior cruciate ligament (knees) in 2009. Probably not the signing Gunners fans were wishing for, the German is definitely one for the future, but has definitely got the potential to make it.

In other deadline day business, youngster Ryo Myaichi has joined Bolton on loan for the rest of the season, where the Japanese 19 year old will take the number 30 shirt (according to Young Guns Blog). Owen Coyle said of Myaichi: "He's a young player with tremendous promise and potential and hopefully at Bolton we can give him a platform on which he can display his qualities." Fulham were also said to be interested, but Miyaichi will join up to fight against relegation with Bolton. He will not be eligible for Arsenal's visit to Bolton on Wednesday, due to Premier League rules. He has made two substitute appearances for the Gunners in the Carling Cup this season. A fantastic player who should excel at the Reebok.

Kieran Gibbs also made a successful return to training with the squad on Monday and is expected to be match fit within the next fortnight.

Do you expect these starlets to make it? Who should Wenger have taken the opportunity to bring in? Let me know on Twitter (@Goonernl) or in the comments below.

The Left Back Conundrum; who will sign?

Arsenal's recovery seemed to be totally on track, but then the injuries started. First to go was Bacary Sagna, breaking his leg at White Hart Lane. Then it was Kieran Gibbs who suffered a hernia, the undeniably talented and injury prone full back was all set for a post-Christmas return against Wolves, before he had a setback and is not now expected to return until Febuary. Carl Jenkinson had been improving rapidly before he suffered a stress fracture to his back. Three full backs down one to go. Summer signing Andre Santos (literally) fell away at Olympiakos, suffering ligament damage in his ankle and is now out until at least March, following surgery.

With no full backs left on the books, Vermaelen had been doing a solid job at left back and Djourou had just about been coping on the right. Then went Vermaelen, who suffered a calf injury against QPR. Sidelined for at least two weeks. Up stepped Coquelin, who filled in quite well for the game against Fulham. When Djourou managed to get himself sent off, after Bobby Zamora exaggerated some slight contact. That leaves Arsenal with three fit senior centre backs and Ignasi Miquel (who does look to be a good if inexperienced player). The back four against Leeds then is likely to be Kosciely Mertesacker Squillaci Miquel. It's a back four that should be able to cope against Championship opposition but beyond that, it is hard to see how Arsenal will cope. What then is the solution? A few have been suggested and I will go through them now:

Wayne Bridge (Manchester City)

Bridge is the name that has been being suggested for longest, though many Arsenal fans have greeted it with dismay, despite his Champions League experience, Bridge hasn't played a Premier League game yet this term and was unconvincing during his loan spell at West Ham last season. His £90,000 per week wages are also a large stumbling block for Arsenal and the possibility of seeing Wayne Bridge in an Arsenal shirt does seem to be diminishing.

Taye Taiwo (AC Milan)

Taiwo's agent has rubbished reports linking his player with Arsenal, and generally when that happens, the move is most definitely off.  As Champions League rivals it is hard to see Milan loaning the Nigerian to Arsenal, he is not a first team regular at the San Siro - with only four league appearances this season - so this could mean that Milan would listen to a permanent offer. Although this is an avenue Wenger is reluctant to explore.

Keiran Richardson (Sunderland)

The Gunners have reportedly had a loan bid for Richardson turned down by Sunderland, other sources (that I am more inclined to believe) state that Arsenal have no interest in the former Manchester United man and that there has definitely been no rejection of a loan bid. A versatile player, Richardson can play at left back, left midfield and as a second striker. New Sunderland manager Martin O'Neill has said that he wants no January departures, so a loan bid would appear to be a certain no go for Wenger.

Neil Taylor (Swansea)

The Sun has linked Taylor with a sensational switch to North London; the former Wrexham man has only half a season's Premiership experience and would be a massive gamble. As Brendan Rodgers first choice left back, the Swans are unlikely to be willing to entertain the idea of loaning him to the Gunners for the rest of the season, and it is likely that only a large fee would tempt them into selling, though he is halfway into a three year deal.

Saad al-Mukhaini (Fanja SC)

An unknown in the UK al-Mukhaini has 23 caps for Oman since his debut in 2009. The 24 year old plays in the Omani second division with Fanja SC, and will join up with the Gunners for a two day trail as soon as all his travel paperwork is completed. Carrying a price tag of £250,000, the left back was recommended to Wenger by Paul Le Guen - former Lyon and Rangers manager. According to Mohammed al Alawi, Oman national team manager, Arsenal scouts have been watching al-Mukhaini "for a while." He also says that al-Mukhaini is a "very talented footballer." Arsenal fans have generally greeted this news with suspicion and disappointment, but it would serve them well to remember Wenger's history of taking unknowns and turning them into stars.

It will be interesting to see who Arsenal do sign this transfer window as cover in the full back position. Any arrivals other than a full back and Thierry Henry do seem unlikely though, although many a clamouring for a new striker to support van Persie. Henry's deal is also being held up, and it is believed that a debut against Leeds United in the FA Cup is less and less likely. We can only hope for positive news on that soon.

Are any of the above the solution to the left back conundrum? Tweet me http://twitter.com/#!/Goonernl or leave a comment below. 

Is Carlos Vela's Arsenal Career Over?

Carlos Vela

In November 2005 the father of then 16 year old Carlos Vela announced that his son was on his way to Arsenal, having signed a 5 year deal, commanding a transfer fee of around £2m. Albeit not really starting at the club until 2008, due to work permit issues. Five years after originally signing, his Arsenal future was in doubt. A year after that it appears to be non-existent.

In a question and answer session at the Emirates today, Arsene Wenger had this to say about his strikers: "We lose players like Chamakh and Gervinho to the Africa Cup of Nations, so hopefully touch wood we do not get any injuries to our strikers. But if an opportunity turns up in that department then we will buy." Vela is undoubtedly a talented striker, a glance through his goals in an Arsenal shirt show that much, but he has never seemed to be able to put in the right performances at the right time. Arsenal fans have often only seen his best when he has been wearing a Mexico shirt. Currently on loan at Real Sociedad, Vela seems to have found his feet in Spain, with two goals in three games, including the fantastic overhead kick against Malaga, pictured below. 

Vela scores a stunner on loan at Real Sociedad

Capable of playing through the middle or wide left, Vela still is an exciting talent, but things have never really clicked for him in N5. A hat-trick against Sheffield United and numerous cheeky chips have shown the Arsenal fans what he can do, but he's never really had a run of games to prove himself. With such a talented player on the books, I can't help but feel that Arsenal would be better placed to look to recall Vela from his loan spell, rather than looking to splash the cash on a new player. Prices are, of course, always inflated in January.

With Marouane Chamakh being reported as increasingly unsettled at the club, Niklas Bendtner wanting away and Park unproven there may be opportunities for Vela through the middle at some point soon. Andrei Arshavin also seems increasingly likely to leave, being well and truly behind Gervinho in the pecking order - though he will have the ACN period in January to prove himself - there may also be opportunities for Vela on the left of the front three in 2012/13. Personally, I feel that it would be a real shame to see him leave, I have always liked him as a player and still believe that he can make it at the Emirates; so long as he gets a run of games. If he doesn't get the chance to succeed at Arsenal, I can definitely see him becoming a top player somewhere else, another one that might get away.

Should Vela be given another chance at Arsenal? Comments or Twitter as always!!

The Arsenal Back 4

Santos clutches his injured right ankle vs. Olympiacos

Yesterday Arsenal confirmed that summer signing Andre Santos will be out for around three months, following the decision to send him to Brazil for surgery after damaging ligaments in his right ankle in the Olymipiacos game last week. This news compounds Arsenal's defensive problems, with Kieran Gibbs and Bacary Sagna all out injured too. Both Jenkinson and Gibbs are around two to three weeks away from any return to first team action and Sagna is unlikely to return before January - although he tweeted yesterday that he expects to be back running soon.

In the 1-0 victory over Everton, Arsenal fielded 4 centre backs and it showed. There was a real lack of width, the Gunners struggling when attempting to work the ball wide. Many are also unconvinced by the pairing of Per Mertesacker and Laurent Koscielny in the centre of defence. It must be said that they played much better as a duo on Saturday than in their last outing together. Koscielny had been providing cover at right back in recent weeks, but was shifted into the centre of defence to allow Thomas Vermaelen to provide cover at left back. This combination worked alright, but Johan Djourou did not look comfortable at full back. I personally feel that reverting back to the centre half pairing of Mertesacker and Vermaelen with Koscielny at right back would be a sensible move. Koscielny definitely is more comfortable going forward and providing the width to work with Theo Walcott in attack. 

In order to do that, the issue of who plays left back comes to the fore. From an attacking perspective I think that the solution is simple and is Ignasi Miquel. From what we saw against Olympiacos he is comfortable going forward – he provided the original cross in the build-up to Arsenal’s goal – however he is an inexperienced player. If the game this weekend was not against Manchester City, then I would have no issue whatsoever with starting the young Spaniard. He has had some game time this season, getting a good run out in the 2-0 reverse against Liverpool and some good performances in the Carling Cup. All these things suggest that he is ready to be given a chance at the weekend, his assured performance against City in the League Cup can only count in his favour, and I feel that he would help to provide some of the width that Arsenal will need to create chances at the weekend. It will be a very tough ask to work opportunities on goal if everything is going through the middle of the pitch.

Looking beyond this weekend though, I believe that it would be sensible for Wenger to look to bring in some cover in the full back position for the second half of the season. With two capable left backs in Santos and Gibbs a loan move is probably most likely and most sensible. I have seen suggestions that Wayne Bridge should be brought in from City temporarily, and I feel that this could well be a sensible option. With a sizeable amount of Premier League experience, and some in the Champions League he may well represent the best short term solution with Gibbs unlikely to be fit until January (and an unconvincing injury record) and Santos now out for the majority of the season.

Who do you think should be brought in as cover? Is it even needed? Let me know on http://twitter.com/#!/Goonernl or in the comments below.

Mixed Messages from the FA

On a day when many have screamed hypocrisy at the FA about Wayne Rooney, this isn't really about that, this is to talk about some of the other things that the FA is saying one thing about, and doing another. Like coaching.

To start this, I need to give you some of my own background. I am 17 years old and a Level 2 football coach. Almost all of my coaching is on a voluntary basis, though I occasionally do some paid work for my local football league club's community department. I give up my Saturdays to coach at my local grassroots club, my lunchtimes to coach younger kids in my school and I give up any afternoons I have free from lessons to coach kids at my old school. I do this for nothing, yet it has cost me nearly £300 to get to the level of qualification I have. Some people will be thinking that that is a lot, which it is, but my county FA offer courses to under 19s for half price. The reality is that with a Level 2 you're not going to be coaching much more than grassroots football, but will have spent £500 or £600 to get there.

I can understand the cost of these though, the need for administration fees, the need to pay for a course venue and for a course tutor. Where it becomes ridiculous though is when you look to progress further up the ladder, to get your UEFA B Licence. That will cost you somewhere in the region of £1000. The FA talks of how it wants to increase the number of grassroots coaches there are in England, yet the UEFA B costs that much. To put things into perspective, until January 2011 the UEFA B equivalent Level 3 Certificate in Coaching Football could be completed with a county FA for less than half the cost by an adult, and for me, I would have been able to do it for £200. What justification can there possibly be for that increase? Not only is the course now far beyond what I and the vast majority of grassroots coaches can afford, but I am no longer able to go on the course, because of new age restrictions. You must now be 20 years old, rather than 17 a year ago.

The FA says that there is fewer than 10% of the number of UEFA B qualified coaches in England than countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Germany. I can't understand why. The cost in Spain is almost exactly the same, so it's not that. The FA must be getting something else wrong somewhere though for there to be such a significant difference.

Another cast that has gone up recently is for the re-branded FA Coaches Association. In it's new guise as The FA Licensed Coaches Club, it costs £20 more than last season for the same package, with nothing really different other than the look of the website. The website is - by the way - woeful, it looks nice, but the content leaves much to be desired. I read part one of an article on the guided discovery approach to coaching, which was informative and interesting, and promised part 2 next week. A month and a half later part 2 still hasn't materialised and my email moan 2 weeks ago hasn't even been acknowledged. That is poor.

Another issue with FALCC is the necessity for CPD. I was of the opinion that this was a really good idea, but then I saw how much it was going to cost to do the relevant CPD each year. As with everything else the FA does, it's not cheap. Last weekend it was the FALCC's annual coaching conference at Wembley, for which tickets were originally on sale for a mere £69.95 for Level 1 and 2 coaches or over £100 for UEFA B, A and Pro licence holders. Cheap. Obviously not a best seller either, as halfway through last week I received an email offering me a ticket for half price. For the FA's big grassroots coaching event, that should be the envy of everyone, the top ticket in town, to be offering the tickets at half price, six days before the event, something must be going wrong. It's not like the conference had a bad line up either, with speakers such as Sir Trevor Brooking, Gareth Southgate and Stuart Pearce. I think that the FA have gone wrong with the pricing. Again.

In the world we live in, life is more and more expensive. I've been making a loss even when I've been doing paid coaching paying for my petrol to get to work and back, yet the FA has increasing revenue streams, with their foreign TV deals being renewed for a reported £48m this week. To me it seems that they have the resources to be able to offer the likes of the FALCC conference to members for nothing, to provide free CPD opportunities - after all, it's the FA that will benefit in the long run, with better players coming through the ranks and into the England set up.

So I really do think that what the FA is saying is all posturing, sounding good for the press. I'm yet to see any evidence to back up their claims over how hard they're trying to improve grassroots football. They're all about making money. I just think that it would be nice for the press to start asking the FA what is actually happening to improve the quality of coaching at grassroots level and the number of qualified coaches at grassroots clubs. It would be interesting to see what they could come back with.