Yesterday, I asked a series of questions on Twitter in order to help me clarify the style of football Unai Emery deploys at Arsenal. For me there is no question that he has a style – whether that’s a style I like or agree with is a totally different question and not at all the point of this exercise. Here, all I want to do is define the style.
In order to do that I asked five questions. Here are the questions, the answers I received, and some conclusions I drew from those answers.
1) Was there a comprehensive “Emeryball” performance that you can think of from the last 18 months? What was it and what were the characteristics of that performance that made it so good?
People got a bit peeved at this question because they hate when people throw “ball” at the end of a manager’s name and that’s fair enough. But the question asks which performances did you really like from Arsenal. Some folks picked the Chelsea game. We lost that match but it was wide open, wild, and fun. Just to keep us honest, that game was a 442 diamond with Guendouzi and Torreira along Xhaka. Ramsey in the tip, Aubameyang and Lacazette up front together.
Another one that fans picked was the 4-2 win over Spurs. Once again, the second half, when Emery brought on Guendouzi for Mustafi, the Gunners went into a 442 with a diamond midfield. Again, Torreira, Guendouzi, and Xhaka. Again, a fun match which we nearly won.
That brings me to the Liverpool match. The only substantial difference between those games above and Liverpool is that we started with a 442 diamond, Ceballos was at the point rather than Ramsey, Willock played instead of Torreira, and instead of a holdup forward (Lacazette), we played with two speedy forwards. Another big problem here is that Ceballos was clearly caught by surprise by the speed of Liverpool.
All of this is to say that I think the 442 diamond might be Emery’s preferred system, especially against “big” clubs.
2) Can that “Emeryball” performance be repeated against most of the teams in the League? In other words, is that our plan A as a football team? If so, how often is Emery deploying plan A?
No one really answered this so I will. I don’t think this is Emery’s main plan. Against Burnley we started with a 4231 and then morphed into a 352. Against Newcastle it was a 4231 throughout the match.
This answers the next question: 3) Is there a plan B? How many plans would you say Emery has for Arsenal? How many of them are effective?
Emery’s Arsenal changes formations a lot. He doesn’t seem to have one plan and I think that is clear by the fact that he changes plans radically at half time in games. In a very real way Arsenal have gone from a Popovich type manager – who focuses almost all of his energy on his own team and getting them to play their best – to a manager who reacts to his opponents. That’s not meant as a judgement, I don’t think one way is better than another. Both managers have been very successful.
4) Why doesn’t Arsenal press as a unit? I’ve seen most other teams across europe able to press as a unit and they don’t spend a ton on players. In fact, you don’t need special players to press, you need a plan, why don’t we have a pressing game?
No one has an answer for this. One person said that he went back and watched some Sevilla matches and that Emery likes to only press with his forwards.
It’s been well over a year and I think it’s time I give up on the idea that Arsenal under Emery are going to be a pressing team. He is a manager who invites pressure rather than applies it.
In a sense that fits his more reactionary coaching style. He is a counter-puncher, he wants to outthink the opponent. Again, please don’t see this as hating him, he has been very successful. I am just trying to define his style.
5) People seem to believe that Bellerin/Tierney is the only reason why Emery hasn’t been able to implement his system. What exactly do these two players offer and if they are unique and irreplaceable, doesn’t that indicate that the system isn’t very well designed?
Another question that sort of went unanswered. However, there was one person who asked “why do you think Pep spent 200m on fullbacks”. There is a trend in modern football of the wingback as king.
Liverpool’s fullbacks are clearly a huge part of their system, Man City’s fullbacks as well, and even under Wenger I noted how important Arsenal’s fullbacks were to the possession game. When one had a bad game passing (Bellerin for example) the whole team struggled. In essence the modern fullback plays both as an attacking wide midfielder and defender.
So, I do think that the belief that getting Arsenal’s best fullbacks in the game is going to improve Arsenal’s overall possession and wide attack is legit.
However, a few caveats. I hope we don’t heap too much pressure on Bellerin. During the Wenger years and under Emery for a few games he was sometimes not up to snuff in terms of his passing numbers. It is a team game and nothing proves that more than pass completion percentages which are often as much a product of skill as running and teamwork. Bellerin was also one of Arsenal’s most error-prone defenders. He’s made more ricks than Mustafi. I’m not tearing this guy down. I’m lowering your expectations because I think we are in danger of nearly deifying this player. He is coming back from injury, he is young, the team will need time to adjust to him and vice-versa.
And as far as Tierney. I have nothing but love for this kid but he is only arriving as “well he has to be better than Kolasinac.” Kolasinac is one of Arsenal’s least reliable passers. Under pressure I have seen him go 50% passing. Great going forward, cutback king, but not great when you need someone to help play the ball out from the back.
All that is to say that I do agree with the folks who want to see Emery’s systems deployed with the best fullbacks.
Anyway, I hope this helps to define Emery’s systems. I feel like he’s a counter-puncher. I think he likes to deploy an attacking player high in midfield, through a variety of systems (352 and 442 diamond). I think the idea of a coordinated press is dead. And I think that playing it out from the back will be significantly improved when Arsenal can deploy fullbacks who are better passers, quicker, and more technically adept.
Thanks everyone for putting up with me.
A fantastically measured piece. I know you’re not a fan of Emery, so I appreciate your willingness to consider that he does in fact have preferred systems, not always eye-catching.
I think a lot of people, including myself, got taken in with his “protagonist” comment, which we’ve hung on his neck like a millstone. It’s time to forget it. Either he misused the word because English is not his language (though ‘protagonista’ in Spanish means much the same thing), or he meant it in a way that we didn’t catch. Regardless, it doesn’t seem to have much pertinence to his playing style if you think it means “always attack with all the possession,” because he has playing styles, plural, and it depends on the opposition.
I mentioned the Arsecast Extra the other day and what James said about his approach to big games. I don’t have time to summarize all his points, but they seemed pertinent. I guess I’d urge you to listen, if you have the time; and by the way, he and Andrew disagree on Emery’s approach to Liverpool. For me, though, what James said made a lot of sense. It may or may not to you. Basically, he admitted we played Liverpool like a “small club” but that it was inevitable because we are a weaker club to Liverpool, and playing like that is in fact how you win against big clubs. You sit back, absorb pressure, and hope to hit them on a counter. He cited Newcastle’s win over Spurs as an example. He did, however (if I remember correctly, I may not), say that we shouldn’t expect to play this way against United at Old Trafford, Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, and Spurs at the Giant Toilet. We are not light years behind these teams like we are against City and Liverpool (especially away). Perhaps there this season, we’ll be protagonists. I don’t know.
Tim, I’m with you on Bellerin. I’ve been urging his importance for months now, but a) that’s largely because the only alternative we have in that position is someone who’s learning as he goes, and b) I have to admit you’re right about his consistency in terms of defending. I guess I’m just hoping for a specialist to return in that position, and I think it will make a difference to our performances (and I include Tierney in that, though I’ve never seen him play).
I have noticed how you view things and James points reminded me of you. I think though that you two might be missing the point that most are trying to make, which is that, we are different from the teams that go to big sides and play that way. The way we played isn’t wrong to us because we think we can go toe to toe with Liverpool. We, or at least myself and I assume Tim, see it as bad because it is football that stops us from developing, getting better and reaching Liverpool’s level.
If we were going to Liverpool for a result, then I wouldn’t complain, but we are a side that is trying to develop into what Liverpool are. The way he approached that game does not teach us anything about where we are as a side compared to the Champions of Europe, because we went there with an already predetermined notion of where we are. We have new players and its a new season, and yet a game of this magnitude hasn’t shown us the scope of their capabilities because we purposefully inhibited ourselves.
I understand what he usually tries to do, but I think its wrong because we still need to improve and the playing for a result in that way at this point is basically at the expense of the development of Arsenal as a side. Performances like that are only meaningful if we get a lucky result, because winning a game like that will not be because we were the better side, but if we lose, we do not take anything out of such a game, and that should not be for a side that should be evolving and developing to reach where the top sides are.
Look at Liverpool, It was not too long ago where they were exposed by Emery’s Sevilla, but they didn’t neglect, alter or sideline the way they wanted to play for a Europa league final at a time where they probably wanted it as much as we do right now, they did the same in the Champions league final. Pep’s City side was kind of a joke in his first season. He didn’t alter or sideline the development of the side just to pick up points because he knew what he was building towards.
I told my younger brother that Unai’s first season in charge would be a wasted season for Arsenal if he doesn’t get results because we will not go into the following season as a better side if he continues to neglect the team’s development or learn how his way of playing will translate to English football. We missed out on everything last season, can you tell me what positive in play we can say Arsenal took from it?
Tactically he has a plan, every manager basically does. His style is based on results in a side that isn’t good enough and he is playing this way at the expense of Arsenal developing. Basically we will be going to Liverpool next season , Again, not knowing the weak or strong points of what Arsenal is trying to develop into, and not knowing what weaknesses Kopp’s Liverpool has either. So yes we were always going to lose to Liverpool at Anfield, but at least try to learn something about yourself or the opposition while at it, instead of just reinforcing public perception.
Its basically, Short term-ism vs Long term-ism.
Thanks for your response, Devlin.
I would like to push back on the small mentality angle. I may have given away too much, and maybe James did as well. Small teams don’t play it out from the back. We did. And re: predetermined, that’s one way to describe it. Another way to describe it is respecting the opposition. I’m seriously baffled that people want us to go play expansive football at Anfield right now. We tried that last year (and in previous years) and got hammered 5-1. This year Emery responded by going to the midfield diamond and narrowing the defence. It should have worked. What we should be talking about is why it didn’t, because, for me, tactical decisions in hindsight is just that, hindsight, and asking to play Liverpool by stretching our players across the field is madness.
I went and listened to it. I agree with Andrew.
Here’s what I think we all agree to: Arsenal are supposed to lose that match, away to Anfield against Europe’s best team. They are virtually unbeatable when they have all of their components flying. So, the question then is “what do we do?”
It’s clear that Emery’s game plan was to invite the fullbacks forward so we could exploit the space behind with Auba and Pepe. I even tweeted that I liked the plan in the first half, that it made sense. I will admit that it was at least a plan and kudos to him to the guts to play them like that. But in the end it failed as it will do most times when we try to play that way.
That’s where I agree with Andrew. What are our strengths? Attack. We are a crazy top heavy team right now. What’s our weakness? Defense. So, in a crazy way, we set up to be opposite of our strengths! It’s not a surprise that when he finally brought on Torreira and Lacazette we scored. So, I think my main beef with Emery is that he’s too conservative and passive. That if you’re going to lose a game it’s better to go out with guns blazing than to keep the powder dry. Attack them! Attack the ball! Attack attack attack!
And I have to say that I’m (the only one in the world) who is once again concerned by Emery’s lack of attack. We are 3rd in the table but once again we have excruciatingly low xG and high xGA. I know that those things don’t really matter but after a year of the same thing, it’s really frustrating to me. I guess I just want him to play more aggressive football.
For me the thinking was – what’s our strength? Attack. So that means we can do more with less in that department. Let’s shore up our weakness. Anyone that disagrees with that line of thinking has about 6 matches of the other approach to explain, all of which went wrong in different ways, but with the common denominator of us trying to impose ourselves and imploding for the trouble.
This philosophy stuff is great if we have our first pick of players. We don’t. Ideally we sign a Mertesacker replacement and a non-injured left back. On top of the Raul Haul (TM). That’s the price of wanting to impose your style in the best games – even if you’re Klopp, or Guardiola.
Besides, last weekend doesn’t have to be our template for anywhere other than City and Liverpool away. This is where I wonder about your Popovich comparison- he’s lasted by being staunchly non-ideological. He faced a crisis with Kawhi (Ramsey? Ozil?) – he responded by changing his team’s style to one that is considered plodding, and outdated, but which worked. He’s played the Beautiful Game, twin towers, iso ball, has a reputation for knowing his opponent’s playbook almost better than they do, and is more comparable to Ferguson than Wenger (it gives me very little pleasure to say that). Emery at his very, very best could emulate Popovich, I had given up all hope of Wenger ever doing so.
I find watching this team sometimes baffling, but on the whole engaging, and often pretty exciting. It feels like watching the whole of Ocean’s 11, instead of just the scenes where they’re walking out of the casino in FBI gear. The other 80 minutes were strictly pointless misdirection, but so is most of life, in a sense. It also feels like not having to watch Rush Hour for the 40th time – the sugar rush of the first time carries you til about the 30th rewatch, then you can’t ignore it’s all a bit slapdash and leaned heavily on its leads.
That’s a great comment, T. I’m with you.
Thanks, enjoy reading your thoughts as well!
We’re ploughing an increasingly lonely furrow, though. He’d better smash Spurs 4-0. Or atleast pull an Arsenal special – 75% possession for a 1-0.
TH – agreed. Until we have players that can compete, we have to play different styles of football to have a chance at points. I’m with Bun and you on this. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is… what Arsenal have been doing for some time.
This is fantastic Tim. You nailed it. He is reactive more than proactive. I think we would all prefer the latter but that’s not Emery. And the lack of pressing is really disappointing. The one hope I can hold out is that with speedy, skilled fullbacks he might have a team that finally can press. But I won’t hold my breath.
Did Emery say that he was going to be a protagonist on the pitch or did we make.it up? Is a counterpunching protagonist a thing?
A protagonist in one of those novels where things spiral out of control is still a protaganist….
This made me LOL
Umm… Rocky.
People watch the same movies and come to different conclusions I guess. Much like matches.
But I’m amazed you think the point of Rocky’s greatness was that he would counter attack Apollo Creed, rather than be willing to take on a favourite and go all out, win or lose. (And as the sequels showed, build on that loss to rise to becoming more)
The argument is not – don’t take on Liverpool. It is that there is a way to take on, and beat Liverpool.
Which is to absorb a bunch of pressure and catch them when their focus and/or intensity drops – le foot a la Rocky.
The alternative – all chips in because we’re dead anyway, is the small club mentality. It comes from believing that our highest aspiration is entertainers, never winners. I think there’s a balance to be struck there.
I don’t think the tactics themselves are ‘bad’. I agree that there’s a balance to be struck. Just think Emery got the balance wrong.
The idea that we should also get at Liverpool is not a call for going all gung ho. But we allowed Liverpool to dominate our thinking, our preparation, and didn’t allow our own talent the space and opportunity to shine. We played to not lose, and hoped to win. Which is Emery’s constant almost. And that’s a problem beyond this one game.
Re Shard – fair enough.
I’m definitely looking for us to dominate Spurs – 4 past them like last year would be nice.
Emery was asked about his style. “My idea is to be protagonists,” he said. “The history here is a team that love playing with possession and I like that personality. When you don’t have possession, I want a squad that are very, very intensive with the pressing. The two things are important for me to be protagonists – possession of the ball and pressing when you don’t have the ball.”
SCAM ALERT!
Possession is a function of a team’s overall technical ability; strong passes to feet that don’t hop or skip on the ground, good first touch on reception, ability to drop a shoulder, look to one side and shimmy to the other all just to gain a yard of space, crisp intelligent movements away from the ball to make yourself an option, rehearsed passing patterns… I see very little of all that. Ceballos is a breath of fresh air – he will help immensely as will Pepe because they have the skill to make space for themselves, as does Ozil. Torreira has good possession ability and can ferry the ball out of tight spots. But Guendouzi is a horrible passer at the moment, sorry if that’s harsh, and the fact that he’s amongst the most fouled players tells me he’s getting the ball in traffic too much. Xhaka is the anti-thesis of crisp movement and is a shite outlet for defenders, he is way to slow to present himself as an outlet option. Willock was jogging at times on Saturday when a short burst into space to show for the ball was called for and if I were coaching the young man I’d be showing him endless clips of moments where he needed to make a 4 or 5 yard burst to gain separation from the Liverpool press. The fewer touches Auba gets the better, he is not good at retaining the ball.
So, overall, I think although Emery may have showed up last year thinking he wanted to play a more traditional Iberian possession style – but we don’t have the horses. To be fair – nobody does anymore, only City. But what Liverpool have done is decide hey, if we’re not going to be technically brilliant, we’re going to be athletically brilliant and press the hell out of opponents and win the ball back more.
In basketball there’s a wonderful stat, possessions per game, which is indicative of the tempo, ability to win the ball back and rebounding efficiency. If there were a similar stat I’m sure Liverpool would be off the charts.
Now in our 2nd season with this guy, we still can’t press ourselves out of a wet paper bag. Adaptability, in-game fluidity without pressing. Is this a recipe for success or mediocrity? Do we really have the guys that can do this?
No doubt we will improve with Holding, Tierney and Bellerin back into the fold and giving a semblance of defensive competence but I’m still confused by what’s going on. Would Emery have gotten out the best out my favourite post-Invincibles player, Santi Cazorla?
Who is your favourite post-Invincibles player? Besides Gervinho or Yaya Sanogo, I mean…
Really think Bellerin will need time, also think he will be so much better passing the ball, because of the injury he had to work on his Left foot (leading to that video of him saying that he’s playing like Cazorla). If only Niles could work on his first touch that is horrendous for a player at this level he would be a much more reliable player. Kolasinac will be good to play against the sides that like to sit back.
Let me try to define Emery’s style, as I see it.
1. Build-up play and composure.
Emery at Arsenal and PSG has tended to employ some really deep build-up play, and for many, that has been used to symbolise his way as not being reactionary. Don’t get me wrong, Emery is really good at coaching this aspect of play and places some serious confidence in his players to stay composed in the face of really extreme presses. I still remember Kimpembe dribbling past Messi, during their win against Barcelona. But his build-up isn’t really a build-up to transition the ball into it being played in the opposition half for a sustained period of time, but a ploy to drag teams into our half and create space in behind them, which PSG did excellently against Barcelona. Pep’s sides play out from the back to discourage pressing from the opposition, so their passing rotates from the centre of defence, to midfield, out-wide, back to the center, and so on and so forth, that way they scare the opposition back into their own half. The same applies for Tottenham, who are a little bit more willing to expose any space in behind because they are not as focused on possession as City. Liverpool lay out badly, but they put so much pressure up front that they can tire you out, or kick long and force turnovers or pick up the second ball, but they focus on playing in the opposition half so much that they basically give you the ball to win it back in your own half.
2. Transition after beating the initial press.
This to me is Emery’s biggest problem tactically, and its not down to the quality of personnel because these same players did it so well at their previous sides and earlier Arsenal teams. So what this phase is, is when we have our players beyond the opposition’s attackers and a part of the midfield, and the ball carrier is facing the game in front of them. Arsene used a lot of free form for his attacking players, usually 4 players, in this phase, and that’s when his sides where most dangerous. The problems come when the transition doesn’t work and the players have to now turn to building possession. Emery’s sides do not really position themselves well enough to utilise these transitions and are even worse at recycling the ball to create a new danger for the opposition.
3. Possession (Protagonists)
Now this is where Emery really dug his own grave. He has labeled his plan for Arsenal as turning us into protagonists, but not explaining that there is more than one way to be a protagonist on the pitch and for a manager who didn’t know English well and also hasn’t used that label since his English has improved, he has been judged on an error because of language. Protagonists dictate the way the game goes, but that doesn’t mean dominating possession. he is a protagonist, in that he dictates the way the opposition will utilise their strengths by trying to negate them, instead of exposing the opposition’s weaknesses or dominating the ball. Emery’s football does not really need or really want a lot of the ball. There is a very strict way of playing that works (sometime, but very few), but his philosophy and the strict positioning of his players isn’t inducive to playing possession football, check the average positions of his sides and you will see how much shape we keep during a game. So anyone who wants to see us play more one touch passing and moving the ball faster when rotating possession, it will never be a characteristic of an Emery team because the team shape will not allow it. Possession isn’t entirely about technique, but also positional sense of the players, freedom of movement for certain players and a tactical set-up that can make players available for a pass faster. Emery’s sides seem to mostly use the technique for our dominance in possession.
4. Final third
He gives a lot of freedom to basically all players, except the full-backs/wing-backs, who have to provide the width for the side. Emery’s set-up uses the #10 as a decoy, or basically a Fellaini. There still hasn’t been a very good attacking performance from a #10 under Emery, beside by Ozil. Everyone who has played a competitive game in that position and stood out, it has been for their running and defence (which is weird for a side that doesn’t even press as a tactic). The ball rarely moves from side to side rapidly, but has more of an urgency to get the ball into the box or to shoot. The best part of Emery’s Arsenal in the final third has been how the attackers have performed. They have scored so many goals outside a system, hat you cant say Emery hasn’t gotten us to score. We have not really improved in attack under Emery, he has just gotten a lot out of our best attack on paper for more than a decade.
5. Defence
Sit back and hope to not concede.
That is all I have on his defence. I really cant tell what he wants from his side defensively. The side doesn’t press at any point really. It seems to be up to individuals whether they feel like pressing should be done in that moment or not. i have seen Holding play well during a spell where we were at our worst defensively, but just rode our luck. I have seen an experienced center-back partnership perform badly in the space of a week where we dominated play, got dominated and had an even share of play.
I really think he is a bad defensive coach, period.
6. Charisma.
I added this because it is very important to transmitting your ideas ,fully, to your players and creating an environment where the players can believe in themselves, where there is an equal balance to reward and punishment in terms of individual performances. I think managers like emery are good when dealing with players who are not yet at the top of the football pyramid, but those that have potential to get there. I have not heard or seen of a single world class player that he has improved or one who vouches for him. They are all players that were up and coming, and they functioned well within his side because his teams are very much underdogs, so the players should be as well. He has now tried to turn two op side into underdog sides, and that must be depressing for top players who know their own quality.
All in all, his sides are counter attacking, and he will try to create counter attacking situations even when he is in control of the majority of possession. His side will struggle if sides decide to not press Arsenal, but sit deep and counter us, they will win. The smaller sides though, they now know that if they can keep possession, Arsenal are not set up to get the ball back and if they score, they can outplay Arsenal.
The only problems I have with Emery’s style is firstly, that we are very weak defensively because he invites teams to attack our defence, which isn’t really weak, but is built to play front foot football. Gerrard Pique and Jordi Alba are two of the most decorated defenders in the world, but if Barcelona decided to play a different way and started sitting back, they would be exposed and people will be on their backs, but the thing is, players are not built the same. John Terry is the kind to play well when sitting back, but would struggle and let Van Persie embarrass him when he is asked to play on the front foot. Some defenders are front foot players, and that’s who we have in our entire defence.
Secondly is his approach to games. As long as there isn’t any consistency in OUR WAY (his philosophy if he has one) of playing, we will never be great at anything. I am not looking for specializing, but for an approach that we can say we are the best at something. When you work on becoming very good at something and also have the type of quality we possess in our squad, it wont matter if teams know what we are going to do, they still wont be able to stop us, just like City and Liverpool.
Those were my thoughts, opinions and observations. thank you.
“But his build-up isn’t really a build-up to transition the ball into it being played in the opposition half for a sustained period of time, but a ploy to drag teams into our half and create space in behind them,”
This is excellent!
Actually, I wrote that before reading through the rest. I love this entire comment. Thanks.
On the other hand:
1) Comparing Arsenal with PSG isn’t a good one. Probably, given our status right, better to consider how Emery had Seville and Valencia in their approach. Even then, context matters. This is Arsenal in England in the Premier League.
2) You say it’s “not down to the quality of personnel” in terms of how well Arsenal execute the system? This doesn’t make any sense. It’s always both. If I have an amazing system that I try to execute with under par players, the system will look bad. This should be obvious.
3) He only dug his grave with those comments if you hold him to those words like a puritan does the Bible. We need to move on from that interview and actually start watching instead of being wed to a word game. It’s obvious Emery doesn’t want his team to play one way all the time. That’s the modern game. Why keep harping on something we know not to be true? It seems unfair.
4) You said: “We have not really improved in attack under Emery, he has just gotten a lot out of our best attack on paper for more than a decade.” Probably your most confusing ‘criticism’ of Emery in that post. It sounds like you’re trying really hard to do that thing you always do, which is to offer praise to individuals when things go well, but condemn Emery when things go bad. This is a habit of yours, and it does not have much credibility from a rational point of view. Emery has good players and there is a platform on which they perform.
5) Sit back and hope? You really have no idea of how he wants to play at the back? Really? Once again, you claim that he relies on individuals. I imagine you could say that about any manager or system, but it only suits as a criticism of the manager when we don’t perform. Emery wants to keep the defense narrow and play it out from the back, etc. Maybe you have “no idea” about this, but it’s clear to most people.
6) Charisma. An intangible you can make up anything about. But to your point, players do come out and say good things about Emery. Regardless, this is a strange criticism. Players say good and bad things about the best managers in the world. No stock in that.
You bring up City and Liverpool as markers at the end. I think that’s an unrealistic measure, and contributes to the reactionary nature of fans these days.
Those are my thoughts.
Emery left his second most potent goalscorer (and hardest working forward) on the bench. You can argue that his best format doesn’t accommodate 2 out and out strikers, but he made Laca’s inclusion or exclusion secondary to his formation. Plus he gave him only 10 minutes at the end. Plus, he played Pepe, newly arrived from France, against the best team in Europe.
Plus, he took Ceballos from the position he’d played so well in the previous week, and played him in a completely different position. Emery seemed tactically confused. Yes, he wanted the experience of Xhaka, AND the energy of Willock and Guendouzi. Nothing wrong with that. But dont sacrifice your best player from the previous game positionally. Make a call, Unai — two out of Xhaka, Willock and Guendouzi to play with Ceballos in the Santi role. Yes, you can argue that Cebellos was surprised by the pace of the Liverpool, but i’m not so sure I agree with that read — I think that he had less reaction time playing forwardish rather than deep.
I am not a coach, so feel free to rubbish what I say. I think that Emery was still carrying the scars of the 5 -1, and he went way too conservative. There’s a balance between respecting Liverpool’s strengths, and not showing them that you have strengths too, and I think he erred on the side of the latter. The team clicked with Ceballos in the deep midfield complemented by 2 high energy players and willing tacklers. Pepe for Nelson, Laca plays, and you made some tough choices in midfield. That’s not jazz. That is saying “we’ve come here to compete offensively.”
I’m 100% with you on this Claude
Was Emery confused? This is where hindsight comes in. I though the formation and tactics were a good one for about forty minutes. No confusion here.
OK not confused as in inside his own head, but “confused” as to how he decided to execute it.
But I’ve read through your and others’ comments in a bit more detail (this is one of the best threads so far I think), and I’m not one of those who thinks being conservative at Anfield is an affront. I think it was potentially a smart approach. I just think it should have been clear to Emery much sooner that it wasn’t working, we were getting pinned back, and he should have made his changes much earlier especially as our midfield tired. Torreira for Ceballos in particular was a no-brainer from about 55 mins in.
But I generally don’t come down too hard on decision-makers because nobody but they themselves know what plans, tactics, information and guesswork they are balancing.
Also Adrian Clarke’s vid on the dot com is a good piece that acknowledges the failures and limitations while also providing an optimistic view.
I said “tactically confused”.
Regarding…
*Shifting Ceballos from where he had starred
*His midfield balance, not knowing whether to stick or twist
*Giving our second best striker and hardest working forward 10 minutes, after the game was well lost. I haven’t seen any reports that he was injured, so it was tactical. Can anyone imagine Klopp benching Sadio Mane for a big game?
That’s tactically overthinking. Let them bomb us from out wide, instead of playing to our considerable strength. Luiz eventually cracked under the pressure after playing well.
Shard put it well. It was playing not to lose, and hoping for a win, to paraphrase slightly.
Going to Liverpool and holstering one of our main weapons made no sense, tactically or otherwise. Even the folks (like Gunnerblog) mounting eloquent defences of Emery thought that that was a bad decision.
It was the perfect commentary on Emery’s racrical approach.
And yet what I don’t hear in this comment and others like it is any discussion of what Liverpool did and their quality. When you go to Anfield with a plan, any plan, you’re going to be put under pressure, and no matter how good your system is, you’ll get pulled out of it at some point, or be forced into places and situations on the pitch that you didn’t want to be. They’re just that good.
Benching Lacazette — and I don’t know the reason — but playing Pepe and Auba did show attacking intent. I’m not convinced playing PAL together and pulling someone out of midfield was the answer at Anfield. I heard someone say Emery’s tactics were cowardly. They weren’t. They were considered and brave. How many teams will you see go to Anfield this year and invite pressure not by parking the bus and hoofing it long when you get it, but by trying to work it out from the back?
I saw the questions on Twitter and thought they were very good, and were framed the right way to try to arrive at a conclusion.
Out-thinking his opponent is exactly what I feel he loves to do. I get the sense he loves watching the tape and planning tactics on the board, more than he loves interacting with the real world, like dealing with players and adjusting to their limitations and talents.
As for the system. Ok, so its not one formation. That’s not an issue. Do we keep one midfielder high? I seem to recall a lot of play going through wide areas rather than the middle. So if we do, I’d say that’s a defensive consideration, as is attacking from wide, because losing the ball out wide is better.
But playing out from the back. We started with that last season. It was quickly abandoned. Will we stick with it this time? I’m not sure. I don’t think we will. It wasn’t a personnel issue. We didn’t use our best players, but then also didn’t play the system. Pre season was also a little different in that we attacked more through the middle..
I like that this gives me something. I’m still not convinced this quite cracks the Emery code. Pity no one asks him again what his process is, because clearly what he told us when he joined was a lie.
Thank you Tim for an intelligent and nuanced forum, unlike many other AFC sites. Devlin – your contribution is of epic proportions and I can’t disagree with anything you write. Ultimately if we make top four Emery will continue next season and many will say (and probably rightly so) that our competitors dropped the ball, rather than we excelled. If it looks like he’s about to miss top four I suspect he’ll be relieved of his duties and Freddie will care-take. Emery HAS to deliver top four this season (his bosses, not my words) and he’ll meddle like the tinker-man he is to try to get there. I wish him luck but I cannot say I’ll enjoy the ride
Thanks Matt, but my extremely long posts seem to have landed me into the spam folder.
It is nice though to have a platform like this where we can debate and share opinions as Arsenal fans. So I would also like to say, thanks Tim.
wonderful thread – thanks to everyone.
I’ll almost certainly re-read it and try to understand the formations, reasonings etc.
fwiw I sadly think that some of the gist of what I’m picking up (we’re reacting to other teams; set-ups to negate/ surprise opponents etc) is similar to a feeling I had before this season started, when I asked whether our ability to get a CL place was more to do with us (our improvement) or how badly the opposition fell (Chelsea and ManU).
I still feel this – we’re relying on the opposition to collapse more than our own improvement and domination of games/ teams.
But that kinda goes for Emery too.
I think he was hired because his CV said “I can win the EL” “I’ve managed big clubs”.
But for a long ‘project’?
I’ve read here people reasonably asking he be given a season, maybe 2.
But 6?
I can’t think of any commenter here saying “he’s our future – we can see the plan”.
What we did was hire someone to get us into the CL. Even if he does achieve this (and I hope he does!) his job will be contingent on us *not* finding another manager where we (ie Edu, Raul, Vinai) saying “we’ve identified the future – this person will get us winning the PL, CL; will give us an identity”.
It seems to me, Emery is more reliant on other circumstances (teams, availability of people) than his own brilliance/ imprint of identity etc.
I don’t hate him (or hate on him) for that. He’s an elite sportsperson and right now he’s in charge of my team so I’ll cheer him and support etc.
But he’s not the future.
All of these conclusions sound about right, the only caveat on the diamond is that it seems to be a rough one that collapses pretty easily into a 3-1 instead of 1-2-1. I’m not sure if it’s supposed to.
I’d be interested to hear from anyone with coaching experience about whether Emery might be leaving the pressing for later, after he’s got some of the other fundamentals sorted out?
I wouldn’t be surprised though if he’s got a plan to transition us through our current usual 4231 or 352 to a more consistent diamond, once we are playing out from the back at the level he wants us to. This is why I’m eager to see our first choice fullbacks. I think overall they’ll just give us more security at the back AND more width going forward, which in turn allows Pepe / Auba to come inside or drop deep. But this could all be wishful thinking, and it’s a good to be reminded to moderate expectation.
There’s a part of me that likes what I saw during the match against Liverpool, and there’s a part that didn’t.
Dealing with the second part first I know that this is mostly down to wanting Arsenal to win. It’s inbuilt, ingrained, and difficult for me to separate from deep-set subjective feelings. All of which you’d hope to find in someone commenting on an Arsenal-related blog, for sure! It’s also down to the difficulty I have with admitting that Arsenal are now not one of the top two teams in England. We haven’t been for some years, I know, but I also know that I was in denial of that for quite some time, and there’s still a few grains of it left battling against reality (whatever reality is in football, inc.)
Per the first part, I fluctuated between pro- and then anti- and then pro- again during the performance (from the Oxford English Dictionary: “performance: 1.2 British informal – A display of exaggerated behaviour or a process involving a great deal of unnecessary time and effort; a fuss.”)
Pro, because we seemed to defend well, at first, even if we were defending like a lesser team (which, whatever the reasons and circumstances involved, we are). Anti, because the Liverpool goals all seemed so avoidable. But pro again because, on-the-whole, I could see some reasoning.
Maybe I am being naïve – and expect to be told as such – but it almost felt like this game acted as, at least up until the 58th minute, a challenge to the Arsenal squad. That challenge was: ‘show me what you’ve got’, but within his system for these types of game. It may be that Emery thinks this isn’t his ideal finished first team squad, and wanted to see, in real-time, in a real match, what some of his current charges could do (should he know already on both of those things? Arguably, yes). I admit this might seemed far-fetched, considering that 3 real, do-we-qualify-for-the-champions-league-this-year points were at stake, but I don’t know how else to explain the sacrifice of attacking impetus other than the return of it once our glorious, joyous, revelatory, transcendent injured masses return from injury (I include myself very much in this hopeful thinking), and a current test of plan-B replacements for those roles should they – somewhat inevitably – struggle for initial fitness upon reintroduction to the team.
I don’t expect Emery to play this way in most matches, even those away against Tottenham-Man U-Chelsea, but I think it might have been an educative experience for all concerned against Liverpool. It’ll be interesting to see how he plays, with a potentially much stronger team, against Manchester City in December.
I think the formation is a red herring in thinking about ‘Emeryball’.
Emery may have used various formations however the ‘style’ remained the same, pass out from the back and pass the ball to dedicated players who are encouraged to run it, make an opening by getting past their marker. Everyone is encouraged to move a lot and offer passing options, the flair appears to be less important than his rigid system. Move the opposition around to create gaps to pass forward, use numbers. Players need to conform to his style rather than adapt to the style of the players. He can pick a team dictated by coin tosses due to him not treating players as individuals with individual talent. Do the job told.
The formation is more for the opposition over gameplan, Emeryball is to pass forward when the numbers are in his favour (play out from back and use GK to bump up number of players), to take risks only when it is safe to do so (which I feel is not a real risk and becomes predictable), if you have to pass around at the back to create that gap then pass around the back…. Players need to be fit as they need to move a lot and offer passing options, always moving so not to be easily marked (not to press, invite the press and exploit the gap left behind). The formation can allow for areas of the pitch to have players in areas which are thought to be vulnerable. Think of a football pitch being made into a chess board and players are chess pieces. Some areas of the board will be have more cover than other areas, impossible to cover the whole board, you need to position your pieces somehow… The gameplan is to move forward, how the pieces are set up doesn’t change the gameplan. It is this kind of mentality.
Defensively, it isn’t to press all over the pitch, as the article points out, it is to press while leaving intentional weak areas to direct the flow. This is out wide so he can use the line as an extra man, no need to worry about the threat being spread in a 360 degree circle when half of it is out of play. The CMs need to be ones that stick their foot in which helps forces teams out wide, well, it does when the CM are good enough to be a brick wall. When the opposition is forward then they are covering more of the pitch and as such, more chance of them leaving gaps which can be exploited.
So. I’m not capable of the depth of analysis as others who have posted upthread.
But I know what I saw. Know what I had hoped for– had expected. And what I saw wasn’t it.
My post from the pre-Anfield piece by Tim was this:
***
JW1 SAYS: August 23, 2019 at 8:48 am
“Spirited thread.
I’m an optimist– and this has me amped-up even more.
With LAGunner upthread with ‘AttackAttackAttack’ and to go toe2toe.
If Arsenal do so– I won’t be disappointed with the result, regardless.
Liverpool started out as an unstoppable force 3 seasons back– sometimes losing by giving up more than they got. Very much OK with Arsenal emulating that ideal.
Then work toward the defending part as soon as we can.”
***
The ideal outcome would have included 3-points. Even a draw might have been considered ‘a win’ in my view. Barring a result? Optimum would’ve meant giving Pool as much as they gave. To see if what we have– came close to matching up with Klopp’s squad. Is Arsenal’s talent worthy of battling Pool’s pressing athleticism? Could we outscore Pool– as they had done so well– as a fledgling powerhouse a few seasons back?
Sadly? We still have no idea.
Because Emery is a tinkerer, who loves a project– more than progress.
Yes, but a project can also include tinkering. That could, in fact, be the project for now.
We went for years complaining that Wenger never adjusted his teams to the opposition. Now that we have someone who does, people are complaining.
I listened to the Arsecast tonight, as you suggested. Much stronger when James and Andrew stake out diametrically opposed positions they did. I was with Andrew, who felt that we were too negative, and had a self-defeating strategy. James felt (as Im getting the impression you did, that it was a totally understandable and pragmatic approach. Superb, spirited debate.
All things considered, I’ll never understand why Lacazette got 10 regulation minutes. If someone could riddle me that, I’d be grateful. I feel that Emery out-thought himself. But that’s taking nothing away from the other argument.
It was a good debate.
Did you also happen to listen to the Arsenal Vision podcast on the Liverpool game. Another superb analysis that I’d recommend to everyone here.
No, but I’ll give it a go.
Also, I’ve heard Lacazette wasn’t fully match fit for the game, which might explain his limited minutes. But yes, I agree, if he WAS fully fit, he should have come on earlier.
Laca got 10 minutes because Emery had read the flow of the game and decided that damage limitation was the best option. Liv had suffocated our supply line rendering reinforcement of the front (which is a weakening of the supply line) silly. Simply put, he was being pragmatic.
Except. In my experience in other sports– as a manager or coach? I’ve been guilty of the same methods. In general though– it’s because I wasn’t blessed with abundant talent where I could just roll the ball out and tell my team(s) to– ‘just go play’ to their strengths.
I’m not suggesting that Pool are not formidable. But here, IMHO? This match was a great chance to ‘roll out the ball and play’ — and see if the attacking talent could win the day.
From my perch Emery played not to be embarrassed. That– is the sum of what was gained at Anfield. There was much more to be had.
Well put.
Playing not to be embarrassed? Not with a four, diamond, two being asked to play it out from the back. Starting Pepe and Auba together instead of dropping one of them and packing another body in midfield? That’s not “playing not to be embarrassed.” Besides which, “playing not be embarrassed” and “adjusting your plan for the opposition” are two ways of describing the same thing, the latter something most would see as a good thing. Had Auba and Pepe scored their goals, nobody would be talking about “playing not to be embarrassed.” And had we shipped five goals like we did last year, everyone would be piling on about how Emery didn’t respect the opposition.
It’s clear that Emery is in a no-win situation with some fans. I didn’t want to lose, and in fact I was hoping for a draw, and he doesn’t get it perfect, but I also recognize the opposition and the state of our squad at the moment. (Mainly I’m thinking here of our fullback situation, Pepe at 80%, and Torreira not yet match fit.)
Really? Can’t win or draw a match down 1-0 without scoring.
At down 1-0 on 41′ — Arsenal’s chance at a result were low-20s percentage-wise.
IMO Emery essentially forfeited any chance for a result down 2-0 on 50′. What would have been the harm in trying to go at Pool– especially at 2-0 ?
A valid question perhaps (if OK by you)?
What else might Arsenal have lost? (Please. Not ‘goal difference’.)
I’ll wait.
* * *
On another note– your:
“It’s clear that Emery is in a no-win situation with some fans.”
Should be beneath you. It’s a cop-out from the debate. I’m not ‘some fans’.
I’m discussing points with you.
This is extraordinary. United are paying more than 55% of Alexis’ salary, so that he can play for someone else.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/internazionale-agree-deal-to-sign-alexis-sanchez-on-loan-from-manchester-united-football
Not so much. They could pay 100% for a player who will sit most matches, be a null influence on teammates at best if kept– and potentially damage the United brand. Out of sight/out of mind. Would pull that lever every time.
Bunburyist,
Like I have said, you are looking at things in the short term. Such big games are an opportunity for us to gauge our progress and see how our way of playing compares and competes with England’s elite, that way we will know what it is we are good at and what we need to improve in order to reach their level.
But firstly, let me say this, let us not rewrite history. There isn’t a single Emery-Arsenal away performance where he has played expansive football. Everytime I hear that what we did over the weekend was working and if only we had scored one of our chances, things could have been different, I think to myself, has everyone forgotten that we scored first last season? The first goal is always important between teams that are at least close to each other in quality, of a smaller side wins, its usually luck. Which is what we would have needed to win, if your only positive isn’t that you were the better side, but that maybe you could have gotten something, “If” something else had happened.
Another thing is this respecting the opposition thing. I hear it a lot in British football, but it is basically the word used to console defensive and submissive performances. These words have never been used when Liverpool comes to the Emirates and attacks us, and yet they have had a good record against us in our own yard, in the last 10 years. It’s the same as the term “tactical”, it has been used to define a defensive performance in Britain. But Pep is tactical, so is Zagallo, Cruyff, Klopp, Wenger and all the other attacking coaches, along with all the defensive coaches. Respecting the opposition doesn’t have to mean not trying to play attacking football. This mentality is what has held so many nations back, especially England. Respecting the opposition is respecting them, it has nothing to do with your approach to a game, unless you let your play underestimate the opposition. I think the term you might want to use is that, you don’t want to underestimate your opposition, which is wierd against a side that is better than you.
With regards to playing out from the back, that doesn’t take away that we played with a small team mentality. This is just one aspect of our play and doesn’t determine what sort of approach we take for the rest of the game. Basically all teams in Spain play out from the back, even the small teams. It’s only in Britain where this is only common with most top sides, but it isn’t really that amazing and a defining factor about your approach to a game. I mean even you can’t say that we tried to play through Liverpool, we just tried to play out. Beyond that, there is still more to do as a side and unfortunately, small team mentality isn’t only in how they play out from the back.
With regards to the type of football, you like to accuse people of wanting open expansive football that leaves us open, which I think you are confusing. There aren’t only two types of ways to approach a game, it isn’t only ultra defensive or super attacking. There are so many ways to approach a game in between those two, the only limits to how many you are able to implement, is in your ability as a coach. I have never said that we should be open and expansive, and attack like Arsene. I have also never said Emery was ultra defensive either. What I think is that he isn’t balanced enough, and leans more into the defensive side than he does to the attacking.
I see it as a scale, where ultra defensive is at one end and super attacking is at the other. Klopp started out very attacking in this league, but toned it down to add more possession to his side. That is him finding a place on the scale that is attacking, but also doesn’t cripple his side in the process, balance. Pep as well, Pochetino too and now Bielsa as well. They aren’t really at the end of any side of the scale.
My problem is that Emery is too defensive in his approach, this type of approach does not relate well with long term success, the lack of balance is down to him not trying to develop his team and instead him trying to pick up points in games where he could be learning from.
I don’t really see what he did wrong during the weekend. His approach made sense and his plan has a basis to it. It’s just that, we are not a team that is just trying to play right now, we are a side that is trying to develop, and during development, you can take 5-1 losses, if it means you learn and develop from it.
I doubt you can tell me about any lessons we or he, can take from our away performances that can make us better. If you can, I would really love to read what those are.
Devlin, I’m sorry but several of your comments erroneously got put in the spam folder. I don’t actually know why this happened but you might consider shorter replies.
Noted.
“I don’t really see what he did wrong during the weekend. His approach made sense and his plan has a basis to it. It’s just that, we are not a team that is just trying to play right now, we are a side that is trying to develop, and during development, you can take 5-1 losses, if it means you learn and develop from it.”
===
Literally nobody would be saying that if we had lost 5-1 again. Nobody. I’ll tell you what they would be saying: “Naive.” “Hasn’t learned.”
This year we went to Anfield with a different formation and a different game plan, and it almost came off in the first half. Apart from the false dawn of AMN’s goal last year, nothing we did in that game last December looked like it was going to “come off.”
I’m also not sure what you mean by saying I think in the short term. I’m sure you mean something different, but I’ve repeatedly said that I’m judging Emery in his second season, not his first.
I am sorry if it might come across as acusary (don’t know the word for it, but I hope you get what I am trying to say), but I say that because in football, adjusting to the opposition is a short term thing and usually done when a team has already established its way of playing already. When you are looking at the long term, you focus more on your team’s strengths and weaknesses in order to find your desired way of playing.
Emery has been and seems to continue placing his focus on the opposition, which isn’t wrong but it is delaying the development of how we want to play and what we want to become. So losing in development is expected, but it ensures that you improve on what you can do. Losing after adjusting to the opposition is sort of mundane when you only play them twice a season, and I don’t think players will remember how to beat Liverpool at Anfield by the time we play them again. Maybe Emery will, and it looks like he did, but the players who play 40 games a season will not.
It’s easier to replicate your game because you know your strengths and weaknessess, than to adjust to every single opponent and expect players to play accordingly every time.
So in the short term, he set us up to get a result. Long term wise, we still do not know how our best football compares with Liverpool’s and we never will if we continue the same way without prioritising the development of the side.
It’s not just that Emery said ‘protagonist’. He specified it would mean a commitment to attacking football, and pressing when out of possession. That he’d rather win 5-4 than 1-0. Now sure, every guy is told by PR what to say. But that’s ok when it’s exaggerating your message. Not when it’s something totally different.
The facts are we’ve dropped in possession, dropped massively in chances created (but maintained, roughly, goals scored), given up more chances (but maintained goals conceded), and this is not good and unsustainable. That we pass it around the keeper and defenders doesn’t make me feel better about how he’s using the talents in the squad either.
And anyway, so it seems from now on, we must give every coach that comes in, more and more finances, and at least 2 years of trying to set up a style of play, even if it doesn’t happen/work. Or is it just because Emery is not Wenger that he gets such largesse? Coaches come into relegation threatened teams and get them playing a different way within a month. 60 games in and we’re still discussing what Emery wants to do. The only reason to support him seems to be that he’s the incumbent.
I agree with most of those brilliant comments: Emery is reacting to the opposition rather than imposing the identity of his team. He does not only tweak or tinker, he changes the formation and line up completely from game to game and makes his team very difficult to recognize. One of the drawbacks of that approach is the loss of efficiency in training. An identity allows the players to understand each other better, to expect the moves of their team mates, the passes are easier to execute, one knows where the other will be, one expects the runs… Complicity is created. The players experience the joy of a well oiled machine. They count on each other.
Too much flexibility (call it the lack of identity) radically diminishes the efficiency of trainings and it undermines the players ‘confidence. A team than practices too many formations runs the risk of being excellent at none. I’m afraid that’s where we are now.
I am here to say that if you lot don’t go read yesterday’s David Squires, I no longer want to be your friend.
That last panel is definitely how things feel at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/aug/27/david-squires-on-bolton-bury-and-the-threat-to-our-football-clubs
Thanks for that.
Yep, that’s a good one.
I’m no Emery apologist by any means but reading some of the posts on here one might come to a conclusion that a cowardly Arsenal side showed up at Anfield and got punished for parking a bus.
All you need to do is to rewatch is the first minute of the match to realize that’s simply not true.
I have seen enoughLiverpool home games to know than no other PL team, including Man City, kept the ball better at the start of the game under tremendous press ( some 12 passes) in our own half before giving up possession.
I can comfortably bet a large amount of money that on other PL club will match that this season.
Bad tactics criticism……..maybe.
Lack of courage…….no.
Really thoughtful take, Tom. What we should eschew in this debate (agree with Greg that it’s been an excellent one) is absolutism, you have come very close to meeting that ideal.
Why was Lacazette on the bench, though? There were no reports of his being injured for this game. Klopp would not make the exclusion of Mane subservient to his defensive formation, would he?
Th thing that stuck with me from Arseblog Andrew’s impassioned criticism of Emery’s setup, is the relentless, unyielding pressure that it created on us. Pressure that led to the dam eventually cracking. Not sure about rope-a-dope football.
We kept the ball better because Liverpool were surprised by our shape. As soon as they realised, they adjusted and we had no response.
Fair point about courage. But maybe this was the real bravado, while going 433 would just have been brave.
Teams that have good partnerships all over the pitch function better and I think Emery should pay more attention to which partnerships are more effective in the different areas of the pitch for the different formations he likes to employ.
If we are going to employ a 4-4-2, Lacazette has to start. He can hold up the ball and he’s not exactly a slow runner either. I think pairing him with either Auba or Pepe would have been more effective because that would have given us a more options up front instead of having two players who are similar in their attacking approach.
I also think that we shouldn’t start both Xhaka and Guendouzi in our midfield. Again, I think they are similar type of players and, in the same vein as our attack, the midfield works better when you have different players who bring different skill sets to the table. Not starting Torreira vs. Liverpool instead of one of those two was a mistake and it was disappointing to see that the one time he really needed to make a half time change in our midfield, he didn’t.
I’m not either an Emery In or Out guy. I think overall, given the dysfunctional team he inherited, he has done well but I am skeptical of him being the guy who can take us to an elite level. However, I think he can be the guy who can make us more competitive in these type of matches. As far as his style goes, I don’t think he has a well-defined style. Is being tactically flexible a style? I don’t think so. However, he said last season that he wants his team to be flexible ( I am paraphrasing here) and based on our different formations from game to game, that definitely seems to be one of the things we are working on. We are pragmatists rather than protagonists and there is nothing wrong with that – but whatever “style” of football you play, at some point it has to backed by results. I will judge him at the end of the season.
We are pragmatists rather than protagonists and there is nothing wrong with that – but whatever “style” of football you play, at some point it has to backed by results. I will judge him at the end of the season.
===
That’s where I’m at as well, though I disagree with you that flexibility isn’t a style. Anything can be a style. But we may also be overstating his flexibility somewhat. There are different formations he uses, but on top of those there are patterns we can see that are consistent no matter how the team is set up.
Six points from three games, one of them against Liverpool; I’m fine with that. And let’s not forget that points against Newcastle — as their game v Spurs last weekend showed — are not guaranteed, and Burnley always have the ability to take points from the likes of Chelsea, United, Spurs, etc. It’s fine. We’re three games in. Chill.
Now, if lose to Spurs? I’ve promised everyone here to throw all the toys from my pram.
Yeah the match against Spurs is always going to be an important for many reasons, but it’s specially important for the manager because I feel like it leaves the longest lasting impression during the season in terms of scrutiny by the fans. I remember how people were chanting “we have got our arsenal back” at the end of the derby last season when we hammered them at the Emirates. To be fair, I think it actually started after the Fulham win but went full Troopz after the derby. I suspect that brought Emery a lot of time last season and it may very well be the same case this season.
I guess the most consistent style of attack I have seen from him is the full back rushing to the byline and firing in a low cross. However, it seems to me this is actually his plan B rather than his plan A. I think we just see a lot of it because his plan A hasn’t worked a lot of the time . Not that I am complaining. We used to complain about Wenger for not having a plan B so it seems silly to complain when we have a pretty effective plan B under Emery. Obviously, I would like to see us score more goals playing more expansive football – and we did see it a few times last season before the end of season collapse.
Great thread, Devlin has explained the main points of Emeryball. The objection to Arsenal being closer in resemblance to PSG is void in my opinion, our flair players and the wage bracket suggests we are closer to PSG than Sevilla. Also I believe Bunburyist is right in stating that the attacking platform provided by Emery works, while Devlin may have alluded that the individual performances trump previous attacking efficiency in this decade. A great example of a forward who would have excelled under Emery is Podolski, give him a cutback in the box and he unleashes a cannon. He was not really an aerial presence, but he could deliver great shots.
To the questions on Twitter, I enjoyed them and I was looking forward to this post. Like I stated after the game I thought our approach to Liverpool was obsolete because we planned to nullify them instead of amplifying our strengths. Which brings me joy to read some early comments on this thread acknowledging different denotations of a protagonist. Emery is risk averse, good with upcoming players, great at thinking counter strategies, average in squad usage to achieve a result on the big stage.
Games he played best with the 4-4-2 was Fulham away, where Ramsey scored that great goal as a result of a counterattack. The other goals were shots from the final third. So Emeryball is build from the back, get the ball to the touchline, make a cut back and score a goal. Additional thought goes into stifling the opposition.
My criticism of Emery is this, against Liverpool if we conceded first he should have changed formation early. Although Lacazette was not fully fit, I believe he should have taken a risk by playing Martinelli in that game, for 2 reasons, the kid has pace to burn and he contributes so much defensively. This would have reduced the need to support Monreal on the left. This is why I think Emery is risk averse while he also works best with upcoming players. 3 speedsters with the plan to counter would have created more opportunities and eventually led to goals in the 1st half and most likely we won’t concede the 3rd goal if we had a threat on the left. It would have been meant one of Guendouzi or Willock being dropped but we would have the confidence of 3 attacking players without sacrificing the ability to build 2 banks of 4 with Pepe and Lacazette prowling ahead.
Do I think Emery can take us forward beyond 2 seasons? No. Do I think we had a chance to make the Champions league? Yes. We are considerably stronger than last season and when we focus on attack like the games against Napoli at home, Valencia home and away we are at our best when we attack. A combination of Pepe, Aubameyang and Lacazette must be used. They have different qualities and that would change our attacking movements from relying on the left flank last season to relying on the right this season with Aubameyang on the left available at the back post and with a greater number of goals than last season.
*Pepe and Aubameyang prowling.
*have a chance…
Is there a plan B?
Plan A is a 4-2-3-1, plan B is the 4-4-2, plan C was the 3-5-2 and plan D was a 3-4-3 with Ozil or Mhkitaryan on the flanks.
Pressing can only work with a younger side. I don’t think Arsenal will be a pressing side under Emery.
We need the fullbacks for width and attacking plays. Bellerin had some important assists last season, Tierney could also chip in some assists this season and if he is better than Kolasinac it would mean more goals.
If we can increase efficiency in the final third and decrease profligacy we stand a good chance of beating Liverpool at home when the whole team gels together.
Efficiency in the final third seemed to come from our strike partnership last season. Probably a reason why people thought Lacazette ought to have started the question should be what is our strategy when our attack is stunted by injury? Can we build a 2nd string attack for the Europa league and have them ready to deputise in the absence of our 1st teamers?
My opinion is that Lacazette and Pepe need to develop a partnership more than Aubameyang does with Pepe for our build up play? Any differing opinion?
Incredible thread guys, and the post lays things out pretty well I think.
I love this discussion because I have no time for the whole “philosophy, identity” side of the debate with Emery. During Wenger’s two decades with the club, our rivals went through as many as 7 or 8 different coaches. It meant that by the end of Wenger’s tenure we were playing against teams who weren’t as good as us individually, but who had the nous to understand what we were trying to do, and how to negate it.
One of my favourite “Emery-ball” games was the Napoli tie, because we played like we knew exactly what Napoli were gonna do, and knew exactly how to negate it and win. That’s being a kind of “protagonist” too. I think we’ll see more of that this season.