I didn't realise half the Arsenal board has filtered me.
I get so bored in the mornings and nobody else is around, I do my bit of morningly wummery and they filter!
They're as bad as Liverpool fans
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
>>No but you gets draws and defeats with them, which is what we got.
90% of our draws and defeats were from bad finishing and missed penalties, not bad tactics
the problem is when we've got it wrong and drew or lost against weaker teams.
------------
And that hasn't happened that often this season. Stoke, perhaps with the 3-5-2, but even then you could argue that we did the same last year and won. Bolton was just an awful perfromance full stop - don't think that was a tactical problem rather the whole team bar Bellamy having a bad game. And quite rightly Kenny had a go at them for that.
In games likes Norwich, Swansea, Blackburn, we did more then enough to win but we were let down by bad finishing. The tactics weren't necessarily the problem.
I'm in complete agreement with RAP here. We are a work in progress. We are a better team than were last season, but we're not quite up there as genuine top 4 candidates yet, and that will take some time. There are now six or seven good teams in this league now, so getting top 4 is harder than it ever has been. But we're not far off it.
comment by redconn > (U5676)
posted 10 seconds ago
>>No but you gets draws and defeats with them, which is what we got.
90% of our draws and defeats were from bad finishing and missed penalties, not bad tactics
---------------------------------------------------
The new Optajoke?
When you play five at the back against weaker sides, play your players out of position and make bad substitutions you're asking for trouble. Granted earlier in the season we were terribly unlucky in some games where we created a host of chances but they just wouldn't go in, or Suarez, Kuyt and Carroll missed sitters but that hasn't been the case recently, we've just been poor and I believe that is due to us playing bad tactics and players out of position. I believe we would have won, had we played 4-3-2-1, which our players are suited to and played our players in their correct position.
Furthermore, Suarez up front on his own has been a problem also against weaker teams when the more the game goes on, without us getting the goal, the more frustrated Suarez gets and he comes back into the midfield leaving nobody in the box. Suarez is not an out and out striker and playing him up front on his own has created problems for us, in breaking teams down.
Apart from against Spurs, we could have got more points than we did by just playing players in the correct positions and the right tactics.
the only time we played 5 at the back was against City in the first CC leg.
And it wasn't 5, it was 9 at the back.
And we won 1-0
comment by redconn > (U5676)
posted 42 seconds ago
the only time we played 5 at the back was against City in the first CC leg.
And it wasn't 5, it was 9 at the back.
And we won 1-0
-----------------------------------------------------
No. Also I agreed with our tactics in the City game, whilst many others did not. I agreed that after getting the first goal, we should have sat back and even brought more defenders on. Against a team like City in a two-legged game, away from home, if you get the goal, you need to defend for your lives, as they can hurt you. I'm not saying his tactics have been wrong in every game but they have been wrong in some.
When you play five at the back against weaker sides
----------------
It was 3 at the back with 2 wing backs. We played the same formation against them the previous season and won. Our record has been pretty poor against Stoke - I think we've played them 8 times since they've come up and only beatan them twice, one of which was the time we played 3-5-2 last season. It worked once, we tried it again and we drew. Hardly a massive tactical blunder is it. If we'd done it twice and lost both times I'd be questioning it but 4 points from 6 is fine.
A 4-3-2-1? You sure about that TOOR?
It we had played four instead of five, we'd have had Johnson and Enrique further up the pitch anyhow as Crouch spent most of his game around the halfway line and Agger and Skrtel were more than a match for him. We'd also have had an extra attacker. Add the fact that Kuyt upfront on his own is also a tactical disaster.
Stoke came to 'park the bus' as we knew they would do and our response is to stick in an extra defender and play Kuyt upfront on his own. Kenny has never been known for his tactical know-how, more for his inspiring presence and his encouragement but this was a "massive tactical blunder". It becomes even more so when we actually stick with it when it is so obviously apparent it is not working.
And on your question; yes I am sure, as our players are so obviously suited to that. Only it would be wise to play Downing on the left when employing it, which Kenny doesn't seem to want to do.
You can all sit there and say you were happy with our tactics, that is your choice but I feel regardless of Kenny's status, he has made too many mistakes. Therefore these mistakes need to be rectified or he will find himself out of a job as these American's have no love for Kenny, unlike we, the fans.
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
>>Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2.
I agree, and I think it's you
Leandro Damaioo about to sign for PSG,another world class AVAILABLE striker goes somewhere else
We really are sheet in the transfer market
You can all sit there and say you were happy with our tactics, that is your choice but I feel regardless of Kenny's status, he has made too many mistakes. Therefore these mistakes need to be rectified or he will find himself out of a job as these American's have no love for Kenny, unlike we, the fans.
-------------------------
TOOR other than the Stoke game when has he made massive tactical blunders.
We've played various formations, a standard 4-4-2, a 4-5-1/4-3-3 and 3-5-2. Stoke was the 3-5-2 and we drew. Against Newcastle at home we played the 4-5-1/4-3-3 and won 3-1 but then we also played the 4-5-1/4-3-3 vs Norwich and only drew. Both game at home. Same formation and tactics, different result. Why? Against West Brom away we played 4-4-2 and comfortably won 2-0, but then playing 4-4-2 against Bolton away from home we get beaten 3-1. Same formation and tactics, different results again. Why? Against Norwich I thought we played better football than we did against West Brom, The football was fluid and we created about 20 chances. But in one game we drew and the other we win. Why? Because football isn't just about formations. Maybe a goalkeeper has a blinder, maybe we're wasteful, maybe we're unlucky, maybe we have a decision go against us, maybe a couple of our players don't play so well, maybe the other team are having a great day. It isn't black and white.
I'm not saying that Kenny hasn't made mistakes. I don't particularly like it when Henderson is played on the right, but even then we've won games with him there and also dropped points. Same teams, same formations, same tactics, different results. All this means that we're not far from being a good team, and Kenny has pretty much got it right. He makes the odd mistake but he like the team are still gelling and trying to get it right. We're progressing as a team, including the manager.
This season I've seen some of the best football I've seen in ages, but we've also seen some dour games at home. Its a work in progress mate.
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
-----------
I think you're getting it confused a little mate. When Evans stress playing it we played Rob Jones and Bjornebye as our wingbacks with 3 CBs. Jones and Bjornebye are defenders who could play in a flat back 4. They weren't wingers. It's not much different to playing Johnson and Enrique.
comment by FatJanMolby (U4297)
posted 12 hours, 52 minutes ago
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
-----------
I think you're getting it confused a little mate. When Evans stress playing it we played Rob Jones and Bjornebye as our wingbacks with 3 CBs. Jones and Bjornebye are defenders who could play in a flat back 4. They weren't wingers. It's not much different to playing Johnson and Enrique.
----------------------------------------------------
Err you just said what I said. Which makes it 5-3-2.
Sign in if you want to comment
January Transfers
Page 5 of 5
posted on 30/1/12
I didn't realise half the Arsenal board has filtered me.
I get so bored in the mornings and nobody else is around, I do my bit of morningly wummery and they filter!
They're as bad as Liverpool fans
posted on 30/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 30/1/12
>>No but you gets draws and defeats with them, which is what we got.
90% of our draws and defeats were from bad finishing and missed penalties, not bad tactics
posted on 30/1/12
the problem is when we've got it wrong and drew or lost against weaker teams.
------------
And that hasn't happened that often this season. Stoke, perhaps with the 3-5-2, but even then you could argue that we did the same last year and won. Bolton was just an awful perfromance full stop - don't think that was a tactical problem rather the whole team bar Bellamy having a bad game. And quite rightly Kenny had a go at them for that.
In games likes Norwich, Swansea, Blackburn, we did more then enough to win but we were let down by bad finishing. The tactics weren't necessarily the problem.
I'm in complete agreement with RAP here. We are a work in progress. We are a better team than were last season, but we're not quite up there as genuine top 4 candidates yet, and that will take some time. There are now six or seven good teams in this league now, so getting top 4 is harder than it ever has been. But we're not far off it.
posted on 30/1/12
comment by redconn > (U5676)
posted 10 seconds ago
>>No but you gets draws and defeats with them, which is what we got.
90% of our draws and defeats were from bad finishing and missed penalties, not bad tactics
---------------------------------------------------
The new Optajoke?
When you play five at the back against weaker sides, play your players out of position and make bad substitutions you're asking for trouble. Granted earlier in the season we were terribly unlucky in some games where we created a host of chances but they just wouldn't go in, or Suarez, Kuyt and Carroll missed sitters but that hasn't been the case recently, we've just been poor and I believe that is due to us playing bad tactics and players out of position. I believe we would have won, had we played 4-3-2-1, which our players are suited to and played our players in their correct position.
Furthermore, Suarez up front on his own has been a problem also against weaker teams when the more the game goes on, without us getting the goal, the more frustrated Suarez gets and he comes back into the midfield leaving nobody in the box. Suarez is not an out and out striker and playing him up front on his own has created problems for us, in breaking teams down.
Apart from against Spurs, we could have got more points than we did by just playing players in the correct positions and the right tactics.
posted on 30/1/12
the only time we played 5 at the back was against City in the first CC leg.
And it wasn't 5, it was 9 at the back.
And we won 1-0
posted on 30/1/12
comment by redconn > (U5676)
posted 42 seconds ago
the only time we played 5 at the back was against City in the first CC leg.
And it wasn't 5, it was 9 at the back.
And we won 1-0
-----------------------------------------------------
No. Also I agreed with our tactics in the City game, whilst many others did not. I agreed that after getting the first goal, we should have sat back and even brought more defenders on. Against a team like City in a two-legged game, away from home, if you get the goal, you need to defend for your lives, as they can hurt you. I'm not saying his tactics have been wrong in every game but they have been wrong in some.
posted on 30/1/12
When you play five at the back against weaker sides
----------------
It was 3 at the back with 2 wing backs. We played the same formation against them the previous season and won. Our record has been pretty poor against Stoke - I think we've played them 8 times since they've come up and only beatan them twice, one of which was the time we played 3-5-2 last season. It worked once, we tried it again and we drew. Hardly a massive tactical blunder is it. If we'd done it twice and lost both times I'd be questioning it but 4 points from 6 is fine.
A 4-3-2-1? You sure about that TOOR?
posted on 30/1/12
It we had played four instead of five, we'd have had Johnson and Enrique further up the pitch anyhow as Crouch spent most of his game around the halfway line and Agger and Skrtel were more than a match for him. We'd also have had an extra attacker. Add the fact that Kuyt upfront on his own is also a tactical disaster.
Stoke came to 'park the bus' as we knew they would do and our response is to stick in an extra defender and play Kuyt upfront on his own. Kenny has never been known for his tactical know-how, more for his inspiring presence and his encouragement but this was a "massive tactical blunder". It becomes even more so when we actually stick with it when it is so obviously apparent it is not working.
posted on 30/1/12
And on your question; yes I am sure, as our players are so obviously suited to that. Only it would be wise to play Downing on the left when employing it, which Kenny doesn't seem to want to do.
posted on 30/1/12
You can all sit there and say you were happy with our tactics, that is your choice but I feel regardless of Kenny's status, he has made too many mistakes. Therefore these mistakes need to be rectified or he will find himself out of a job as these American's have no love for Kenny, unlike we, the fans.
posted on 30/1/12
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
posted on 30/1/12
>>Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2.
I agree, and I think it's you
posted on 30/1/12
posted on 30/1/12
posted on 30/1/12
Leandro Damaioo about to sign for PSG,another world class AVAILABLE striker goes somewhere else
We really are sheet in the transfer market
posted on 30/1/12
You can all sit there and say you were happy with our tactics, that is your choice but I feel regardless of Kenny's status, he has made too many mistakes. Therefore these mistakes need to be rectified or he will find himself out of a job as these American's have no love for Kenny, unlike we, the fans.
-------------------------
TOOR other than the Stoke game when has he made massive tactical blunders.
We've played various formations, a standard 4-4-2, a 4-5-1/4-3-3 and 3-5-2. Stoke was the 3-5-2 and we drew. Against Newcastle at home we played the 4-5-1/4-3-3 and won 3-1 but then we also played the 4-5-1/4-3-3 vs Norwich and only drew. Both game at home. Same formation and tactics, different result. Why? Against West Brom away we played 4-4-2 and comfortably won 2-0, but then playing 4-4-2 against Bolton away from home we get beaten 3-1. Same formation and tactics, different results again. Why? Against Norwich I thought we played better football than we did against West Brom, The football was fluid and we created about 20 chances. But in one game we drew and the other we win. Why? Because football isn't just about formations. Maybe a goalkeeper has a blinder, maybe we're wasteful, maybe we're unlucky, maybe we have a decision go against us, maybe a couple of our players don't play so well, maybe the other team are having a great day. It isn't black and white.
I'm not saying that Kenny hasn't made mistakes. I don't particularly like it when Henderson is played on the right, but even then we've won games with him there and also dropped points. Same teams, same formations, same tactics, different results. All this means that we're not far from being a good team, and Kenny has pretty much got it right. He makes the odd mistake but he like the team are still gelling and trying to get it right. We're progressing as a team, including the manager.
This season I've seen some of the best football I've seen in ages, but we've also seen some dour games at home. Its a work in progress mate.
posted on 30/1/12
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
-----------
I think you're getting it confused a little mate. When Evans stress playing it we played Rob Jones and Bjornebye as our wingbacks with 3 CBs. Jones and Bjornebye are defenders who could play in a flat back 4. They weren't wingers. It's not much different to playing Johnson and Enrique.
posted on 31/1/12
comment by FatJanMolby (U4297)
posted 12 hours, 52 minutes ago
Also I think people are getting confused between 5-3-2 and 3-5-2. 5-3-2 is three centre backs and two wing-backs, like we played under Roy Evans. 3-5-2 is three centre backs, sometimes one of them a sweeper and 3 centre midfielders with a left winger and a right winger, this was a popular formation in the eighties.
-----------
I think you're getting it confused a little mate. When Evans stress playing it we played Rob Jones and Bjornebye as our wingbacks with 3 CBs. Jones and Bjornebye are defenders who could play in a flat back 4. They weren't wingers. It's not much different to playing Johnson and Enrique.
----------------------------------------------------
Err you just said what I said. Which makes it 5-3-2.
Page 5 of 5