Arsenal Question and Answer with Luke of Only One Arsenal

Today, The Football Front talks to Luke of Only One Arsenal and Arsenal RT's. 

Thanks for coming on, My first question to you is, what did you make of Arsenal’s season? Did you view it as a success or as a failure?                  

It was a successful failure. Another year without a trophy can not be called success, however after losing both Nasri and Fabregas, and the incredibly bad start to the season, to finish 3rd, above Tottenham, is a good achievement. 

Did you find any player making significant strides of progression last season at Arsenal?

Koscielny, during his first season at Arsenal (10/11) you could see he had talent, but was quite prone to mistakes. However last season he established himself as our best CB and one of the best in the Premier League.

There have been quite a few break through players for Arsenal players, but has there been any Arsenal player who has perhaps disappointed you?

Chamakh, Park Chu Young, Ramsey and Gervinho.

Chamakh is no doubt a good striker, but whenever he played you knew he wouldn't score and I think he knew that as well. We saw little of Park Chu Young, He didn't really have any time to impress or disappoint, but it would of been nice to see more of him. Ramsey is still young; and after that horrific injury plus losing his mentor, Gary Speed who made him the Wales captain, I think some fans expect too much. Gervinho was frustrating to watch, great build up play, but a blind postman could deliver more than he did, he lacked the end product, saying that it was his first season in England and had the ACON, hopefully he will settle more this season.

Jack Wilshere was of course injured all of last season, should Arsenal and England fans be extra concerned by this? Should we be worried that injuries will effect his progression not only now, but later on in his career?

I'm no injury expert, but the fact Wilshere injury was only meant to be 'a few days or weeks' at the start isn't healthy. I think Jack was thrown in at the deep end both for Arsenal and England, I can't see him playing before the new year. Hopefully the club will be cautious, and the FA may not call him to every England game, this should mean once he is back, he's back for good.   

 

What are your thoughts on the new Arsenal signings?

All 3 signings offer new options.

Cazorla offers something we haven't had since Fabregas left, someone who can open up defences, and is a real playmaker, he is all a marquee signing, after been touted as the best player outside Madrid and Barcelona in Spain.

Podolski looks set to play LW, which will offer a new option, people have unfairly judged him on the Euro's. I hope to see him played centrally as well, as I think he would thrive there.

I haven't seen much of Giroud but he looks to be a good signing, whether he was brought to replace Van Persie, we do not know, we shall soon find out! 

Seeing Arsenal have sold Robin Van Persie, do you feel Arsenal need to be active in the market for another striker?

Yes, I feel Giroud could already of been brought to replace Robin, in that case we need a replacement for Giroud, as I don't think Park or Chamakh are up to it.

Finally, something that bugs fans of other clubs, is Arsenal fans seem to hold a strong negative feeling towards Ashley Cole and Samir Nasri, do you feel the Arsenal fans are right to feel that strongly about it?

Let's start by saying we are not the only team who hold strong  feelings against former players, the other fans that this 'bugs' probably hold grudges against footballers like Arsenal fans do, so it is hypocritical to single out Arsenal fans. 

Ashley Cole was part of the invincible’s and was a Gooner born and bread, he has gone on to be more successful, Despite having a bitter feeling at the time, since I have decided it is best for everyone to move on (including Cole himself.) 

Regarding Nasri, it's not the move which annoys me, it's more the disrespectful comments he has made about Arsenal since, he is clearly big headed and thinks he is above everyone else, this was proven at the Euro's after insulting French Journo's. I feel that every time Arsenal fans move on, Nasri will come out and say something about Arsenal himself.  

What was your favourite moment of the Premier League season?

Arsenal 5-2 Tottenham, the game changed the season for us and Tottenham. It was also hilarious to see the cocky Tottenham fans turn up in the 'Mind the Gap' T-Shirts, and the rest is history. 

Off the field it was nice to see fans and players of all clubs to rally round after the Fabrice Muamba incident. 

Your darkest moment of last season?

Losing 8-2 to Man Utd. Dark, Dark days, also during Arsenal 1- 2 Man Utd when the crowd turned on Arsene like never before, replacing Chamerlain with Arshavin, I was there and at the moment I just wanted to leave, most fans still trust Arsene Wenger, I think most fans were just questioning that substitution but I am against booing our own players all together 

 The One word answer section

So in this section, you can only pick one word to respond with

1.)   Messi or Ronaldo

Messi

2.)   Tottenham or Man United

Arsenal 

3.)  Ozil or Pirlo

Ummm... Pirlo

4.)  Chelsea or Man City

Man City 

5.)   Adebayor or Nasri

The Idiot (Both) 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to do this Q&A

This interview took place on 14th of August 2012. 

You can follow Luke on Twitter at @Arsenal_RT's + @OnlyOneArsenal

Check out their website too: http://onlyonearsenalblog.wordpress.com/ 

Why England should take their best players to the European Under 21 Tournament

England stars Jack Wilshere and Andy Carroll have been omitted from England’s Under 21 squad. This has been the most controversial aspect of England’s Under 21’s preparation so far.

But it’s clear both men should have gone.

There are a number of benefits of participating in this tournament.

Firstly, the players will gain even more international experience. This is absolutely crucial. It means the players will gain further understanding and confidence in England’s tactics and strategy. The more decisive the understanding is, the better a player can perform on the senior international stage. England must capitalise on these opportunities.

Furthermore, playing in the U21 has many psychological benefits too. The players will develop mechanisms on how to how to deal with the pressures of playing various large international games within a short space of time.

However, not only this, the players will also develop a personal system to deal with the logistics of large tournaments. This will make the youngsters have relative experience of the football tournament environment. So some aspects of large tournaments will not be viewed as ‘new experiences’ for the youngsters.

The likes of Mesut Ozill, Sami Khedira, Thomas Muller are all examples of the benefits of participating in the Under 21 tournaments. All three players were crucial figures for Germany in the last World Cup. One could argue, their brilliant World Cup performances stemmed from the experience they developed and gained whilst participating in the U21 tournaments.

No one can deny the press and certain English clubs have over inflated the Under 21 selection debate. They have presented their ideas as if England are the only nation in the tournament taking relatively experienced youngsters to the games.

This is clearly incorrect. After all, Spain are set to take; Juan Manuel Mata, Sergio Busquets and Iker Munain. All of these players have featured heavily for their clubs this season. Yet, their clubs and the Spanish press are not making a massive fuss over the issue. One could argue they are solely considering the player’s development and looking to further improve the player. The same mentality can be found in Germany. The national team, in Germany holds far more value over club football and this is understood by the German clubs. But it seems with some of the English clubs they look to protect their own interests rather than the overall development of the player.

Furthermore, Christian Eriksen, 19, has played 47 games this season. While Jack Wilshere, also 19, has played 49 games. In the case of Eriksen its proof that Wilshere isn’t the only player who could go to the Under 21 tournament with a great number of games under their belt. Both players have clearly admitted they want to play in the tournament. Whereas, the two clubs hold different views. Ajax understands Eriksen’s desire to play and wish him the best. While, Arsenal have taken a hard line approach and are unwilling to see their player learn and develop their international game.

It’s incredibly frustrating for England in the long term, as they cannot maximise on the player’s international experience.

A common criticism of the summer tournaments is that the players are unable to get a complete rest. Thus resulting in the possibility of the player burning themselves out or getting injured. This is agreeable. But every year, no matter who the player is, certain English clubs continuously complain. If the player is 26, the club will be angry if the player gets injured. But at the end of the day, it’s a foreseen consequence of international football. The players are aware of this risk too. But they want to represent their country and play football at the highest level.

The clubs need to respect the players’ wishes. After all, they are doing this because they have a passion for the game and their country. This should be encouraged and credited, not hindered.

One must remember, letting these talented youngsters play will not only benefit their clubs, it will benefit a nation.

Things you may like to read

England’s new 4-3-3 system, the platform for English success? - http://tiny.cc/qcgmg

Why Emile Heskey’s Premier League days should be all but over - http://tiny.cc/hkuof

Why Kevin Davies should be in contention for the England squad - http://tiny.cc/jy8ri

England's new 4-3-3 system, the platform for English success? Part Two - The Negatives

We have been taking a close look at England’s new 4-3-3 strategy. Last week, we discussed the positives of the strategy and what worked well in the two games against Ghana and Wales.

We talked about how dynamic England were and how progressive the side were. The team’s high pressing system suffocated their opponents, especially Wales. And the mixture of passing made England hard to deal with in both games.

Here’s the link to the first article regarding the positives of the system.

http://thefootballfront.blogspot.com/2011/04/englands-new-4-3-3-system-platform-for.html

Today, we will be looking at the negatives and the aspects of the system, which didn’t work well for England.

The negatives

Clearly, the system is only two games old and there are still areas which need to be worked on. Here are few errors which I saw in England’s games whilst playing with the 4-3-3.

Fabio Capello loves his central midfielders to control the game and the tempo. The new system gave England’s central midfielders more time on the ball. This led there to be more of a creative spark in the middle. This all well and good. But, England were finding it hard to thread through balls into the wingers and strikers. At times against both Wales and Ghana, England’s passing was static as they couldn’t see the pass or were unwilling to execute it. Again, this could boil down to the understanding between the players regarding the new strategy. As the development of understanding takes time, but as the team gets used to the system, the central midfielders will be receptive to the run of the strikers and can quickly and effectively thread the balls through. Although this sounds very technical, some argue, England lack the ability to pass progressively. But England have a great number of passers. The likes of Lampard, Gerrard and Wilshere can all be trusted to thread in brilliant balls to the strikers and midfielders.

Ghana recognised England’s dependence on their 3 central midfielders. It was clear that the central midfield was England’s main catalyst for attacks. The Ghana team quickly closed down Wilshere and James Milner. This meant, England at times were sloppy in their passing or were often caught in possession. And because England attempted to impose themselves onto the opposition, it therefore meant that Ghana could quickly counter and could ask serious questions of England’s high defensive line. Arguably, if England were playing against a more superior team, they would have punished England on the counter. As they would have been far more quicker and crisp in their passing and would have possibly had a number of clinical finishers to finish off the move.

This is a diagram of how Ghana stopped England's midfield from settling on the ball.

Here is a diagram of how England nearly conceded because of the high defensive line.

The game against Ghana was a game of two halves. And like most friendlies, the substitutions had a big impact on the balance of the game. England in the first half were expansive and were asking all the questions to Ghana. The team were effective through the middle and found a lot of joy on the right flank, thanks to great running and movement by Glen Johnson and Stuart Downing. Arguably, England’s crossing distribution was poor throughout the game. This is a fair point, especially in the first half. As England got to the Ghana by-line but failed to provide suitable crosses into the middle.

But, when Glen Johnson came off at half time. England lost their width. Arguably, this resulted in England losing their offensive nature in the second half. Against Wales, Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson symbolised England’s imposing nature by pressing high and allowing the wingers to play in a more central striking role. While the full backs attacked the byline and gave England solid width. This meant England had more bodies upfront and were more threatening. As there were a number of attacking options available. But when Glen Johnson came off against Ghana and Phil Jagielka took his place at right back, this encouraged Ghana’s fullbacks to venture into the England half. Arguably, having Jagielka at right back is undesirable. As Jagielka isn’t the fastest, nor does he have a good cross or the off the ball movement to be an offensive full back. Maybe if Micah Richards wasn’t injured he would have been far more effective at right back and maintained England’s width.

While on the other flank, Leighton Baines yet again failed to have the confidence to venture forward and provide fantastic crosses and passes. The reason why Baines is in the England team is because of his venturing forward and great distribution. It seemed Baines was unwilling to go forward in fear of making a mistake, it’s a shame. Had Baines had more confidence, he could have played a crucial role, providing for Andy Carroll. If Baines ask more questions of Pantsil, England would have been far more effective on the left hand side. However, it’s clear the Ghanaian management saw the lack of progress by Baines and demanded Ghana’s right back, John Pantsil to venture forward continuously. The venturing of Pantsil was a crucial reason to why England were hemmed into their own box in the second half.

The lack of width by the full backs in the second half resulted in England playing far more narrow. The wingers Downing and Young had to come in a more central position to receive the ball. This often led to nothing significant occurring in terms of offensive attacks. As Ghana were quickly pressing England in the middle and England had no venturing full backs out wide, to stretch the play.

When Andy Carroll came off, another problem occurred. England by the 60^th minute were being dominated by Ghana, England didn’t have a forward who could win the ball in the air or hold the ball up. Jermaine Defoe is a great striker, but he was rather ineffectual. As England couldn’t get the ball to him. The team were unwilling to play the ball long to Defoe. As he couldn’t effectively hold up the ball. This resulted in Ghana winning the ball with great ease. Capello did try and maintain service for Defoe, by playing Young alongside him. But again, England were far too narrow and simply couldn’t get the English midfield to re-impose their tempo and their authority over the match. Perhaps, Jermaine Defoe could have been more flamboyant in his approach. Maybe he could have made wide runs or played on the shoulder of the fullback in an attempt to use his pace.

Conclusion

There is quite a lot of potential in England’s new system. The team look far more dynamic and unpredictable. But the team need to develop an intuition for the system and the strategy. Once the team fully knows the function of the tactic it could give England a huge amount of success, potentially.

It’s imperative that Capello finds his best 11 quickly. This will further speed the understanding of the strategy and the tactic. But it’s also vital that Capello tries to stick to this tactic and uses it against tough opponents. This will make the team more disciplined and have more confidence in themselves and the system they are using.

But one mustn’t get carried away. The tactic could make England fall flat on their faces against a superior opposition. Only time will tell if it could become the platform for English success. But Ghana proved if the opposition ask serious questions and look to exploit England’s high defensive line they can be vulnerable.

Next week – we will be looking at The best possible selection for the England 4-3-3 system.

Read last week’s feature here - http://thefootballfront.blogspot.com/2011/04/englands-new-4-3-3-system-platform-for.html

Things you may like to read

Why Fabio Capello should be embarrassed of his handling of the Rio Ferdinand captaincy issue - http://tiny.cc/x1wdy

Why Kevin Davies should be in contention for the England squad - http://tiny.cc/03xgm

Do the England players fear wearing the England jersey? - http://tiny.cc/3gg73

England's new 4-3-3 system, the platform for English success? Part One - The positives

The last two games have seen England being far more dynamic and more exciting to watch. Perhaps this was something the team lacked in South Africa. But there are potential reasons for England fans to get excited. However, they must take everything with a pinch of salt. The new system is only two games old and there clearly isn’t the cohesion and understanding like the world champions Spain. The new system has given everyone some food for thought.

I am going to post a three part series which takes a little tour on the positives and the negatives of England’s new system. And I will show who I think England should field in their new 4-3-3 system.

Part One - The Positives

The high pressing system England used against Ghana and Wales was impressive. It made England dictate the tempo and become far more assertive on the game. In the Wales game Jack Wilshere and Frank Lampard, the two central midfielders, were far more progressive. This therefore resulted in England penning Wales back into their own half. As the two central midfielders were looking to find space to thread balls through and get into offensive positions.

The progressive nature of Wilshere and Lampard was partly due to the great holding midfield performance of Scott Parker. Parker used the ball well and won a number of crucial challenges to stop Wales’ attacks at the root. In the Ghana game it was the same with Gareth Barry. Barry, protected the defensive line effectively and played simple but important passes. Both players stretched the play as well. This enabled England to attack via the flanks. The two games showed how crucial the holding midfield role is for England. Arguably, in the World Cup when Gareth Barry was overrun by Germany’s Thomas Muller, it meant England could not be as offensive as a team. As Barry needed support to contain Muller and co. But that’s not to say the result was Gareth Barry’s fault. No way, it’s simply a resulting factor which occurs if the other team sets the tempo and imposes themselves on the game, which Germany did fantastically.

It was clear that Wales weren’t expecting England to play with a high pressing system. The Welsh played two holding midfielders, perhaps they did this to stop Lampard, Wilshere and Ronney from supporting Bent. But another reason to play two holding midfielders was that it would give Wales a better chance of keeping the ball and trying to control the tempo. However, the two holding Welsh players gave England more confidence in their pressing game. As Wales’s defensive midfield duo, Andrew Crofts and Joe Ledley were so deep in their own half. This meant Wilshere and Lampard could close the pair down in offensive positions. This resulted in Wales playing even more deeper and England being far more imposing the Welsh half.

The 4-3-3 system allows England to be far more dynamic. The team can mix their strategy styles effectively whilst using the formation. A criticism before and during the World Cup was that England were far too rigid. This meant there was little creativity and the team was too predictable. However, what surprised me in the last two England games was how quickly England could change from playing the ball through the middle and playing with width. The team showed they could easily variate between the two. Against Ghana, especially in the first half, England kept the ball nicely in the middle. But one quick pass out wide and then England were asking serious questions of Ghana. The dynamic strategy used by England shows for the first time in a long time, that England are trying to utilise their pace. For me, England aren’t the most technically gifted team in the world. They can’t pass the ball as fluently as some other international teams. But England have a variety of different players who are fast and can instantly put the opposition on the back foot because of their sheer pace.

This adds another weapon to England’s armour. If England want to predominantly through the middle which they did against Wales. It allows England to have the option to quickly pass the ball out wide to a galloping Glen Johnson or Ashley Cole. Or of course, the wingers. This instantly would give England another offensive strategy to stretch the play. And because of England’s fantastic pace on the wings it makes England far more threatening and dangerous, to cut open the defence.

In both the Ghana and Wales game it was clear England wanted the ball to go through the midfield. This was evident as both holding midfielders, Barry and Parker (in the two separate games) had a lot of the ball. Furthermore, Lampard and Wilshere against Wales were continoulsy on the ball, passing and probing. This meant that England were more progressive on the ball. As it lead to England being able to impose a highline and push Glen Johnson and Ashley Cole higher up the pitch. Furthermore, the fact England were in control of poession it resulted in England passing the ball around warreing Wales down.

However, England’s system used a mixture of passing. Against Wales, England played predominantly short passes, but the team were willing to go long if the option was open. When Wales pushed their defensive line higher and tried to venture in the England half, the likes of Rooney, Wilshere and Lampard attempted long balls to get Bent quickly behind the Welsh line. In fact, the second England goal was a result of a brilliant mixture of passing. Glen Johnson’s great ball over the top to Ashley Young, resulted in an simple tap in for Darren Bent.

In the Ghana game, England started Andy Carroll as the central striker. To England’s praise they didn’t continuously play the ball long to Carroll’s head. This was rather refereshing. As it made England more unpredictable. The team looked to play the ball through the midfield and have Carroll hold the ball up, while the team progresses forward. But when England did play it long, they did it at crucial times. They did it when England had men in and around Carroll thus meaning he could effectively flick the ball to his team mates.

The new system England have adopted has the potential to make England a nightmare to mark and track. The fact England could interchange the striker roles and the midfield roles meant that England have the element of surprise in their game. Upfront England could have every now and then swapped Rooney for Bent in the central striking role, with Bent coming out wide. Or even swapped Young for Rooney, resulting in the two players switching flanks. This has the impact to cause confusion amongst the opposition defence. It also has the consequence to make England more effective in cutting in from the wings as there potentially could be more space for exposure.

Part Two will be released on Wednesday 13th April.