Arsene the Great tactician? No. Arsene the great motivator? You bet.
A lot of debate still rages about how good Arsene Wenger is as a manager and as a tactician. After all he has accomplished at Arsenal there are those who dismiss his early success as a result of holdovers from the George Graham teams and those who decry who inability to possess even a modicum of tactical nous.
While I fervently disagree with the assumption that Arsenal’s success early under Wenger was by chance and the fact he had a defense that was made of Graham’s leftovers, I am more aligned with the process that Wenger is not some sort of master tactician.
And you know what? That’s okay.
In every day life we have people that succeed in leadership roles that are good in one area and not good in another. They still succeed. And Arsenal has succeeded and continues to succeed (to a certain level) under Arsene Wenger.
What infuriates most about Wenger and his perceived tactical weakness is the lack of a “plan B” when it all goes wrong. We discussed previously here, the thought that Wenger should consider use of 4-1-3-2 in certain matches considering that talent he has currently. It was a system that provided Arsenal with a lot of success in the early 2000’s and could use the strengths of both Theo Walcott and Olivier Giroud up top.
But alas Arsene doesn’t read our blog and didn’t employ it. Maybe another day eh.
The point is that he is as many of us our, stubborn in our ideas. We all want to show we are right. Wenger has shown on more than one occasion that he is right and his rigidity and devotion to one system works. Now some will argue that this is the sign of gifted tactician.
Er, no. It’s not really. It’s clearly a sign of a type A personality who is in control and won’t openly admit they are wrong. I know this type of person well, I am one of them.
I read an interesting piece last week on the Gunnertown Blog that lauded Wenger’s successes this past season as a tactician. It presented clearly their case that there games and points in the season where because of our success on the pitch, it disproved the point that Wenger is a leading tactician.
I love the Gunnertown Blog and for those that read it and write for it this isn’t an attempt to say they’ve got it wrong. But I do think in some way they have.
First, they clearly left out criticism of the moments in the season that tactical nous would’ve likely changed things up when it all went wrong. In those games when a team is determined to set up shop and deny Arsenal space in the final third, Arsenal stick to their prime formation, now a modified 4-3-3 that morphed into the 4-2-3-1. It never changes.
For me when you have a team that is clearly shown itself to play defensively and look for the one man up top 4 at the back just doesn’t make sense. This is where switching to a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 would work. It provides more attacking power up front and with a system that forces the wing backs to hug the touchline automatically stretches out the field rather than shink it in the middle as our current formations tend to do in this type of match.
Additionally, given that our opponent is going to cede possession to us, both the 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 play right into that as these are formations that are better suited to teams comfortable on the ball.
This isn’t meant to be a dissertation on the merits of these formations but to show that when the game time situation shows you something you didn’t expect or anticipate then you have to be astute enough to make a change on the fly, something Wenger doesn’t do – typically.
Again, I want to state that in some way Wenger doesn’t need to be a master tactician. He needs to be a capable one and I don’t think he would’ve ever gotten this far had he not. I know its frustrating when his substitutions are based on some idea that a player he has targeted for subbing out is tired. He rarely if ever makes tactical substitutions unless absolutely warranted. And even then it’s a rarity.
Before everyone gets all upset that this is some sort of attack on Wenger, it’s not. Tactics is a weakness of his. Where his true strength lies and why I think he is a great manager is getting the best out of players.
Ask yourselves this question, when things as things have been barren these years and only the last months of the season are when Arsenal truly seem to be in their element – what’s the one constant (outside of the supporters love of the club) – it’s Arsene Wenger.
I do not think it is coincidence that regardless of the players when the chips are truly down that this team pulls it together. They pull it together because one man is able to coax the performances out of them. His belief in them as individuals and as a cohesive unit and an ability to get them to perform is what is what makes him great.
Sure, there are times when even a players best, isn’t good enough for Arsenal. Wenger has recently shown that he has learned from his mistakes and those players as soon as they can be shifted are shifted. He no longer depends on underperforming players.
Many of the players who have left talk of their love, respect and adulation of Arsene Wenger. The credit he gets for shaping the players and turning them into the stars borders on a cult-mentality at times but it’s sincere. It’s genuine and it speaks volumes about Wenger’s true strengths as a manager.
Sure the cynic will now rant about how most of those players have left. True. And some have had success. Most haven’t. And regardless of their success their praise of Wenger is unwavered.
Every one of the players from the inherited back 4 that Graham left behind all credit Wenger with pro-longing their careers and making them better players. Adams, Winterburn, Parlor, Dixon and Keown give him high praise.
Even today as pundits these players steadfastly defend him and to a letter say if anyone can coax the best out a player it’s Arsene Wenger.
Yesterday when I ranted about our making Luis Suarez a target, one of the most common replies from supporters and even a few journalists was that Arsene Wenger was probably the one man that could “change him.” (as an aside I think there is too much of a backlog of evidence to suggest that anyone even Wenger could change Suarez’s behavior.) It seems a little naïve but it’s probably true on a certain level.
Arsenal were able to overcome their obstacles this season, like the away win to Bayern or the near snatch of a rare CL double over Barca because of Wenger. Because he believed in his players and he worked to get the best out of them
Sometimes, as Cesc’s errant back heel, Koscielny’s wrap around on Aguerro, or Vermaelen and Sagna’s back pass to Robin Van Persie (playing for United) show that individual error can affect that.
It’s maddening when Wenger sticks to his guns and keeps playing a certain way or a certain player. But he has belief in his system and his players. It’s that above all else that carries Arsenal forward. It’s why Arsenal succeed year over year when the odds, the pundits and statisticians all say they should be mid-table. More than any player or any tactic, it is one man Arsene Wenger who delivers faith and continuity in his players, gets them to perform and ultimately be a success.
Tactics are overrated anyway aren’t they?
15 comments
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Arsene seldom ever uses contingencies. The article is spot on. He has many strengths, but he’s stubborn and arrogant.
good write up, dag. i think you’ve got wenger on the money. you will be hard-pressed to find a current or former player who doesn’t have nice things to say about how wenger has treated them. in that regard, i think he’s a fine man manager.
tactically, i have disagreed with wenger on may occasions. that doesn’t mean i think this guy doesn’t know the game. he’s forgotten more than many will ever know and deserves better than the disrespectful crap we’ve read or heard people say about him in recent years. sure, he has limitations. show me a man that doesn’t.
wenger had adopted brazil’s traditional approach to football; just attack and let the opposition try and worry about how to stop you. brazil’s football has been breathtaking over the years and for wenger to want to replicate that for fans on a weekly basis in the premier league is admirable. at one time wenger had the players to do it and it was beautiful to behold. where i think wenger got it wrong is despite the exceptional and impressionable young talent at his disposal, they still needed leadership on the pitch. since he sold vieira, it’s all come crumbling down. it’s forced him to consider his tactical approach to games with his “talented yet limited” players.
the thing about tactics is you come up with what you believe is the best plan to help your team win. when you know you’ve got your best plan, you can’t abandon it too hastily. you want to give it every chance to work; as it’s your best plan. the downside to changing formations so readily is the team has established a continuity playing a certain formation every week. changing the formation will undermine that continuity. sure, the players are professionals but it’s nice to not have to over-think in a tough game. i truly understand wenger’s reluctance to change formation.
add to that, the proverbial “plan b” is a bullshit term. plan b may be good for one team but may be suicidal against another team. should you change your tactical approach when you’re playing good football but rooney scores a fluke goal? how about when giroud misses a sitter that would have given your team the lead? who would want to do plan b when plan a was a better plan? if plan b was such a good idea, wouldn’t it have been plan a? sometimes it’s obvious but other times, it’s not. when losing 3-1 against southampton, did we need a plan b? arsenal stuck with plan a because it was better and arsenal went on to win 5-3.
that’s why you need smart leaders on the pitch that recognize what the opponent is doing at ground zero. a minor tactical change on the pitch may be all that’s required. you need an experienced captain to do that. not a 21 year old english kid, a 21 year old spanish kid, or a germanian spaz. you need someone who knows how to lead, that’s disciplined, and has experience winning tough games. if you’ve never sat in that chair, it’s easier said than done.
this is absolutely PRECIOUS, and unfortunately… true for about the last 5 season.
if you need a laugh… here’s the link…
its Arsenal Summer Plans calendar:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=495264453885151&set=a.389929704418627.89972.389922437752687&type=1&theater
No the biggest argument you can make about Wenger’s tactics is that the bigger sides have found him to be so predictable in recent seasons – we’ve been beaten by Utd and Chelsea a few times without them having to break a sweat – just let us have the midfield and counter attack. That’s been the most frustrating thing – the least you have to do is make them work for a win, and it’s largely been down to a predictable tactical setup.
First to Blackburn and Bradford – as I mention tactically he has issues. Both teams set up defensively and as I said his tactical trust in one system is flawed. If he changed things up as I suggest to say a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 there might be more success against these types of teams.
And Bradford as tactically inept as we seemed, it was still down to penalties.
As for the others as much as you motivate players you cannot do anything about the individual ability to make mistakes and there has been enough ink and keystroking to show that many of Arsenal’s issues fall down to individual error. No matter how much you try you just can’t get that out completely.
Um, I would wager that in one European Cup final he was unlucky. Henry one on one with a keeper – how many times does he miss that? Was Lehmann’s sending off down to tactics, motivation or a player mistake? The other losses, sometimes the better team wins.
Yeah I don’t think we’ve been in a European Cup final and been favourites. We faced Barca when they were head and shoulders the best side in Europe, so we couldn’t expect to have won that game anyway.
Wenger picks his tactics based on the team’s strengths. I’ve always disagreed with the idea of putting Giroud and Walcott up front. That is worlds away from Henry and Bergkamp, or even Adebayor and van Persie.
Our strength last season in attack was Cazorla and Walcott. And Wenger’s tactics were often all about trying to find the best place for them and trying to make them more effective.
Too many strikers, too many direct players against deep defences can be counterproductive. Against deep defences, in fact, you shouldn’t even play a striker. Runs from deep are always more effective. Unless you’ve got one striker who can twist and turn in very tight spaces and get off shots.
The “false 9s” recently evolved because of the rise of parked buses, I feel. It used to be that poachers would play on the offside line and spring in behind defences. Now you have forwards who, having been starved of space behind the defence, move in the opposite direction and operate in front of the defence.
The idea is to pull the defenders out as they try to mark the forward and the onus is on the midfielders to exploit the vacated spaces.
Playing Gervinho as a striker against Bradford was a mistake. He was never going to get space to run into and the difficult pitch was always going to expose his technique.
We saw this in the opening match against Sunderland too. Wenger decided to play a “three striker system” with Gervinho and Walcott on the wings, but again they had no room to run into. Nowhere to go. And didn’t have the technique or create in tight spaces. What we needed was another playmaker with Cazorla who would pick out the right passes and create from between the defence and midfield. Wenger admitted as much post-match.
And the bad touches and bad passes from our forwards often slowed down our tempo. If we had Henry or RvP along with Giroud I’m sure Wenger would have played more strikers more often but not with the quality we had.
I don’t think he’s tactically inept exactly. He seems to pick the best system for his first team, but when we get a few injuries, he doesn’t seem to want to adjust to accomodate the new players who might not suit the usual style. Had Ramsey not really taken to that defensive role alongside Arteta at the end of the season we would really have been in trouble. The man clearly understands football and couldn’t have won as much as he has without that knowledge, but he is slow to react, it’s true. He has out-thought Ferguson and other great managers in his time though.
I agree he can be slow to react. For example last season Vermaelen should have been dropped earlier (no idea why he was made captain in the first place). Shouldn’t have persisted with the Cazorla, Wilshere, Arteta midfield that clearly was leaving us exposed – although I could see the reasoning behind it.
The problem with the Ramsey – Arteta midfield is simply that they’re two similar players. Both are good at retaining possession and can pass the ball well. With Wilshere or Diaby in there you get more of a burst from midfield.
People call Ramsey and Arteta “crabs” but it’s not that they passing the ball sideways, but rather their strengths aren’t in driving up with the ball.
So in that respect Wenger needs to find the right balance next season.
I disagree that Wenger sticks to one system. He changes it up quite often.
We didn’t use 442 because we don’t have the players for it. We don’t have any defensive midfielders, and our wingers are more wide forwards than wide midfielders.
Also, Giroud and Walcott would be a terrible partnership (well, it was). Neither is technically sound enough and to have everything go through them wouldn’t work.
In fact they did play up front together for much of the season. In mid season AW had Theo play higher up and more central to provide better support for the struggling Giroud. It sort of helped as Theo was our biggest goal threat.
But when your front two have inconsistent first touches and a high turnover rate your attack will struggle.
Last season Wenger did switch to a 442 system when Henry was around as a plan B. most notably against Milan when Henry came on as half time and we switched to a narrow 442 with Ramsey and Rosicky on the wings. This allowed us to play to our strength (the two frontmen) and made us more of a threat.
I would argue that one of Wenger’s biggest strengths is his tactical flexibility. He’s managed many teams and has always played a system that suits his players. He played a 433 with Monaco but played a 442 at Arsenal to accommodate Bergkamp and Wright.
When he didn’t have the players for 442 he switched to a 451 to free up Cesc in midfield.
Even this season he played around with the formation trying to get the best out of the team.trying to find the right balance between creativity, directness, and defensive solidity.
I think AW is a great tactician even if he doesn’t like adapting too much to the opposition (that’s perhaps a weakness). Tactics are about multiplying your teams ability and AW has always known how to set his teams up to get the best out of them.
Difficult to take your opinion on AW seriously when you are a self-professed “Wenger man”.
1998 or 2002 was long ago. we’re talking about now.
Arsene seems to just have one best formation, which he thinks conquers all. It doesn’t all the time, and he’s too arrogant to see it.
“Arsenal succeed year over year when every pundit picks them to be a mid table team”??? Arsenal have by far the fourth highest wage bill and adds dictate they should be in the top four since Wenger is such a great manager as you say. If in fact he is such a great motivator , how do you explain his side’s notorious struggles against smaller clubs like Bradford City and ,Blackburn Rovers just to name a few. And finally if he is such a great manager , why is he 0 for 3 in European Cup finals, unlucky I guess.
I agree in part. He seems to be great for some players, but not so much for others. He gives the players a lot of freedom and the ones with the right attitude simply thrive. He absolutely got the best out of Fabregas for example, but Arshavin struggled because I think he needed more coddling or even a kick up the backside, which I don’t think is Wenger’s style. Players like Denilson and Bendtner, IMO, have the raw talent to be successful but they really needed a more forceful manager to ensure they did what was required.