- Why does one Premier League ref see five times as many away wins, as another?
- Why Arsenal didn’t mind losing and where they’d be without VAR
By Tony Attwood
There are of course traditions in football, as much as there are rules. Some are subtle, some are obvious – the obvious including the way the teams line up at kick-off, and generally keep to their positions. If you are particularly old, like me, you will remember the two full-backs, three midfield defenders, two inside forwards and the three attackers. The media and most match day programmes used to refer to this as either 2 – 3 – 5 or 5- 3- 2 depending on which way up they were standing, but in essence, from the back it was 2 – 3 – 2 – 3 that played each game
Now of course football is a lot more varied and hence confusing (at least for journalists) and it just got more confusing still since previous tactics dictated that a threesome played across the pitch, one to the left, one to the right and one in the middle.
But Arsenal have on occasion been experimenting with a threesome all on one side of the pitch: Trossard, Rice and Lewis-Skelly, all on the left and running a show on one side of the field in a way that ManC players, obviously brought up on the traditions of a threesome going across the pitch, found hard to play against.
That game was all very jolly and it brings up a fascinating issue: could Arsenal do the same thing on the other side of the pitch when Saka returns? In short could they evolve a Trossar – Rice – Lewis-Skelly type pattern on both sides of the pitch?
Certainly one of the factors that has emerged across the Arteta years is his ability to move players to unexpected positions – and that has certainly been the case with Trossard.
But just imagine that trio on the left replicated over toward the right, as a Saka, Martinelli and Odegaard triangle moved the ball forward. The opposition really wouldn’t quite know how to defend because no one would know which side the attack was coming from. What’s more if the attack broke down there are plenty of defenders waiting in the line of four behind.
Of course the two groups of three don’t just stay in a line approaching the goal – they move infield a lot, but the key point surely is that their movement in a triangle draws the defence towards them at which point a long ball to the trio handling the other side of the pitch has the defenders rushing around trying to catch up.
It might even be possible to play the two groups of three with Rice as part of each group, playing more infield than the other two and ready to pick up matters on the left or right.
This sort of approach means that there is no room for a centre forward, which implies that far from desperately needing to sign one, Arsenal already have one too many. Although that situation means that if the tactic were not working, Arsenal could bring on Havertz, or start him at the top of one of the lines of three.
But it has now become customary to say that Arsenal need a striker, ignoring the fact that Arsenal only just missed out on the league last season when Saka was top with 16 in 35 in the Premier League. The season before both Martinelli and Odegaard got 15 each in the Premier League and Arsenal got 89 points. Back in 2021/22 our top scorer was Saka with 12, and behind him Smith Rowe on 11 and Nketiah on 10.
Now my point is that there is a danger in having one man who scores all the goals, for what happens when is a) he is injured or b) he loses his touch. Invest everything in a stroker who delivers, and that’s fine because yes maybe we can get more than the 91 goals last season, achieved without a striker.
But the point is also maybe not. Last season our top scorers among the 91 league goals were Saka with 20, Trossard with 17, Havertz with 14 and Odegaard with 11. In short Arsenal spread the goals out among the forward players.
And that is interesting because 91 goals has only once been beaten since the second world war, and that was in 1952/3 when the game was played in a very different way, with the old 2-3-5 formation mentioned at the start and the club played four more games.
So the question then becomes, if last season was that successful, and this season is only going to be less successful because the key players have been injured, why should we want to abandon the most successful approach to goal-scoring the club has had in 72 years just because the media says we should?
In my mind the answer to the question as to why the media (with no qualifications, expertise or training in coaching football) insist Arsenal need a “30 goal a season striker” is one of two reasons:
a) They are too stupid to realise what you have explained above and don’t bother to actually do any proper research to establish facts which support their opinions; or
b) They are aware of the facts and as not having a 30 goals a season striker is factually correct they know it can be can be used, indisputably, as a weapon with which to criticise Arsenal.
Of course it could be a combination of the two, which I suspect is the case. However we should rest assured that if we get a striker who scores 30 goals a season, they will undoubtedly find (or invent) another stick with which to beat us irrespective of its validity or factual accuracy.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and media lies concocted in order to criticise Arsenal.”
At least if he were alive today and supported Arsenal, I’m pretty sure that’s what he would have said…….maybe adding a fourth point about PGMO behaviour perhaps!!
@ Mickey
To quote the observation of another famous American.
“If we all think the same then none of us are thinking”
Samuel Johnson (he of the dictionary) was asked to review a book by its author.
Johnson responded ‘Your book is both original and interesting. Where it is interesting it is not original and where it is original it is not interesting.
In my view it says it all about the talk on football be it TV, radio or social media. It would not be so bad if it wasn’t so, so predictable,
Mikey
As you may of seen, I have produced stats on numerous occasions that show how a 20+ goal a season player is absolutely no guarantee of success, and as I showed, getting rid of one, as in the case Ian Wright, can actually benefit the club. For those that missed it here is proof positive that shipping OUT a 20+ a season goal scorer leads to a title:
Now I’ve no doubt there’s people out there thinking, if only we had an Ian Wright type player that would be the final piece of the puzzle. But would it? Wright was our stellar striker between season 91/92 and 97/98. Bellow are his numbers including his PL goals. His total goals. How many the team scored and where we finished.
Season – PL/All – Team PL – Finished
91/92 – 24/26 – 81 – 4th
92/93 – 15/30 – 40 – 10th
93/94 – 23/25 — 53 – 4th
94/95 – 18/30 – 52 – 12th
95/96 – 15/23 – 49 – 5th
96/97 – 23/30 – 62 – 3rd
With Bergkamp
97/98 – 16/22 – 68 – 1st
Our overall goal scoring on average increased after Wright left.
As for our current overall performances and goal scoring, as both Tony and I (and others) have pointed out, as far as the PL is concerned we are running very very close to last season, in fact just 2 points behind and close on goals I think Tony showed in his ‘at this stage’ comparison. I did a ‘game to game’ comparison, making direct comparisons to the corresponding fixtures last season. Again for those that missed them:
“…….it is also true that on a direct ‘game to game’ comparison (excluding the promoted teams of course), whilst we are also the same 2 points behind last season, as far as goals scored are concerned, against the same opponents, in the same Home and Away fixtures, we have actually scored 3 goals more than last season. The GD is identical. And as you say, given not only the injuries, but the amount of time we’ve had to play with 10 men, that is remarkable”
And these are the numbers behind that remarkable achievement:
23/24
P 21 W 13 D 4 L 4 F 38 A 16 GD +22 Pts 43
24/25
P 21 W 11 D 8 L 2 F 41 A 19 GD +22 Pts 41
But as you say despite that, we will still of course being endlessly told that without a recognised ‘striker’ we haven’t got a chance.
We all know it hasn’t gone well in both domestic cups, but that is an anomaly. Although not being at our best we deserved more than we got from the 3 cup games that have seen us eliminated from both cups.
As demonstrated by Tony’s and my figures, despite protestations to the contrary, scoring goals this season is NOT a problem. Both in the PL and CL we score at a rate very close to the best in both tournaments.
Alas that has not been the case in both cups where unfortunately we just haven’t converted our chances, and therefore not got the results that perhaps our overall performances deserved.
For example over the 2 legs against Newcastle these are the stats:
Arsenal 69% Possession 34 shots 6 on target 0 goals
Newcastle 31% Possession 17 shots 8 on target 4 goals
Over the 2 legs we didn’t play that bad. No team dominates matches to that degree if they are not playing well. We created TWICE as many shots as Newcastle but still only hit the target 4 times compared to their 6.
Against Man Utd it was a similar story:
Arsenal 70% Possession 26 shots 7 on target 1 goal
Man Utd 30% Possession 7 shots 4 on target 1 goal
Over 3 matches that’s:
Arsenal 69% Possession 60 shots 13 on target 1 goal
NC/MU 31% Possession 24 shots 12 on target 5 goals
So what does that tell you? Our finishing was crap, that’s what it tells you. But that is not the norm. As the PL and CL show, we are fine in front of goal.
Look, it happens. But those stats do not reflect how we are playing, and finishing, overall this season.
We also had no luck. That is a fact. Okay, you can say you make your own luck, and in Newcastle’s case that is probably true. But even then it has to be remembered the League Cup is their season. In fact it is so big for them that if they win it they will become LEGENDS. Yep legends for winning the League cup, but I suppose given it is the first domestic trophy of any description they have won for 70 years that could be true!!
For us, as disappointing as it always is to lose and go out of the cups, they are/were low priority. In fact, as I said yesterday, even if we won one of the cups it would not of stopped the moaning, and in the case of the League Cup, would actually of lead to more piss taking. As Tony kind of inferred, we are probably actually better off out of it. Again as I said yesterday, we have bigger fish to fry.
But in the final analysis it doesn’t actually matter what Arsenal do or don’t do. Score or don’t score. Win or don’t win. The media, and along with them way too many of our own supporter, will find something to moan about.