Bus breakdown at The Bridge : A Tactical Review

Blogger #18:

In the face of scathing criticism from various sections of the media, players and fans after a series of performances from Chelsea that has been dubbed ‘ugly football’ (#14 found that quite distasteful), you might have been forgiven for thinking Jose Mourinho might go for a drastic change of approach from the first leg of this tie, which, to be honest, was quite dull. But this isn’t a guy known to give into conformity (or agree with Jamie Redknapp,for that matter) and Jose put out what was probably his most defensive line up of the season, with 6 defenders in the side (Luiz and Azpilicueta in midfield positions).

Atletico Madrid have had the season of their lives and a win at Lisbon this month, forty years since their last final, against Real Madrid coupled with a league title would serve to show the incredible character of this side, moulded in their manager’s image. They aren’t the most attractive side to watch, but they defend with their lives and are clinical at taking their chances. Simeone aptly chose to discuss the character shown by his players when he said "I would like to congratulate the mothers of these players because they have big cojones."

Line Ups and shape:

With Cech still out, Schwarzer played in goal for Chelsea, while Adrian surprisingly replaced Raul Garcia upfront for Atletico. Atletico played in their customary ‘out-dated’ 4-4-2, and Chelsea’s shape seemed to be a 4-3-3, a Jose Mourinho favourite, with Willian dropping very deep to find space and Azpilicueta playing a role akin to that of a defensive winger.

Chelsea Approach:

Chelsea were content to sit deep and stifle space in midfield. This was quite similar to the first leg, where both teams cancelled each other out. Costa once again had little impact on the game. With little space to run into, he was often forced to compete with Terry and Cahill in aerial duels and was often crowded out. Unable to counter attack and run into space behind the defence, this certainly wasn’t a performance that should be used as an example to show why Chelsea are so desperate to buy him in the summer.

Lacking a proper playmaker in the deep center midfield roles, Chelsea were content to concentrate their build up through the wings. Ramires and Luiz were mostly content with simple passes to the wings, although Luiz did indulge in the occasional cross-field ball to switch play.

Atletico seemed content to deal with this method of attack and Chelsea rarely created good openings from the wide areas. Ashley Cole seemed to have been instructed to stay back and hence with no overlaps to worry about, Turan and Juanfran easily dealt with Hazard on the majority of occasions by double-teaming on him. On a few occasions when Chelsea did get in good crosses into the box, Torres’ positioning was poor. A rare good run from him saw him score the opener. Azpilicueta, primarily in that position to track the runs of Filipe Luis, provided the assist.

 

Chelsea also relied on set-pieces to create attacking openings, and had it not been for a couple of very good saves from Courtois, Chelsea could have seen this approach pay off.

Eden Hazard:

In hindsight, Chelsea could have done with a player similar to Azpilicueta on the opposite flank. The first leg of this tie saw Chelsea line up with Ramires, a defensive midfielder, and Willian, a player noted for his hard work off the ball, on the wings. While they rarely created good openings with that approach, they quite easily dealt with Atletico’s wingers and wingbacks. Mourinho could have also played Hazard in a central role and Willian on the left flank. As it turned out, the decision to play Hazard on the left cost Chelsea their place in the competition. Juanfran, left free by Hazard, twice made late runs into the box which led to Atletico’s first and third goals.

The first and third goals had strikingly similar build-ups

It brings up the debate of the role that such attacking players can have in such a defensive system.  Hazard was burdened with almost all of Chelsea’s attacking responsibilities, a role he wasn’t pleased with. He was often left frustrated due to a lack of support around him and excellent defensive play from Atletico.

Chelsea changes:

To everyone’s surprise (especially Gary Neville), Mourinho made changes as soon as the 54^th minute. Eto’o came on and Chelsea switched to two upfront. While this gave them more men in the box, it allowed Atletico the freedom of the midfield. It was easier for them to keep possession which they did admirably in Chelsea’s own half. This was admirable, as any other team would have been content to sit deep in their own boxes, looking to play on the break. Tiago had a great game, popping up everywhere to receive the ball and keeping it moving. 

Tiago was everywhere

Final Thoughts:

Chelsea weren’t exactly outclassed by Atletico over the two legs. They are two very similar teams, based on counterattacking and cancelled each other for the most part of the two legs. With a bit of luck and some vigilant defensive work from Hazard, Chelsea could’ve been the team facing up against Real Madrid later this month.

Mourinho clearly wasn’t pleased with Hazard and the comments made by the Belgian after the game. While he does go on to criticise Hazard for the first goal, he also showed an understandable reluctance to make Hazard, arguably Chelsea’s best player, change his game. It will be interesting to see if Mourinho goes on to jettison Hazard from the club, as was the case with Mata.

For Atletico, the incredible work done by Simeone has shined through. They have excelled in more than one competition with such a small set of players and without spending big. Should it happen, it will be the greatest European triumph since Mourinho’s Porto won it in 2004.

Winning Ugly.

Blogger: #14

"If you want entertainment, go and watch a bunch of clowns"- Alan Durban, former Stoke City manager.

I can imagine how this must be for you. I do apologize profusely and all that. When one's local football blog, the one run by the bright fellows living down the street, takes an unannounced hiatus, one fidgets. One scours the web, hoping for some signs of life. Much like misplacing that thriller you've been reading, eh? You search, you search, and finally you throw your arms up in the air in resignation and get yourself another whodunit from the library. You struggle to tear yourself away from the old plot and immerse yourself into this new mystery. But by and by, you manage. And just when you forgot all about the discovery of Count Bradley's corpse in the lake and worked yourself up about the missing diamond necklace of Lady Agincourt, you find the old humdinger underneath your pillow. Can't be pleasant that. Our latest resurrection would undoubtedly reignite your interest in the Count's corpse and with a heavy heart you wave Agincourt, in this case, The Guardian, or The Daily Mail, goodbye.

So, what brings us back to life, you ask? Well, like the leopard that stalks its customary morning antelope, we've been waiting for something that would spark us into action, you know? The lowering of the guard, so to speak, enabling the leopard that is this fine football blog to pounce upon the unfortunate antelope. The antelope in this case being the debate that Chelsea's dogged 2-0 victory against Liverpool at Anfield has sparked about the beauty of the game.

Now, long story short, Chelsea came to Liverpool's den, defended for their lives, took their chances when they presented themselves, and then went back to defending for their lives. All very smash and grab stuff. Raiding that would make a certain Attila doff his hat at the Dark Lord of Defense that is Jose Mourinho. However, there's been a general outrage about the manner of victory. The consensus of this outraged section being Chelsea ought to have been more enterprising. That they were "negative" and "boring". Which really is an interesting debate that polarizes most fans. Does style matter? Is merely winning not enough? It's a philosophical debate that nobody can ever really put an end to, so yours truly is here to give you his take on things. Yes, it took me 3 paragraphs to get to this, deal with it.

Now, as an Arsenal fan, I have never really had to complain about entertainment. In fact, I've often wished for dour, comfortable 2-0 victories. If Arsenal were to change to a more pragmatic style, you wouldn't find me complaining. No Sir, whatever works. Winning with style is great, but if I had to choose one of the two, give me winning all day. Keep your style, thank you very much. A season's worth of grinding out 1-0s is fine by me if it fetches us the league.

Well, that's my two cents. "But what about delighting the spectators? What about entertaining the fans?", cry out the purists. This is where, my romantic friends, I differ from you. Sport, for me, is not entertainment. Sport is art. When my team grinds out a 1-0, or blows away the opposition 6-0, the base emotion is the same, I am happy. "But art is beautiful!", shouts one purist. Of course it is. But art is also subtle. Pain is art. Struggle is art. Repulsion is art. Entertainment is but a shallow feeling. One that seldom permeates to the heart of a supporter. The fans who watch it for entertainment do lose out on the bigger picture. And losing out on the bigger picture often deprives you of the better story.

I can see a few purists scratch their heads. Allow me to explain using music as an example. What sort of music sells? The Justin Biebers of this world sell. The Rihannas sell. I don't mean to undermine their appeal, but this sort of music is easy to interpret, easy to understand, and thus, easy to listen to. There aren't too many layers to the thing. It's more entertainment than art. But take a truly complex piece of music. An Iron Maiden song, or a Beethoven symphony. It won't get people onto the dance floor, but when you listen, actually listen, it speaks to your soul. It stirs a story within you. A story you never knew you could tell. A story you never suspected of knowing. But it takes effort to appreciate this. It takes time. Because, Beethoven is not entertainment. Beethoven is art.

"So is beautiful football!", cries one purist triumphantly.

So it is. Undoubtedly. And so is dour, defensive football. Don't follow? Let's look at a much maligned genre of music. Death metal, with it's growling and incredibly heavy sound, is often dismissed as trash. But when one actually looks at how much complexity is involved, and takes the effort to actually listen, there is a sense of appreciation, if not enjoyment for the art form. It is art. It has layers, complexity, it evokes a reaction, it demands effort from the listener. It is everything that Beethoven is, and yet, it is everything that it isn't. It isn't about the nobler emotions, it's about the wilder side of things. But yet, it is art, no?

I see a few eyebrows being raised. "What is this idiot saying?", mutters one. "I don't know, but he seems to be quite sure about himself", says another. "Why is he writing about our reactions, when he knows nobody will read this garbage?", asks a third, a most intuitive fellow. True though that undoubtedly is, I shall plod along nevertheless clinging onto slivers of hope that have not yet been crushed. So, what am I saying?

I'm saying that if one can win with a bit of oomph then well done. Fair play to you. But if one wins with a zzzz more than anything else, well done again. As long as the team's playing within the rules, I don't think it ought to be chastised. Take Barcelona for example. All they do is pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and then pass some more. It bores me frankly, but hey, somehow it's hailed as beautiful football. It won them everything, so I'm not arguing against its effectiveness. I just fail to see how defend, defend, defend which, if you notice, has the same monotonous feel to it as Barcelona's tiki-taka is condemned to the gallows.

It is art. "What, it is ART?!", screams yet another purist. I try shushing him, but he does not relent, "Explain, my good sir! Explain!" he says. And so I shall. With support from a very unlikely corner. The purist is uneasy. "Well..?", is all he can muster.
Well, one of the greatest champions of the "Winning with style" school made a statement that I surprisingly find to be in favour of my argument.

“I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art. When you read some books they are fantastic, the writer touches something in you that you know you would not have brought out of yourself. He makes you discover something interesting in your life. If you are living like an animal, what is the point of living? What makes daily life interesting is that we try to transform it to something that is close to art.”- Arsene Wenger

Chelsea defended so well that it became art. They stopped an absolutely rampaging Liverpool attack which was pillaging all comers. It was a nullification, a defanging, a declawing. It worked. Their doggedness was a triumph of substance over style. A triumph of the steady, dependable guy who holds the umbrella for the girl over the swashbuckling charmer who takes her dancing in the rain. A triumph of the kid who slogged all year for the finals over the genius who slacked off all year (not saying Liverpool didn't try, think of the analogy in terms of style and substance, thanks). Struggle is an art. The next time you gasp at a beautiful field of flowers, remember that it all started with the digging of some pretty ugly furrows.

History remembers the victors. Sure, there are notable exceptions. The Dutch team of the 1970s, the Brazil of the 80s come to mind. For good reason too. But to dismiss success because it failed to take one's breath away is a tad ridiculous. Branding it "negative" is something that one fails to understand. If the target is being achieved, one really can't complain can they? Or call it negative.

In years to come, if there is a team that sweeps all before it while playing an enterprising brand of football that takes the breath away, people will undoubtedly toast it. But, if this all-conquering team wins its battles by digging in, by organizing itself, by being defensive (and not negative), I hope people realize that what they're witnessing is art in itself. Don't bring the pitchforks out, because Durban had a point. Go watch clowns if you want entertainment. Or 'Modern Family', that's a pretty good show. 

Don't agree with me? Agree with me but don't want to agree with me because I'm really annoying? Let us know which side of the fence you're on in this philosophical battle, drop in a comment.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

#14

Arsenal. A Rallying Call. Sort Of.

Blogger: #14

At the very core of a football supporter, there is but one emotion: hope. Hope drives the season ticket holder at Coventry to renew for another season. Hope drives the average Indian supporter to stay up till 3 am to watch his team get steamrolled. To a casual observer, the answer is simple. Why not pick the team that's winning? Why not just switch? Toward that casual observer I direct a glare that burns and freezes all at once, and I ask why not disown your father for a richer benefactor? A football club is a place where you feel you belong. Maybe not with your fellow fans. But when your team loses, you lose. When they win, you win. It is one of the finest examples of a human's ability to give without expecting anything in return. For years, Arsenal has been the master of my mood. How well they do, nay, we do, affects my outlook on life. It may seem hard to believe, but I identify myself more as an Arsenal fan than as an Indian, or as a left handed dude who likes death metal, or as a really bad writer.
Season after season, we all come back hoping things will be better. You lose hope, you lose your club.

Of course, logic tempers expectations. Sure, no Saints fan thought they'd win the league or finish in the top 4 when they were on the crest of a wave of fine form early on in the season, but surely, there was just a tiny murmur of what if, wasn't there? When Arsenal got turned over 4-0 by Milan, I stayed up for the second leg. I knew we wouldn't overturn the deficit, I didn't EXPECT to qualify, but I sure did hope so. There's a line, and that line has been giving me the red carpet treatment all season, whispering in a husky, silvery voice to cross it. What line you ask? The line between hope and expectation, what did you think?

This season, for the first time since 2009-10 personally speaking, has Arsenal flirted with that line. I never gave up hope. No, Sir. Even after the 8-2 hiding, I harboured hopes of a stirring comeback to win the title. Did I expect us to? That's where, I'm afraid, I must shake my head. All season long, I have been playing down expectations, wary of the heartbreaks that I've endured. Wary, that there will be heartbreaks to come. But this team is different, you know? They know how to fight. There's steel. There's doggedness. This isn't a silky Arsenal that makes me swoon and sweeps me off my feet only to leave me stranded after a wild night that seems like a distant dream. This is a steady, functional Arsenal that leaves me with a glowing satisfied feeling whose face I know I'll see when I wake up in the morning. Yes, I chose to use that analogy fully knowing what it sounds like, sue me. But I held firm, telling myself it wasn't to last. That we'd crumble, like we always did. I thought so after the Villa game, we went on a ten match winning run. When United beat us, we rose up again. When City huffed and puffed and blew our house down, we responded with 20 points from a possible 24. Despite myself, hope was beginning to crystallize into expectation. I told myself fatigue would set in. That we'd lose our legs. That injuries would take their toll. I didn't want it to, but hey, you can't knock logic.

And then, Liverpool happened. Now, every defeat had some positives up to this point. United was a tight affair, the City game was marred by poor officiating, and I felt we did turn up. But at Anfield, we took the cannon and pointed it footwards. Five times. Those tiny crystals of expectation were killed in the womb, so to speak. Ozil, Giroud, Cazorla, had they not come up with the answers every single time by hook or by crook? Sagna, Mertesacker, Koscielny, hadn't they stymied most attacks that faced them? Had both failed, didn't Szczesny ensure we remained in the hunt? This wasn't the Arsenal I knew. Yet, it was the Arsenal I knew. The old Arsenal, that defended like a bunch of headless chickens. That played into the hands of the opposition. That looked like falling down made it scared of getting up again.

At this point, I must apologize for what seems like a pointless ramble. It was my intention to evaluate our chances post the Liverpool and United games. I intended it to be an objective analysis, however, I feel it would be better to do my feelings justice. After all, it is through this game, that most people like me experience emotions nobler than hunger or thirst or the relief one gets after, well, relieving oneself. The United game is one I always watch in a haze. An almost obsessive desire to defeat Robin van Persie clouds any rational thought that comes my way. Yet, this time, I wasn't expecting or hoping for a win. A point would be good, I felt, though I knew we could beat this United side. There was rebuilding to be done. The battle had to be compromised to salvage the war. And compromise we did. Never being too adventurous, never leaving ourselves too open. Sure, that can be looked upon as negativity, but that feeling was something else wasn't it? The feeling that bigger things needed to be looked after than a solitary game. That's something I haven't felt in a while. The question now is, have we done enough to salvage the war? We are, after all, only a point behind the leaders. But I look back, and I see Liverpool a mere 3 points off us, and with a heavy heart I must admit, I think it is more likely we'll be lugged into a top 4 dogfight. The squad is thin, we haven't strengthened when we could, and I fear this is as far as our title challenge goes. Yet, that feeling remains from the United game, like the aftertaste in your mouth when you use too much toothpaste. That the United game was a necessity. That beating them at their weakest wasn't quite as important as the task at hand. Logic dismisses my feeling though. Logic tells me to see us slip into a top 4 struggle. Logic tells me to look to next season.

But, it is a wondrous ability of humans to abandon logic as and when they choose. There comes a point, when as a fan, you just throw statistics out of the window, along with rationale and whatnot, and just back your team to the hilt. The United game turned out to be that point for me. They've been proving me wrong all season, they can prove me wrong again, right? Right?

It is an uphill task. It is unlikely, to the point of being fanciful. In all likelihood, come May, I will be reading about our ninth successive season without a trophy. But, hey, what can you do, eh? After all, if I don't back us, who will?

Arsenal haven't convinced a lot of people quite yet. But what I've not realized up to this point is that they don't need to. We've played up to this point without crystallizing hope into expectation. The odds are stacked against us and hope isn't going to be enough. But tell you what, when transformed, it gives you a fighting chance. Transformed into what, you ask? Belief. This team, and its fans need to believe. We've hit a blip, we've got to respond. And we're not going to be doing that without believing we can.

Cynical about it? Well, a wise man once said, "If you do not believe you can do it, you have no chance at all."

Arsenal fans would do well to remember who that wise man is.

Think you know who it is? Why don't you tell us in a comment? No negative points for guesses either. It's free guys, give it a shot.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
#14

Man City v. Chelsea - The Review

Blogger #18

11 straight home wins, a 20 match unbeaten run, and a scoring at home run of 61 games. Chelsea’s win at the Etihad on Monday night brought an end to a number of City’s streaks. But despite thrashing teams week after week at the Etihad, the two times they’ve lost there this season (against Bayern and Chelsea), they have looked shorn of creativity as both teams exploited the flaws of City’s 4-4-2 system.

Mourinho seems to have adopted a ‘don’t lose’ policy against the big teams away from home. Games at both Old Trafford and The Emirates finished 0-0 and all signs seemed to point to a similar approach. Perhaps that was his greatest trick, convincing the media, fans and maybe even the managers that he had just the one game plan. All the talk before the game was about parking the bus. When questioned about it before the match, he responded by saying “Parking the bus [in front ofgoal] has no relation with the players the manager chooses, but how the team plays. You can play with six, seven, eight defensive players and be an attacking team."

How true it turned out to be.

Line Ups and Shape:

The Line-Ups

City lined up in their customary 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2). Fernandinho and Aguero’s absence meant that Pellegrini went with Demichelis in midfield, with Dzeko and Negredo upfront. In the return leg this season, Pellegrini went for three in the middle with the midfield battle in mind, and was unlucky to lose that game. It made sense to go for a similar approach here, but City’s brilliant run at home (over 4 goals a game) seems to have convinced him to leave their shape untouched. But Aguero’s absence lead to the side having a predictable feel, with Dzeko and Negredo quite similar in their approach to donning the center forward role.

Initial impressions of Chelsea’s starting line-up seemed to suggest a 4-3-3 with a midfield trio of Matic, Luiz, and Ramires. But as the match played out, Chelsea looked more like a 4-2-3-1, a formation Mourinho has come to favour and love since his initial departure from the Premier League. Willian played behind Eto’o as Ramires played a central midfielder/winger role on the right, with Matic and Luiz patrolling midfield. It is also entirely possible that Mourinho changed his plans at the last minute after seeing Demichelis in the City line up, wanting to make the most out of a player in an uncomfortable position.  

David Silva and the free flank:

City get away with playing a 4-4-2 largely due to the way Silva (or Nasri) drift in field to dictate play, essentially becoming the third man in midfield. A winger drifting in played a major part when they thrashed Manchester United. This also allows Kolarov (or Clichy) acres of space to run into on the overlap.

Having recognized this, Mourinho seemed to have instructed Luiz to sit on Silva. Luiz was quite good in his role, and Silva failed to dictate play to the extent he usually does. While Kolarov did have a chance or two to put in dangerous crosses, the opportunities were few and far between. Looking to escape from Luiz’s shadowing, Silva seemed to consciously drift towards the right flank towards the end of the first half and for the entirety of the second. Being City’s playmaker, this also reduced City’s threat down the left and much of their build up in the second half was through their right flank. It was an interesting shift in shape that seemed to slightly unsettle Chelsea. With Hazard stationed high up for the counter attack, it was Matic who often helped out Azpilicueta with the defensive duties on that flank. With Silva drifting, and Zabeleta overlapping Navas, City easily created numerous 3v2 situations, which they failed to make the most of. Azpilicueta had a good game, matching Navas for pace, and Matic showed that not everyone requires time to ‘get accustomed to the Premier League’. He was splendid in his reading of the game and was comfortable on the ball, passing it around sensibly.

Silva's zones - 1st half v. 2nd half

City's passing in 2nd half concentrated down the right.

With Silva drifting in, and Ramires slightly tucked in, that entire flank was left to the two wing-backs, Kolarov and Ivanovic. Ivanovic was very brave with his positioning, and was often found challenging for Chelsea goal kicks against Kolarov way beyond the half line. Exploiting this situation was clearly instructed into Ramires as he often advanced into the vacant space behind Kolarov pulling Nastastic wide. Chelsea made the most of Silva’s free role and while it might have not been in their plans to score the way they did, it was an indicator of Chelsea’s plans.

Chelsea’s individuals and City’s midfield:

Despite their free scoring run, City’s soft center has been exposed on occasions. Liverpool were unlucky to lose against them, and Bayern by and large thrashed them. Demichelis in midfield compounded City’s problems. Despite staying back for most of the game, he lacked the positional sense of a proper DM and often rushed into tackles when staying on his feet and covering space would’ve been a better option. He was also a liability on the ball, often slowing down play and losing possession at times in crucial zones. A more solid and dependable DM would’ve helped City’s cause (even if Les Ferdinand doesn’t agree).

Much has been made of Mourinho’s tactical master class in this win, but so much of it depended on the individual brilliance of Hazard and Willian. Hazard was in a class of his own, skipping past tackles with ease, and dragging the City defence out of shape. Hazard and Willian’s movements were co-related as each exploited the space created by the other. The City back four often had to deal with Chelsea’s front four on their own, and were exposed numerous times. While he does make a huge difference in the attacking third, you have to question Yaya Toure’s defensive awareness (Probably why Hamann called him a liability).

Hazard attempting more take-ons than the entire City side (Chelsea attempted 37)

Eto’o worked hard to keep the City center backs occupied and while he certainly wasn’t their best player, it was a hardworking performance, much similar to what he did under Mourinho at Inter. The City defenders also showed a surprising inability to defend high up the pitch against Chelsea’s fast transitions from defence to attack.

Pellegrini made just the one change, Jovetic on for Negredo, and it was a generally good move. Jovetic positioned himself behind Dzeko, drifting into pockets of space. His lack of fitness led to a poor touch or two, but his presence caused some disturbance in the Chelsea midfielders. With two nimble footed players, Silva and Jovetic, trying to find space between the lines, it brought some unpredictability to the City attack.  

Final Thoughts:

City’s midfield weakness was exploited very well by Chelsea, who were comfortable to sit in numbers behind the ball. The Chelsea defenders rarely had to face a City attacker 1v1. Both Terry and Cahill were splendid, mainly because they were never dragged out of their comfort zones.

High pressing, pro-active possession football has often been declared the way to play in recent times, but this Chelsea performance (and Bayern against Barcelona) shows us that there’s nothing wrong in playing defensive, counter-attacking football, despite what Mourinho said about the same last week.

Pellegrini will learn from this, and it’s tough to see him play with a 2 man midfield against Barcelona. As for the rest of the season, City can afford to drop points against the likes of Chelsea, as long as they continue to blow away the smaller teams. Chelsea have now faced both Manchester clubs home and away and come away with 10 points from 12. It’s a remarkable record, and shows Mourinho’s capability to get results from the big games.

Has Özil Mesut It Up?

Blogger #14:

Quite recently, I participated in some creative writing contest after a friend of mine nagged me senseless into the whole thing. I somehow squeezed past the prelims and was pipped at the post by several people who knew members of the organizing committee. Hands were clasped and backs were slapped before the finals had even begun. The organizers had marked me out for a whistleblower and gave me a 'special mention' so that I wouldn't blow said whistle. Though admittedly, my story could have done with some fine-tuning but it is so much easier to blame someone else. Making someone a scapegoat you know? Arsenal fans love doing that. Ask Aaron Ramsey. And there have been recent rumbles about a certain 42.5 million pound signing. Anyway, I didn't win, and that's fine, because I'm not much of a creator. But Mesut Özil is. Though he hasn't chalked up 30 assists yet and that's ruffled a few feathers. But before a section of the Gooner fanbase blows its top, I am here to tell the 20 people who will read this blog why Arsenal haven't seen the best of Mesut Özil yet and why he hasn't done badly at all.

In football, there are two components in making a great pass: the pass itself, and the run. You can play a defense-splitting, eye of the needle, perfectly weighted through ball, and end up looking like a bit of a tool if your teammate didn't bother making the run that you had imagined him to be making. He'll give you a thumbs-up and a remorseful grin, while the TV cameras focus on you standing there with a look that resembles the lovechild of contempt and shock. The commentator says, "That's not like him", or if your teammates consistently let you down, "Another poor pass by Jimmy Postletwaithe there". The fans at the pub make certain derogatory remarks about your mother, and life goes on. Özil faces that predicament at Arsenal. It is his greatest desire to serve it on a platter, but nobody seems to want to sit at the dining table. It is at this point that I hope my readers have done a double take. I shall assume you have, regardless of the truth and elaborate further.

In attack, footballers can be broadly divided into two categories: Creators and Runners. The Runners like to get onto the end of a pass. They look to run into spaces behind the defence. The Creators look for these gaps and play the ball into them. Every team will have a balance between the two types. Man City have Silva and Nasri creating with Aguero and Navas often running into spaces. In Lukas Podolski and Theo Walcott, Arsenal have two fine runners. What do these two have in common apart from that? They've both been injured for large parts of the season. I love Santi Cazorla as much as the next man, and Tomas Rosicky more than the next man, but when they play alongside Özil, Arsenal end up with too many creators. Ramsey alleviated Walcott's absence with his surges from deep, but that isn't quite the same as having a runner playing off the last defender. Contrast this with Özil's teammates at Real Madrid. Ronaldo, Benzema, Di Maria made the runs that Özil needed them to make. Runners. That's what Mesut Özil has missed.

In 1480 minutes of Premier League football, Özil has created 51 chances. That's a chance every 29 minutes, which you will admit, is pretty darn good. Now, Özil has played just 400 minutes with Theo Walcott. In this time, he created 16 chances. That is a chance every 25 minutes. To round it off, without Walcott, Özil creates a chance every 31 minutes. Which, again, is something you can't complain about. Podolski and Özil have played just 31 minutes together, during which Özil created 4 chances (8 minutes/chance). You might not believe me, but you can certainly believe these numbers. Assuming you believe I didn't make them up.

Can the mere presence of a runner help improve a creator's numbers, I hear you asking. Well, yes. A run made into space often creates space for other people. A runner might draw a defender away from the centre, thus opening up space for a teammate to run into. It is wondrous indeed that a game built on such simple foundations often produces the most complex of patterns. Allow me to explain with an example.

Now, Podolski (purple jersey) is running into the picture on the top of your screen. Cazorla (purple again) plays him in, and he produces the finish. But, notice Olivier Giroud's (it's a hat-trick!) run near the bottom of the screen. He moves towards the centre initially. Had he carried on, he would have taken up the space Cazorla was running into, pushing play towards Podolski's side, thus adversely impacting his run. Instead, he checks his movement, and goes away from the middle, dragging the defender away in the process. See what I mean? Simple enough game on the surface, but when you take a closer look, it's not simple at all, is it?

But despite this apparent handicap, Özil hasn't done badly compared to his Madrid days. Take a look. (League only).

	2013-2014 (Arsenal)	2012-2013 (Real Madrid)
Accurate Crosses %	36.62	29.20
Accurate Long Balls %	75.61	62.5
Accurate Passes %	87.62	84.09
Accurate Through Balls %	60	39.53
Aerial Lost	6	16
Aerial Won	5	6
Aerial % Assists	45.45 7	27.27 13
Dispossesed/90 mins	1.40	1.67
Dribbles/90 mins	1.58	1.08
Fouls	6	22
Minutes Played	1480	2743
Goals	4	9
Interceptions	3	18
Minutes/Interception Minutes/Key Pass	493.33 29.02	152.39 29.82
MOTM	3	1
Minutes/Assist Minutes/Goal	211.43 370	211 304.78
Total Crosses/90 mins	4.32	4.50
Total Long Balls/90 mins	2.49	2.1
Total Passes/90 mins	68.29	38.78
Total Shots	22	30
Minutes/Shot Shots/Goal Total Tackles	67.27 5.5 14	91.43 3.33 28
Minutes/Tackle Total Through Balls	105.71 10	97.96 43
Minutes/Through Ball Turnovers Minutes/Turnover	148 36 41.11	63.79 43 63.79

As you can see, Özil has clearly involved himself a lot more in the build-up play at Arsenal. He's averaging almost double the number of passes per game he did in his last season at Madrid (68 v 39). His rate of providing assists has remained the same, although his goalscoring rate has gone down. Surprisingly, despite being involved more, his defensive contribution is poor compared to his Madrid days. On the positive side of the ledger, there is a marked improvement in his passing accuracy as well.

All of this suggests a player who is adjusting to a different role in a new team. Factor in the absence of a preseason, an entirely new league that even legends like Henry, Pires and Bergkamp took time adapting to, and suddenly, Özil's performances don't appear too bad after all. Can he do better? By his own admission, he can. And all the numbers indicate he will.

The inflated price tag possibly played a role in colouring many people's perception of the type of player that has been purchased. Özil isn't a Messi or Ronaldo. He isn't even of the Fabregas mould, wherein all the play goes through him. He will seldom take centre-stage. He sets up the platform, adjusts the spotlight, silently linking play up together. Granted, the best is yet to come, but what we've seen hasn't been bad at all.

Care to disagree? Drop in a comment. Or if you agree. I don't care if you want to post videos of cows chewing cud in the comments, just drop in a damned comment.

Thanking You,

Yours sincerely,

#14

P.S. Please don't post videos of cows chewing cud.

My thoughts on Tactics.

Blogger #18

The basic premise of football is very simple. As it is so often expressed, it’s 22 men trying to kick a ball between a couple of pairs of sticks. And yet, for such a simple game, football has proved to be remarkably difficult to analyse since its inception almost 150 years ago.

At the base of all football analyses and our attempts to impose order on the chaos that is football, lies tactics. There have always been attempts to invalidate the notion of tactics in football and its influence over players and individualism as illustrated by Kevin Keegan's famous assertion that his tactics for winning a match were to "score more goals than the opposition". The statement does make sense and you won’t find a soul that disagrees with it, but the assertion downplays the impact of tactics on the game, a game where we repeatedly find smaller, but well-organised and well-prepared teams beating bigger teams with more skilful players. So to think that it's not the formation that matters but the players is to misunderstand what tactics and formations are. Even if there are no 'tactics', there are still tactics. Which is to say, even if players run around like headless chickens kicking the crap out of each other, that would still be a form of tactic, that is, an approach to a game, whether it was communicated by a coach or just simply 'performed' by the players. We can never play a game of football without both players and tactics.

This is where arguments between the importance of a system versus individualism are often misguided. The idea that the distribution of players on the pitch and the relationship between them is irrelevant is ridiculous, but so is the idea that players are mere pieces on a board that can be commanded around like in chess. Of course individual talent, personality and attitude matters. For example, a pressing game needs very fit, disciplined players. And nowhere else is this conflict better represented than at Real Madrid, and in particular, by Cristiano Ronaldo.

Madrid have an unique approach to the transfer market. The ‘Galacticos’ favour stars over system. They tried to sign the world’s most exciting players and try to cram them into the same side. There is no real system, no project. It’s more about exploiting individual qualities. Figo, Zidane, and Raul don’t track back, so place Makelele in front of the back four to defend. It’s more reactive than proactive and begs the question of the point of tactics and teamwork.

Gary Neville once explained in a brilliant article how frustrating he found it to play behind Ronaldo. Here was a player who rarely stuck to his designated position and did little in terms of tracking back, and yet Neville goes on to say that these drawbacks were more than made up for by Ronaldo’s efficiency in going forward. And he wasn’t exaggerating. Ronaldo is an exceptional player, and his stats are astounding – 164 goals in 151 league appearances. He can beat any defender one on one, his finishing is clinical, he’s great in the air and can easily hold himself in a physical battle. But for all his brilliance, his weaknesses as mentioned above, can and will be exploited by the best teams (as Dortmund did). This is not to say that Madrid will never beat the top teams with Ronaldo playing. These weaknesses could of course be rectified by playing him as a striker. But the dynamics of that position could result in reducing his effectiveness. The point here is that most sides with a player like Ronaldo in it, playing in the role he is now, will struggle to reach the level that Barcelona did under Guardiola (or Bayern now), Milan under Arrigo Sacchi, or the Dutch side in the 70’s. That Dutch side failing to win the World Cup in 1974 is still a huge story, that’s how good they were. They're remembered as one of the great all-time teams and their system has influenced football ever since. Nobody cares about the teams that beat them. These teams favour the collective over the individual, placing an almost unhealthy emphasis on team work and collective player positioning.

When it comes to understanding such detailed and fine methods, one of the ways we have developed for interpretation and our own understanding is formations. But how far have we progressed in beginning to understand the nature of these tactics and the meaning of those series of numbers that denote formations?

This brilliant analysis of Liverpool’s formations (their 4-2-3-1 and 3-4-1-2) shows us the fickle nature of formations. Positional labels, formations and styles of play are actually no more than simple rules of thumb to help us try to make sense of the mess. The designations we give formations are useful starting points, but that's all. They give a general idea of the structure of a team, a game and of the relationships between the players.

Pirlo and Yaya Toure, for example, play in the same position, and yet their roles, styles, physique couldn't be more different. We call them both DMs and leave it at that. Hence while the tag given to a player may be useful in assigning him a position on the pitch, it still doesn’t tell us his role in the team. We usually consider a holding midfielder as the one that plays as the deepest midfielder in the side. But that doesn’t have to mean that the holding midfielder is a defensive midfielder. For example, consider Alonso and Mascherano. Alonso would sit deep and collect the ball from the defenders, or make himself available to keep play ticking over, spreading the ball all over the pitch whereas Mascherano who was the main ball-winner would be charging about all over the pitch, often playing higher up the pitch than Alonso. But who was the defensive midfielder there?

Another instance that exemplifies the curious nature of tactics is the 2005 Champions League final. It’s one of the games that always stays in mind where the most attacking substitution Liverpool made was bringing on a defensive midfielder. That showed us that a player used in the right formation or tactical plan, can actually have a multiplying effect on the abilities and qualities of the team as a whole.

Marcelo Bielsa, someone whose theories and ideas have had an enormous influence in shaping modern day tactics, once said that the job of a manager was to allow the player to show his best virtues, that is, put the player in a context that allows him to make the best choices. The best dribbler isn't always the most skilful one, but instead the one that choses to dribble when he is in an advantage. To make that choice, he has to be an intelligent player (an individual attribute).

Of course, this isn’t to say that if you have intelligent and smart players, there’s no need for tactical innovation because all you’ll then need is skilled players. It took someone to come in and fine-tune a tactical system to perfectly complement the great attributes of players such as Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets before Barcelona could be considered one of the all-time great sides. Xavi was around for ages but was never thought of as the great midfielder he so clearly is. I remember seeing Chelsea v Barcelona in the last Mourinho era and thinking that the midfield was pretty evenly matched. His talent (or intelligence if you prefer) required the implementation of a tactical system and a footballing philosophy which maximised his potential. Xavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets would not be where they are without Guardiola and Barcelona would not be the team they are without them.

This is the wonderful thing about tactics. In the right system, any player can be made to look ‘intelligent’. A slight issue I have with intelligence here is the much bandied notion that intelligence cannot be taught. For example, in the case of Barcelona, it’s not unreasonable to say that the automatisms that the home grown players have were inculcated at La Masia. That's not instinct or intelligence. Its education. Intelligence really IS something that can be taught. The brain is a muscle that needs training. Barring actual real problems at birth, everyone should have the capacity to become an intelligent footballer. A great deal of that training needs to take place at a young age granted, but there is still a lot of 'fine-tuning' that is possible later. Of course, I’m just talking about intelligence on the football field. Anyone listening to Xavi's inane self-righteous ramblings about playing the right brand of football and games being awarded to teams with more possession knows that the man isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the box. The much maligned Gervinho has often been Ivory Coast's best player. Hazard called him the best player he’s played with. No one would have accused him of lacking 'intelligence' there. Perhaps the problem isn’t Gervinho, but that's another topic altogether.

Tactics provide a player with possibilities given by his context and position on the field, like having constantly various free pass options. You know that every time you get the ball near your area, you have to make a long pass forward to the right; or you know that in certain moment a certain player will get behind you as a free pass option. That frees the player from the anomic sentiment that is so commonly seen in the worst teams, players that are so free of tactics that don't have a clue on what to do or where to move.

But there’s a flip side to everything and this is no exception. Positions and formations will continue to divide, sub-divide and reform, but the ability of great leaders to inspire players to cross the boundaries of their comfort zones is the constant in sport. This represents the shortcoming of tactics and good ‘tactical’ managers like Bielsa and to an extent, Villas-Boas. Some managers, despite being great students of the game and wonderful tacticians, fail to fully understand the human side of the game. Take two teams with an equal amount of talented players and avoid using a silly, unbalanced system and one of the crucial differentiating factors will be the manager's ability to inspire players to perform beyond the "norm". Shankly, Lippi, Guardiola, Ferguson, and Mourinho are a few names that spring to mind as managers with an ability to enthuse players to run an extra few yards when chronically fatigued, to react first to a loose ball, to commit more bravely to an aerial challenge or to keep faith that they will persevere when they are losing.

Such intricacies provide us with so many options, so many ways to look at the same football match, that we’re able to form wildly varying conclusions and read differing reviews about the same game. A lot of score lines come down to luck - little things like hitting the woodwork rather than scoring, shots being deflected to take them past the keeper and fouls going unnoticed by referees - but a lot of analyses of teams' performances usually start at the result and try to explain the game from there. So if a team defend for long periods without conceding then nick a goal on the counterattack due to a defensive slip-up from the opposition, they are heralded for their smart play and wise tactics. But if they defend for long periods only to concede from a deflected shot near the end of the game, they are criticised for being defensive. I suppose results have to be factored in to any discussion of football matches, but it can lead to silly conclusions. 

All these variations and theories to play the same game shows us how astonishingly complex this simple game is. Such is the beauty of the game that the result almost – almost – becomes irrelevant. No one watches only the dying seconds of a football match, just to look at the scoreboard. We watch for 90 minutes, we watch the process, the tactical battle, unfold. It’s so much more than just saying win – good, lose – bad. It provides us with ample opportunity for endless hypothesising, for which we should all be thankful, otherwise we'd might have to spend our days doing, you know, work. And that, perhaps, is the reason why we all love this game. It will be grasped by all and yet I don’t think anyone will ever come to fully understand it.