4-4-2 ANYONE?

Following our most recent debacle against Manchester United, our record in the last five Premier League matches looks something like this:

ARSENAL VS:	RESULT:	SCORERS:
Chelsea (h)	1-2	Gervinho
West Ham (a)	3-1	Giroud, Walcott, Cazorla
Norwich (a)	0-1	----
QPR (h)	1-0	Arteta
Man. United (a)	1-2	Cazorla

That’s 6 goals in the last 5, a return you would expect from a Stoke or Sunderland, but not us. Indeed United have scored 14 while Chelsea have scored 13 over the same period. It’s simply not good enough.

All I’m doing is highlighting an already obvious problem that we’ve all witnessed especially since the Norwich game; we have become the personification of the term “toothless”. Podolski hasn’t scored (or looked like scoring) since his free kick against Southampton, Giroud has only scored once, Gervinho has looked lethargic at best since Chelsea…the list goes on and on. Most have complained that our attack has gone limp, is one-paced and over-reliant on little Santi, which is all true really. Now the next obvious question would be what to do about this. Glad you asked. Well this writer would like to suggest a change of formation; a subject that has brought up mixed opinions of course but that I (and a few other bloggers) feel is worthy enough to have a look into. 

To be more specific, I think a change to having two strikers is needed now more than ever. It would also be beneficial to all parties involved; not least of all Theo who’s been playing (and finishing) more and more like a striker in recent weeks by the way. Another advantage is that it allows for squad rotation and “tinkering about, which when translated means everybody will be happy now. The flexibility of this formation is also a definite plus. I took the liberty of dreaming up a few possibilities and this is what I came up with:

4-3-1-2:

Possible line-up:

Szczesny

Sagna, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Gibbs

Diaby, Arteta, Wilshere

Cazorla

      Walcott, Giroud

I particularly like this formation because it gives us greater attacking quality and intent while still maintaining control in midfield. I’ve gone with Diaby and Wilshere in because they are both good tacklers and can complement each other going forward as well. Diaby’s great technique and dribbling ability make him a great box-to-box midfielder and Wilshere’s tenacity and hunger for the ball looks a good enough combination for me. Cazorla will be in his usual playmaker role, but this time with two targets up front in the form of Walcott and Giroud. While this formation looks to lack pace n midfield, Walcott will provide pace where it matters most, and with Giroud’s aerial ability their partnership is bound to flourish. 

Chamberlain, Gnabry or Ramsey could come on for either of the midfield three, while Podolski/Gervinho could come on for either striker.

A more attacking version of this would of course be the diamond (4-1-2-1-2) formation, where Diaby and Wilshere would simply be moved further up the pitch. Rosicky for Cazorla is also another option.

There are more variations of the 4-4-2, but this appeared to be the best in my humble opinion as it is most in line with our style of play. This also doesn’t have to be used as our starting formation; we could start with our conventional 4-3-3 but convert to the 4-3-1-2 when the going gets tough. Walcott down the middle would catch out tired legs, or even centre backs on yellow cards with his pace, while also benefiting from knock-downs from Giroud and/or one-twos with any of the midfield three.

Enough said, now over to you Le Prof.