The Arsenal Column

Arsenal Analysis and Tactics. All views expressed are those of Pat Rice. (Disclaimer: they are actually not his words).

Eight points on Arsenal 1-1 Fulham

The argument that Arsenal are reliant on Robin van Persie would prove most conclusive when the Dutchman isn’t scoring goals, as opposed to when he is. So, in the first league match in seven games in which he has failed to score, are Arsenal reliant on Robin van Persie? That answer is probably yes although the overriding reason for Arsenal’s mute performance on Saturday seemed to be down to fatigue as well as Fulham’s obdurate defending.

Arsène Wenger admitted his team lacked accuracy in their passing and that proved crucial given Fulham defended as they did. Essentially though, Arsenal were too functional and the selection was in need of a little invention. Yossi Benayoun’s impressive cameos deserved a bigger stage while Abou Diaby was deemed not match fit to start – both players will surely take their starting births against Manchester City in midweek. As a result, Wenger pushed Aaron Ramsey up the pitch from the outset before the inevitable fatigue factor came into affect and he had a couple of chances himself to give Arsenal the lead. Robin van Persie had a shot cleared off the line but he was forced to take more of a creative role because Arsenal’s passing lacked urgency. The fact that Theo Walcott has laid on so much of his goals highlights just how Arsenal have changed; where it was once about quick passing around the box, they now procrastinate that movement before feeding the ball to the wide men to deliver. Thankfully, Walcott’s movement was good and given the opportunity to test John-Arne Riise, he impressed. The Gunners though failed to break down Fulham’s defence and the 4-4-2 in the second-half suited the urgency of the situation.

Fulham, on the other hand, have carved out a niche in recent years of being organised and tough to break down and despite the flurry at the end, were well worth the point. They would have preferred to play a more functional Arsenal and it showed; in the moments where passed with urgency they looked very good. Unfortunately, Vermaelen’s goal  and the sustained pressure soon after came much too late to force the win although they mustn’t be too unhappy at the result.

1. Aaron Ramsey plays the second-half from the beginning

A key feature of Arsenal’s second-halves – when they are searching for the win – has been to push Aaron Ramsey up the pitch and aiming to profit from his drive. But Wenger initiated that straight away against Fulham, indicating he had always had reservations about Aaron Ramsey’s fitness levels. The Welshman picked the ball higher up the pitch than normal but what was most notable was that he also pressed higher making Arsenal’s formation look more like a slanted 4-4-2 off the ball. But of course, Arsenal do not press intensely therefore the closing down was more about positioning and he did well to help create a barrier to stop the easy pass from midfield. As a result, Fulham had a lot of the ball just inside their half.

Fulham matched Arsenal in possession in the first-half before The Gunners gradually grew more dominant. The relaxed pressing this season meant Fulham could have a lot of the ball in front of the defence with Danny Murphy and Dickson Etuhu happy to oblige.

Ramsey should have probably scored with one of the cut-backs he received but his movement continues to improve and it’s not gone unnoticed. Robin van Persie singles out his intelligent runs against Norwich: “He was a bit unlucky against Norwich as he should probably have been passed to on a couple of occasions when he’d shown great movement to get into good positions,” said van Persie. “I should definitely have given him one ball, looking at it again, and there were other times too. If he keeps going that, though, he’ll score goals.”

Ramsey ensured he got on to the end of moves as well as starting them. His drive set the tone for the early exchange.

2. Arsenal miss Sagna. 3. And Fulham try to target that

The absence of Bacary Sagna hasn’t been made as obvious as it might have from a defensive viewpoint as Laurent Koscielny and on Saturday, Johan Djourou, have filled in with admirably. But it was from an attacking viewpoint as Arsenal hardly passed the ball our from deep on the right side.

Fulham targeted Arsenal's right-hand side particularly in the absence of Sagna. As a result, Djourou was denied possession from deep and Arsenal's play was slanted to the left.

However, that’s not to say Djourou is poor on the ball. Rather, Fulham targeted him in the build up and the movement of Clint Dempsey constantly dragged him in the centre. What Martin Jol did well was to keep Dempsey up the pitch – almost as a left-ish striker thus denying Djourou from getting forward. His deployment was the reverse of a defensive winger; whereas someone like Dirk Kuyt (a defensive winger) would try and stop the attacking full-back influencing by tracking him all the way back, Dempsey stayed up the pitch to give Djourou second doubts about getting forward. Djourou couldn’t and he was under pressure each time he got forward. In the second-half, Fulham dropped back into their own half and the Swiss was more freely able to get forward. However, while his passing was surprisingly safe, he was unable to provide the overlap Sagna so typically provides. (Part of that may go down to the switch to the 4-4-2 thus making Arsenal more direct).

Johan Djourou's passes in either half.

4. Walcott impresses as a winger

The upshot of Fulham targeting Johan Djourou was that he was unable to support Theo Walcott and get on the overlap. As a result, Walcott was forced to play a more orthodox role and he performed that very dangerously. His cross led to Arsenal’s equaliser and along with the powerful runs of Andre Santos on the other side, he stood as Arsenal’s best chance of creating another goal.

Theo Walcott received most of his passes on the touchline as John-Arne Riise gave him little space behind while the blocking of Djourou overlapping meant a lot of his early passes were backwards.

5. Bobby Zamora didn’t fancy Per Mertesacker

Per Mertesacker’s Arsenal career has been solid if not spectacular and being a novice, he might have expected to be given a more sterner test in Europe’s best league™. But so far, he’s been given an easy ride with Bobby Zamora choosing to play on Thomas Vermalen’s side instead. The battle between the two was intriguing and Zamora looked to have the last laugh when Vermaelen put through his own net. But the Belgian was determined to put that right and he came up with the winner after a run which went unmarked. (Surely, Zamora wasn’t expected to track him, was he?!) Fulham’s play generally slanted down Arsenal’s left, however, so perhaps that’s the reason why Zamora was mostly up against Vermaelen. But Mertesacker should expect busier afternoons than this.

Bobby Zamora picked the ball up mainly on the left.

6. Fulham’s lack of adventure shows in Wojiech Szczesny’s kicking

“Good ball retention starts from the keeper” writes Zonal Marking but job is made easier if the opponent let’s you. Fulham were more than happy to let Szczesny play it short and he did, attempting only one long pass. Which, inevitably, was unsuccessful.

8. Van Persie the creator

When Robin van Persie first assumed the no.9 position, he was thought to be unsuited to the role because he liked to dropped deep to pick up the ball. In the early parts of that tactical reshuffle, Arsenal profited from van Persie getting into space and playing his team-mates in. He did that again against Fulham, particularly in the first-half and he was unlucky his pass to Andrey Arshavin was ruled out for offside. He played a bit deeper, usually looking to give moves some impetus as Arsenal’s passing was, at times, too slow while Fulham defended deep to deny him any room behind. Mentally, Arsenal never looked fully focused in breaking down such a stubborn defence and the switch to 4-4-2 at the end was necessary. He still roamed around the pitch and Arsenal looked more urgent in the final ten minutes, van Persie still reminding everyone that he can perform a creative role if needed.

Van Persie got onto the end of two crosses in his last game against Dortmund and generally ran the channels well. Against Fulham, with Arsenal playing with two players hugging the touchline, he tended to remain central.

Arsenal: Szczesny (6), Djourou (6), Mertesacker (6), Vermaelen (7), Andre Santos (7), Song (6), Ramsey (6), Arteta (6), Walcott (6), van Persie (6), Arshavin (5).
Subs: Fabianski, Diaby (6), Koscielny, Frimpong, Gervinho(4), Chamakh (4), Benayoun.

Fulham: Schwarzer (5), Baird (6), Hangeland (6), Senderos (6), Riise (6), Etuhu (7), Murphy (7), Dempsey (5), Ruiz (6), Dembele (6), Zamora (6).
Subs not used: Etheridge, Johnson (4), Kasami (4), Gecov, Hughes, Frei, Briggs.

Ratings breakdown: 1-3: Absolute stinker, 4: below par; ineffective. 5: par, average. 6: Above average; solid if unspectacular. 7: Impressive; good performance. 8-10: Substantial impact, match winning.

NB: Our thoughts go to Gary Speed and his family. Speed impressed me very much as a player and also a human being. I remember thinking, with a bit of luck, he could have achieved more in the early/mid nineties and not just his superb league title triumph with Leeds United. Ultimately, his versatility was to his detriment. It was a dream for him to become Welsh manager, something you work your whole life for and for some reason – and I think his privacy deserves to respected at this moment – it was gone in an instant. May Gary Speed rest in peace.

Filed under: Match Analysis

Tagged: , ,

10 Responses to “Eight points on Arsenal 1-1 Fulham”

  1. kay says:

    you gave walcott a 6…… unbelieveable.You mean he was average? Did you watch the game at all?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

    Wrenny Reply:

    The ratings do seem a little odd. Schwarzer made two superb stops from Ramsey and Djourou, surely he deserved much higher than 5. And despite not offering an attacking threat (apart from that header) I found Djourou to be strong at the back and worthy of more than a 6.

    But in the big scheme of things this isn’t important, and the piece was a wonderful read. The way Ramsey started the game with an intensity he’s usually reserved for second-halves was interesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

    Arsenal Column Reply:

    @kay,

    Player ratings, in the end, is arbitrary and shouldn’t detract from the main crux of the analysis. I wanted to be harsher with the ratings so as to distinguish the level of performance from each individual. Next time I mightn’t bother….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

  2. AAA says:

    Is there any explanation for Arshavin’s mediocrity? I would hate to label him as a failed signing when looking back on his Arsenal career.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

  3. William says:

    Was the end of the second half our “defensive” plan B? Do you think we still have the ability to switch at will to the very high tempo pressing we had last year, or do you read the changes (taking off a defender for a striker, having Vermaelen play sometimes as a solo CB) as necessary for that to happen?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

  4. theo vanramshere says:

    The standout players for Arsenal in this game were Theo and Santos. Should be rated as 8s. Everyone else was hungover, slow, lacked energy, made mistakes. Per was decent. Arteta uncharacteristically made a couple of key turnovers.
    We need.to learn from this for next CL games hangovers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

  5. eduman says:

    It is games like this where Mr Park should be given at least half a game. Arsenal need more than one person to score the goals and the moroccan unfortunateley does not seem the man to do it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

  6. [...] on Saturday seemed to be down to fatigue as well as Fulham’s obdurate defending.” The Arsenal Column Share this:StumbleUponDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Tee Song says:

    You make an interesting observation about the positioning of Dempsey against Djourou. Playing a three man midfield and a game based on possession, Arsenal’s fullbacks have an important role to play in attack by stretching the play and providing width. As an out of position central defender, JD was naturally reticent to push up the pitch and Fulham compounded that hesitance by keeping Dempsey high up. Djourou actually defended quite well on an individual basis when Fulham were in possession but, perhaps counterintuitively, his reluctance to go forward provided Fulham with a weak point in the overall team defensive structure by allowing Dempsey to receive the ball closer to goal. Thus, a more defensive fullback actually effects both our attacking and defending in a negative fashion.

    The battle between fullbacks, especially attacking fullbacks, and the opposition’s respective wingers is always fascinating and how the players are deployed seems to reflect a given managers overall approach to attack and defense. A more conservative manager might well task a defensive winger to actively track the fullback whereas a more “positive” manager will try to force the fullback from making forward runs by stationing the winger higher up. Winning these types of individual battles goes a long way toward one team being able to impose their their game on the opposition. It’s interesting because nobody seems to criticize Dani Alves defensive positioning when he plays as a fourth attacker for Barca and yet questions are raised about Santos’ defending all the time. Because he’s an effective attacker, opposition wingers are forced to track back otherwise the opposing right back is constantly two v. one with Santos and Gervinho. The key to not being caught out by his forward runs is the awareness and coordination of our midfielders and defenders to cover the gaps and Santo’s own judgement regarding when to push forward, especially against a good right winger.

    Regarding Theo, I agree that the absence of our two natural right backs has forced him to play more as a winger and that he’s been very effective at it. But inevitably, his goal scoring will suffer as he has less opportunity to move centrally and when he does, the opposition fullback can tuck in with him since JD and Koz are reluctant to overlap. Sagna and Jenkinson will be welcome “like a new signing(s)” when they return from injury.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

    The Brain Reply:

    @Tee Song,

    I think you might have a lot to say on my new post although you already have made a cracking point here on full-backs and before on the Arsenal-WBA match.

    I agree with Walcott’s role too; at times he suffered from the lack of an overlapping run but his more orthodox role seemed to have gained more recognition than his “winger-come-striker” role.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [Reply]

Add a comment

Follow comments to this post by subscribing to the comment feed.