Arsenal vs. Chelsea and the Hypocrisy of Praising Tactics

Arsenal's defeat to Wigan Athletic and Chelsea's UEFA Champions League semi-final first-leg win over Barcelona have revealed the disturbing hypocrisy behind attitudes regarding tactics.

When Arsenal were downed by Wigan on Monday, the inevitable criticisms of tactical naivety and predictability were leveled against Arsene Wenger. Wigan meanwhile were praised for getting their tactics just right.

This morning Chelsea are receiving similar plaudits for apparently outwitting Barcelona at Stamford Bridge. Yet the real issue is why are discussions of tactics so limited?

Teams that play free-flowing attacking football are criticised as gung-ho when the approach doesn't work. Yet teams content to pack the midfield, get significant numbers behind the ball and choke the flow out of a game are lauded as beacons of astute strategy.

Truth be told, pointing to tactical deficiencies is the easiest critique in the world to levy against a team and its manager. Wenger has been on the receiving end of such over used barbs on several occasions.

Arsenal, under Wenger, are who they are. The team is designed to play one way and the players are recruited accordingly.

An adherence to a single style has certainly done Barcelona no harm, even with last night's result in mind. For all of Chelsea's alleged tactical acumen, discipline and the shady tricks, excused by the repellent umbrella term of "gamesmanship," Barcelona still should have won the game.

They created and spurned enough chances to bag two away goals. Alexis Sanchez, Cesc Fabregas and Sergio Busquets were the biggest culprits.

However, despite Chelsea slowing the pace, packing 10 men behind the ball and Didier Drogba rolling across every blade of grass, those scoring opportunities were still there.

Yet today defenders of such negative play can simply point to the result. It fuels the bizarre argument that a team who plays like Barcelona could never have the same success in the Premier League.

Back to the now-notorious Wigan game and the question of how big a part tactics actually played in that result. Following the condemnation of Theo Walcott in a Tuesday recap of the game, it was pointed out to this author that Walcott's role in the team is to stay wide and drag defenders out to him.

This is certainly sound analysis and a legitimate argument. However, that being the case, Wigan's decision to regularly double up on Walcott surely played into Arsenal's own tactics.

The real issue is that nobody took advantage of this perceived ploy. Where were the runs into the box from central midfield, utilising the space vacated by those drawn to Walcott?

The Wigan game was not an example of tactical ineptitude from Wenger. It was poor execution of the key principles underpinning Arsenal's style of play.

There was no quick movement off the ball to attack spaces and none of the necessary composure needed to play the defense opening pass. That was the fault of Arsenal's players and not the result of innovative tactical design.

The truth is there is no genius in stifling. It is easier to create than to destroy, a lesson painfully learned on Monday night.

When Chelsea visit the Emirates Stadium on Saturday, expect a similar clash of styles to the one witnessed last night in West London. Ultimately the view on which method of playing is best rightfully comes down to the preference of the individual.

As an admirer of Wenger's principles and philosophy, this author hopes that Arsenal approach this game the way Wenger has built them to play. Rather than perform jaded and retreat to caution, masquerading under the guise of tactics, Arsenal should attack with same pace and invention they showed at Stamford Bridge back in October.

Yet if defensive pragmatism wins the day and Chelsea claim the points, so be it. However, it won't be tactics that have won the day. Just ask Sanchez, Fabregas and Busquets.