EPL Game Recap: Arsenal vs Everton, Three Tactical and Strategic Issues

The Victory

Arsenal defeated Everton by a lone goal in their Round 15 premier league game. The victory capped the 125 anniversary celebration of the club's founding. Nothing less than victory could have sufficed under the circumstance.

More importantly, it was three crucial points earned, which serve to solidify Arsenal's fifth position on the table and gives them a three-point advantage over both Liverpool and Newcastle United.

Only a defeat against Manchester City can keep Chelsea behind Arsenal at the end of this round, since even a draw will take them back to fourth position on the table as a result of their superior goal difference. Put into larger perspective, then, this is a good week for Arsenal, fitting for a weekend of festivities.

Having thus acknowledged the victory and its importance, my task is to make analytic observations regarding the match. I limit them to three: tempo, rhythm and back pass. For back pass, this be will my third take on the issue.

(But because this is a very long article, please scroll to the disclaimer section first before continuing reading, thanks).

Tempo

I should say that there are really two issues here, since tempo and rhythm are related.

For our task, a clarification of terms is in order. Tempo, insofar as it concerns football, is the overarching pace at which a game is played. It is a tactical weapon because the team that controls it—as per setting or disrupting it—usually holds the upper hand in a game.

Normally, the team that has the more need for goals will try to dictate the tempo of the game, and is as more likely than not to play at a higher tempo.

In the culture of home versus away games, home teams rather than away teams tend to aim for higher tempo. This, though, is a subjective point. For example, if a team perceives itself to be weaker than its visiting opponent, it may opt for a slower tempo though playing at home.

Moreover, a few coaches—such as Arsene Wenger—don't believe that a team should make a distinction between home and away games if they're playing well. Barcelona don't seem to show a distinction between home and away games, either.

Tempo, furthermore, relates to the constructive and destructive aspects of games—that is, attack and defense. A weaker team can frustrate a much stronger opponent by strategically breaking up the tempo of the opponent. Again, in competitions where the away goal counts, a team can make it its purpose to disrupt the opponent's tempo.

But enough with the lecture, even though it is necessary for my purpose. How does this apply to the Arsenal-Everton game?

Those who follow my analyses will recall my complaint after the Sunderland game that Arsenal sometimes are too mono-dimensional in their approach to games (see here for the specific reference). Again, my less-than-happy reaction even in our victory against Norwich City, in my assessment of that match, relates to the point in hand. Also, see my more direct discussion of this same point here.

Again, for more perspective, a fortnight ago I had said that tempo was the culprit in Arsenal's inability to take all three points against Fulham. In referring to these examples, I'm using a discursive way to allude to the fact that Arsenal's use of tempo in the Everton game was less than desirable. 

Here are three reasons why:

1. Too fast a tempo can lead to panic in front of goal. When a striker approaches a goal-scoring opportunity at too fast a tempo, he has only so much time to weigh his options because his speed, the ball's and the opposing goalkeeper's (and defender's) can nullify the available space in a flash. Only the calmest of strikers flourish in such situations.

Now don't get me wrong. A very fast break when used very effectively can be devastating (recall the sucker punch we received against Manchester City in the Carling Cup match a fortnight ago. Also click here to see Arsenal make effective use of speed to score goals.)

I suspect that this problem—that is, too fast a tempo—has a lot to do with both Gervinho's and Aaron Ramsey's wastefulness in front of goal. I also believe it works against Theo Walcott at times, notwithstanding the fact that pace is his great suit.

A calmer approach affords the striker a little more time to counter-react to defender's and the goalkeeper's reaction. Now realize that my concession regarding the devastating effect of speed, especially counterattacking scenarios, does not by any means nullify the substance of my point.

In other words, counterattacks, or the occasional fast incision through the opponent's defense to score a goal, are not the same thing as the overaching tempo of a game, which is our concern here.

And this is where I find fault with Arsenal insofar as this issue relates to the Everton game. In nub and crust, Arsenal mistook tempo for rhythm. I will clarify this point in the section on rhythm.

2. The pell-mell fashion by which Arsenal played most of the game hindered rather than enhanced their game against Everton. I maintain, contrary to the opinion of many, that pace is not always the tactical answer to a frustrating game.

Notice that the tempo went up a notch after the break. I can imagine that at half time, Arsene Wenger instructed the players to raise the tempo of the game. If you ask me, this is a rather simplistic way of trying to solve a difficult problem.

Do you assume, for example, that your players (across the board) are relatively faster than your opponent's, such that raising the tempo would favor them instead of the opponent?

If not, why do you then assume that raising the tempo will, per se, favor you and not the opponent?

Now if the answer to the question is yes, then raising the tempo can, per se, work, otherwise not. I'm apt to think a negative answer to the question is the more realistic one, which means assuming that raising the tempo of the game when things are not working may border on the naive and simplistic.

I must confess that it baffles and amuses me when the average pundit responds to tactical issues by demanding for pacier tempo. For goodness sake, the Times They Are a Changin'!

Modern tactics demand more strategic thinking than such a naive and automatic reaction. You wonder why the Catalans and the Spanish (add the Dutch and Germans) are outpacing everyone?—pardon the pun! This has a great deal to do with the reason why (there's the issue of talent, of course).

Make no mistake. Wenger is an excellent tactician, so I do not mean this as criticism of him as a tactician, far from it. But as far as this issue relates to the particular game in hand, and to many others I have seen, I believe my criticism is relevant.

A better approach to frustrating scenarios such as confronted Arsenal after the first half of the Everton game is to tweak formation and rhythm. I shan't talk about formation in this analysis, but see the section on rhythm below. (By the way, did you notice the modulating formation of Barcelona in their el clásico match against Real Madrid? Splendid wasn't it?!)

3. In tandem with the above, the one-dimensional approach to the Everton match, whereby Arsenal relied on high tempo, neutralized Arsenal's main strength, the midfield.

Here's a digression with the purpose of demonstrating my point: Barcelona's dominance in general and particularly over their fierce rival Madrid owes to their superior midfield. Xavi Hernandez and Andrés Iniesta are the best midfielders on the planet (notice I didn't use the qualifier "arguably"!). And now we can add Cesc Fabregas to the mix.

Engrave it on stone, splash it across the sky: midfield is the key to success in modern football—it's stating the obvious with the danger of sounding stupid! Midfield is the key to Arsenal's trademark possession game. It is the key to their crisp and attractive passing. 

Fast tempo more often than not stand in the way of this strength. This might sound counter-intuitive to some, but this is so only if you mistake tempo for rhythm.

But more to the point: If you had an uneasy feeling throughout the Everton match, this is the reason why. For although Arsenal controlled possession, there was the lingering feeling that Everton could at any point deal them a sucker punch.

Simply put: The tempo was too fast and didn't allow Arsenal to be more deliberate in defense or in attack, which is why they had no meaningful threat on Everton goal prior to Robin Van Persie's splendid goal.

It is also the reason why Everton looked dangerous (albeit in few spots) whenever they attacked. I am at a loss then to this recap from the usually thoughtful Guardian—take note of the fourth paragraph, especially.

Let's stay with boxing for a few more sentences. A good boxer does not always shoot for knockout punches. He is more likely than not to punch himself out or to open himself up to counter punching if he does so—think Rumble in the Jungle.

He rather strategically employs the jab and body shots to tear down the opponent's defenses. Only after he has weakened his opponent does he look for the knockout punch.

This should be true of football. As a matter of fact, it is true of football. Successful teams know that looking for the knockout punch at all times is a bad strategy.  This is the difference between tempo and rhythm.  Let's talk rhythm then.

Rhythm

Rhythm in contrast to tempo is strategic and control employment of pace.

The key difference is that the rhythm of a team has little to do with the general tempo of the game in hand, although a team's rhythm (when strategically employed) controls the tempo of the game. Think ebb and flow when thinking about rhythm and think unimaginative constant when thinking about tempo in relation to the point in hand.

To further define the difference think of the symphony.

A symphony (unless it's a bad, bad one, in which case it shouldn't see the light of day) seldom moves at the same pace. The tempo ebbs and flows, and although the difference we're trying to strike here is not the normal difference between tempo and rhythm in music, it does apply aptly here.

For the readers who don't like classical music, think later Beatles (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, for example, or the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations). In these examples, the pace of the music changes according to the "situation" of the music.

Here, the composer's purpose is to build to a climax, so he slows or speeds up the tempo. There, he or she wants to surprise the listener, so a sudden sforzando is used, or the intensity of music suddenly drops.

Now, football such as Barcelona is playing (and Arsenal to a large extend) approaches art. You can see then why I appeal to art to make this point. Good art makes judicious use of colors—think tempo and rhythm for our purpose—why not football?

This, then, is the reason why I said tempo is not per se the tactical answer to every difficult situation of a match. Which is why I wasn't overly impressed by Arsenal in this match, because it looked as though, after a point, they knew no other way to deal with Everton, other than resorting to the use of the same invariable constant: tempo.

When I praised Arsenal for last week's performance against Wigan, it was because they used rhythm rather than tempo to control the game. When I have been critical of Arsenal, it has been in games where they've resorted to unimaginative use of pace.

Some of you readers may confuse quick passing with tempo. They, however, are not the same. Barcelona move the ball quickly but they seldom (if at all) play at a very pacy tempo. The very term taka-tiki is a reference to rhythm rather than tempo.

What is the point of this article then?

It is profitable for Arsenal to calm down, literally, in games when the goals refuse to come. Use changing pace (in other words pace the game) and formation to outwit the opponent. Of course, there are situations where pace is the best approach—it shouldn't, however, be the default weapon to resort to. It doesn't always work, for the reasons highlighted above.

If Arsenal are to improve as a team, if they are to stop throwing away games (as they nearly did in this one), they have to learn to use rhythm rather than tempo in their approach to games.

To summarize, Arsenal neutralized themselves in the midfield and exposed themselves to the danger of a possible sucker punch when they approached the game in too helter-skelter a manner, especially in the second half.

Again, this was the reason why they couldn't trouble Everton's defense in the second half despite many touches on the ball. This is because they hardly had time to think constructively about what to do with the ball other than try to drive it quickly to Van Persie through the middle or to find Walcott or Gervinho on the flanks, a too predictable strategy after a while.

Incidentally, this is not what produced the goal.

The point is, vary your ideas. Or put more relevantly: vary your rhythm, which is the same thing as saying do not play at the same tempo.

Back pass

Back pass is dangerous. Victor Valdes' horror show against Madrid in the just concluded el clásico is an example, but I maintain the point of the referenced article above. Notice that the said mistake notwithstanding, Barcelona continued to back pass to Valdes, nor did he lose his nerves because of the mistake.

In a more simplistic world, I'd kid myself that Wojciech Szczęsny saw my last week's article. I am not delusional enough to think so.

Notice though that Arsenal made more back passes to him in this match than they've done in recent times. Also notice that Szczęsny calmly picked passes rather than balloon the ball aimlessly forward.

For the team that wants to control its opponent through possession, this is as it should be. I must say I was greatly impressed by Szczęsny's improved intelligence and calmness at the back.

So why am I bringing this up? Vanity? No.

I bring it up because, despite this assured performance for 90 minutes, Szczęsny suddenly committed the unpardonable sin as far as I'm concerned, which is: DO NOT PUNT THE BALL UPFIELD MINDLESSLY DURING INJURY TIME WHEN YOU'RE PROTECTING A SLIM LEAD!

Let me say it for the umpteenth time: this is what cost us three points against Liverpool at the Emirates last season. Emmanuel Eboué's so-called foul came out of this unfortunate fact.

If you must punt, punt diagonally with the aim of putting the ball into touch high in the opponent's half.

Or better, rehearse it with your team mates so they'd expect such diagonal punts and they can man and manage the paces in that area. Better still, pretend you want to punt and then pass to an expecting defender.  Be strategic with possession in the dying minutes is what I'm saying. 

If you've had nightmares about Conor McAleny's sizzling drive across the face of Arsenal goal, which, had it been on target would have been a certain goal, this is the reason why. 

Szczęsny, with no rhyme or reason, punted the ball upfield—something he hadn't done in the rest of the match—and before you knew it, McAleny almost scored!

Now, this is not a back pass situation, per se, but the whole reason for emphasizing back pass is the use of strategic control of possession to deny the opponent any leeway in a match. Mindless punting hardly constitutes that.

Disclaimer

Why this long-winded article?

1. Little things matter. Tempo, rhythm and back pass are as important to football as scales are to a musician, or as counterpoint is to a composer and mechanics of grammar to a writer. This is the reason I seem to repeat them in my analyses. The good team should have them nailed.

2. I love Arsenal, which is why if you sample my articles you'd see that I care little for mindless sycophancy. Arsenal, inasmuch as I love the team, are not paradise on earth. So why praise them to high heavens as though they have no faults? Incidentally, many who do so are the first at the stoning conferences that convene periodically.

3. I write because I want to contribute something meaningful to the game in general and to the growth (and here's the delusion) of Arsenal specifically. If you don't like pedantry or punditry you are better served on the transfer rumors' section. I write the kinds of articles I love to read.

4. Again, if you sample my articles, you'll see that I don't always write this way. This is a change of pace for me (!) and it is deliberate. I will return to direct analysis in other games. If you continue to follow me, you'll discover eventually why I chose to write this article in this manner.

5. A number of you have responded positively to my analyses and have urged me to continue writing them. Now realize that it's easier to write about transfer rumors. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the better ones, which is why I don't see the point of riding that train—especially since others are doing it and can do it much better.

Note also that it take a little more time to write analyses such as the one you'll find on my page. It's therefore a little discouraging when or if I don't get enough reads (I should at least get a thousand reads, considering that the same regurgitated transfer rumors easily get ten thousand, which ought to tell me something you'd think! Alas, I'm a slow learner).

Therefore, if you do like my analyses and my articles in general, elect me as one of you favorite writers. Or at least make sure to check my page every few days for new articles, especially a day after Arsenal matches, even if you don't see my articles on the Arsenal stream page.

I don't usually get much stream time because I'm not a Featured Columnist. I'm simply stating the facts, this is not a complaint.

In any case, make a point to stop by my page. And please leave constructive comments. Appreciation does not hurt either!

Thanks for stopping by. Please, proceed to read.