IN the league this season, Arsenal have used six different formations. They’ve played with a back three and a back four. They’ve played with a front two and a lone front man. In terms of shape, they’re as flexible as any side in the Premier League. On Saturday, their 4-2-3-1 with their leading scorer, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang left on the bench seemed to take Tottenham by surprise. And yet that’s not to suggest that Unai Emery is in any sense indecisive. Rather the constant shifts of shape are part of his method.
The expectation now is that managers will have a philosophy. Which is fine. It’s reasonable to suppose that somebody who has spent their life working in football will have a general idea about the best way to go about getting results. It’s a relatively new idea, though, and one that exposes a series of tensions and paradoxes in the modern game.
Managers for a long time were essentially a liaison between the board of directors and the team. There were exceptions – Tom Watson, perhaps; Herbert Chapman certainly – but it was only in the 50s that the manager began to take responsibility for his team in the way he does now. What followed, in Britain at least, was the age of the manager as auteur, demanding complete control over all aspects of the project: Alf Ramsey, Matt Busby, Jock Stein, Bill Shankly, Don Revie, Brian Clough… Their personality would shape everything about a club.
January 19, 1878 is a significant date in our history: Herbert Chapman was born
He would go on to revolutionise the club, both on and off the pitch – and we will never forget his work, success and innovation
Herbert Chapman: a true Arsenal legend pic.twitter.com/TXHLEZr5zZ
— Arsenal FC (@Arsenal) January 19, 2019
More recently, as the business of football has expanded, the manager’s role has shrunk to deal almost exclusively with the team. That is only reasonable – why would somebody who can organise and motivate a bunch of footballers also be able to watch hundreds of youth players or negotiate a contract? But that has also had the effect of pushing tactics front and centre because that is the area of football in which a manager most obviously has agency.
The extent to which managers being asked about their preferred style of play leads them to develop an idiosyncratic style leads them down the route of idealism rather than pragmatism, is a matter for behavioural psychologists, although there seems little doubt that the vast majority of managers ultimately become self-parodies, asking not how best to solve a problem but how they would tackle it in the most characteristic way: Arsene Wenger’s obsession with diminutive and technically gifted creators or Jose Mourinho’s wilful negativity late in their careers, for instance.
But there is, anyway, a basic issue of practicality. Very few managers find themselves in a position like Pep Guardiola, either taking over a club in whose philosophy he was raised, or able to shape the environment at the club before arriving. For everybody, there should be a process of compromise, working with the players available in the best way possible, even if that means initially neglecting the preferred philosophy. That’s why Maurizio Sarri’s time at Chelsea has at times seemed so frustrating: he has insisted on applying his principles without, it seems, much thought to the available resources.
️ Mesut Ozil since these comments from Emery in October…
4 starts
⚽️ 0 goals
️ 0 assists #ARSCHE #Arsenal pic.twitter.com/e0s0hLxW1r— Unibet (@unibet) January 19, 2019
Emery has a basic belief in how football should be played. He likes his teams to press. Since his time at Sevilla, he has tended to prefer a system with the security of two holding midfielders. Often, his centre-forward’s main job was holding the ball up or drop deep and supply the wide men. But he is flexible – up to a point.
That point is picking Mesut Ozil. Emery demands work-rate and defensive discipline, structure is key, and he clearly feels Ozil cannot be trusted. That is the one issue on which he is unbending. Emery adapts always to the opponent. When he was at Sevilla, the winger Joaquin observed that he ran out of popcorn with all the videos Emery made him watch. But that approach can succeed only if players are open to instruction if they listen to his advice and follow it – even if that means a change of shape.
Emery is not dogmatic in terms of shape or approach. He tempers himself to his squad. But he believes in research and homework, discipline and organisation. He tweaks his side’s set-up week by week. That demands buy-in from his players and can take time to get used to. There have been frustrating games this season for Arsenal, but there have also been some extremely impressive performances.
Perhaps Emery will grow into the job, perhaps not, but his start and the willingness of his side to adjust to his adjustments are as good as could reasonably have been expected.
