I think Ozil as a player is less than the sum of his parts. He's like the opposite of Michael Carrick. He does a few things superbly and other things at a much lower level, he requires the team to flow around him instead of fitting in, and he only plays one position. It really seems like Ozil's career is more like Riquelme or Veron instead of Zidane. He just doesn't fit into a top side.
No thanks. No desire to trade our 2 leading scorers for a 32 yo ST that per Barca fans has been dropping off considerably and a AM that while more athletic than Ozil will likely fit in with Emery just about as well.
Technically every coach chooses 3 or 4. The choice is made in how you setup your depth. A coach that intends to regularly run 3 CBs at the back is more inclined to keep atleast 5 solid options while a guy that plans to run 2 will keep 4 at best. Hell, we had a couple seasons under Wenger where he had just 3 true CBs on the roster. Don't disagree on Monreal but I think he will be gone no matter what we do. He is rumored to want to go back to Spain. There are conflicted reports on his contract status. He was due to be a FA this summer. We tried to extend but didn't agree on a deal. There are claims that we kicked in a 1 yr option to keep him until next summer. If true, I'd bet we end up selling him to a Spanish club. I've not heard the reports on Bielik. If true, that could be a solid option. So if you keep Kos, Sokratis & Holding, you absolutely need another strong option that can hopefully keep Kos & Sokratis as rotational options vs starters so that their age/health doesn't bite us. If we plan to run a 4 man backline, we could be fine with that (and maybe Bielik for depth and to let Emery get a better look at him). If we plan to run 3 man backline a good bit then I think you need a 5th option that is better than Movra or Bielik. You have to plan for Kos & Sokratis to miss time during the season.
Having seen more of 'Pool I truly can't recall Klopp doing it ever, and if he did it was cleverly disguised. Maybe a late game switch with Milner coming on and basically playing like a high CB. Otherwise their strength has been the ability to use their outside backs in support of the quick transition game, keeping the field spread out.
That's my recollection as well. A few days ago on the Arsenalvision podcast after the Valencia match, Stillman or maybe Elliot noted that neither City nor Pool play three in the back.
I think a 3 CB set can work but it is extremely dependent on the midfield. You have to have not only quality ball handlers but preferably ones that can lead a quick transition. Basically trying to quickly get the ball back to the front where you allegedly have greater numbers. Or, in American terms, playing a diamond defense with the stopper eligible to go forward rather than chained to an opposing player. Regardless, Arsenal has neither the depth at CB nor the calibre of midfield to pull this off, IMO.
While Gomes could be a good addition given his Everton form, the problem would still remain (2 top scorers for an aging scorer, AM that likely doesn't fit). Now if you wanna talk Gomes & Umtiti for Lacazette my ears may perk up a bit more.
Umtiti very much interests me but I don't know about Dembele. I've heard numerous rumors of work ethic and attitude issues. Not sure I'd want to add that to the team.
3 at the back vs 4 doesn't really matter. The main thing is to have a formation/scheme and stick with it except in situations where it is advantageous to switch. City & Pool had very little reason to switch this season so they didn't. However both have played with 3 at the back as recently as last season.
Madrid was better without him. He was clearly a very good player, but for whatever reason his considerable skills did not always translate into results.
Either can work as long as you have the personnel. Completely agree with your assessment. I prefer a 4 man backline but given our current outside back / wing back situation I think it would be easier to build this summer with the intent on running a 3 man back line next season. We need atleast 1 CB no matter what. If we go 3 man backline we likely need 2 (with one being a more budget guy with potential). If we go with 3 man backline you can be set at RWB (Bellerin & AMN) but will need a LWB to rotate with Kola. If you go 4 man backline, you need a RB to backup Bellerin plus 1-2 LB depending on the Nacho situation. Just from a defensive roster situation 3 man backline makes more sense for now.
THey won La Liga with Ozil, which they haven't done since. I don't know if they were better without him as Bale has been a flop as well. And htey made CL semifinals so its not like they were getting knocked out in the group stages. And did you just ignore that he was the centerpiece to Germany winning a world cup?
Either way I'm all on board with adding defensive strength. Our best defender (Kos) is aging and no one else save the enigmatic Bellerin is honestly trophy winning material. I love Monreal but he can't go 40+ matches a season. Seeing as (by my count) idiotic defensive blunders directly cost this team 9 points I consider it paramount that 1 major signing needs to occur with an eye toward defensive starter.
Dembele may have injury issues, but he's a generational talent. He's the wide forward we need. Dembele for Lacazette straight up.
Given the fact that Ozil has never been very expressive while playing, are you sure he has lost the joy of playing? It's unfortunate that Ozil is being evaluated in the context of his contract. He may not have provided the assists we expect, but he is still a very important player for maintaining possession. His first touch can still amaze and he rarely makes the kind of loose passes we often criticize when Musfafi, Xhaka, Mhiki, and Ramsey make them. If he were making £200k per week, I doubt he would get a fraction of the criticism he is currently getting. But he's not responsible for the fact that Arsenal offered him £350k per week.
To me 3 at the back is a stopgap formation for many reasons. It puts a lot of undue pressure on other parts of the formation and doesn't allow for good area denial, up field pressing, or progressive possession (that is, possession that isn't just CBs passing back and forth). It was, for example, the perfect formation for England at the WC, a team that was perfectly suited for scoring off counter attacks and set pieces but had no great midfielders. It worked for Arsene for a while because he was otherwise unable to organize a defense and it hid the fact that we had (and have) no good wide players. It's an incredibly reactive defensive response to the false 9 problem for defenders, when the proactive response--press the other team and never let them have clean between-the-lines looks in your half in the first place, and use that extra midfielder to exert attacking pressure--is much more effective. In other words, it's a small club formation in that the overall quality (and ensuing price) of your individual defenders can be lower and you can effectively nullify false 9 and front 3 formations with good organization, but it's very hard to win midfield battles and you'll be consigned to being entirely dependent on wingbacks for attack or good striker play. For these reasons I hope we both 1. Invest a lot in at least one really good CB and 2. Transition away from three at the back formations
Haven't seen a ton of Dembele, but why sacrifice Laca?? Is Dembele too expensive to contemplate otherwise? If so, that seems unwise, given our meager budget. My general theme is: Auba+Laca have done well for us, especially once the manager figured out that he could/should play them together, so why break them up? Other areas of the pitch seem much more pressing. And even if we have to go for riskier bargain-buys in those other areas, I'd probably opt for that as opposed to selling Laca (or Auba). That's just me anyway.