Spy360:

Whenever you start depending on other people's opinion to 'buttress' an explanation then you know you have no point.

Once again, I advice you not to mention the bolded again in any forum. It sounds silly because it is taken for granted. No one would have done otherwise.

Lol....
If two or more people align with same thoughts as mine, Why won't I use their explanations as reference?

Perhaps they'll be able explain better what I couldn't. I don't see what is remotely wrong with that.


For you to write that bolded is downright ridiculous and wrong. Imagine saying I have no point when I and others share the same view.

Roland17:


Not necessarily true in my opinion and here is why.

A plan to win doesn't mean you must play open expansive football because it is not the only way to win a game, irrespective of what may be deemed your typical style. Arteta did not plan to lose but he also had a chance to win and at different times, especially during the 2nd he went for it while being cautious.

He pretty much timed his attack and at different times, especially after bringing in Partey/ Trossard, he saw windows to win and went for it; problem was, we either made bad decisions in the final 3rd, were indecisive or did not get the desired result. He knew there was a chance to steal all 3 points despite playing defensive.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading arguments from both sides I should add.

True, You're right on the bolded and I erred in that aspect.

I love your submission also

Jodera:

True, You're right on the bolded and I erred in that aspect.

I love your submission also

No mind Spy, e no sabi keep mouth when e dey debate/ argue

Everything na "Ogu na Ngba" (fight) for am

iamoyindamola:

The guy said we were pegged back which mean arteta switched tactics in the first 10 minutes
In all honesty I appreciate him and his efforts I don't believe we park bus but we didn't play to win at all
See below na massive drilling and discipline to achieve this kind low blocks apari even wan kill arteta

Spot saka and jesus
Arteta na hire killer aje
E remind me of ten hag way confused klopp by pushing Anthony and Bruno to the back for the defenders to go attack

The bolded already buttress my point. The plan was not to defend. We needed that 3 points as much as City wanted it too.
We went to Etihad with a game plan, Pep changed his normal tactic which means we had to adapt. So I don't know where the 'we planned to defend' narrative is coming from.

If truly we planned to defend, why changing tactic then?

Jodera:


Exactly what I read few hours ago.

What the guy said here was exactly what I've been saying in bits

To me, it was a tactical masterclass. Pep really mean am...kudos to Arteta for keeping up. Imagine restricting City to just one shot at their home ground. Na the possession dey deceive many fans jare. If only we took.our chances.

Roland17:


No mind Spy, e no sabi keep mouth when e dey debate/ argue

Everything na "Ogu na Ngba" (fight) for am

It's really no big deal at all

mostob:
To me, it was a tactical masterclass. Pep really mean am...kudos to Arteta for keeping up. Imagine restricting City to just one shot at their home ground. Na the possession dey deceive many fans jare. If only we took.our chances.

Yeahh, I love the way we really adapted. Omorr, immediately I saw that first 15m and how they didn't allow us settle, omorr, I knew we don enter. Arteta really really read the game well and kudos to the players for seamlessly adapting to the new tactics.

It's the reason why I brought that link up — "Living the game" that Arteta is always talking about especially his first few years here

Living the game is just all about adapting to the situation on ground. If the opposition decides to be aggressive when you don't expect them to, it means the boys should be super aggressive so that they won't be rolled over. He calls that "to live the game".

It's the main reason why we're hardly bullied or dominated in any aspect anyhow.

It's a very interesting piece.

Jodera:
Abeggiiii.....
An attacker would see chance to score but he'll dribble unnecessarily and your defense is because he's not a striker

No wonder you said there's nothing wrong with Havertz missing that one on one against Liverpool because according to you, he's not a striker.

No be me and you go follow talk this one

No one is expecting to miss a chance even if he is a goalkeeper. But the fact is that less is expected if the player is not a striker. Haaland missed an open net but it is Kai Havertz that is your problem.

Jodera:

Lol....
If two or more people align with same thoughts as mine, Why won't I use their explanations as reference?

Perhaps they'll be able explain better what I couldn't. I don't see what is remotely wrong with that.


For you to write that bolded is downright ridiculous and wrong. Imagine saying I have no point when I and others share the same view.

Stop twisting things. They don't share the same view as you. They only explained something which you jumped on as if it aligns with what you said. The guy whose post you are banking on only said Arteta planned to defend and when the opportunity comes he scores. How does that relate to the funny statement that he planned not to lose? Who does that?

BlueRayDick:


So what did Arteta play to do in 2020 FA cup semi final when we played the same pattern and won city 2-0?

Just take a look at the stats of both matches ; u can see that stats are very very similar. The only major difference is the fact that our attack took more shots at goal and they converted 2 while we didn't convert any in this Sunday match .

I don't think Arteta played to draw at all. Instead I think he came with a pattern to prevent city from playing and his own team making the best out of any opportunity that presents itself . It's simply cos he knows going all out against city is suicide

When a team defends it means they are playing for a draw. You don't defend and say you plan to win. Simple logic.

However as Roland17 said, a coach can employ a less expansive tactics that allows him to stay compact while looking out for an opportunity to go all out. Arteta didn't do that, instead he when he saw that City had ran out of ideas he began to press higher towards the last 20/25mins.

My point is (mind you I am thinking in retrospect) if he had done that from the onset we would have beaten City because they weren't that good as I thought.

Jodera:

Yeahh, I love the way we really adapted. Omorr, immediately I saw that first 15m and how they didn't allow us settle, omorr, I knew we don enter. Arteta really really read the game well and kudos to the players for seamlessly adapting to the new tactics.

It's the reason why I brought that link up — "Living the game" that Arteta is always talking about especially his first few years here

Living the game is just all about adapting to the situation on ground. If the opposition decides to be aggressive when you don't expect them to, it means the boys should be super aggressive so that they won't be rolled over. He calls that "to live the game".

It's the main reason why we're hardly bullied or dominated in any aspect anyhow.

It's a very interesting piece.

You made a good point here. I must give Arteta kudos for not going the Wenger way and showing that he can adapt to different opposition. Wenger would not have defended even if it meant losing 5-0

Jodera:


It's really no big deal at all

Thanks for understanding. Sod na my senior for bad mouth.

Spy360:

When a team defends it means they are playing for a draw. You don't defend and say you plan to win. Simple logic.

However as Roland17 said, a coach can employ a less expansive tactics that allows him to stay compact while looking out for an opportunity to go all out. Arteta didn't do that, instead he when he saw that City had ran out of ideas he began to press higher towards the last 20/25mins.

My point is (mind you I am thinking in retrospect) if he had done that from the onset we would have beaten City because they weren't that good as I thought.

The bold is false . Athletico set their plans to be ultra defensive with an effective attack going forward once in a while under Simoene . They've won two La Liga titles under him and if u check the league table in 2014 and 2021 u will see that simeone's Athletico won more games than anybody in those two seasons .

Setting up ur team to defend is certainly not 100% proof that u play to draw

BlueRayDick:


The bold is false . Athletico set their plans to be ultra defensive with an effective attack going forward once in a while under Simoene . They've won two La Liga titles under him and if u check the league table in 2014 and 2021 u will see that simeone's Athletico won more games than anybody in those two seasons .

Setting up ur team to defend is certainly not 100% proof that u play to draw

The bolded is a caveat. Remove that and see that it doesn't align with your point.

Mind you I am a proponent of Defence wins you league.

I listened to Alonso about Pep, he said, surprisingly, that Pep focuses more on his team's defensive shape during training than attack. So a good team that wants to win will both defend and attack.

Every winning team will both attack and defend. But when a team focuses entirely on defending then they plan for a draw. Simple.
Even if they eventually win which is possible it doesn't not change the fact that their plan was to secure a draw

iamoyindamola:

Nonaits from your post
We have never defended as we did on Sunday which is true and
We didn't attack city as we did to other teams which is also true
So which one is arteta played to win when our wingers turn defenders
I actually love the result and the play but we are being arrogant saying arteta played to win

Exactly.

Let Blueraydick and Jodera come and tell us that that defensive shape is our usual pattern.

If it is then I accept that Arteta planned to win. If not then he planned to draw.

Spy360:

The bolded is a caveat. Remove that and see that it doesn't align with your point.

Mind you I am a proponent of Defence wins you league.

I listened to Alonso about Pep, he said, surprisingly, that Pep focuses more on his team's defensive shape during training than attack. So a good team that wants to win will both defend and attack.

Every winning team will both attack and defend. But when a team focuses entirely on defending then they plan for a draw. Simple.
Even if they eventually win which is possible it doesn't not change the fact that their plan was to secure a draw

lol.

I clearly put that effective attack knowing u will want to dwell on that . The good thing is Arsenal's attack is over effective cos we have scored gge most goals in the league this season till date .


That makes my point for me that Arteta actually didn't play to draw . He studied his opponent and neutralized them in every possible way in the books . He relied on his effective attack that managed 2 shot on target to city's 1 shot on target ; but were unfortunate not to have converted it.

Kapish !

Spy360:

Exactly.

Let Blueraydick and Jodera come and tell us that that defensive shape is our usual pattern.

If it is then I accept that Arteta planned to win. If not then he planned to draw.

I have already addresed this yesterday . Arsenal won City with same strategy in the 2020 FA cup semi final . Arsenal scored 2 goals in that match.

Except u want to feign forgetfulness , u know we've had series of discussions on this thread in the past arguing about Arteta's approach to matches in the past when he will go defensive . I remember vividly well, Arteta sure knows how to go defensive and we always have people here complain about it in the past

Spy360:

No one is expecting to miss a chance even if he is a goalkeeper. But the fact is that less is expected if the player is not a striker. Haaland missed an open net but it is Kai Havertz that is your problem.

You may twist it from now till tomorrow. The fact is there is no justification for missing a sitter whether you're a Striker or not.

Spy360:

When a team defends it means they are playing for a draw. You don't defend and say you plan to win. Simple logic.

However as Roland17 said, a coach can employ a less expansive tactics that allows him to stay compact while looking out for an opportunity to go all out. Arteta didn't do that, instead he when he saw that City had ran out of ideas he began to press higher towards the last 20/25mins.

My point is (mind you I am thinking in retrospect) if he had done that from the onset we would have beaten City because they weren't that good as I thought.

You can still defend and play for a win.
As for the last paragraph, you want him to just press higher without knowing what city's tactic was all about? why are you talking like this na. Na City we dey talk here o not even Chelsea or United.

Spy360:

Exactly.

Let Blueraydick and Jodera come and tell us that that defensive shape is our usual pattern.

If it is then I accept that Arteta planned to win. If not then he planned to draw.

There is no usual pattern. You adjust depending on what you have in front of you.

mostob:
There is no usual pattern. You adjust depending on what you have in front of you.

So why are you now saying that he planned to not lose? Has anyone planned to lose before?

mostob:
You can still defend and play for a win.
As for the last paragraph, you want him to just press higher without knowing what city's tactic was all about? why are you talking like this na. Na City we dey talk here o not even Chelsea or United.

Every team has to defend at some point. But any team that focuses a major part of their plan on defending is not planning to win. Even if they eventually win, it was not their plan.

West Ham defended for 90mins against Arsenal and won. Will you tell me they entered that pitch believing they could beat Arsenal? Let's use logic well abeg

mostob:
You may twist it from now till tomorrow. The fact is there is no justification for missing a sitter whether you're a Striker or not.

Read my post again

BlueRayDick:


lol.

I clearly put that effective attack knowing u will want to dwell on that . The good thing is Arsenal's attack is over effective cos we have scored gge most goals in the league this season till date .


That makes my point for me that Arteta actually didn't play to draw . He studied his opponent and neutralized them in every possible way in the books . He relied on his effective attack that managed 2 shot on target to city's 1 shot on target ; but were unfortunate not to have converted it.

Kapish !

If it was a boxing match, City would have won on unanimous points decision.

That's because Arsenal would just be blocking punches and City throwing punches until the bell goes.

You will see today against Luton how we would play a high line and press high and pass from the back and score 5goals.

Spy360:

If it was a boxing match, City would have won on unanimous points decision.

That's because Arsenal would just be blocking punches and City throwing punches until the bell goes.

You will see today against Luton how we would play a high line and press high and pass from the back and score 5goals.

Unfortunately, football is not boxing.

As for ur Last paragraph, that is what is expected. Nobody expected Arsenal to play high line, press high and pass from the back against city. Maybe u did sha

BlueRayDick:




Unfortunately, football is not boxing.

As for ur Last paragraph, that is what is expected. Nobody expected Arsenal to play high line, press high and pass from the back against city. Maybe u did sha

Yes. And I believe that if we had taken the game to them we would have beaten them because on that day we were better physically and tactically. Arteta realised it later on when we started pressing high but there wasn't enough time and the boys already had a defensive mindset and that was why passes in the final third wasn't very smooth especially with the chance Trossard missed.

Liverpool Vs Man City was more open and Liverpool could have won but for bad luck. I felt we missed a golden opportunity.

That's why I said that the way Arteta was happy after the game showed that he was satisfied with the point.

In the first half when Ake got injured and Pep changed to a back three, Jesus was telling Arteta to allow him stay higher 1v1 against Rico Lewis but Arteta refused asking him to remain deep. Jesus knew he had a chance on the LW. Pep never bothered because our wingers were sitting deep.

Spy360:

Yes. And I believe that if we had taken the game to them we would have beaten them because on that day we were better physically and tactically. Arteta realised it later on when we started pressing high but there wasn't enough time and the boys already had a defensive mindset and that was why passes in the final third wasn't very smooth especially with the chance Trossard missed.

Liverpool Vs Man City was more open and Liverpool could have won but for bad luck. I felt we missed a golden opportunity.

That's why I said that the way Arteta was happy after the game showed that he was satisfied with the point.

U need to first go and see the set-up/line-up of Man city Vs Loserpool and then check the set-up/Lineups of Man city Vs Arsenal. U will see the set-up's were different.

Arteta is not a foool to be hoping city will play like Luton and allow themselves to be played out of the match.It's funny to see u assume Arteta didn't know he can win city until towards the end of the match

Who told u that was not his plan form the onset?

BlueRayDick:


U need to first go and see the set-up/line-up of Man city Vs Loserpool and then check the set-up/Lineups of Man city Vs Arsenal. U will see the set-up's were different.

Arteta is not a foool to be hoping city will play like Luton and allow themselves to be played out of the match.It's funny to see u assume Arteta didn't know he can win city until towards the end of the match

Who told u that was not his plan form the onset?

His plan from the onset was to defend. It is clear. Defending means he would be satisfied with a draw. A barren draw is possible and he got it.

Usually Arteta presses high using Odegaard and Kai against the opponents CBs. Against Man City their CBs were on holiday and we only pressed their midfielders ie Rodri and Kovacic. That was why their fullbacks Akanji and Gvardiol pushed higher to take up winger positions and their wingers Foden and Silva moved into midfield to overload the centre. When Ake got injured, he replaced him with a midfielder and not a defender. That's because he saw no need. No one was pressing the defenders.

In the second half he changed to wider faster wingers to penetrate and what did Arteta do? Changed Kiwior to Tomiyasu. I was actually expecting him to bring in Zinchenko. Arteta was just nullifying Pep's attack without initiating any for himself.

Now please note, I appreciate what he did as a point at the Etihad is not bad at all. But I also feel a bit disappointed knowing that we could have possibly won if we played our usual game like we did against Liverpool.

Spy360:

His plan from the onset was to defend. It is clear. Defending means he would be satisfied with a draw. A barren draw is possible and he got it.

Usually Arteta presses high using Odegaard and Kai against the opponents CBs. Against Man City their CBs were on holiday and we only pressed their midfielders ie Rodri and Kovacic. That was why their fullbacks Akanji and Gvardiol pushed higher to take up winger positions and their wingers Foden and Silva moved into midfield to overload the centre. When Ake got injured, he replaced him with a midfielder and not a defender. That's because he saw no need. No one was pressing the defenders.

In the second half he changed to wider faster wingers to penetrate and what did Arteta do? Changed Kiwior to Tomiyasu. I was actually expecting him to bring in Zinchenko. Arteta was just nullifying Pep's attack without initiating any for himself.

Now please note, I appreciate what he did as a point at the Etihad is not bad at all. But I also feel a bit disappointed knowing that we could have possibly won if we played our usual game like we did against Liverpool.

You said he planned to defend from the onset yet the same you said he changed tactic in the first half. Person wey plan to defend dey change tactic? make it make sense.

Lewis is a fullback not a midfielder.

Your argument is leaky bro especially that last paragraph. Are Liverpool and City the same team? Do they play the same way? Have you forgot how we sometimes labour hard to defend against an inferior team?

Fact is you overrated Arsenal's chance against City, you got disappointed and came here to start the 'We planned to defend' argument.

Spy360:

Read my post again

You have no point bro. You can't justify missing easy chance because of positional play or tactic. Even if a defender finds himself in the box and there's chance, he must score.

Spy360:

Every team has to defend at some point. But any team that focuses a major part of their plan on defending is not planning to win. Even if they eventually win, it was not their plan.

West Ham defended for 90mins against Arsenal and won. Will you tell me they entered that pitch believing they could beat Arsenal? Let's use logic well abeg

Teams defend for a lot of reasons and I'm sure you're not aware.
1. If you meat a superior team with a superior tactic, you can defend.
2. If your opponent surprises you with a tactic you're not aware of, you might have to defend.
3. When your opponent is piling pressure on you and you're leading with a lone goal with about 10 minutes to go, you defend.

Now tell me which is applicable to that City vs Arsenal game.