Arsenal: Fluidity between formations Arsene Wenger’s way forward

Arsenal should embrace two formations and find fluidity between the 4-2-3-1 and the 3-4-3. By doing so, Arsene Wenger would become more unpredictable.

Arsene Wenger is a stubborn man. There is no denying that. To be fair, if I had won three titles, seven FA Cups and managed 810 league games for Arsenal, I would probably be just as stubborn.

However, in order to get the very best out of his players the Arsenal manager will have to learn some flexibility and fluidity. While his managing style may be famous for bringing out free-flowing, almost jazz-like football, Wenger is notorious for sticking with a formation, player or tactic for far too long. Supporters have often cried out for Wenger to try something new when things get stale.

Throughout this season, Arsenal have used a 3-4-3 formation and a 4-2-3-1 formation. The boss has made it known that he much prefers a four center back system, but has found himself employing the three at the back system quite often this campaign.

Many supporters seem to look at this divide in formation as an “either-or” situation but in fact, both systems are very useful and learning to flow between the two easily may be Le Prof’s final hurdle as a manager.

The three at the back system allows Arsenal to play Sead Kolasinac and Hector Bellerin further forward. This is certainly beneficial for both players because they both offer more going forward than they do defensively.

Kolasinac, in particular, is a beast marauding down the left flank. With a third center back providing cover, Kolasinac has more opportunity to get forward. The Bosnian brick house still needs to remain switched on to danger. Against Crystal Palace, Kolasinac lost the run of Townsend who punished Arsenal with a thumping goal.

However, for the most part Kolasinac and Bellerin have both looked much better as wing-backs rather than full-backs.

The three at the back system also gives supporters the chance to see a formation that could utilize Aaron Ramsey, Jack Wilshere and Mesut Ozil. Since the arrival of the German superstar, Wenger has struggled to find a way to get all three into the same XI in comfortable positions. With a four center back system, one of the trio would have to be shunted to the wing because a midfield base of Wilshere and Ramsey is not defensive enough to field.

With the 3-4-3, Aaron Ramsey could, in theory, assume the Alexis Sanchez role. He has an eye for goal and his tendency to try audacious flicks and tricks could be better served further up the pitch. Wilshere is blossoming in his deeper role at the moment.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

With the B-team Wilshere was often deployed as one of the advanced forwards behind the striker. However, his ability to surge from deep with the ball at his feet and dictate tempo in the engine room suits him far better. His creativity is still on full display as his sumptuous lofted pass for Alexis Sanchez’ second goal against Palace showcased.

With Arsenal’s 4-2-3-1, Mesut Ozil is placed in his best position as a No.10 and Arsenal can play with an extra attacker. There is no denying the benefits of this formation but far too often have the Gunners looked completely exposed with it.

Without a truly disruptive, dynamic and disciplined central defensive midfielder, this formation will never be completely optimised. So for that reason, the 4-2-3-1 cannot be Arsenal’s only formation.

The unpredictability of formational fluidity can only benefit an Arsenal team that has become maddeningly predictable at times. Each formation can call for a different set of personnel, allowing fringe players more opportunity for playing time, which seems to be an issue that Arsenal consistently needs to deal with.

Next: Arsenal vs Chelsea Player Ratings

Arsene Wenger doesn’t know his best formation or his best XI in my opinion. Instead of rejecting this fact and forcing results with only one formation, the manager should embrace this conundrum and fully implement both formations on a rotational and situational basis.