Arsenal and Unai Emery: Identity vs. adaptability

Unai Emery has largely adapted his Arsenal team to their opponents, the latest example being Saturday’s 3-1 loss to Liverpool. But is this adaptability losing the team’s identity and would that be detrimental to the fate of the club?

In Saturday’s 3-1 defeat to Liverpool, Arsenal head coach Unai Emery used a 4-4-2 diamond. The system was not featured at all in the pre-season, as Jurgen Klopp noted afterwards, and was implemented on five different occasions last season.

Find the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal Podcast here — The Big Unai Emery Debate

In the five matches Arsenal played in a 4-4-2 diamond, they won three and drew two. However, only one of those games was against top-six opposition, a 2-0 win over Chelsea, and the two draws came home and away against Brighton and Hove Albion. Moreover, the system was not used in the manner that it was an Anfield. Against Chelsea, for instance, Emery used the 4-4-2 diamond to press high up the pitch, Aaron Ramsey featured at the tip in a brilliant performance of energetic, high-intensity midfield play.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

• 3 standout players from 1-0 victory over Everton
• 3 positives & negatives from Goodison Park victory
• Arsenal vs PSV preview: Prediction, team news & lineups
• 3 talking points from Arsenal’s victory at Goodison Park
• Mikel Arteta provides Gabriel Martinelli injury update after Everton win

All this is to say that Emery installed a system that no one expected. This was the peak of adaptability, changing almost everything about the team, including dropping last your Player of the Season, in an attempt to stifle the threat of the opposition.

Debates can rage on about whether Emery’s tactical switch was the right one or not, and they certainly have done on social media since the defeat. However, a more pertinent question to ask is whether this adaptability is a smart ploy in the first place. Is being so tactically flexible that you lose your identity actually helpful?

Well, looking back at what Emery has said since he arrived in north London a little over a year ago, the answer is confusing, to say the least. When Emery first arrived, in his introductory press conference, he was asked about what style he will implement at the club. There were two key characteristics that he was keen to outline:

"“My idea is to be the protagonist all of the match. The history here is one thing – they love to play in possession of the ball. I like this personality. But when you don’t have possession, I want a squad that is very intense in pressing. These two things for me are very important.”"

In a similar vein, at the end of his first season in charge, Arsenal.com ran a feature in which they asked Emery about his style, identity and plans for the future. The whole interview focused on instilling a philosophy, a set of ideals, a character of the team. It seems, then, that Emery has an identity and he wants his team to emulate it.

And yet, before the Europa League final, in an interview with El Mundo, he said this:

"“I want us to be a chameleon team, able to play in possession, in static attack against close opponents, or to counterattack.”"

Similarly, when asked about his full-backs and whether Sead Kolasinac, in particular, could handle the defensive duties of playing in a back four, Emery spoke extensively about his desire to have his team well drilled in two systems:

"“We want to use two systems and we are working with two systems, but our first objective is to play with a back four. We are continuing working on that and, above all, feel that we defensively get stronger with a back four <…> We can take the performance with two systems and I think it’s rich for us tactically to use two systems and have two options.”"

So does Emery want to install a clear, well-defined identity or does he want his team to be ‘a chameleon’, capable of playing with different approaches depending on who the opposition is and where the threat may come from? Or is there even a third option, that Emery’s identity is that he wants his team to be tactically flexible? And is this a positive thing for the team?

Certainly, there is something to be said for setting your team in a manner that is best-suited to winning the very next game, just as Emery attempted to do against Liverpool at the weekend. The defensive reactionaries like Jose Mourinho and Rafa Benitez, and even Sir Alex Ferguson, who was deceptively flexible, especially in Europe, would have been most proud. But in the modern game, as Klopp and Pep Guardiola have principally proven, having a defined, certain way of playing seems to be the most successful approach.

As the Emery rebuild enters its second year, there was a hope and expectation that an identity would begin to form. However, as the loss to Liverpool shows, perhaps that identity is not what many expect it to be. Maybe Emery wants a chameleon. Whether that is helpful, however, only time will tell.