Conclusion

After considering the tactical set ups of both teams in both fixtures, looking at performance, strengths and weaknesses, it helps to understand why these two results occurred.

In comparing the key aspects of both games, we see that when Arsenal play against a team with a more attack-based formation, they are most likely to succeed and most likely to perform to a higher standard. Arsenal know the weaknesses of a 4-2-3-1 system well, as they play that system themselves, so to break down Chelsea they knew they had to get a number of different things right. They did this so effectively, and that allowed them to feel a sense of confidence throughout the 90 minutes that nearly everything they were doing was successful. There was a significant amount of space for Arsenal to play passes through the midfield, and this led to Arsenal having more time to make quick, accurate passes. Arsenal were able to play to their strengths against Chelsea, they could utilise their wingers in 1v1 situations as Chelsea were not doubling up and were leaving their fullbacks high up the pitch. Arsenal got back to defend as a team, and they also pressed as a team; they could pressure dangerous players that Chelsea had to give them hardly any time on the ball. The level of confidence the team played with collectively resulted in individual confidence and therefore individual high performances. Chelsea were left with no choice but to feel frustrated, forcing passes over the top, under pressure on the ball at all times, rarely being allowed time to play the attacking football that they wanted to play. Chelsea rarely play defensive football, as they have such great attacking assets. Arsenal knew they could test Chelsea defensively, catch them out on so many occasions, yet also be defensively covered when they needed to be. They knew if they got back to defend in numbers, they could easily counter attack quickly and outnumber Chelsea when they were caught out of position.

If we look to the West Ham game, we see a completely different set up from West Ham. They knew how to frustrate Arsenal, relying little on their attacking assets and more on their defensive stability. They looked to all the ways that Arsenal usually cause attacking threats and nullified that, by pressing every Arsenal player on the ball, frustrating them and forcing them into long, overhit passes. They knew if they could frustrate Arsenal they would play with little confidence and intensity. Playing with little confidence also means that even if Arsenal get an opportunity to break West Ham down, even once or twice, they often misplace passes or are hesitant to take shots. This benefits West Ham even more. It also means Arsenal are less likely to work as a team effectively, so when it comes to set pieces or counter attacks, West Ham are more likely to catch Arsenal out, as individual performances will also be less confident. As Arsenal failed to change their system at all and West Ham stuck to their system, it meant the same situation would occur for the full 90 minutes.

Going forward an important thing for Arsenal to consider is that most teams, especially those lower down in the table, might look to the successes that West Ham had and operate in the same way. Arsenal must learn to adapt their system to capitalise more on the weaknesses of the West Ham system, playing the ball out wide when there is space and learning to play with confidence and not get easily frustrated. They must find ways to address the weaknesses in their own system that other teams may look to exploit, perhaps working on defensive cover, pressing as a collective and being less hesitant in taking shooting opportunities when they are presented. When playing against attacking- minded teams, often associated with those teams higher in the table, Arsenal must look to repeat the successes achieved against Chelsea, whilst also being mindful of the weaknesses of their system that other teams may look to exploit.