Alexis playing centrally

No it's not a 4-4-2.

Yes, Its definitely not 4-4-2

Uh, "no"...

Without the ball Arsenal stick to a rigid formation.

But in attack Arsenal formation is fluid. And if you look at how Sanchez and Walcott combined against Chelsea, it was effectively 4-4-2

But it doesn't really matter what you call this formation. It looks like this season Sanchez will have more assists than Ozil if we keep playing the same formation.

If its not Walcott, then Sanchez will play with Lucas "on the wing" but effectively it will be 4-4-2

but with this formation, Ozil will get more chance to score many goals...

It is a 4-2-3-1 as we've always played. Difference is we have pace upfront meaning we have fluidity which causes some to believe we're playing a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3.

You can call it what you want, but the fact is - Alexis is our main creative player now, not Ozil or Cazorla. And he will mostly be assisting Walcott or Lucas.

And I fucking love it. Because that's how he plays for Chile too. It bring out the best of him

You can call it what you want

No you can't. Football formations refer to the defensive shape, which in our case is a 4-2-3-1. What we do in attack is irrelevant. You wouldn't call Barca's formation a 2-1-7 just because they all go forward in attack only leaving the two CBs and Busquets at the back.

Our main creative player is still Ozil.... I mean if you decide who is a creative player by counting assists in 6 games then fine. But that isn't the big boy way of doing it.

No you can't. Football formations refer to the defensive shape, which in our case is a 4-2-3-1. What we do in attack is irrelevant. You wouldn't call Barca's formation a 2-1-7 just because they all go forward in attack only leaving the two CBs and Busquets at the back.

Well, there you go - I'm talking about offence, you're talking about defense.

We're comparing oranges with apples. I know that in defense we're sticking to the old structure.

But our attack has changed dramatically since Giroud disappeared. When he was playing, he'd just be standing there, manhandling the opposition CBs and grabbing his head every time he fucks up. Alexis was on the wing and Ozil behind Girioud. The whole thing was total vomit inducing shit show.

But now the whole attacking set up is different. That's what I'm talking about, not the defense

Well, there you go - I'm talking about offence, you're talking about defense.

Well no you're talking about formation, which is always the defensive shape. You can say that our attacking shape has changed but you can't claim we're playing a 4-4-2 because we aren't shaped that way in defensive play.

But our attack has changed dramatically since Giroud disappeared. When he was playing, he'd just be standing there, manhandling the opposition CBs and grabbing his head every time he fucks up. Alexis was on the wing and Ozil behind Girioud. The whole thing was total vomit inducing shit show.But now the whole attacking set up is different.

Burnley is the kind of game where Giroud would have made the difference if he was brought on in the second half, where the opponents were giving hard time to our new attacking setup..

Little bit niggle

This idea that Giroud isn't a mobile striker is absolute bollocks. He doesn't have pace to burn but he is mobile and offer way more than what a typical target man does.

Giroud is still injured, right?

Yes

I agree, against Burnley Giroud off the bench instead of Iwobi would've been good

Giroud is still injured, right?

No. He's been on the bench since he got the toe injury, which means he is capable of playing.

He wasn't on the bench vs Burnley. Wenger wouldn't go without him if he was capable of playing.

He wasn't on the bench vs Burnley. Wenger wouldn't go without him if he was capable of playing.

He was on the bench against Chelsea, which was 11 days after the toe injury.