Barcarmageddon (?): What to do if your best player leaves

I for one think that Fabregas will go, particularly after his usual Barca-question-dodging gave way to that comment about sorting out his future before the World Cup. However, we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes, so there's not much point in speculating about the validity of the stories until one of these rather well-informed journalists remembers to pick up a quote... For now, he's still an Arsenal player.

But I couldn't help thinking about what we should do if he does leave. I know I'm not the only one who had already been wondering about a switch back to 4-4-2, but Wenger has made it abundantly clear that the system is built around Fabregas and our 270 wide/in the hole players. 

What got me leaning slightly towards the old formation was my flatmate's recent purchase of the Arsenal season review DVDs for 2002-2006 and the subsequent nostalgiafest for the three Gooners in the house. The teams Wenger put out back then - arguably his best - were all based on a conventional 4-4-2 (at times perhaps 4-4-1-1, usually when Dennis was playing) but, as we all know, had the technique and flair to fashion their own brand of attacking football around it. There was Vieira stamping his authority all over the midfield, Gilberto keeping everything nice and tidy in front of the defence, Pires and Ljungberg wreaking absolute havoc as they cut in from the wings. Henry had support all around him - needless to say Bergkamp made sure of that at all times - and the back four was well protected by our disciplined central midfield. Watching those highlights and reacquainting ourselves with those absolute legends, seeing them winning comfortably almost weekly and putting on masterclass after masterclass, we wondered if Wenger's pursuit of quasi-total football would ever bear the same fruit.

Obviously, the less said about the end of 02-03 the better, but I couldn't help noticing how much more clinical that team was. One of the main reasons why the formation worked so well back then was that our flamboyant attack was complemented by both a rigid adherence to the system and a willingness to get back and defend a couple times when off the ball. Of course, the team wasn't quite perfect and had its lapses just like any other. But the players knew their positions and their roles, and were slightly more adept at keeping to them than the current crop.

I should also add that the physical difference really is noticeable. Take the Invincibles - the starting lineup only ever had one or two players below six feet, and there was strength and pace all over the pitch. Gilberto and Lauren weren't known for being real heavyweights, but stick them with the likes of Campbell, Vieira and Henry and you get the kind of athleticism we see today in the modern Chelsea teams. It's rare to find players like that who have such a deadly combination of skill and physical presence, but Arsene managed it.

There were two main reasons for changing to 4-3-3. First, other teams had sussed how to play against us - put out two banks of four and you shut down the strikers' entire supply. Second, Cesc Fabregas had become playmaker and, as we have seen this season, he can be almost unstoppable at the top of the midfield three.

However, the new system seems to have marginalised some of our other players. Eduardo's struggle to regain form hasn't been helped by having to return to an alien formation, and it seems like he is at his best up front with another striker - as is Carlos Vela, who has had his moments on the left wing but only really excels leading the line. Walcott has found some good form in the last couple of months but he seems to hit opposition defences harder when attacking from a slightly deeper position on the right, while Arshavin has proven himself on the flanks in both formations.

Watching Fabregas playing in these old teams, you realise that he can more than manage in a 4-4-2. At 17 years of age and well off the shape he's in now, he was bossing the midfield and playing perfect through-ball after perfect through-ball just like he is six years on. He earned his stripes by playing as a centre-midfielder (and, at times, right-midfielder) alongside the likes of Gilberto, Ljungberg, Pires, and Henry, playing in a system where he was not the chief playmaker but flourishing nonetheless. Although there's no doubt he has been sensational in an advanced role in a 4-3-3, it's clear that he can manage in a midfield four, and the 2007-8 season showed that he can get the goals regardless of the team's formation around him. Of course, this is only worth considering if we're the club that actually has him next year. 

But this leads me on to the other factor in our change of tactics. Why would 4-4-2 work now if the other teams figured out how to break us down last time?

The difference is in players like Samir Nasri, Aaron Ramsey, Tomas Rosicky and, to a lesser extent, Andrei Arshavin. Pires and Ljungberg were legends in their own right, but we now have a legion of midfielders who are arguably the world's best at knocking the ball around for hours on end. With the clear exception of the matches against Barcelona (an exception which we will have to tolerate - let's be honest, they've pretty much outgrown football as a sport now) we have dominated almost all of our opposition in terms of possession. I believe that to place Nasri, Rosicky or Arshavin on the wing of a four-man midfield would do no damage to our ability to keep hold of the ball; and with a striker on the inside of each flank, our buildup play would allow us to open up into more threatening positions than we would from passing it back and forth along the 18-yard line with half a dozen players shutting us out. Additionally, a genuine 4-4-1-1 (rather than a reconceptualised 4-3-3) would give us the chance to push Arshavin forward into his ideal role and cause mayhem behind the out-and-out striker.

Of course, with Robin van Persie, Nicklas Bendtner, Eduardo and Carlos Vela all keen on a central forward role - and with the likely addition of Marouane Chamakh this summer - it seems difficult to accommodate them all without changing back to a 4-4-2. Arguably it makes sense to retain a front three so as to make use of their respective versatility. However, it has become clear that, by fielding players of their nature in the wide roles, we end up exposing our full-backs - or just exposing our entire flanks, when there's no cover for marauding wing-backs like Clichy and Eboue.

The old formation seemed to play to our strengths on the overlap. Clichy and Sagna were racking up assists in the 07-08 season, and the decline of this part of their game has been most pronounced. I can't help wondering whether this really is entirely due to the undoubted fall in the quality of their crossing, as there is still a considerable difference between choosing from two strikers who can pull their markers out of position and having to seek out one striker who is being forced beyond reach. 

Regardless of whether Fabregas leaves, I really think a switch in formation is worth considering. There is certainly a strong case to be made for 4-3-3 and at times it has worked very well, but to me 4-4-2 seems both defensively safer and likely to give us further options going forward. I've put up a poll on the side so you can vote for one of the two systems, and feel free to add your thoughts below. After that, get outside, enjoy the sun and try to forget the rumours for a few minutes - can't be thinking about Cesc every seven seconds.