I’d like to preface this whole thing by saying that I absolutely love Martin Ødegaard; he’s one of my favourite stories, and his ability to change in function is truly astounding. He’s a fantastic captain, a leader by more than just example and in the simplest of terms, the best pocket player in world football.
However, not all is well at Arsenal and frankly not all is well with Martin Ødegaard (or at least with his usage).
A short (re)introduction.
A lot of pressure was put on Martin Ødegaard from a young age, a truly prodigious talent that was pursued by nearly all the giants of Europe, we can glean a lot about Martin Ødegaard the 24 year old from how Martin Ødegaard the 15 year old played. This extract from an article written in 2015 by the now head of player and coach development at the Nowegian football federation Håkon Grøttland presents a lot of the stuff that you’ll see in his game now. His extraordinary pocket play was clearly already developed and the lack of “rules” imposed on him at that age speaks to his current inventiveness on the ball, the scooped passes and small space genius that you’ll often see from him likely derives from this initial freedom and encouragement from coaches to be inventive.
“He therefore had no “rules” to deal with in the attacking game. He was allowed to let loose and try what he thought was most appropriate then and there. Guidance from the trainers was limited to positive reinforcement and an occasional call to try even harder at what he was good at; namely to identify spaces ahead in the lane.” This passage encapsulates what a young Martin Ødegaard was faced with- a genius of a footballer who’s main job was to exploit that genius through specialisation of what he was good at namely finding spaces and exploiting it through reception or identification of a pass.
Even more impressive than any creativity he has on the ball is his creativity with the ball, the environment he was placed in has produced that and therefore has produced a player who has an innate feel for the workings of the ball which allows him to manipulate it so well.
Another factor is the type of pitch that Martin Ødegaard played on as a youth player, as the coach who prompted Ødegaard’s breakthrough into the first 11 of Strømsgodset (the club that Real Madrid signed him from) David Nielsen said before Arsenal’s trip to FK Bodø/Glimt in the 22/23 Europa league group stage “The problem Bodo/Glimt will have is that Martin is the No 1 player in the world on artificial grass.” Ødegaard is a player that thrives in the small spaces and that partly comes from playing in these environments, forced to thrive when the pitch was small rather than attempt to expand it (as a Bruno Fernandes, Kevin De Bruyne or a Fabio Vieira would).
Small spaces, fantastic spatial intelligence, undersized (as was mentioned in the aforementioned article with him having to play as a LB due to the worry that he’d be muscled off the ball in central areas playing 2–3 years above his age group as an 11 year old). That’s the basis of Martin Ødegaard and while he’s built on that fantastically (absurd outside the box shooting and a great ability to adjust his volume of touches when receiving deeper), fundamentally those are his overarching strengths and asking him to do anything wildly outside of those strengths will likely result in him doing those jobs to a sub-elite standard.
Small spaces, big spaces, Bukayo Saka; the issue with the right hand side.
“Can be challenged on the use of remote space.” That was the sole criticism of a 13 year old Martin Ødegaard after his first “national initiative” at the Statoil talent camp (again from the same article which I’d very much suggest anyone with an interest in Ødegaard should read) and that really does sum up his issues at Arsenal over 11 years later perfectly- the positives of “Good skills in relation to close range (1st touch, taking off pressure, leading/dribbling, combination play)” seem to sum up his value for the club pretty accurately as well.
So why does “remote space” matter? Well, it all comes down to the simplest of ideas in football, something we’re all told growing up- make the pitch big when attacking and small when defending. Most of this stuff is done for rather than by a player of Martin Odegaard’s ilk (as it is for a player such as Fabio Vieira as well), players with express pace tend to stretch the opposition block due to fear of being caught in behind (increasing the pitch vertically) and the rest is largely done via player instruction (wingers hugging the touchline in order to increase the pitch horizontally and consistent occupation of the 5/6 channels in order to pin the block so therefore increase the pitch vertically.
Where Martin Ødegaard comes in (or more aptly doesn’t come in) is exploiting that increased pitch via finding those “remote spaces”. Martin Ødegaard largely attempts to find solution within the right hand side, he takes a lot of touches (which is a large reason why he retains the ball so well) and due to the open angles he operates in he’s rarely forced into playing outside of his comfort zone (which I’ll touch on later). This tends to reduce the isolations that occur on the left hand side due to him not directly accessing whoever is holding width, as well as leading to teams being able to more confidently tilt their block towards the right (as seen often with how many players always seem to be surrounding Bukayo Saka when he receives the ball)- if he doesn’t consistently attempt to access the left then the right can be clogged up more as immediate danger isn’t neccessarily present. As Pep Guardiola put it “In all team sports, the secret is to overload one side of the pitch so that the opponent must tilt its own defence to cope.” The issue with Ødegaard is that he’s really good at making the defence tilt towards the right but he’s not so good at punishing the defence for their tilting and therefore he is no longer forcing the defence to tilt- it’s entirely deliberate on their part. That’s the main problem with how the right half space is used, here (in my opinion) are the solutions.
Fabio Vieira- the plug and play solution.
Fabio Vieira is a big spaces player- his best attribute is his ability to access wherever you want him to access on the pitch with one action. He strikes the ball incredibly cleanly and crosses to a high level (something that’s been missing in this Arsenal side in terms of volume). While he’s not quite as good as Ødegaard at tilting the block (although he’s more than adept at it and it really isn’t that important a skill to have considering Saka’s gravity), where he far exceeds the Norwegian is his ability to exploit that tilted block especially from the right. This is an issue I have with his usage so far, you cut off Vieira’s angles and he is the same passer just with less options (due to already being very direct in nature), you cut off Ødegaard’s angles and he becomes a completely different passer in value (increase in directness largely leads to passes that are more valuable- just look at Martinelli’s goal against Brighton (1:22 on the video)). That’s not to say that Ødegaard is a better player off the left (I’ll again get to that later) it’s just to say that Fabio Vieira is a considerably worse one. It’s all about weighing up the options here, would the interplay on the right hand side be considerably worse (especially with an overlapper like White)? Not really, but would the access of the left hand side in both settled play and transition improve drastically? There’s no doubt in my mind.
This left hand side access is not the only thing that Fabio Vieira would bring to that zone over Martin Ødegaard, as I’ve previously stated Fabio is an excellent crosser and unlike Martin, is two footed in that regard. This means that he’s excellent from the left and the right but regardless this is a particular area of focus due to a clear improvement that can be made in the area.
Half space crossing was a clear area of issuein the 22/23 season and presented a deficiency in Arsenal’s repertoire of chance creation. Arsenal were far less likely to cross from the half spaces than a team such as Manchester City, this is partly due to a lack of a target man to aim at in the area (an issue that’s been addressed by the summer signing of Kai Havertz- an excellent header of the football who’s 6"4 frame acts as a point of gravity for those types of crosses) however, an arguably even more prominent reason was the lack of willingness for our half space occupiers to cross. With Fabio Vieira in the side this is less likely to be an issue, he crosses well and he crosses often (he averages 1.5 crosses more per 90 in the Premier League than Ødegaard). This crossing issue is especially prominent considering the issues with central access Arsenal have been experiencing this season, there’s been a low level of zone 14 occupation and partly as a symptom of this- a low level of chance creation. With the addition of regular half space crossing, the central access issue becomes patched up to a degree and a lot of the open play chance creation deficiencies seen this season will likely be solved (to an extent). The benefits of an increased volume of crossing even within the current side can be seen with Saka’s goal against Bournemouth- the one open play cross attempted by Martin Ødegaard that game led to Arsenal’s only open play goal. Ødegaard’s reluctance to access this “remote space” through crossing leads to an increased creative burden being put on more complicated chance creation methods as well as giving the brunt of the crossing duty to a sometimes overlapping full back (Ben White/Takehiro Tomiyasu) who a) is a weaker crosser than an interior likely would be (and definitely a weaker one than Fabio Vieira) and b) leads to a weakening of the rest defence as the full back has to be high and wide for a fair portion of the game instead of the 3–2 base. This is in addition to the simple increase in fatigue that the full back faces when needing to consistently overlap, as a possession based team running needlessly is a clear flaw and one which is always present when the majority burden for overlaps is put upon a deep player.
Overall, Fabio provides more value than any other option in the right half space, his transitional qualities are excellent, his associative play is certainly up to scratch and he opens a new avenue for a consistent chance creation method which would aid the new big money signing of Kai Havertz (who’s currently devoid of confidence and is definitively not getting enough service without crossing situations being consistent). Fabio is a far better option to occupy that zone than Ødegaard in my eyes, however he’s not the only option and the other one provides similar solutions while simultaneously being a better match for the profile of Arsenal’s best offensive player- Bukayo Saka.
Emile Smith Rowe- unlocking Bukayo Saka.
While the Fabio Vieira solution was about improving the value of action from the RCM in the right half space, this solution is more so about improving the fluidity of the right hand side while still maintaining the value of actions in the right half space (with the “passer” no longer being the interior but Saka instead).
There’s been a drastic profile mismatch on the right hand side for the past couple of years and it’s really simple, Bukayo Saka for all his merits is far better suited having the ball played largely into his feet (although his unwavering will to help the team has led to him being a perfectly fine in behind threat when asked to run there). Martin Ødegaard is not a player that fits well with this archetype of player. Firstly, he doesn’t exploit Bukayo Saka’s gravity anywhere near often enough, it ends up being Ben White who does the exploiting through overlaps- something Ødegaard’s one footedness almost completely prohibits him from doing. While the rest defence issue is prominent, even more important is the fact that Ben White is not the best player to have doing that overlap in terms of effectiveness- you simply would rather your attacking midfielder in those areas than your faux centre back (important to note that his ceiling as an overlapper is genuinely pretty high, however, he’s not the complete article there and likely will never reach the levels of an Emile Smith Rowe in terms of value on the touchline).
Secondly, Ødegaard doesn’t fully emphasise Bukayo Saka’s strengths, the Englishman has a fantastic creative passing range that is currently heavily underused. The volume of slip balls to the inside channel needs to increase in order to maximise Saka’s talents, with the volume of low blocks that Arsenal face, cutbacks from Arsenal’s interiors need to increase (especially considering the box crashing prowess of a Declan Rice or even a Thomas Partey). When the block is pushed back the space right in front of the defence is the most valuable and also some of the easiest to exploit (just look at how many goals Rodri scores for City from that zone), this chance creation method is another that is underused by Arsenal and as much as I’d like to say that Martin Ødegaard is the man for the job he simply isn’t dynamic enough/two footed enough to provide that underlapping threat. That’s where Emile Smith Rowe comes in.
Like Fabio Vieira, Emile Smith Rowe is a big spaces player. While, the former as previously stated is a player that exploits large spaces, Emile Smith Rowe creates them. A dynamic runner, his in-behind threat stretches the defence and leaves space in front of it as the block is forced to drop. He’s also got fantastic running power and his excellent ball carrying is a top tool to have in transition. This changes the dynamic on the right hand side in transition, the added penetration increases the options when on the break as space in behind is more likely to be used than if you have a Vieira or an Ødegaard in that role. This dynamic running is also very useful in settled play, the ability for Smith Rowe to consistently overlap frees White of this duty and therefore allows him to sit in the base 3 more often therefore adding more security to the rest defence as there isn’t space to exploit in behind him (although Saliba is usually fantastic at cleaning up any of these messes in the channels.)
Perhaps more important is the flexibility Smith Rowe provides for that right hand side through his ability to occupy the touchline. Bukayo Saka is one of the best receivers between the lines in the world and he rarely gets the opportunity to use that ability as he’s too often holding the width, the ability for him to sit inside at times is crucial in getting more output out of him. Smith Rowe width holding capabilities also allows Saka to cut inside more freely, again getting himself closer to the goal where he’s becoming so dangerous (just look at his goal against Nottingham Forest). There’s also the matter of Smith Rowe’s gravity when carrying the football, too often Saka is asked to face up 2–3 players after receiving a pass from deep areas, Smith Rowe’s ability to carry tends to attract players and also improves the type of 1v1’s Saka takes, lay offs after a carry allow for Saka to already be moving when he squares up his man rather than receiving onto his back foot and having to create separation on his own. Ball-carries create fear in a block and lead to defenders having to gamble- the runner (Smith Rowe) creates the fear, the passer (Saka) exploits that fear. Saka will have the option to cross the ball more (and his angle for half space crosses is actually better than an interiors would be as he’s coming inside and whipping the ball rather than having to open himself up) while Smith Rowe’s willingness to run in a straight line into the box will also increase the volume of the aforementioned slip balls that Bukayo will be able to play.
All of these factors aren’t even taking into consideration the actual humans at play, they’ve been in the academy together for nearly all of their footballing lives and thus their understanding of each other and associative play is top notch. This largely refutes any issues about how Arsenal will tilt the pitch to the right without a ball dominant player like Ødegaard, these two have the capabilities to replicate that simply through the dynamism (and therefore fear) they provide.
It simply comes down to a runner-passer dynamic and where that dynamic occurs. In regards to that, there really is no player more suited to making Bukayo Saka’s life easier than Emile Smith Rowe.
So why is Martin Ødegaard still playing RCM?
Well, the answer I’d have given you last season was Thomas Partey- the Ghanaian’s overambitious passing and tendency to go with the flow of games meant that without Ødegaard, Arsenal tended to lack control. Without the 6 bringing control to the side it was necessary for both interior’s to be secure in possession and Ødegaard’s ball retentive qualities were arguably entirely necessary in that RCM role last season. However, with the departure of Granit Xhaka (a deep lying playmaker shunted into a box to box role and therefore lacking in final third threat) and the arrival of Declan Rice and Kai Havertz, the dynamics of the midfield changed and Ødegaard’s ball retentive qualities no longer are quite as valuable.
I’ll start with Declan Rice, while he’s technically the first choice LCM in our squad (as Partey wasn’t sold in the summer) the Ghanaian’s absence through injury has led to him primarily playing at 6 throughout his first few months at the club (which is his best position). Declan Rice has none of the same issues that Partey has as a number 6, his conservative nature when passing and ability to (largely) transcend the flow of the game in order to serve as a place of metaphorical refuge in the swirling storm of chaos that is so often what the average premier league match devolves into means that Martin Ødegaard’s ability to retain the ball is no longer quite as necessary (especially considering Rice’s improvement of Arsenal’s rest defence and therefore transition control through conservatism in possession is no longer needed to the same extent ). This therefore largely negates last season’s reasoning as to why Ødegaard is playing RCM, in order to examine why he’s playing RCM this season we have to take a look at the other big money signing of the summer- Kai Havertz.
Kai Havertz is a centre forward in my eyes and I’m completely convinced that he’ll end up playing there consistently for Arsenal, however due to the current composition of the squad, the German has rarely played up top (game time being needed for Gabriel Jesus and the ever excellent Eddie Nketiah), instead he’s been shunted into being the left sided 8. While last season it was the job of the left sided 8 (Granit Xhaka) to bind his movement to the inverting left back (Oleksandr Zinchenko) therefore occasionally dropping into the pivot of the 3–2 structure when the Ukrainian was wide, that really isn’t possible with Kai Havertz. Whilst at the start of the season Mikel Arteta attempted (without much success) to maintain the dynamics of that left hand side via having Havertz involved in deep play, instances of that happening have petered out. The German tended to just be an extra body in build up, not quick enough to progress when passing and lacking the fluidness in the turn to evade the press through carries. Therefore, Martin Ødegaard’s role has been altered slightly this season (more so in the past month) which presents a reasonable explanation as to why he’s still playing in the RCM role despite unfavourable attacking dynamics.
The Norwegian’s role in build up has been flipped in recent weeks with him dropping in next to Rice to act as a +1 in addition and Havertz staying high. While this does leave the formation slightly asymmetrical as the right channel is left vacant, this isn’t particularly worrying as Havertz is the outlet for long balls when the press can’t be broken and Saka is as capable a receiver as you’re going to get when the full back is on his back (as often happens when the press is broken on the right).
Ødegaard in build up is a very interesting proposition, especially on the right. He’s fluid in the turn and has the technical dribbling to escape immediate danger when being pressed, he’s also forced into not taking too many touches due to the limits of the situation as he’s being pressured, this is in addition to his undeniable intelligence in coordinating his movement with pivot- a lot of the times he drops in is when Arsenal escape the press as he picks his moments to receive well. The open nature of dropping in from the right also aides a player of his ilk, he’s got access to most of the first third just with his left foot and any passes he has to play to his left (usually would be done with the right foot when facing the goal) are short and don’t highlight his one-footedness (he can even just use the outside of the boot as he does often).
So is the answer to the question of why he’s still at RCM proficiency in build up? Could it also be his willingness in the press and ability to lead it? Sure, that’s likely the reason why he’s still there (as well as the relationships and understanding he’s built on the right hand side especially in regards to the Ødegaard-Saka-White triangle) but it doesn’t neccessarily justify his inclusion in that role. Fabio Vieira and Emile Smith Rowe cannot perform these specific jobs as well as Martin Ødegaard can but there’s no reason they should have to- I’d even go as far to say that it’s detrimental for the RCM to be consistently involved in build up.
Note: Ødegaard’s ability to lead the press is a totally fair point to bring up when discussing whether to move him, it’s just part of the pro’s and cons of the decision and I think the former outweigh the latter.
Saka vs Martinelli and why the LCM should be deep (as long as they are Arsenal’s wingers).
Bukayo Saka has the feet and mind of an interior with the engine of a wide powerhouse, he thrives with bodies surrounding him to interchange with and play through. Therefore, isolating him 40–50 yards from the goal just isn’t ideal- he’s not got the express pace to breeze past players and create a transition nor does he neccessarily want to be that direct. While he carries fantastically up the pitch it’s not the best use of a situation where the press is broken, when the opposition has holes in it it’s not the time to consolidate- it’s the time to penetrate and that’s what Gabriel Martinelli can do. While Bukayo Saka is hindered by the abandonment and therefore isolation high up the pitch, Gabriel Martinelli thrives because of it.
Martinelli is a true wide outlet, he thrives in behind and attacks the goal directly. Where he currently struggles as a winger is where he receives with little space and has to square up his man- this isn’t an issue after receiving from a build up situation as he has space to run into (or a ball to run onto). Sure, clogging up the space surrounding Martinelli is fine (he combines with players in close proximity well enough) but he’s at his best when there’s space surrounding him and nobody in his way to hinder him exploiting it.
This represents the opposite of Saka’s requirements when build up is occuring, while the Englishman is hindered by the lack of somebody occupying the right half space, his Brazilian counterpart almost requires that vacation of the adjacent half space in order to function to his fullest extent (especially considering he’s an inside forward at heart and works best drifting into central areas). By flipping the current dynamics of having the RCM dropping in to help build play and the LCM staying high, both winger’s preferences are satisfied (as are Kai Havertz’s who is far more comfortable receiving on the right if he is playing in a midfield role). Saka’s has the potential to be a big space passer but is largely not that as a runner (at least to an elite level- he still runs in behind with a regularity that you’d expect of one of the most complete wingers on the planet) while Gabriel Martinelli is a big space runner and certainly wouldn’t be categorised as a big space passer, therefore, for the left dynamics to work he needs to be paired with one (or something close to one- I’ll get onto that in a second).
Having the LCM deep also makes more sense when only considering the base 7 involved due to the inverting of a full back from the left. What makes an inverted full back so useful is the difficulty that the opposition has when pressing it due to it’s fluidity. While the number 6 is intended to be a fixed point in build up, not moving too much or rotating too often with others so that they are a consistent passing option, the inverted full back functions very differently.
Using Arsenal as a case study, Zinchenko usually starts in a conventional left back position in a 4–1 or a 4–2 build up shape (either the single pivot is receiving or it’s the single pivot and Ødegaard). This In a man to man pressing scheme the winger just follows Zinchenko inside when he inverts (therefore creating a clear passing angle for Gabriel to the winger), however in a hybrid scheme (which is getting more and more common) the winger has to choose whether to follow and allow the space to be vacated (and their fullback to be left 1v1 with the winger) or sit and occupy that space and allow for a numerical overload (in the hope that whatever central players they have can block off the passing lanes into the newly formed pivot). The fluidity of this is what makes it a decision to the team out of possession, if the fullback is always tucked in then there’s no “inertia” period where they are a free option or space is opened up, same goes for if the fullback is always wide.
Note: Martin Ødegaard dropping into the pivot isn’t necessarily a set structure that’s employed yet, he doesn’t drop into the pivot every game (and almost certainly won’t when it’s Rice in the 8 and Jorginho/Partey/Elneny in the 6). However, I’d expect that if he continues to play in the role, the tendency of him to drop in as we’ve seen will become more common and crucially more set in as a structure, especially when the other interior is more a 10 than an 8 (Havertz, Vieira, Smith Rowe).
So what does this have to do with LCM role?
As previously mentioned, it’s vital for the health of a build up phase for the 6 to be rigid, having an inverted full back right next to the 6’s position isn’t particularly in agreement with that. The 6 is impacted as they’re forced to move across when the full back inverts and the full back is impacted as they no longer have “carte blanche” over when to invert (which is especially impactful to a Zinchenko type who’s role is partly having ability to recognise when to invert, subsequently acting as a sort of first phase general via tampering with the flow of the build up and recognising the triggers that allow for space to open up in behind the first line of the press). However, when a full back is inverting towards the side where an interior is positioned it allows for more stability in build up, the 6 is still a constant but the 8 and the LB are more able to change their positioning in order to find solutions. This is what happened with Granit Xhaka last year with him occupying the 2 in a 3–2 sometimes, but also occupying the left half space in a front five. With the way Arsenal build up it’s simply more efficient to have the LCM dropping into the pivot to build rather than the RCM (with a prime example of this inefficiency being the increased occupation of the right side of the pivot by Zinchenko which forces him to cover more ground when Arsenal goes back into it’s defensive block as well as not allowing him to be as aggressive in the counter press as he has defensive responsibilities on the opposite side of the pitch.
What about when Arsenal invert from the right?
There isn’t much evidence on how Arsenal build up in regards to which interior drops into the pivot when a player inverts from the right (although it was Granit Xhaka last season for the last two games of the 22/23 season when Thomas Partey inverted) as Ødegaard hadn’t started consistently helping in build up before Zinchenko returned from injury and Arsenal started inverting from the left again. Therefore, without clear evidence to the contrary, shouldn’t the opposite logic be true for inverting from the right than from the left- shouldn’t an RCM be a better fit in build up when inverting from the right?
In theory, yes. All the benefits of an LCM dropping deep when the left back is inverting apply identically to an RCM dropping deep when the right back is inverting. However, football isn’t played (much to my dismay) on a tactics board and the profile of the man inverting from the right has to come into play. Jurriën Timber is a very different profile of player in possession and as a result, has different requirements and possibilities of usage. The Dutchman is not Oleksandr Zinchenko, he’s far more rangy than the Ukrainian and moves a lot more both on and off the ball. His ball carrying is one of his best attributes and he’s perfectly adept at progressing the play both inside the pivot or out on the touchline. Zinchenko is far more refined and controlled, more inclined to progress play from inside than outside and a better receiver in the pivot than Timber. He’s at his best when confined to lateral movements off the ball whereas Timber is far better played next to an unmoving presence than being that presence. The freedom for Timber to receive both outside and in the pivot is essential in using him to his fullest capabilities, he’s not a first phase general and while Zinchenko’s best role is fluid within the context of using an inverted full back, Jurriën’s role is fluid via the standard of an inverted full back.
So what does that have to do with which interior is involved in build up?
Well, it all comes down to balance. The rigidity of the 6 balances well with the roaming nature of Timber, he’s equally adept at operating on the right side of the 4 as he is at operating on the right side of the 2 in build up. This means it’s less impactful on Jurriën’s effectiveness in build up to bind his movements to the 6 rather than an interior as he’ll be able to spend more time on the outside of the pivot. With an interior next to him rather than the 6 he’ll be restricted in where he can go, more time spent in the pivot as the interior moves high just isn’t the best usage of Jurriën Timber. The same isn’t true for Zinchenko, he’s rigid enough where his movement is better bound to a more fluid interior (especially considering his lesser usefulness on the touchline)- Jurriën’s is better bound to a more rigid 6 (as he moves in the 6 moves left).
Note: It’s a completely fair point to make that surely the initial logic of the left sided inversion should apply to Timber when he inverts from the left (as he did in the Community Shield win over Manchester City). However, the angles on the left side are much more favourable for inside proggression for the Dutchman as well as less favourable for outside progression (right footer on the left touchline usually struggles to pass as well down the line due to the way the ball is coming in to the receiver- out to in rather than in to out). There’s also the argument that Declan Rice favours the left hand side of the pivot (as it has better angles to progress and it’s easier to carry the ball from as a right footer). Whilst he does favour the left the Rice clearly doesn’t have major issues on the right- a notch against the LCM dropping in (as he’ll have to occupy the right side of the pivot while the full back is in conventional areas) for sure, but it isn’t something worth changing the build up shape to accommodate.
This all brings me to my main solution for Martin Ødegaard and what I believe is the cure for his usage issues.
Martin Ødegaard at LCM; the good, the bad and why it’s necessary.
The fundamental issue with Ødegaard at RCM is that his value in advanced areas is just too little to have him solely operate there. His zone of influence on a game needs to be larger in order to deserve the sizeable contract he’s been handed, Ødegaard at LCM (especially with that LCM being a deeper role) does just that. The forced directness that is a by-product of his angles being cut off (left footer on the left side) as well as the increase in areas of reception that would occur with him consistently operating deeper would increase both the volume of actions that would occur as well as increasing the quality of those actions. Too often Ødegaard lets games slip away from him, too little responsibility in tandem with too much influence- if Arsenal’s ability to play well is going to be influenced by Ødegaard’s ability to influence the game then he needs to have more responsibilities to match that influence and given what he can do, that responsibilities has to come in the form of an increased role in deeper phases.
If Martin Ødegaard isn’t utilised in a different manner to how he is currently, then not only will he be shackled to a role that doesn’t maximise his usefulness but Arsenal will be shackling itself to an imperfect solution- it’ll be at the mercy of the whims of one footballer who like every other footballer can have his off days and even when he’s as on it as can be, will still not provide the best of the best production. That why he needs to be used differently, that’s why he needs to be moved deeper.
In possession.
Martin Ødegaard has a heavy angle bias, he’s one footed and this clearly affects how he receives the ball as well as the passes that are available to him once he has it. While when he’s on the right hand side of the pivot with his back facing a presser he has a large portion of the pitch available to him on his left boot, when on the left hand side he’s far more limited. He’ll also likely be less secure when on the left, when turning to his left (which is likely to happen as that’s where most of the space is when receiving on the left hand side), he’s more likely to show the ball to the defender as his body isn’t between it (has to use the outside of the boot to push the ball left). When turning right using his left foot his body is between man and ball which is a safer turn. Ødegaard knows this and it’ll likely just lead to missed opportunities to progress rather than turnovers but it does bring forth inefficiency in deep build up. The limits that his angle bias puts upon him would likely lead to somebody who’s inefficient in build up on the left hand side, reliant on risky outside of the boot passes and bounce passes into deeper players (therefore shirking progressive responsibility). Therefore resulting in enforced safety when being progressed to by a centre half.
Out of possession.
He’s also got issues out of possession that would come with a deeper role. Whilst one of his main positive attributes in a higher role is his exceptional pressing and leading of the line, he’s likely far less suited to blocking space in the pivot. He’s also not a fantastic defensive dueller, his slight frame isn’t suited to going into tackles and he isn’t particularly adept at nicking the ball before a duel is necessary (lack of burst/ defensive experience). Is he robust enough physically to play in a pivot out of possession? Is he disciplined enough defensively to block more valuable space consistently? Does he have a good awareness for interceptions? Is he competent enough in the air for a deeper role? There’s a lot of unanswered questions there and it presents a fairly compelling case as to why Mikel Arteta hasn’t deployed him in a deeper role.
The good.
Martin Ødegaard made his international debut at the age of 15, within 7 years he was captain. He made his debut for Arsenal on the 30th of January 2021, within 18 months he was captain. If there’s one thing that I could say about Martin Ødegaard it would be that he’s an exemplary employee for Arsenal football club. A leader by example, a hard worker and incredibly adaptable. An early criticism of the Norwegian at the beginning of his spell at Arsenal was that he didn’t shoot enough, he now (joint) holds the record for non penalty goals by a midfielder in a Premier League campaign. There were questions over how he’d be off the ball as a number 10, that’s now nearly universally viewed as one of his strengths. His character is arguably his greatest strength and it’s the main reason why I believe that Martin Ødegaard has a successful future at Arsenal.
I see no reason why his angle bias has to be a part of his game moving forward, if he’s asked to improve his weak foot (note that if this happens his reception issues will largely fall away due to an increased confidence in using his right), I have full confidence that he’ll manage to do it. He’s also an incredibly smart footballer, I’d be very surprised if his defensive brain isn’t at the level required and as he naturally progresses as a footballer most of his physical deficiencies in terms of robustness should become less of a worry. He’s managed to adapt his game within the confines of a position, I see no reason why he can’t adapt his game to a new one.
There’s also simple positives with moving him to the left that require no level of work or adaptation. Firstly, as previously mentioned the balance between him and Martinelli is great, his creative numbers would spike as he’s afforded a runner and with his angles being cut off he’d become more of a threat transitionally due to forced directness. This directness would also translate to his half space crossing, less time to think and less touches in the final third would force him to produce that action more often (which is especially beneficial considering Kai Havertz’s likely CF conversion and his preference to drift to the right hand side). His temperament already presents him as a better option in the role than anyone in the squad aside from Declan Rice and if he can iron out his in possession deficiencies (build up) there is simply no reason why he can’t start the biggest of games in the role. There’s also the matter of his exceptional finishing ability when shooting across his body, a large issue with his shooting comes from his struggles when opening up, this wouldn’t be an issue on the left as the angles for his favoured drilled shot to the bottom left hand corner of the goal are more favourable. His offensive movement will not be affected either, he will still be one of the best box crashing midfielders in world football- just with better angles to get his shot off. He’ll also be a far more effective runner, while not a dynamic over lapper, he’d certainly be a threat on the underlap (something Arsenal have sorely missed since Granit Xhaka’s departure), further increasing his creative output.
The best pocket player in world football, an output monster, an enabler for offensive runs by the guy that Jürgen Klopp called the “talent of the century” and the club captain of The Arsenal. Martin Ødegaard has the potential to culturally define this iteration of the football club, all of the ingredients are there for that to be from LCM, but there’s a touch more to it than that.
My dream for Martin Ødegaard (and why that contract doesn’t have to be a costly mistake).
Martin Ødegaard the all conquering, era defining LCM is not likely to happen, potential isn’t a promise. Just because the ingredients are there doesn’t mean that they’ll necessarily come out of the oven exactly how you wanted them too.
I’d love to be able to tell you that every ill plaguing the game of Martin Ødegaard can be rectified through hard work, I’d love to be able to say that X leads to Y because of Z is a rational way of looking at football- but it’s not. With Charlie Patino coming through the ranks and the existence of Declan Rice as an option in the role (as well as the possibility of a new signing there) Martin Ødegaard probably will never be the first option in the role. It ain’t all bad though, what he can become is one of the most valuable squad pieces on the planet, who’s minutes come from his versatility rather than his inherent game breaking quality. In essence, I believe Martin Ødegaard can become Bernardo Silva and here’s why.
Martin Ødegaard’s traits are some of the most transferrable around, he’s always a force of retention and his technical base will mean that he’s always a guy who’s hard to press. He’s also shown a level of defensive application which further presents the idea of Martin Ødegaard as a floor raiser. My dream for Martin Ødegaard is for him to be a sure thing, a guarantee of technical stability and off the ball application that can play on the biggest of nights when those two attributes are needed most- when the inevitable chaos descends and the standards are highest being able to keep the ball as well as being committed when the ball isn’t yours are the two fundamental pillars of winning. Martin can provide that. There’s one issue right now (outside of his angle bias) and it pertains to the former fundamental rather than the latter, Martin Ødegaard’s body doesn’t hold up the best in contact- it’s the thing stopping the Bernardo Silva-fication of Martin Ødegaard to come into full effect. His body simply isn’t robust enough to hold up against the rigours of playing out wide, a core principle of usage is that you put your “piano pushers” out wide and your “piano players” in the centre. The physicality monsters parole the touchline while the artists craft inside. It’s a different world out there and Martin Ødegaard simply isn’t ready for it. Not all is doom and gloom though, there’s real cause to believe that the Martin Ødegaard of the future will be able to survive out there and it all comes down to the development that we’ve seen from him off the ball in the past season or so.
While a certain portion of his pressing acumen has to be attributed to his mind- he leads the press fantastically well and implements the instructions to a tee. The main thing that has improved out of possession in the last year is his physical robustness, his ability to perform high intensity sprints and subsequently partake in duels to a high standard has come on leaps and bounds. Sometimes with how long he’s been around we forget that the Norwegian is still only 24 years old, the underdeveloped tag that’s been attributed to him his whole life still hasn’t been fully shed. If he becomes more robust, more able to take contact, there’s no reason that he won’t be able to survive out on the touchline. Will he ever be a two way threat, routinely taking on his man down the outside and whipping balls in on his weaker foot? No, nothing close to that but what he can be is a force of retention and calm while also having a solid level of attacking returns if he’s surrounded by dynamic runners.
The value that he has the potential to provide through doing the basics well and allowing our “moments players” (the ones with true game breaking quality- your Vieira’s, your Martinelli’s and dare I say your Havertz’s) to shine is incredibly high. The potential of Martin Ødegaard if he can become a technical assurer across the pitch is simply this- Bernardo Silva with more output. Bernardo Silva with more output is worth that contract, the risk of that contract is not that the Martin Ødegaard of the future doesn’t deserve the money, it’s that we won’t ever see the Martin Ødegaard of the future.
Concluding thoughts.
The sad truth is, Martin Ødegaard in his current form does not deserve a starting place at Arsenal, the fit is all wrong and it’s part of the reason why Arsenal’s attack in open play has been so poor this season (only 10xG in 8 games). I’ve talked about his usage a fair bit and that is an important issue, it’s a disservice to Martin Ødegaard to expect him to be something that he isn’t- to expect the attack to flow through him in the same way that Manchester City’s attack flows through Kevin De Bruyne and Manchester United’s flows through Bruno Fernandes (when he isn’t shunted out to the right wing). But we are also doing a disservice to Mikel Arteta by expecting him to take a risk on the Martin Ødegaard of today, moving him to the left presents many issues and when the stakes are as high as they are, we can’t expect risks to be taken- especially when the risks are in regards to potential issues in build up (look at the differences in impact that the loss of Gabriel Jesus had to the side compared to the loss of William Saliba). It’s why I’d rubbish any talk of Ødegaard being switched to a deeper left sided role mid game, unless it’s been heavily worked on in training and he’s gotten used to how the left side works then there’s no way that he’ll be risked there.
While I’ll espouse rhetoric about what should happen, I simply don’t know what’s going on in training but, what I can definitively say on the situation is that a discussion needs to be had, Ødegaard at RCM doesn’t make sense as a first option and we are at the point where either change in the player has to occur or change in playing time has to occur. Yet, amidst the seemingly gloomy nature of the situation hope persists. There is absolutely no reason why it has to be the playing time that changes long term. The idea that a player with the work ethic of Martin Ødegaard is unable to improve his right foot is an absurd concept, we all have a habit of looking at a players flaws as set in stone and a players strengths as just as rigid. Are we really suggesting that if both he and the coaching staff are willing to make an effort to rectify his angle bias that they couldn’t do it? Are we suggesting that the improvement of a weak foot is beyond the grasp of a footballer who captains both club and country at the highest level? I’d suggest that the question isn’t whether he can change it’s whether he (and the club in general) wants to change.
So that’s where the optimistic tone of this article comes from, I myself believe that Martin Ødegaard has the ability to reach his unquestionable potential as an all phases technical assurer. Inaction is the enemy here, risks must be taken. What would’ve been of the treble winning season at Manchester City had an 18 year old Rico Lewis not been plucked from the academy and put into the first team- was he any less of a risk than Martin Ødegaard at LCM? I have faith in Mikel Arteta to come face to face with his pragmatism and take a leap of faith- sure, the frying pan may lead to a fire but that’s not the point. Martin Ødegaard deserves for that risk to be taken on in, constricting a player to where they are comfortable is one of the worst things a coach can do to them, I’m sure Martin Ødegaard wants to be the best version of Martin Ødegaard and that simply won’t happen if the status quo is maintained.
It was a definite risk making Martin Ødegaard the highest paid player at the club, it strips the club of an out if things don’t change and potentially blocks the pathway for more impactful players in his role. Would I have given that contract to him? The answer is probably no, is it a lost cause though? The answer I’d give is the same. His qualities being as guarenteed as they are means that there’s never going to be a footballing world where Martin Ødegaard doesn’t matter and there’s the possibility of a world where Martin Ødegaard matters more than nearly any other footballer on the planet. Football the game will always have space for those who understand the ball to the level Martin Ødegaard does and football the profession will always have space for those who understand the work that needs to be put in. That’s why Martin Ødegaard will never go out of fashion and a footballer like that is always worth having at the football club.
With that inherent value in mind if he’s not influencing the entire pitch within 18 months something has clearly gone horribly wrong, when the foundations are this good you can put the player anywhere and he’ll succeed- so don’t be surprised when the lightbulb turns on and it all clicks into place. That’s the most likely outcome right now, the one that makes the most sense.
Only through arrogance will Martin Ødegaard’s usage continue to be an issue, and if arrogance is present in the management of the football club than the Norwegian will be the least of it’s worries.
