Mikel Arteta’s biggest decision against Leeds United could be how much attacking freedom Arsenal can afford around Eberechi Eze.
The temptation after a 3-0 defeat at Brighton is to demand more creativity, more forwards and a more aggressive response. Supporters understandably want Arsenal to return from the international break looking capable of imposing themselves.
But selecting an attacking team and producing an effective attack are different challenges.
Our preferred approach would give Eze room to influence the final third while keeping two midfielders available to support possession and deal with turnovers. That would require compromises elsewhere, particularly if Martin Odegaard is also ready to start.
With fitness assessments still shaping the available options, Arteta needs a clear order of priorities before settling on his XI.
Arsenal’s injury picture makes midfield balance more important
Monday’s England squad update confirmed that Ezri Konsa had returned to his club for further assessment. Declan Rice had already withdrawn earlier in the international window.
Those announcements do not establish either player’s availability against Leeds. They do explain why a proposed team cannot simply assume Arsenal will have every preferred option ready.
Our assessment of the returning defenders considered the choices that Ben White, Cristhian Mosquera and Piero Hincapie could provide.
Whatever the defensive combination, the players ahead must offer protection.
If Arsenal commit both full-backs and both advanced midfielders forward, the deepest midfielder can be left responsible for an enormous area. Losing possession then forces a defender to step out, potentially opening another gap.
Arteta should build the attack around a reliable supporting structure. That would give his creative players greater licence to attempt difficult passes because the team would be better positioned to recover when those passes fail.
Can Eze and Odegaard start together?
They can, subject to fitness, but their relationship needs more definition than placing both names behind a striker.
One possible arrangement would put Odegaard in the right-sided creative position and Eze nominally on the left of the attack. Eze could then move inside when the left-back supplies width.
That would allow Arsenal to retain two central midfielders underneath them.
The cost is that the left-back’s movement becomes part of the attacking plan. If he advances, the nearest midfielder must be ready to cover that side, while the opposite full-back stays more restrained.
There is also a simpler alternative: choose one principal creator and use a more conventional wide player on the left.
That decision would be easier to justify if the available midfielders need additional support or if either creator requires managed minutes.
Our earlier examination of Eze’s role alongside Odegaard focused on their potential connection. The Leeds decision is about how much freedom the whole team can sustain around them.
Eze needs runners as well as possession
There is an established basis for using Eze as a player who can both supply and join attacks.
In an October 2025 assessment for the Premier League, Adrian Clarke highlighted his ability to release runners and make forward runs himself.
That is a historical assessment of his qualities, rather than evidence of his current form.
The practical application would be to avoid making every teammate come towards him when he receives possession.
If Eze collects between the lines, the striker should threaten the space behind the defence. A wide player can hold the full-back’s attention, while another midfielder offers a safe pass underneath.
Those different movements create choices. Everyone asking for the ball to feet would make the attack easier to compress.
Eze should also have opportunities to run beyond the striker. That would prevent Arsenal becoming dependent on him receiving, turning and supplying the decisive pass every time.
Saka should benefit from the balance on the left
The point of developing the left side is partly to improve the opportunities available to Bukayo Saka on the right.
If Arsenal can establish a credible threat through Eze, opponents have a reason to move across. A quick switch could then reach Saka before extra cover arrives.
The timing matters more than the number of passes.
A switch made after the opposition has reset can leave Saka facing the same crowded situation. Arsenal need to recognise when the far side is available and move the ball while that opening exists.
His support should also vary. An overlapping run can take one defender away, while an inside passing option gives him another route towards goal.
Arteta should want Saka receiving with a decision to make, rather than an expectation that he must beat two players to rescue the move.
The striker decision must include the service
If Viktor Gyokeres starts, Arsenal need to decide what kind of chances they intend to create for him.
Our previous Gyokeres analysis examined his potential role against Leeds. The wider selection question is whether the players around him can provide complementary movement.
Against a compact defence, Arsenal would need someone available for the cutback as well as a striker attacking the six-yard area.
Against a higher line, they would need an early passer and a runner willing to threaten behind it.
Those are different attacking situations. Arteta’s team should have an answer for both rather than relying on a single repeated delivery.
The same principle applies if another forward leads the line. The selection should determine the service, and the supporting players must understand their part in it.
Arteta needs a plan for the first change
The starting XI will attract most of the attention, but the first substitution could reveal whether Arsenal have properly balanced their options.
If the game remains level, adding another attacker should come with a decision about who supplies width, who occupies the penalty area and who stays behind the ball.
Removing a midfielder without redistributing those jobs could leave Arsenal with more forwards but fewer ways to reach them.
Our preference would be to begin with enough midfield support to sustain attacks, give Eze a clearly defined creative role and retain an attacking alternative for the second half.
Against Leeds, the strongest response would be an Arsenal side that creates chances repeatedly without making every lost ball a defensive emergency.
