Attack of the unknown unknowns

How quickly things change.

Yesterday it was (most likely) club-planted spin from the Arsenal bloggers about how shite Podolski is and how he won't be missed and how Arsenal can only play Pulis-style ball these days with a hulking target man up front.

I ranted a few months back about "the way Arsenal play," that the biggest defence that the club-connected bloggers put out for Giroud was that Arsenal simply couldn't change "they way they play" to accommodate a lethal left-footed striker like Podolski.

Hard to believe, isn't it, that one of the most accomplished managers in the history of the club can't get his players to adapt, that the only style they understand is lumping it up the pitch to a big Duncan Ferguson-type, otherwise all is lost.

If you buy into that excuse, it certainly makes the marginalisation and eventual dismissal of Podolski seem perfectly logical. Of course, Arsene Wenger's third act in his Arsenal managerial stint is that he's morphed into Sam Allardyce without the defensive pragmatism. Oy.

One of the most famous Arsenal bloggers on earth (and obviously one with close ties to the club's PR staff) actually said yesterday of Giroud "he’s still by far and away the best option we have as the lone front man in the system we play."  Compare that to what I wrote less than a month ago.

This person actually speculates on the most unknown of unknowns at Arsenal, that "somehow" Sanogo "might" score and "open the floodgates." Really?  So let's get rid of a player that is a proven goal scorer and pin our hopes on a player who has never scored at all?

If that's not the biggest bunch of bolloxy spin since Donald Rumsfeld prowled the halls of the Pentagon, I don't know what is. The adherence to the party line has gotten so ridiculous that one begins to question people's grip on reality.

The same day as that attempt to smooth over the cracks was posted, Mr. Rational Yank Stats Blogger just coincidentally posts a treatise on the fact that clubs don't need a big-scoring forward to win the league. That is certainly convenient.

A club that has for the most part averaged fewer than 2 goals per game doesn't need a forward who can find the back of the net better than Giroud. Again, why not?  His 27 goals over the course of two seasons, combined with his Heskey-esque "qualities" will carry Arsenal to a title.

January of 2014 and Arsenal were down 2 of the main goal scorers in the squad, still lacked any adequate cover for the lone "striker," and everyone questioned how Wenger was going manage the transfers in order to sustain the club's first title challenge in years. Fortunately, he responded by

signing an injured midfielder on loan.

None of the "famous" bloggers talk about this response to an injury crisis at the club now. I'm guessing they assume that nobody who follows them has read "1984" nor lived through the good ol' days of totalitarian regimes in places like China, the Soviet Union, or Cuba. Bloggers?  More like members of the Ministry of Truth.

I've spent so much time talking about this issue of the injury to Giroud and the smear campaign against Podolski that I've not even mentioned the lack of cover at the back. Maybe that's what the club PR staff want?

Has anyone considered what might happen if Per or Chambers or Koz get crocked in one of the next two matches?  Has anyone thought about what selling clubs might charge if they know that Arsenal are well and truly over a barrel and desperate to find adequate support in the final hours of the transfer window?

You call that managing the club's transfer business in a proper manner?

The intentions of the ownership, board, and manager will be clear over the next week. I hope that simply contending for the 4th Place Champions Trophy isn't the goal of the season. But at least we know we can count on quality spin from the bloggers to soothe our spirits if it is.

Extenze for your manhood, Extension for your Giroud

A product that you (well, not you, but anyone) can buy for increasing one's male virility, or mass, or girth, or something, is called Extenze. I will not link to it, so if you're so inclined, you may seek it out yourself. Don't be ashamed.

What does it actually do?  That's the question that is elusive. Some people swear it works, giving glowing testimony in the adverts. A quick search for the words "Extenze fraud" returns hundreds of hits on the Google. So it seems that opinion is divided about the effectiveness of the stuff.

The contract extension awarded to Olivier Giroud seems analogous. It's a reach, I know.

Some people see Giroud as vital to the Arsenal attack. Well, yeah, when you play an entire season with him as your only striker, that's pretty effing vital to the entire team, don't you think? It's like a family with one auto, and if that auto goes out of service, you're well and truly fucked. Of course, no matter how shit the car is, you need it.

Some people see Giroud as a frustrating figure who can't perform on big occasions (Extenze fraud?), who misses wide open chances, who is a plodder, who spends as much time howling in Gallic frustration at his own inability to put the ball into the back of the net as he does playing his role.

Giroud has scored 11 and 16 goals in his first two league seasons. In 70 appearances he has scored 27 goals. In 73 appearances for Montpellier he scored 33 goals.

"The way Arsenal play" is a phrase I read attached to any discussion of Giroud where someone is vehemently defending him. I wonder why his defenders are always so vehement. They sound like people defending the USA's foreign policy. Calm down, it's really not that important that you convince the world that Giroud is the most important player in the world and you can inflate his goal scoring statistics to where it seems as though he's Dwight Yorke and Andy Cole combined.

It's fair to say that Giroud really does divide opinion as sharply as any player currently at Arsenal. His champions talk incessantly about his "hold up play" and how he "brings others into the attack" and certainly his "deft flicks and kicks."  That's brilliant stuff and with "the way Arsenal play" it's become necessary.

Oh and let's not forget that he defends on corner kicks very well. If you do forget that, his champions will vociferously remind you of it.

Every description of Giroud reminds me of how those who defended Emile Heskey spoke of the big fellow. Everything he did was vital to the overall cause wherever he played, as his managers and others were forced to remind you thanks to his poor goals return and glaring misses. "He works so hard," they said. "You don't measure everything he means to this team in stats alone," they chided.

This is what you say when a striker doesn't score, or doesn't score enough to justify being a striker. I think Duncan Ferguson had those same attributes, but because he was a violent twat nobody stood up to defend him. Big tall donkey men who don't score much are always vital in "those ways" because THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE.

"The way Arsenal play" has some sort of cast iron quality about it, and this was no more evident than after the Wigan FA Cup semifinal match and the criticism leveled at Lukas Podolski. "The way Arsenal play" means that you can't have a forward who "only" scores and crosses the ball well from the left. It's as though there is a Koran of Arsenal somewhere, or a Book of Leviticus, that sets forth the only ways Arsenal can play, and it is simply metaphysically impossible for that style to be altered to accommodate players' talents.

A team starved for goals can't alter its style of play to bring out goals from Lukas Podolski. It's a law, written somewhere, I know it. I can't find that book, but based on those who attack Poldi as "lazy" and a "passenger" and who defend Giroud, it does indeed exist.

(It should be noted that those who rant about Poldi's social media presence as somehow reflective of his worthlessness managed to keep opinions about Giroud's bedroom exploits to themselves. Well done, selective critics!)

"The way Arsenal play" and Olivier Giroud are inexorably linked now. He cannot be gotten rid of, he cannot be sat, he certainly cannot be criticised. He is above reproach. If you don't like him, people will bring up his assist in the FA Cup final (failing to mention his miss) and shout you down with it, saying that that moment alone is all the proof you need of Giroud's necessity.

I like the things that Giroud does well, I sincerely do. The problem is, if you build an entire attack, i.e. "the way Arsenal play," around one player, and your opponent manages to neutralise that player, you're fucked. Yes, I know Sanchez will change everything. I'm not saying he won't have a massive impact. I just want the liberty to point out that Giroud is not an effective striker and cuts a very frustrating figure up front. If he were NEVER called upon to score, I would say he's the best in the world at what he does.

It's those moments when he is needed, when a goal is vital, that I can't stand him. Let's hope that the arrival of Sanchez means we'll see something different in "the way Arsenal play." Otherwise, this extension could end up looking like Extenze--and not in the way it was advertised.

The Arsenal Season: 2013-2014

Rather than a statistical analysis or match by match recounting, I thought I would post impressions of the season in some kind of random way that reflects discussions I've had with other Gooners since the FA Cup final victory over Hull City.

THE GOOD

My player of the season for Arsenal had to be Per Mertesacker. Ramsey burned brighter but you can't miss 14 weeks of the season and be named footballer of the year.  BFG's interventions became so routine that they were expected, and I can't count how many times he would do the simplest thing that caused an opposing attack to break down. That's what I loved about Per this season: the simple toe-poke to dispossess someone, the simple pass from the back to the open midfielder, the clearance that snubbed out a threat; it was minimalist, Philip Glass-esque defending and that's what we needed. I don't hate his goals, either, few though they may be, they seem to always be of vital importance.

His partner in the centre of defence would be option 1a in the POS voting. Koscielny, the man with the big pockets, the man who scores the falling-down-iest goals in the squad used his considerable athleticism to chase the ball down when Wenger employed the much-lamented high line and I shudder to think what things may have been without him. Many was the time the opposition would break up the pitch and Kos would be the one at the touchline harassing the ball until reinforcements could arrive.

Aaron Ramsey...what mysterious ailment kept him out so long?  We'll never know. But what we do know is that the cheeky look-off that he gave Podolski at the end of the 2012-2013 campaign before he smashed home a goal from a ridiculous angle was just a preview. He had displayed his tireless running and tackling during that season's run-in, but the goal scoring...it leaves one speechless. It didn't even seem as though it took effort, it just seemed to occur and then keep occurring every time it was needed. He was everywhere, he was industrious, he was classy, he was inspirational. Teams that want to win have to plan for injuries, but with only one striker Arsenal couldn't compensate for Ramsey's absence. And of course, he scored THAT goal.

THINGS I LOVED

Rozza's goals versus Spuds, especially picking off the ball from Danny Effing Rose, finally helping put to rest that ghost from season's past.

Wilshere's goal versus Norwich. Everybody likes that one, don't they?

Ozil versus Napoli at Ashburton Grove. More like that, please. The man is so good it's just ridiculous sometimes.

Carl Jenkinson's goal versus Norwich, and the joy he showed following it.

Wilshere giving the middles to the MCFC supporters. Never surrender!

Theo giving the scoreline to the swamp people, then being pelted with missiles which the FA did absolutely nothing to punish, and rather made the story about TW14 "inciting the crowd." Tremendous leadership and showed absolutely NO anti-Arsenal bias there.

Szcz's selfie. Anyone who was churlish over this needs to seriously grow a sense of humour.

Mertesacker and Cazorla's "unclassic" commentary video.

Anything involving Gunnersaurus.

Opponents running away scared from Bacary Sagna on the pitch when he got in their faces. 

Flamini doing needed business against those who had it coming to them.

Wilshere doing the "Tottenham-Shit" cheer at the FA Cup celebration. Well done, lad.

Nicky Bendtner's goal versus Cardiff City whilst I was in the process of nearly shitting myself in angst. 

All of Podolski's 8 league goals.

And my goal of the season, Aaron Ramsey's blast versus Liverpool. I hate Liverpool. That's why.

(All the fun stuff that happened during the FA Cup final is different unto itself, and since it was finally a trophy you could probably pick every moment in that game that was good as a highlight.)

THINGS I DIDN'T NECESSARILY LOVE ALL THAT MUCH

Losing at home to Villa on opening day following a summer of (to that point) transfer inactivity. It was not a pretty sight anywhere amongst the Gooners of the world.

Losing away to Stoke City and Manchester United without scoring a goal.

Drawing to Swansea, Everton, and Southampton.

"Those heavy defeats." I've said enough about that elsewhere.

The way they played at Napoli. 

Arjen Robben, Chelsea Football Club, Stoke City supporters, Yanks pretending to like Liverpool, Juan Kincaid jinxing the Arsenal. 

Arsene Wenger shirtless after the FA Cup final. Still better than seeing Steve Bruce shirtless ever, but not something I'd anticipated.

Starting Big Luke in the FA Cup final. What's done is done, but I thought that was not a very good choice by the manager.

People talking about the number of goals Olivier Giroud scored as 22, when he only scored 16 in the league, which is still not good enough.

I HAVE NO CLEVER SUMMATION FOR THIS POST

It was another decent 4th place finish for the Arsenal and it was great to win the FA Cup. Here's to a summer of smashing transfers that will push the club on to winning the Premier League. Heh heh.

On Width and Yanks Loving Liverpool

I don't have a florid beginning to this entry, no historical lead in or seemingly unrelated topic that is brought back at the very end to give an extra bit of meaning to the whole thing.  Let's just get right to it.

Since the FA Cup Semi-final I've engaged in a series of discussions and one round of nearly handbags on twitter about Arsenal's continued use of the 4-3-3 or nominal 4-5-1 when defending and how that formation has its problems. The reason I've been pondering it is that it seemed that opposing sides had sussed how to deal with the formation and how its lack of width save from the fullbacks had left Arsenal open to counter attacks, especially when Arsenal play that ridiculous high defensive line that sees the centre backs across midfield and the fullbacks in the opposing penalty area.

Much was made post-Wigan about how less-turgid Arsenal looked when both Giroud and Sanogo (I can't type his name without thinking of De La Soul) were deployed up top of the formation. I think it could be called a 4-1-2-1-2?  It wasn't a 4-4-2, not in the Tim (Gooner) Sherwood or Roy Hodgson sense, but it was something a bit different.

Much has since been made about Lukas Podolski's role or lack thereof at Arsenal after back-to-back braces against West Ham and Hull City AFC.  After he was substituted against Wigan, he was in a bit of a strop, and every ITK Arsenal blogger said something similar to this: "We can't play him, he doesn't defend! We LITERALLY cannot play him! He makes it too difficult for the fullbacks!"

That's tremendous, isn't it?  You have a player who, unlike all other available Arsenal forwards, actually SCORES GOALS but he CAN'T play because he doesn't DEFEND.  I guess a similar argument should be made for Sagna. He defends but he doesn't score! He puts too much pressure on the forwards by not scoring! Yes, we know he's a defender, but here at the Arsenal we expect goal scorers to play like Jaap Stam and our defenders to score like Gerd Muller! TOTAL FOOTBALL!

Conventional wisdom has forced tremendous backtracking from Arsenal supporters over the years. The most recent example would be "Aaron Ramsey is shit; oops, I mean he's Welsh Jesus." After the Wigan match, conventional wisdom was all about Poldi's defending.  Then four goals in two games and everyone's saying "Hmm, can a team starved for goals from the forward position afford NOT to play him?"

I have a question: Why are the fullbacks Arsenal's only option for providing wide attacking play?  It's not a rule. It's not in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or even the Talmud, to the best of my knowledge.  My near spat on twitter (with one of my favourite Arsenal bloggers, no less) seemed to suggest that playing Podolski automatically means that whoever is at left back will run himself to death with no cover and will decide to leave the club and Arsenal will have to re-sign Traore because nobody will want to play for Arsenal under those conditions, or something to that effect.

This question ties into what appeared to be a two striker formation in the Wigan match. I heard no comments that suddenly Arsenal were horribly exposed down the left even though it was not put upon either of the forwards to cover the opponent's right wing.

The lovely fellows at Tuesday Club made a very clear and rational argument for more flexibility in the formation choice in their most recent podcast. You can listen to it if you like, it's quite entertaining. My biggest issue with the 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 is that the way Arsene deploys it, the 3 midfielders are all centrally deployed playmakers or pivot players or destroyers and the other two are dying to be central strikers unless Rozza starts at the top of the second 3. The Ox can offer some width but again he likes to attack from the inside.

Nobody anywhere has ever said that only the top 2 wide players should defend the flanks in this formation, but I think that it's clear that the personnel that make up Arsenal's midfield don't have the capacity nor the inclination to play wide in a 4-4-2 or 4-1-2-1-2. Arsenal are built to be narrow and attack through the middle right now, and the only attacking width comes from pushing the fullbacks so high up the pitch that a misplaced cross or loss of possession against a good team will mean punishment at the other end.

Yet there is Poldi, "all he does is score goals."  I've never seen people chastise Dzeko for not being a conscientious defender, but this received wisdom that Podolski has no value because he doesn't defend has become an unshakeable truth among Arsenal supporters.   I'm tired of seeing Giroud miss chance after chance (yes I know he does other things, yes I know he scored a great goal against WHU) and wail in Gallic frustration. Poor Sanogo isn't yet ready to lead the line and score much or at all. And yes, I know that Ramsey is now back and scored against Hull and he plays perfectly off of Giroud but again, there is a question of width when facing teams that pack the box and play tightly and try to hit Arsenal on the counter.

Even if Wenger did want to "experiment" with a two-striker formation (experiment?  How many titles did the man win playing two?!!), he hasn't bought the players to make such a shift. There's no flexibility in the squad sheet so there really can be no flexibility in the tactics.  The away loss to Stoke comes to mind when I think of a match where some tactical freshening could've helped.

The oddest thing about all this is that Wenger played midfielders who really did attack down the flanks on the tiny pitch at Highbury, and has eschewed this option at the Grove. There's a logic in there somewhere, I'm sure I'll find it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In light of Liverpool's early coronation as champions, many Yanks are donning red shirts and professing love for all things Scouse, Stevie G, the tactical genius of Brendan Rodgers, the tragedy of Hillsborough, the Beatles, and a lot of shit about which they really know nothing. With this being NBC's first season broadcasting or streaming every match, this is for many of us an introduction to English football and there seems to be some bizarre romanticisation of Liverpool by the novice.

Yanks don't understand the loud-mouthed, know-it-all, "we invented the game, Shankley, Paisley, Alan Hansen was the fastest player in the history of football, what do you know about football you idiot Yank?, John Barnes was the greatest player ever, Ian Rush was the greatest player ever, King Kenny, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah" Liverpool fans. Christ they never fucking shut up. I'd rather listen to Teddy Sheringham read Glenn Hoddle's autobiography than have a discussion--or rather ATTEMPT to have a discussion--about football with a goddamned Scouser. Yanks have no idea, this was the most hated club in English football long before United started running the rule over the top flight.

The worst thing about it is the horrible pro-Liverpool bias among the English press and media. These people have this romantic memory of the greatness of Liverpool and how it will never be that good again and they spend column after column verbally wanking over a team led by a bitey racist and a serial diver. (No, they're not one and the same.)

You don't understand it, Yanks. They don't want your support. They don't like you. They think you're stupid. They think you don't know anything about the game. And on that point, they may be right.

Liverpool winning the league is bad for football. Arsenal haven't won the league in over a decade (and haven't played in the States in 25 years) and yet the number of Arsenal supporters routinely outnumbers all other clubs. This says that nobody becomes an Arsenal supporter because they're glory-hunting day-trippers. The number of Liverpool supporters in the USA will swell like rats from an abandoned house and will be just as annoying and vile and obnoxious.

You don't know what you're doing, Yanks. You simply don't know what you're doing.