Us wonned without Giroud? That's unpossible!

(Author's note: I have worked more than 20 years in public relations and communications, and know quite well how organisations use/co-opt/corrupt journalists, bloggers, and all media types. I've worked for two major metropolitan cities and an international trade organisation--all with smaller budgets and lower profiles than a global brand like the Arsenal Football Club. Trust me when I tell you, I'm 100% certain that some bloggers are being used as mouthpieces by the club to influence opinion among the fan base.)

When the book about this Arsenal season is written, perhaps certain truths will finally be told. One of the forgotten ones will be just why Lukas Podolski was held out of the qualifier against Besiktas.

To my knowledge, a player could appear in a qualifier and not count as cup tied, so there could really only be two reasons for sitting a player who has scored 5 goals in only 9 European matches for the club. One, he is still being shopped around and the club have him wrapped in cotton wool; two, the gaffer absolutely can't stand him.

Poldi, as his fans call him, has actually scored 19 league goals in 53 appearances for Arsenal, which is a fair return if you ask me. Olivier Giroud, the darling of the club-connected bloggers, has taken 72 appearances to score 28 goals. I'm no math professor, but if you compare those goal scoring records, and you don't have some hidden agenda, you'd probably say "Hey, that Podolski guy is pretty good."

This is said without considering that Arsenal barely score 2 goals per match anymore.

Since Saturday's draw (it was a draw, remember?) at Everton, the Arsenal universe has spun wildly in all directions. First, it was "See? Giroud is priceless! The team was shit before he came on! Arsenal can't win without him!"

Then it has been "Giroud may be injured. Oh, and Podolski is shit and is on his way out."

Then it was "Giroud is injured, and whilst Podolski is still shit, he's not on his way out today."

Now it's "See? Sanchez really is great and Arsenal can win without Giroud."

Wait, what? I thought Arsenal can't win without Giroud? What the fuck are you saying?

Giroud is massively unpopular with the vast majority of Arsenal supporters. Podolski, on the other hand, is massively popular with Arsenal supporters. Now, if I were a public relations professional (oh, wait, I AM one) and I had a problem like this, my first step would be to "influence the influencers," and make sure that the most widely read and respected bloggers were on my side.

This has been such a divisive issue that the most widely read and influential Yank Arsenal blogger has in the past week written columns on "Is any Arsenal player not divisive?" and "Arsenal don't need a big scoring forward to win the league." He also wrote a love letter to Wenger, praising the man and talking about his glorious history and brilliance in that time. Transparent much?

What these bullshit artists and spin doctors ought to be saying is, "Arsenal won a fucking match without the priceless and perfect Olivier Giroud." But don't worry, you won't see that story from any of them.

Amy Lawrence came close the other day, and probably risked her access to the club, by writing this column that almost comes out and says "Wenger's transfer policy has been an extremely high risk gamble for years now." Amy is a lifelong Arsenal supporter, so I'm sure this was a big step for her.

What's sad about all of this, this spin, this PR smokescreen, is that it is nothing but a mask designed to disguise the things that have threatened the club's worldwide prominence for a decade now. A parsimonious transfer policy combined with a tactical intransigence, plus the unwillingness to embrace the modern world of club football, put Arsenal on the back foot compared to rivals both domestic and foreign.

Things that would erode confidence in the manager have been constantly diminished, as has anything that would spark a MUFC-style revolt against Silent Stan's penny pinching ownership. Keeping Stan out of the spotlight and having a marketing spin wizard like Ivan as his public face, compared to the bumbling Equaliser Ed Woodward in Manchester, has to be a conscious PR move.

The result has been to sharply divide the Arsenal supporters, forcing them to choose between the club as an institution and Wenger as a person (or Wenger's pet players). It's forced people who love Arsenal to choose between a desire to see success for the club and a perceived loyalty to Arsene Wenger.

Name-calling, insults, epithets, threats--all are the result of this spin campaign designed to protect "the brand" that is Arsenal while simultaneously hiding whatever the actual truth is that exists behind the curtain. The club-promoted spin ends up pitting supporters against each other, with one side accepting the "orthodox" view and feeling the need to attack the "heretics."

"If you really loved Arsenal, you'd shut up and support Wenger and the players!" Unless those players are named Podolski, at which point you should shut up and attack the players.

So where are we now? Qualified for the Champions League group stages and the cash that gets Arsenal's summer transfers closer to break even. No plans to strengthen at the back (clearly a desperate need and just wait until one of Per, Koz, or Chambers gets injured), no plans to buy an established goal scorer (because remember, Mr. Yank Stats Blogger says you don't need one), and no need to buy a powerful defensive midfielder.

The purchases of Ozil and Sanchez, taken in a broader context, don't really signify much other than that there is a bit more cash on hand to keep advancing the brand. It's not about putting together a team that will win a league title. It's about the fear of harming the global cash flow. The trip to the USA this summer looks more and more like a one off designed to do nothing more than appease the Yanks who make up an huge percentage of the world's Arsenal fans.

Lastly, because I've gone on far too long, I want you to consider this line from the world's most famous Arsenal blogger:

"When you consider that we’ve just done Besiktas away, Everton away, and now Besiktas at home, that’s a pretty challenging schedule for a team that has got its troubles right now. Injuries, shortened pre-season preparation, new arrivals still bedding in and overall a group of players that hasn’t really gelled yet, to have come through that successfully is good going."

At no point in that statement is there anything that implicates Arsene Wenger or the club for creating those "challenges."  It's as though the "challenges" were handed down by God or some random force. NO!!!!

The TRUTH is that every problem Arsenal have right now is SELF INFLICTED!!!! Stop the club spin! Injuries?  You didn't know that Gibbs is injury prone? You didn't know that Arteta has had major injury problems in his career and is pushing 35? And all the other crap?

I hate corporate sloganeering as much as I hate anything in the world, but all I can say to this bullshit spin is

IF YOU FAIL TO PLAN, YOU PLAN TO FAIL.

Thanks for reading.

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.

Remain calm, all is well!

One of the hallmarks of global climate change denouncers is that they love taking an aberrant event and saying "Ha! I guess you can blame that on 'global warming,' ha ha!" or something equally thoughtful and intelligent.

They can't take a rebuttal that includes average annual temperatures on both land and sea, disappearing polar ice, droughts, or actual facts. No, it's the one snow in early April that proves that everyone in the scientific world is wrong and they're right.

They also have the support of "research" and "real scientists" who are paid by those who profit from unregulated emission of carbon into the atmosphere. This helps to lend legitimacy to their claims, too. You can say "but those people are paid to doctor up results and produce that information" and they'll say something strange and loud back at you just to shut you up.

Thus we have the reaction to Olivier Giroud's performance on Saturday versus Everton.

I want to make just a few points about the match.

1) I said on this blog after the Community Shield of Giroud, "Bring him on when others are tired and suddenly he looks fast and lively!" This is exactly what Wenger did on Saturday, and exactly how Giroud looked.

You're welcome.

2) What has happened to Arsenal?  Or should I say "Bolton-al?" Or "Ar-Stoke?"

Remember when Wenger teams played...um, without lumping the ball at a big lump in the middle?  It's starting to fade from memory now. And the attack is so impoverished that a player who managed 27 goals in two complete league seasons is the only thing that will help it.

I'm not sure what this means for the future, but this is certainly not the Arsenal of pleasing, attacking football that I first encountered at the beginning of Wenger's reign. His answer to needing goals is hoof it up the pitch to a lumbering big player.

Surely this is a sign of the end of days?  That Arsenal have to play Tony Pulis' tactics to win? No wonder he prefers a player who has never scored to Lukas Podolski!

3) The "Arsene knows!" folk are using the Saturday match to hail the improvement in the side, to trumpet the fighting spirit and character of the team, and generally to say that everything Wenger is doing is perfect and we're still on for the treble.

If you conveniently ignore the schoolboy errors and general lack of composure in the first 45 minutes, you can say just about anything you want, I suppose. What were the problems that put the side into 4th place again last season?

Conceding early from a set piece header? Check.
Playing a defensive line so high that when Per was robbed of the ball he was closer to the opponent's goal than the halfway line? Check.
Fullbacks the only way your attack has width, exposing the back line to a simple counter attack? Check.

Of course everything is fine because the second goal shouldn't have stood. The mistakes that have been happening for years?  Those are...well...those aren't important!   There is no global warming!

4) I've yet to see one person who loves Giroud and thinks he's infallible who isn't already a self-professed worshiper of Arsene Wenger. Makes me wonder if it's possible there's another agenda at work.  Hmm...

5) And lastly, like those who are paid to produce favourable results for the climate change denouncers, you have to speculate on why seemingly neutral bloggers manage never to have a bad word to say about the manager or his pet players.

Can any of these people who have routinely denounced Lukas Podolski apply the same critical eye to Olivier Giroud? No? Well, I suppose that's just pure coincidence and these people aren't being compensated by the club, through money, special access, or both.

So that's it, there's no global warming, Arsenal don't need an upgrade at the striker position or cover at the back, remain calm, all is well. 

Free myopia screenings available today

An unfortunate byproduct of supporting a team (in the USA) or a club (anywhere else) is that one's point of view ABOUT things forces one to often say something that one does not believe.

This is particularly difficult to avoid with the Arsenal Football Club right now, as supporters have chosen sides over a few things that ought to be rather simple to understand.  The longer Wenger has reigned at Arsenal, the more likely that each season something will come along to sharply divide the fans and pit them against one another.

This is due to the fact that Wenger is incredibly stubborn and persistent with things that don't seem to work out all that well and only reverses course when something catastrophic happens. By doing this, his actions divide people into those who believe he is above reproach and will always do the correct thing and those who "get out the knives" and want "Wenger out!"  Right?

I wish it were that simple.

The first time in Wenger's tenure that I recall being frustrated with his faith in a player (or a tactic or action in the transfer market) was during Sylvain Wiltord's time as a striker.  This was in the nascent period of the interwebs when there were no bloggers with a hotline to the club's PR department and thus nobody trumpeting how great Wiltord truly was and how people who didn't like him were just being negative and "hating" an Arsenal player and "shitting" on an Arsenal player like bad fans do.

Don't get me wrong. Wiltord had his moments and in retrospect he was a decent player who scored THAT GOAL at Old Trafford to win the league. But he cut a very frustrating figure up top and as I recall a number of people on message boards (remember those?) called him "Whale Turd."

"Why does Wenger keep playing this guy?" I thought. "He's rubbish."

The same thing happened with a young Matthieu Flamini. I wrote something long ago about him, comparing Wenger's persistence in playing him with a subject from the TV programme "Unsolved Mysteries."

And during the 9 years of trophyless football? Denilson, Adebayor, Diaby, Clichy, Eboue, MANUEL ALMUNIA...the list goes on and on. Wenger had to be seeing the same things we were seeing, but he kept faith with so many players who were terrible (or had terrible attitudes and work ethics) that supporters began to divide into camps. It was a fight to the social media death between the "Arsene Knows" brigade and "Wenger out!" anti-fans.

Wenger himself brought this on by pretending that players like Almunia and Denilson were competent. He had to be pretending, because he couldn't be so deluded as to think they were doing a good job.

We assumed, after he shipped out Santos and benched Vermaelen and Szcz that things had finally changed, that a "new, ruthless" Wenger had taken over. Then the summer transfer window of 2013 came and everyone was saying "Arsenal really need a striker."

"Yes, that is why I am buying Mesut Ozil" replied Le Boss.

Then the January window came, players were out injured, and everyone said "Arsenal really need a striker."

"Yes, of course, I have signed injured midfielder Kim Kallstrom on loan," said Wenger with a wry grin.

How can you blame a large segment of those who consider themselves Arsenal supporters for thinking the man is either insane (which he of course is not) or simply hell bent on giving anyone who tells him anything the middle finger salute? And trust me, if Kim Kallstrom wasn't the greatest middle finger salute of all time, I don't know what was or will be.

Twitter was exploding yesterday during the Besiktas match with people choosing sides over the value of Olivier Giroud to this club. "Good fans" point out his hold up play and how he "brings others into the play" and things like that. "Bad fans" were rather brutal in their assessment of his ineffectiveness.

Why can't we be critical of Giroud and Wenger's persistence with him (and the yet-to-score only other centre forward on the club) and NOT be considered "bad fans?"

How can a "respected" long time blogger blithely dismiss Giroud's Heskey-esque performances and never call him what he is?

Giroud is dividing the Arsenal supporters, as is Wenger's unwillingness to buy a "real" goal scoring forward or more alarmingly beginning the season with a defence thinner than an MPs excuse for the expenses scandal. Nobody is "bad" or "negative" or "unsupportive" by simply pointing out that Giroud doesn't score enough given the good chances he's given (or that Sanogo hasn't scored at all).

Nor is anyone "bad" for looking at the defence and wondering just what the hell Wenger is on about when a week ago he claimed that Arsenal aren't looking at ANYBODY in that area.

It's particularly unpleasant in the USA because Wenger is the only manager most Yanks have ever known, and they feel that any criticism of him is tantamount to criticising the club itself. I've become a pariah among "my own kind" because they all think Wenger is a saint and beyond reproach and that Giroud is great and everything is great! so what are you bitching about, man?

I'm not predisposed to believe anything. I watch the matches and look at the squad and evaluate the transfers and then I make my assessment. I praised Wenger after the FA Cup final and I praised him for signing Sanchez, and for finding adequate players who filled those positions that needed filling.

Saying that Giroud is not good enough doesn't make me "negative" when the numbers speak for themselves. Let the healing begin.

3 to Arsenal's Caballeros

Winning is getting to be tedious for the Arsenal, isn't it?  A simple stroll in the park and suddenly the anti-Arsenal faction in the media are scrambling to remind everyone that City were nowhere near full strength, this isn't a real match, the Community Shield isn't a real trophy, and didn't United prove last season that winning this match means less than nothing?

Not considering that Arsenal started the match without Mertesacker, Ozil, Giroud, and Walcott, or played half the match with a teenaged right back and a less than convincing left back at the heart of their defence, were the sides really that far apart in class? City have bought and bought and bought so much that journos seem to be numb to the size and quality of the Blues' squad.

One of my Yank friends who is somewhat new to the Arsenal fold issued a complaint this morning as to why "everyone" in the media needed to diminish what happened yesterday. I reminded her that English writers and TV commentators/pundits all essentially were raised to hate Arsenal and love either Liverpool or MUFC. There's no need to hide one's loyalties in the UK--writers openly profess how they feel or to whom they pledge allegiance. So just expect no respect and you'll be fine.

(Amy Lawrence and Philippe Auclair, we salute you.)

As for the match, I was pleased with much of what was on display. Sanchez ran and ran and made beautiful passes and threatened with intent. He is wonderful to watch and it makes you wonder what kind of role Poldi can actually find at Arsenal this season.

Santi Cazorla loves playing centrally, doesn't he?  I can't fathom why Sanogo (more on him later) wasn't offside on Santi's goal, but irrelevant to the outcome, it was a typical and wonderful finish from the wee Spaniard. Again, hard to decipher where he will play when Ozil is back and fit, maybe the German genius gets his winter break and Santi fills that role during the holidays or January.

He won't play on the left once Walcott is healthy because you would assume Sanchez will be moved to that side, and with Ramsey and Wilshere and Ox and...well, you get the idea. I think Santi is vital to the Arsenal attack when he plays more in the central role.  On the left? He drifts inside anyway, making Arsenal far too narrow and crowding an area loaded with central mids. It's a good problem to have, I suppose.

Ramsey is so confident right now that the things he does look routine despite their brilliance. His goal makes you realise yet again that he is the most important player at the club right now and he must stay healthy if Arsenal are to succeed. Players who do what he can do in a calm, routine manner are indispensable--but this season he can't be overplayed. He simply has to be healthy for the entire campaign.

Jack Wilshere, sitting deeper than usual and certainly deeper than a no. 10 normally would, was efffective. Interestingly, he got kicked far less back there than he usually does when he's more involved in the attack. He is a focal point for the opposition, partly because of his massive talent but mostly because of his temperament.  People used to attempt to wind up Patrick Vieira because of those reasons. I don't know if Jack's future lies in that part of the pitch or not, but his eye for the pass that unlocks defences is very keen.

Sanogo seems to have as much understanding of the offside rule at times as does former Spuds manager Ted Lasso. Bless his heart, he makes Kanu look like a champion ballroom dancer, yet somehow, in true Charlie Day fashion, Arsenal's very own wild card manages to influence the match to the positive. I can't tell if he's Zelig or Forrest Gump or the 20 year old man who looks like he's climbing out a window when he's doing his thing, or really, what even his thing is. Yet there's no denying that he has some sort of talent and Arsenal play well when he's out there.

Does this mean he should start every match? With so many goal scoring options, maybe he should. Maybe he is the wild card among a squad of sublime professionals. His movement and strength are a massive plus, and ultimately his strangeness makes him fun to watch.

"But what about Giroud?" you are screaming. You know how I feel about him. I think yesterday was a perfect example of how Giroud can be used. Bring him on when others are tired and suddenly he looks fast and lively! It was a nice goal in a friendly match against a team playing a bizarre combo at the back. I assume this means nobody can say anything critical of the man, correct?

Chambers and Debuchy were both very good. Debuchy plays both attack and defence with skill and confidence and looks to be a very solid purchase and more than able replacement for that bloke at City. Chambers--other than that insane back "pass" to Szcz early in the match which I assume he will never try ever again ever--gives me no fears if he is called upon to fill in for Per. I say for Per because ARSENE NEEDS TO BUY A LEFT-FOOTED CENTRAL DEFENDER NOW to back up Koz.

It's not as though Gibbo has ever stayed healthy, so what happens when he and Koz are both crocked? You play Nacho at centre half and bring Flamini in to play left back?  Oy.

So that's it, then. A friend asked me yesterday what was "the meaning" of this match. I said, "It's always better to win than to lose." That sums it up for me. Pray for Koz's Achilles tendon, please.

Adios, caballeros.

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.

Why I wish Arsene Wenger were not returning as Arsenal manager

So another Arsenal season has come to a close, and it has been punctuated by a new three-year contract for Arsene Wenger. Wenger is a man who will be given a statue outside Ashburton Grove at some point, hopefully whilst he's still extant. It's not as though he's a transient figure--rather, he is transcendent and transformational.

This season was a brutal journey for Arsenal supporters. I was willing to dream along with many others that Arsenal would or could win the league for the first time in a decade, but that dream collapsed and not through 3 heavy away losses to the clubs who finished above Arsenal in the table. I have said on numerous occasions that for my club, I prize the league above all else. I really couldn't give a toss about Europe, and while I enjoy a good cup run and have wonderful memories of the FA Cup (semifinals and finals included), it's a one-off competition that "even a relegated club such as Wigan" can win.

It's fantastic for the players to share the feeling of winning, of walking up the steps at Wembley to receive a medal and hoist a trophy, and then to celebrate with a parade. It beats all hell out of losing to Blackburn Rovers at home, and that can't be disputed. It beats all hell out of losing to Birmingham City on a schoolboy mistake, as well. So no disrespect to what the Arsenal accomplished by defeating Spuds, Liverpool, and Everton (in more pomp than they managed under David Moyes) en route to a trophy. There is a reason, however, that the FA Cup final is called "a lovely day out;" it's because the 38-game march through a season of league football is the true measure of a club's greatness.

The circumstances which made this league season open to more challengers and challenges came together in a unique confluence of events. Three managers for clubs who were considered to be the usual suspects were all newly hired and inheriting squads not of their own making, whilst the two others perpetually seeking to knock on the door to "big club" certification endured summers of considerable change. The only clubs where consistency ruled were Arsenal and Liverpool.

Arsenal had come back from the proverbial dead in 2013 to once again claim the Fourth Place Champions Trophy, seemingly built upon a foundation of stability, a parsimonious and pragmatic approach to the run in that saw a remarkable set of results that allowed them to pass Spuds and receive an invitation to Europe's big dance. My friends and I taunted Scousers with chants of "Wigan's in Europe and you're not!" which made us all feel a bit better about ourselves. We seemed primed to finally resume what was once an annual challenge for the title, given the relative "instability" in Manchester and west London and the dodgy defence in Liverpool.

What followed, starting with summer transfer doings, was in my mind a serious failure by Arsene Wenger to secure a league championship for Arsenal. There are three areas where, if we are to believe the manager is accountable, that his errors cost the club, and these are why I sincerely wish Wenger weren't returning for another three years.

I. The Transfer Market

It is a simple and painfully obvious fact: Arsene Wenger did not buy the necessary reinforcements during the summer of 2013 to successfully mount a title challenge in either the league or in Europe, and it isn't the first time this has happened. We are not privy to the inner workings of the manager's mind nor the restrictions placed upon him by club management, but it is absolutely unconscionable that Arsenal faced a league and various cup schedules with only one serviceable senior striker in the squad and three senior centre halves. No ambitious club would do that. It's ridiculous.

I can't stress this enough. As much as I sincerely love the talent of Mesut Ozil and enjoy watching him, Arsenal actually needed a proven goal scoring forward and someone to strengthen the back line so that any serious title challenge could be sustained should the inevitable injuries or fatigue set in. There's also a question of quality at the forward position, and again let it be said that while I appreciate the things that Giroud does well, he is not a striker who as a first and only option up front will win an English club a league trophy or any club a European trophy.

Giroud is essentially a "one in three" striker.  He scores at a one goal in every three matches pace, more or less. I'm not 7amkickoff and I don't go mental with statistics; I watch matches and follow clubs and use what I see (not what I hear others saying) to form my opinions, and my opinion is that Giroud is simply not good enough, and certainly not good enough to be the ONLY striker at a club with ambitions beyond fourth place.

I fear that Wenger will do this again this summer. No, I don't fear it. I believe it. I believe that Wenger will not buy a very very very expensive goal-scoring forward (a better than one in three) and Arsenal will go into next season with Giroud and Sanogo as the only attacking options, with possibly the one in three Loic Remy to support that pair. If not Remy, then probably some nearly free teenager who is coming off several injuries. Yes, I really believe this. I no longer have faith in Arsene Wenger at all when it comes to the transfer market, especially not in a season when a reserve keeper, a right back, a central defender, a "holding midfielder," and a proven goal-scoring "can win a club the Premier League or Europe" striker are needed. 

Surely anyone who has followed Arsenal for any length of time doesn't believe that Wenger will do the necessary business this summer. A new manager who is far less stubborn, myopic, or whatever caused Wenger's inactivity last season, should have been brought in to manage what are supposedly considerably more resources that are now available.

II. Tactical Failure

There is a reason that smaller clubs with smaller budgets and less talented players adopt a defensive posture: it is because they are smaller clubs with smaller budgets and less talented players. When it comes to Europe or challenging far richer domestic clubs, Arsenal are a smaller club with a smaller budget and less talented players. So what did Wenger learn from that life-saving run in of 2013, when a pragmatic and less-adventurous Arsenal minded the gap and won fourth place?

Nothing.

The opening day loss to Villa was a shambolic mess of tactical naivete and that wretched, useless high line. Arsene Wenger was schooled by Paul Lambert. Let that sink in for a moment.

Arsenal lost points from winning positions multiple times last season that eventually cost them the title. This is a fact, not a proposition. When shutting up shop was called for against Swansea, the Arsenal fullbacks were in the opposing penalty area and the centre havles were at the midfield stripe. On away days to "big clubs," Arsenal were so dire that it's not even to be believed. Injuries or no, the stretch where arsenal took just 11 points from an available 33 has to be laid squarely at the feet of the manager.

I don't see any reason to believe that this will change in the next three years. People of Wenger's age don't make radical changes to their approach to work or life, really. Wenger is as Wenger is. The high defensive line is one of the most infuriating things I've ever seen and continue to see it. It exposes a flawed team to simple counter attacks that lead to either goals, penalties, or fouls in dangerous positions that risk a sending off. Yet Wenger persists.

This will not be different next year, and because of that, Arsenal will not win the league.

III. Mental Frailty, Schoolboy Errors

Arsenal's FA Cup win is not supposed to be disparaged and the goals conceded are not supposed to be used as a point of criticism, but in truth it was simply more of the same and a better club would have punished the Gunners much worse. You know, like they did at City, Liverpool, and Chelsea.

There is no reason that a manager who goes on and on about mental strength can keep sending out a squad that is completely unprepared at the start of the match. The third leg of the managerial tripod is instilling confidence and belief that no challenge is too great for the side, and for far too long now Wenger's teams have come out in "big" matches and looked frightened. Timid players don't play instinctively, and they make errors under pressure that they would not otherwise make.

It got to the point where the mental frailty and mistakes became predictable any time pressure was applied in a so-called big match. It's ridiculous that the heavy defeats to the teams who finished above them in the table even happened once, much less three times. It could have happened in the FA Cup final if it weren't Hull City, too. I'm sorry, I'm sure that offends people, but it is obvious to me.  The pattern is established and I don't believe it will change.

So that is really the issue: There is an established pattern of post-Invincibles, post-Ashburton Grove move behaviour by Arsene Wenger and his sides. It can be written off to any number of factors but the truth is that during that 11 for 33 stretch, Tony Pulis was putting in better results than Arsene Wenger. I hate saying anything close to that but it's a fact. Pulis got more out of Palace than Wenger did with Arsenal.

Some say "Arsenal improved!" during this last season, using the points total and points gap to the top of the table. However, I think the goals scored and heavy defeats and 4th place finish and the visibly poor efforts in the "big" matches and the inability to take more than one point off the worst Manchester United side in a generation say that improvement is relative to the lack of quality among some other clubs. Improvement is, to me, subjective, and fourth place is not improvement. Cup runs are nice, but we've seen Portsmouth, Birmingham City, and Wigan all win cups and face relegation in recent years.

It won't change next season, and Arsenal won't win the league, and if I'm wrong, I'll eat a big carton of cream cheese.

Bad credit? No credit? No problem!

As one contemplates the "modern" history of the Arsenal Football Club, one cannot help but look at the period of 1971-1989 as a sort of wandering in the wilderness, punctuated by the losses to Ipswich Town in 1978 and West Ham United in 1980 in FA Cup finals, the victory in the "Five Minute Final" over Manchester United in 1979, and the supposed boost of the league cup victory in 1987 over Liverpool. That's how I look at it, anyway.

Arsenal were drifting during that 18 year period. The first division became dominated by Liverpool before George Graham arrived at Arsenal. David O'Leary went from a schoolboy to having over 500 appearances for the club. He played with some of the heroes of '71 all the way through to Rocky and Thomas and then Ian Wright. Arsenal apparently couldn't win the league so they became cup specialists of a sort.

I've learned that saying a club are "cup specialists" is about as complimentary as saying someone is a "Sunday player."  Arsenal right now don't seem much like they want to expend the resources necessary to win the league, so if you look at their record over the past 9 seasons, they might have become "cup specialists" again. FA Cup winners 2005, Champions League final 2006, League Cup final 2007, League Cup final 2011, FA Cup winners 2014. No real sniff of the league title in that time. 

So it's not to say that Arsenal have been dismal during the past 9 seasons.  There have been 2 FA Cups in that time, and the chance at 3 more trophies. Maybe it does remind me of that 71-79 period. But if that's the case, does that mean 9 more years (or more) before Arsenal can claim to be the best in the league again? Are we really back to wandering in the wilderness?

I was prompted to write this because of the celebrations of Arsenal supporters after yesterday's FA Cup final victory over Hull City. So many people I know outside of England have only been following or supporting Arsenal for a few years. I asked my Yank friends on Friday, "Have any of you ever seen Arsenal lift a trophy?" Of a group of 20 or so, only 2 besides myself could make that claim, and one of them said it was the 2005 FA Cup.  They have come to Arsenal after Wenger's glorious early years when one could take it for granted that being a supporter meant crowns of glory. For them, this trophy means something. They have adopted "she wore a yellow ribbon" and chants about "Wemberley" as though they grew up in Islington. I understand their feelings about yesterday's victory.

But what about those folk I saw on telly back in Blighty who were going mad at the final whistle? The red and white shirted supporters who lined the parade route?

I believe it was a colossal "Eff you!" to everyone who blathered on about "years without a trophy." It wasn't that we think that the FA Cup is a substitute for winning the league or winning Europe, because it isn't. And it wasn't just relief, exhaling, a release of tension. No, I sincerely think it was a giant middle finger to everyone who has felt it necessary to use NOT winning as a cudgel with which to beat Arsenal about the face and skull.

You must write a new narrative, scribes, about the Arsenal Football Club. Perhaps now you can reshape it to say "Arsenal have not won the league in more than a decade" if you like. That would be more damning than "trophyless" because it puts Arsenal in the same company as those people from the other end of Seven Sisters Road and as Jack Wilshere can tell you, there's nothing worse than that.

Arsenal have won the FA Cup 11 times, on par with Manchester United. Wenger sides have won the trophy 5 times, on par with Sir Alex Ferguson. So give him--and the players--credit, please. It wasn't perfect, but it answered so many of Arsenal's and the manager's critics. Arsenal won away from the the Grove on a big occasion. Arsenal overcame a poor start. Arsenal won a trophy. Is this a story worth commemorating with a book, or even a short story? I say no. But for those who have made "not winning anything" a means by which they can flog the manager and the players, surely this is enough?

Credit where it's due--to Santi Cazorla's brilliant strike, to the ever-ready Laurent Koscielny for his typically grubby falling-down goal, to Kieran Gibbs' heart-stopping intervention, and to the combination of the always frustrating Olivier Giroud and the sent-from-heaven Aaron Ramsey for that priceless winner. Credit to Yaya Sanogo for what is becoming a habit of running on and opening up the game like a proper striker.

And credit most of all to Arsene Wenger, who did in fact lead Arsenal to a winning performance at Wembley in a cup final. You forget that he did manage it in 1998, and in Cardiff on 3 other occasions. Or perhaps you didn't forget it because you'd never seen him win anything in your time as an Arsenal supporter. I don't care how churlish I feel on the inside, I was overjoyed to see the man hoist a trophy again, to smile, to be tossed in the air and doused with champagne. He has been a frustrating, at times infuriating figure at the club but only the hardest of hearts would begrudge him yesterday.

I will be back to perform a proper autopsy on the season and this cup final, but for now, let us just give credit where it is due. Arsenal told all the critics in the world to get stuffed, and I couldn't ask for anything more.

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.