No fault in our stars

Everyone has an opinion on what was most significant about Arsenal's 3-0 dismissal of Aston Villa. The first league clean sheet of the season? Yeah, I'd go with that.

Aside from Callow Chambers (sorry) near dismissal, the back 4 plus Szcz hardly put a foot wrong in what could've been a dangerous contest. Remember how Villa beat Liverpool (which is starting look less impressive by the day)? An early "smash and grab" counterattacking goal from Gabby Agbonlahor followed by 82 minutes of seat-of-their-trousers defending took the Villains to second in the league.

No such luck yesterday for the claret and blue boys. Arsenal's keeper--the maker of his own bad luck--kept them off the scoresheet early and his defending cohorts stayed a steady course the rest of the way. Gibbs and Chambers played a key role in the Gunners' possession game, whilst Per and Koz did the dull and dirty work of mopping up anything that got past a resurgent midfield.

Considering the cheapness of the goals surrendered this season, and the errors which often caused them, the clean sheet has to be the most important takeaway from this match. I've been very dismayed at the way Arsenal have conceded so far; more concentration and tenacity at the back could've easily garnered the club 4 more points thus far.

Switching off after conceding a free kick or corner has been a serious problem for this team. You can only hope yesterday was a platform off of which more success can be built.

Ah, you see, I have chosen the dull side of football for which to praise my Arsenal. That's the exact opposite of what most supporters would see and most likely what Arsene Wnger values the least, if you judge him by his transfer spending.

Defending is not something that is done by 4 players at the back and a keeper--it's a collective effort by the entire XI. And despite the attempts to falsify the contribution of Olivier Giroud by the Wenger-lovers, yesterday was clear evidence of what the long-term contribution of Danny Welbeck can be.

Giroud was often lauded for his "ability to clear crosses" or some such thing. Yeah, whatever, me neither. His work rate was often such that one was tempted to see if the famous inanimate carbon rod couldn't do a bit more in his place.

I'm going to just come out and say it right now--Wenger molly-coddled Giroud for two seasons and it was seriously grating on my nerves. Whether it was out of a sense of Gallic solidarity or a myopic inability to see him for what he really was, for some reason Wenger stuck with Giroud when even Chuba Akpom started to look like the more effective option.

In two seasons, Giroud probably ran less than Welbeck did yesterday. I can see SAF's dirty fingerprints all over him. He knows no other way to play than 100% effort. Giroud looks like a Peruvian cart mule compared to Welbeck.

Ferguson would never have tolerated the Frenchman's lackadaisical (Laconic? Languid? Some other L word?) style, more than likely switching on the hair dryer after one game and then shipping him back to the French 2nd division after two. Welbeck still plays like he can hear a drunken old Scot screaming in his ear.

Giroud's classic move--to amble to the top of the "D" and then stop--grew to be so frustrating that I would simply scream "What are you stopping for?" at the telly and then it was a race to see whether he or I would end up howling first.

So I have to say, not being forced to watch him at the present time makes Arsenal matches just that little bit more pleasant. Oh, and not having to listen to the pro-Wenger spin merchants tell me about Giroud's so-called greatness (or Sanogo's, for that matter) is also a relief. It certainly must clear their consciences not to have to lie for a few farthings from the club.

Welbeck's efforts yesterday pleased me to no end. Whether he was dropping back to receive the ball whilst his teammates ran forward, forcing himself between defenders in front of goal, or constantly harassing the Villa defence, he was in constant motion.

The goal was simple--what you'd expect of a centre-forward, really. It was the product of working hard enough to put himself in the place where a talented midfielder could get him the ball. He didn't lope to the outer edge of the 18 yard box and stop like a United Nations observer. He went for it and he was rewarded.

The assist, however, was not common. It wasn't even what I'd expect from Welbeck. It combined vision, timing, and ability. What a beauty. Again, you can see the way he was raised in football. If he had missed that pass back at United, SAF would've blasted him with a profane outburst, not a pat on the back and a polite defence in the post-match presser. Iron fist, etc.

One other thing that's now apparent is that if Ozil and Cazorla are to coexist, it means the wee Spaniard is going to have to play on the left. Oz looked like a man reborn yesterday. Shame on him for not playing like that before, but if playing him in the 10 spot is what it takes to unleash that talent, then by all means do it.

As for Santi, it's a shame as he's such a delightful playmaker and creative presence in the middle, but let's be fair, he's no bug-eyed Germanic wizard. His efforts on the left yesterday were crucial and of the two options, it's clear that the only way to get him involved is to play him there and let Ozil do his thing through the middle.

I fairly well destroyed my living room when I saw Ozil run into the clear for Welbeck's pass. That was the 2010 version of a player who has looked a bit bereft recently. His first touch was sublime, and the finish was so simple that I felt bad for my compatriot in the Villa net.

All I really want to say about this match is "More, please." More switched on defence, more Welbeck, more Ozil in the fashion we saw them. More energy, more intelligence, more effort, more simple finishing, more breaking from deep (as opposed to sideways passing around the box).

More like that. Just keep doing it. We'll all be happier if they do.

Switch to southpaw

The sequel is almost always worse than the first. That's some kind of rule that is only really proved by its exceptions: The Godfather Part 2, Rocky II, The Empire Strikes Back, Gremlins 2, Superman 2, The Wrath of Khan...

Each has its iconic moment--Michael kisses Fredo, Darth dares Luke to join him, Brain Gremlin referencing Susan Sontag, Zod telling Superman to kneel, and hell, Kirk screaming "KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!"

Today's story, however, is about that moment in Rocky II when Mickey demands that his big dopey stubborn fighter switch back to "southpaw," and how Rocky sits there and says "No tricks, I ain't switchin'!" 

Strategy, it seems, is always a tricky thing.

Mickey decided that Rocky's left-handed fighting style had become too predictable, and too easy to counter. He was a one-pace, one-tactic fighter and Apollo Creed could easily handle him.  A change was required.

Mickey went so far as to tie Rocky's right hand to his side in order to force him to learn to jab with his left. Suddenly, a left-handed fighter who had come so far in that style was now a right-hander, so much so that even the Italian Stallion himself couldn't bear to switch back to his natural style, deriding that as a "trick."

You see where I'm going with this.

For 7 years at Arsenal, M. Wenger achieved remarkable success that was founded on a strong defence and Patrick Vieira. I've never made a secret that I believe that PV4 was the greatest and most important player of Wenger's tenure as manager. That, however, is another story for another day.

Since the self-imposed destruction of the invincibles, Wenger shifted from that foundation--in a sense, he switched from fighting southpaw. He has no defence to speak of, and he certainly has no player comparable to Vieira, and he hasn't since 2008-09.

But beyond just personnel, that switch also includes a style of play, most notably in attack. In boxing, as in tennis, going up against a left-hander may be predictable, but it's also awkward. For the first part of Wenger's tenure at Arsenal, the style seemed to be based much more on quick and devastating attacks that capitalised on the movement and pace of players like Pires, Ljungberg, Henry, Bergkamp, and Vieira.

No player in the history of the Premier League started attacks like Vieira did. I don't care who you throw up in argument against that statement, there isn't one. People often compare Vieira and Roy Keane, which is fair enough, but in style they were completely different. Keane didn't break up an opponent's attack and then drive the ball forward in the same manner.

Vieira wasn't so much a defensive midfileder in the Makelele role as he was an engine for an entire side. He was at his most effective when playing alongside Petit or Gilberto Silva, players who could do the dirty work and impose themselves physically whilst PV4 launched another assault.

This is not to discount his tackling ability or how he could break up play because he was excellent at that, but for those who have come to know Arsenal since his departure, he shouldn't be classified as a "defensive mid."  He was a unique player in that he could defend and then easily start a counter attack from deep that could result in a shot on goal.

But Vieira represented the style of Arsenal back then--first it was the Graham hangover defenders behind him, then Wenger replaced them with 4 new players (more than 4, really, because he actually invested in defenders up until 2005), but no matter if it were Spunky and Tone or Jens and Big Sol, there was a solid structure back there that was fronted by strong mobile central midfielders.

That has to be classified as Wenger's southpaw phase.

But now? Wenger switched to fighting right-handed, with diminutive midfielders--most often five at a time--and a single "target man" up front. This is a style that is compounded by a very narrow attack through the middle, fullbacks who are most often almost standing on the opposition's end line, and centre halves who are positioned so high up the pitch that they are at or beyond the halfway line.

Since the end of the 2012-2013 season, when fate more or less forced him to finally adapt, Wenger sets out his teams to play the same way every minute of every match. Last season this cost Arsenal quite a few points that they surrendered from winning positions. Aston Villa, Swansea, Southamption, Everton--this represents 8 points that could have won Arsenal the league if Wenger had been willing to mix it up a bit.

I can't understand why, with trainer Mickey yelling in his face "Switch back to southpaw," Wenger persists with the same formation and tactics from minute 1 to minute 90+. It's fairly clear that everyone has this sussed. Care to mix it up, Arsene?

"No tricks, I ain't switchin'!"

It's a shame. This sequel (Arsene Knows Part 3) is looking much more like "The Matrix: Convoluted" than any of the ones I listed above. Welcome to Jaws 3D, without the camp Michael Caine to liven things up.

Broken

Not much to say about a performance as abject as Arsenal put in yesterday.

The bigger picture is that the club seem to be in trouble. Each match is punctuated by an injury, which is really unfortunate considering there is essentially no youth programme to call upon for reinforcements.

The question of tactics and the use of the squad ought to be called into question, along with the "inspiration and motivation" that a manager is supposed to provide. Does the formation get the most of the players?  Are the players being deployed in positions that best utilise their abilities?

Does the persistence with a high defensive line from the first minute to the last really give Arsenal the best chance to win? Can Arsenal find a way to widen the attack other than using the fullbacks to essentially abandon their defensive duties?  Is it wise to leave only 3 players to defend counterattacks, especially when two of them are Per Mertesacker and one of Arteta or Flamini?

In some ways, yesterday felt like the culmination of years of poor transfer window policy and misguided tactics, yet in some ways it simply felt like Groundhog Day. Nothing has really changed.

Arsenal have played 4 league matches and three Champions League matches. In seven competitive matches they've scored eight goals and conceded eight. They have no real identity at this point, based on those numbers.

They are neither an exciting, attacking force, nor are they a lock-down defensive machine capable of grinding out results. To be fair, they resemble a mid-table side. A bit boring on both ends of the pitch, neither all sheets to the wind in attack nor biting and bitter in defence.

After the FA Cup final I wrote that I didn't want Wenger to return as manager. I listed three areas--transfer policy, in-game tactics, and inspiration/preparation--where I thought he had failed. Of course that was the primary reason I didn't want him back--I didn't think Arsenal could win the league with him in charge.

My loyalty is to the club and has been since I started following Arsenal, back before I even knew who Wenger was. So my first thought was, it's best for the club if he goes. But at the same time I do appreciate what he did and has done for Arsenal and I didn't want it to come to this.

I didn't want it to come to the point where people are shouting and angry and wishing he'd be fired. What if he had simply left after winning the FA Cup?  A true feel good moment to cap off a legendary career would have been the best way to exit. Many people who had grown weary of him could have forgiven his faults and saluted him.

Instead, now, I'm afraid it can only end one way.  Arsenal are broken right now, and the blame for that can only be placed with Wenger. When even the Irish blogger names him and says it's Wenger's responsibility, you know the situation is dire.

Were this not Arsenal, and there were no such thing as "the Arsenal way," and this hadn't been going on for years, Wenger might well be given his P45 before this crucial stretch of league matches. But this is Arsenal, and that won't happen. Sadly, I'm afraid it won't happen until after this season, which will be a season that will end in disappointment and failure for the club.

At that point, Wenger will probably leave in disgrace when it could've all ended in glory last spring. Shameful, that, for everyone involved.

Too Many Directions

Those of you new to the Arsenal fold often give me blank stares when I reference things that happened prior to ten or sometimes even five years ago. It's often a funny scene when I'm talking to my Yank Gooner friends and I'll say "he reminds me of Ade Akinbiyi" or compare Giroud to Emile Heskey at Leicester City. It's fair to say that in the USA I may be a bit of an outlier.

There's nothing wrong with being a new convert. "All are welcome." No, I'm not going to cook you on a grill.   I'm not going to complain about enthusiastic people who support Arsenal--we need all we can get. It's just that my point of reference for the club includes Ian Wright and Davor Suker, and also my point of reference for other clubs includes seeing MUFC win the treble and give the middle finger to the FA Cup. Time has actually made fond memories of John Gregory's Aston Villa sides.

What prompted this was today's excellent post from Yogi's Warrior at A Cultured Left Foot. He quantified something that caused me to rethink what I remembered--or didn't accurately remember--about most of Wenger's teams, especially from the early portion of his tenure as manager.

There is something of a myth about Arsenal though. As much as Arsène has produced consistently sparkling football, only in the period 2003- 2005 have they finished top scorers in the Premier League. The rest of the time sitting somewhere at an average of 1.75 goals per game.

Even the double winners of 2002 weren't top scorers?

He goes on to note that under Wenger, once you get past the first few scoring threats, there wasn't much help getting the ball past the opposing keeper. I suppose what made the 2003-2005 period unique was that there was a strong supporting cast for Henry and Bergkamp, including the incomparable Bob Pires, Freddie Ljungberg, and a rotating pool of forwards. 

What I recall about the 2000-2005 period (and I hope this isn't my mind playing tricks on me) is that Arsenal were much more direct than they are now.  Was there less passing?  Was there more counterattacking? Were players more likely to have a go at the goal?  I'll leave the statistical analysis to that other Yank blogger who seems to have an infinite amount of patience and willingness, but my perception leads me to answer "yes" to those questions.

I think at that point Arsenal needed to be more direct because, frankly, Manchester United were the best attacking team in England and one of the best in the world. My hatred for them at that time was based on the fact that they could set out a side that featured Dwight Yorke, Andy Cole, and Teddy Sheringham up top, supported by the likes of Scholes, Beckham, and Giggs, each of whom managed to find the goal with seeming ease. Throw on a late sub like Solskjaer and you have an attack that was built to fill the net.

(Cole, it should be remembered, was an Arsenal player, shipped off to Bristol City by George Graham for the princely sum of half a million quid. Dear god.)

Bloody hell. No wonder Wenger had to find an attack that could match Ferguson's--United won three straight titles before the double winners took it from them at their place in 2002, and Ferg supplemented and freshened that squad with Van NistelHorse (who Wenger famously tried to sign; how many times have I heard that?).  Goals, goals, goals. And what was the goal?

Scoring.  What happened?

Blame it on the Barcelona, the team of dull.

I won't go into the langers who populated the Arsenal team in the post-2005 era (I've done that already) but in addition to their general shite-ness, they were playing for a manager who was transitioning from a style journos called "swashbuckling" to one of incessant sideways passing (Denilson, cough cough).  It's charming that Wenger looked at his charges in the late 2000s and thought they were as good as Xavi and Iniesta and Messi. Really, it could even be labeled "precious" of him. This was during the time when the Chavs of West London were playing ugly, negative football and City began stockpiling strikers "just because."

Wenger's response was to try to emulate the dull metronomic style of Barca, who unseated Real Madrid by putting out a team of clever midgets who could pass the ball, press the opposition, and find Messi. That's really all it was. Unfortunately, Arsenal didn't have those players.

This was the era when I began screaming at the telly "Would you just fucking shoot already!!!!!!" and I realised that Bob and Freddie and Thierry and Dennis were not walking through that door.  The ball went everywhere but in the net. Literally. With Denilson and Diaby you could count on more sideways action than a drunken university party.

Pundits began to remark that Arsenal were trying to walk the ball into the net--this was not a compliment. At the same time, Drogba was doing his impression of a battering ram. Keep the ball, your opponent doesn't score. This is opposed to the idea of scoring and forcing your opponent to take chances.

Arsenal today are still guilty of the term that I think sums up most of the past 10 years: over-elaboration. I think it's changing, slightly and slowly, to a bit more direct style, but it's still predominantly all about passing. I can't understand what Wenger's up to when he has so many players who would destroy the league if he set them out to sit deep and punish on the counter.

What's the point of all that sideways and backwards passing when your opponent has 7 players lined up across the edge of the 18 yard box? You have the Ox, Ozil, Wilshere, Ramsey, Walcott (when healthy), and now Sanchez. Invite the opponent on you and then slaughter them like you did back in old days. I feel like Mickey talking to Rocky--"Why don't you stand up and fight this guy, hard, like you done before?"

Four years ago some manager said after watching the World Cup Finals that the future of the game was the ability of sides to rapidly transition from defence to attack, moving the ball from deep to the opponent's half faster meant victory. Four years ago! Whoever this genius was (no, it wasn't LVG), he predicted the demise of Bore-celona football long before last season's destruction of Bayern Munich or Spain's humiliation during the summer.

People didn't think that Barca under Joey G. were boring because they had Messi. Arsenal have never had Messi. If you don't have Messi, all that passing tends to simply burn out and leave you with a great deal of possession and very few goals.

Direct and deliberate attacking play will win the league this year--if Arsenal play that way. I don't assume Moaninho will do anything but set out his lab animals to spoil the game. Arsenal can't continue to pass the ball in too many directions and think that 1.75 goals/game will accomplish much. Sanchez is a Lambo. I hope AW drives it like a madman.