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.

Campbell's Gumbo Yaya

Two matches against two decidedly different clubs with what seemed to be two different agendas, we know a bit more about this version of the Arsenal, but just a bit. How much can be inferred probably depends on your predisposition--if you love certain players or have blind faith in the gaffer, you probably saw only positive things. If you start from a premise that certain players irritate you, or that the gaffer isn't infallible, then you may be able to find fault.

Mindful that these were only pre-season friendlies designed to develop sharpness and fitness, the actual scorelines ought to be discarded. However...

I felt based on the way the teams were set out for the two games that Wenger both expected a tougher challenge against AS Monaco and may have wanted to win "the Emirates Cup." Nacho wasn't playing centre half in Sunday's match and a few more of what would probably be called "regulars" started as well. Perhaps it was a bit more important to Le Boss, going against his old club, who can say?

Benfica didn't offer much, but that match offered a glimpse of three players who could play important roles for the club this season. Campbell, Sanogo, and Chambers featured and made their presence felt from the outset.

I'll start with Joel Campbell, because I'm predisposed to like him and to hope that he gives AW reason to keep faith with him. Campbell looked great. He does all the things you'd want a player to do based on "the way Arsenal play," plus he does extra things that make one a bit excited over his prospects.  He held up the ball and passed it well, made incisive runs on goal, drew defenders away from the middle, and then there was that finish...oooh, that finish. Nice. Clinical even.

I started getting excited by the prospect of Campbell playing for Arsenal after the MUFC Champions League match last season. He played like a man against a team that Arsenal couldn't score upon in 180 minutes of football. Compared to Wenger's options at that time, I was downright miserable that he wasn't available to come home from his loan spell.

His work for Costa Rica this summer only served to reinforce my opinion of him--he can't be accused of being shy on the pitch, and certainly can't be criticised for "not tracking back and defending," which as I've established is the most important thing a striker can do at Arsenal, far more important than simply scoring goals. There have been (club planted?) whispers among the ITK bloggers about his "attitude" and his "willingness to sit," so who knows about his future, but why can't the visible facts about him simply speak for themselves?

He has improved each of his seasons in Europe. He has played against some of the best club sides in the world and given a fair account of himself. He has become indispensable for his national side, a team that showed fantastic "spirit, quality, determination, that little bit extra" during the World Cup Finals. What's not to like?  Forget the club spin and simply watch the boy play. He's good.

What then of Yaya Sanogo? He still looks like a drunken Mary Poppins on roller skates, but he still pops up in the right place at the right time and manages to bundle the ball into the net in a fashion only slightly less elegant than his celebration dance.

Oh, I know what you're saying--I'm being churlish. I'm taking one of Arsene's pets and slating him simply because I'm predisposed not to like him or believe in him.  Well, you're wrong. I want Yaya to succeed, because if he does, that means he's helping Arsenal, and that's enough for me. If I can cheer Nicky Bendtner, I can cheer for anyone.

Wenger likes Yaya because he reminds him of Adebayor, without the grins after being flagged for offside 10 times per match and with a better attitude toward the game, of course. Wenger likes big, odd, awkward strikers--go all the way back to Kanu and you'll see that Arsene has always tried to have one large goofball to play up front. Perhaps it's because that type of player makes the defence confused, unsure of just what is about to happen. WILD CARD!!!!

Of course, Yaya came off injured. It was fun while it lasted, eh?

Chambers drew rave reviews for his "calm, assured" performance on Saturday. I can't dispute any of that. He's quick, strong, instinctive, and he really is calm. I saw one play in particular that I enjoyed, where he tracked his man all the way to the end line and with no fuss simply booted the ball into touch. It was a mature move, the kind you want a defender to make without having to stop and think about it. He's also good in the air. I don't think this is an insult in any way to Carl Jenkinson, it's just the truth as I see it.

As for Sunday...

Debuchy--he seems to be both more defensive-minded than Sagna was last season, and also more willing to make attacking runs knowing that Chambers was there to cover for him.  He's a crucial piece to the Arsenal puzzle and I've no complaints with his performance.

The Monaco goal--this is where you tell yourself "it's only a pre-season match, it doesn't matter, Koz has only been back a few days" but it was shit defending. I'm simply saying it was shit defending, not that the world is coming to an end. 

I still like Chuba, quite a bit, actually. He has a directness with his play and a willingness to run that would suit "the way Arsenal play."

Sanchez (I can't, I simply can't, refer to him by his first name, being from a generation who can only associate it with Joan Collins) is so wonderful that I'm trying to contain myself when talking about him.  If you saw the match you saw everything he can do, but for me there was one moment that defined what he can be--Ox made a run down the right, Sanchez was slightly off to his left, and when he saw what Ox was going to do (run to the end line and drag back to the center), he anticipated this and peeled away toward the penalty spot to put himself in a good shooting position. Wow. Just wow. Thank you.

The last thing I'll say about Sunday's match--the Arsenal attack looked much, much better in the second half. In fact, everything about Arsenal looked better in the second half. Movement, possession, pressure--everything. Draw your own conclusions as to why, just let it suffice to say that "the way Arsenal play" looked different from the usual "way Arsenal play."

Caviar trumps sausage...again

"With all due respect to them, I said to him that he was too good for Arsenal."--Steven Gerrard on a conversation he had with Luis Suarez in 2013.

"Have you ever seen Gerrard win the league?"--Matt Haines to some Liverpool supporters in Manhattan, July 2014.

Stevie G., the man who fell over, thought it was a good idea to insult Arsenal. He's the Liverpool captain, after all. He was the England captain, too. He'd like to thank John Terry for being a racist twat.

Liverpool are were once a club for which honours seemed to be an entitlement. They won the league quite a bit in the 1970s and 80s. Of course, the last time they won the domestic league was in between George Graham's two title-winning sides. That was, let me count, 24 years ago?

"Alexis Sanchez asked me 'Should I move to Liverpool?' I told him, 'They aren't the team they used to be. Join Arsenal."--Javier Mascherano

"You're never too good for Arsenal and Steven Gerrard knows that. But I can understand completely that he asked him to stay because he wanted him (Suarez) to play with him and have a chance to win the Premier League. But it didn't happen, and anyway, Suarez left."--Arsene Wenger

That cabbage truck that rode out of town?  Well, Arsene Wenger didn't just fall off of it. Were he a cowboy, he could calmly say "This ain't my first rodeo." Wenger actually has wits to match with anyone, anywhere.

Sometimes it's done simply through his teams' results.

“The difference from last year is we are on an upward spiral in terms of confidence and they are in a negative spiral in terms of results. And to get out of that negative spiral is extremely difficult."--Andre Villas-Boas, 3 March, 2013

How exactly did that work out for you and your wee trenchcoat, sir?


"Am I afraid of failure? He is a specialist in failure. I’m not. So if one supposes he’s right and I’m afraid of failure, it’s because I don’t fail many times. So maybe he’s right. I’m not used to failing. But the reality is he’s a specialist because, eight years without a piece of silverware, that’s failure."--Jose Mourinho, 14 February, 2014

Chelsea won nothing, and Real Madrid under Carlo Ancelotti won the Champions League.  Arsenal, of course, defeated Tottenham, Liverpool, and Everton on the way to winning the FA Cup for the fifth time under Wenger. Cheers, Jose.

But there are of course times when Wenger looks at those sniping at him and must think, "His jest will savour but of shallow wit, when thousands weep more than did laugh at it." And that is when he reveals just how much of a command of the English language he has.

"They are scrappers who rely on belligerence - we are the better team."--Sir Alex Ferguson, May 2002

"Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home."--Arsene Wenger, in reply

"I think he is one of these people who is a voyeur. He likes to watch other people. There are some guys who, when they are at home, they have a big telescope to see what happens in other families. He speaks and speaks and speaks about Chelsea."--Jose Mourinho, October 2005

"When you give success to stupid people, it makes them more stupid sometimes and not more intelligent."--Arsene Wenger, in reply

"If you eat caviar every day it is difficult to come back to sausages."--Arsene Wenger on supporters booing the Gunners during a dire 1-1 draw versus Middlesbrough, November 1998

"You ask 100 people, 99 will say it's very bad and the 100th will be Mark Hughes."--Arsene Wenger after Hughes defended Emmanuel Adebayor's stamp on Robin van Persie

So you see, Stevie G, in a battle of wits, you came unarmed. Better luck next time, lad.

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.

Tasty Manhattan leftovers, New Jersey Mosquitoes, Comings & Goings

Arsenal supporters took Manhattan over the weekend. Took it, you see, claimed it for their own, swarmed over the island in a red, white, yellow, and blue infestation. Everywhere I went, there was an Arsenal shirt, or hat, or socks, or probably some pants that I didn't see.

I'm certain that, as I proposed prior to the match, there were more supporters in the five boroughs (well, four at least, who really goes to Staten Island?) than there were tickets. Considering that there were still a large number of NYC Red Bulls supporters in the stands, along with some twatbiscuits in Chelsea shirts (what the hell, I mean really?  You wouldn't catch me anywhere near a Chelsea match ever in my life, ever, I would rather wager my entire fortune on England winning a penalty shoot out than go to a Chelsea match), there had to be more than 20,000 Gooners in New York.

The club and those behind the visit to the USA seemed to hedge their bets and didn't plan for large crowds "just to be safe," and didn't want to be embarrassed by planning for tens of thousands of supporters who have waited years to see their blessed club. The Puma/FA Cup display at Grand Central Station was so crowded that the police began turning people away. The pubs on 14th street on Friday night were overwhelmed and I'm sure that numerous fire codes were violated trying to accommodate the masses.

Sigh.

Arsene began to make noises during the trip about how annoying he found it, and how it was interfering with his pre-season plans, and how this would stop Arsenal from winning, and how it was a bad idea, etc. etc. etc. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

(I know he said positive things too. I'm not saying he ONLY said negative things, but he DID say pre-season tours interfere with season preparation. I'm tired of hearing this. Every big team does it, and then some of them go on to win things, because those are big teams. He hasn't won the league since 2004 and he had plenty of pre-seasons sequestered up in Austria with no tours to interfere with his plans, so maybe it's better to say nothing at all than leave oneself open for ridicule when Man City win the league after going on yet another sojourn around the planet.)

A message to Yank Gooners: The "Tottenham-Shit" chant gets old after the 30th time you do it in 2 hours. Yes, the Spuds are shit, yes, we hate them, but continually focusing on them makes them far more important than they should be. They're a small club in a swamp. Learn some new chants.

Nino's Pizza and Restaurant in Harrison, NJ, quite near the Red Bulls Arena is a delicious and affordable place to have a pre-match meal. If you're ever around the area, please pay them a visit. Every bar and other venue was packed beyond belief, but Nino's seated us immediately and was able to easily take care of our party of 6 with no trouble.

That was my first meal in New Jersey, a much maligned state, and I have to say it was quite good. If an English person tells you to get stuffed, tell him you will, you're going to Nino's!!! (Also, the stadium security allowed me to bring in half of my giant Italian sandwich rather than have it go to waste, so nicely done, Red Bulls.)

Our post-match beverages were consumed at a strange place called El Pastor across the river. Apparently it's a Red Bulls bar/restaurant/place, but it was overwhelmed by Gooners. This place is weird. Outside it has a noisy patio and looks like a university fraternity bar. Inside, there's a Mexican diner festooned with Portugal flags. Beyond that, there's a formal dining restaurant where the waiters wear ties. I have no idea what was going on there. 

The match itself was forgettable, other than I can now say that I've attended an Arsenal game in person, saw some of my favourite players, saw the King, and tried to get ANYONE to do the "Wright Wright Wright!" chant after Bradley's goal and realised that since I'd been following Arsenal longer than everyone around me, none of them knew what the hell I was talking about and looked at me like I was a mentalist.

Tim Cahill kicked Jack Wilshere all over the pitch and then joked about it on twitter. Cunt, still. Go back to Millwall. Jack played pretty well. Arsenal can't play a flat 5 with no striker. There's your expert analysis. 

It was nice to see Diaby. Chuba played well. That's Chuba Akpom, not Afobe, or Aneke. It's too bad all three of them didn't make the senior squad, what fun we could have had, calling them the "Three A-migos" or something. Whatever.  Hayden played very, very well. I don't know if what we saw on Saturday translates into being a senior centre half at Arsenal or not, but he was calm, and he made all the right decisions. Compared with poor Miquel he looked like Sol Campbell. Miquel, I think his time has come and gone.

The lesson from this weekend is that Arsenal support in the USA is massive. I met people from thousands of miles away who simply wanted to see their club. Not all of us can afford a flight across the Atlantic and a hotel in London and a ticket to Ashburton Grove. Thank you for thinking of those of us who love Arsenal FC, no matter how much it pained the gaffer to make the voyage.

Regarding the Chambers business and the loan of Jenko to some place, I'm a bit surprised and a bit saddened if this means that Carl is now out of favour. He's not only a Gunner, he's a Gooner. He's "one of us," as his goal celebration v. Norwich showed last season.  I don't think he's the finished product, either. What it means for his career could be construed as either positive (accelerating his development) or a pat on the back as he leaves the fold.

I can't say much about Chambers other than he held his own last season and the obvious thought that he can play multiple positions, which is a distinct advantage for a squad that can't spend an oil sheikh's cash. He's also English, so if the departure of TV5 actually happens, he has double the value.  But Jenko played well when Sagna was out injured and put in an impressive shift against Bayern at the Allianz. He's can run fast and he crosses the ball well. Right?

Four players in, that is approaching Wenger's accepted limit of incorporating new bodies into the squad without unsettling it. I'd be surprised if there's another. Chambers gives him cover at 3 positions that were needed this summer. He reminds me of the "versatile" players that MUFC have bought over the last few seasons, which means he'll probably see time at all 3.

As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

O $ay Can You $ee...

1989, another summer...when barely 10,000 people turned out in Miami's NFL gridiron stadium to watch the Arsenal Football Club defeat Argentine champions Independiente 2-1 on the strength of a brace by Rocky Rocastle in something called the Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy.

LINK: Local newspaper bothers to cover the match.

It was quite charitable of George Graham to field a very strong XI, but his post-match comments about "America needs to wake up" were far more telling. He certainly expressed a healthy scepticism about the USA's willingness to support the game, although in five years the nation would host what is still the most-attended World Cup in the tournament's history, re-launch a professional football league, and qualify for every World Cup finals since 1990 (England, ahem, 1994, ahem, cough cough). Yet at the time, with no interwebs to promote professional teams from Europe and South America, and more importantly no EA Sports FIFA video game to hype individual players, there was minimal interest in club football in the USA.

25 years is a long time to hold a grudge against an entire nation, however.

I've been very outspoken in my criticism of the decision makers at Arsenal (and by that I mean one person) and the club's unwillingness to come to the USA during the pre-season in the last 10 years, a time which has seen Spuds and Villa and Everton (hardly "big clubs") join the ranks of MUFC, Chelsea, Liverpool, and MCFC in touring the States.  Arsenal are a decade or more behind other clubs in England, Italy, Spain, and even Portugal in building the "brand" in the USA.

The growth of the Arsenal fan support in this country has been entirely organic, with attempts by the club to reach out to the millions of fans here seeming to come only grudgingly after much noise being made on this side of the Atlantic. That's a separate topic, but it seems that Arsenal took a nation of 330 million for granted until someone finally (to use Graham's term) "woke up" and noticed it.  Web stats show that the USA generates the second-most Arsenal-related web traffic after the United Kingdom. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Arsenal supporters routinely turn up in greater numbers at their local pubs and bars in the USA during match viewings. (This was certainly the case for our group in New Orleans, where the pub would open at 6:30 in the morning to cater to 30 or more bleary-eyed Gooners.)

Arsene Wenger notoriously loathed making pre-season tours, but was open to disrupting his Austrian camp preparations for far-flung trips to the workers paradise of Southeast Asia and other locales that seemed far more laborious to reach than the USA. A tour of Vietnam is nice, where the average annual income is less than $300 US, but isn't it a bit much to expect those folks to buy an AUTHENTIC (ahem) Arsenal kit that costs more than half that?

I know that I'm somewhat of an anomaly among the USA Gooners in that I've been following the club longer than Wenger has been the manager. I actually asked off work back in 2000 to go watch the Uefa Cup final (back then Cup finals could be played during the middle of the week with no thought to a USA television audience) and was one of 3 Yanks in an Atlanta soccer bar filled with ex-pats from both England and Turkey.  My allegiance to Arsenal is now stronger than that for any other sport team that I've grown up following and when I "married" my support to the club I agreed to do so for better or for worse.

Wenger's infamous stubborn nature, which is now cartoonish in its ability to be parodied, was part of the "worse" in our marriage.  Everyone knows that he essentially IS the decision maker at the club, that the board and Executive have deferred to him on every major move that has been made since Dein's departure. So one must think he had a hand in the club's failure to visit the USA even once while others made a concerted effort to grow their support and raise their profiles here.

The odd thing about Wenger's remarks the other day is that the translation of it seems to say, "We had no intention of coming to the USA until the support was big enough," rather than an intention to come here and proactively help grow that support. Every summer there would be sold-out matches in much bigger stadiums than Red Bulls across the USA featuring clubs such as AC Milan, Benfica, Barca, etc. along with Arsenal's English rivals. Chelsea?  Really?  A club that spent a considerable amount of time in the lower leagues before the arrival of Ken Bates?

It's so bizarre to think that Arsenal, at the moment that they were one of the two biggest clubs in England with some of the most famous World Cup-winning players on the planet in their team, didn't want to capitalise on that brand and equity to tour the USA. Or that when complaints about constraints on spending were the norm, nobody thought to raise a few million pounds on a visit to the States.  Or that if the option of doing so were mooted (and I'll assure you that someone over here more than likely reached out to Arsenal more than once during this time), that it was rejected out of hand.

(Side note--anyone who thinks that touring North America automatically interferes with pre-season preparation and will prevent winning a championship may want to look at the summer travel schedules of recent title-winning sides.)

As an example, when MUFC announced their summer tour of the USA back during the winter months, the accompanying article on ESPN noted that "Manchester United haven't toured the USA since 2011."  Wow! THAT LONG?  Two entire summers passed without a visit here?

I'm pleased that someone somewhere at Arsenal has forced this visit to the States on Arsene Wenger, and that the growth of support here was finally deemed worthy of it. It's a pity that it must be a one-off in a small stadium, considering the pent-up demand that so many of us here have, not ever having had the opportunity to see the club play live. I hope it's something to build upon. The integration of the Premier League into the culture in the USA has been underway for almost 15 years, and this country will represent a tremendous growth market for years to come.

After 25 years, it's nice to say "Welcome back, Arsenal. Now don't wait another quarter century to come again, please."

What's it all about, Alexi(s)?

After numerous discussions with fellow Gooners that started back in May, we came to the conclusion that of the available "big name" players (big name? world class? famous? in demand?), the one we'd like to see Arsenal acquire was Alexis Sanchez.

Got that? It wasn't even that we were saying who we'd expect to see come to Arsenal (Loic Remy), it was fantasy football.  Players from various leagues across Europe were mooted, and of all those, the one that we agreed upon was

ARSENAL'S NEW NUMBER 17, ALEXIS SANCHEZ.

I saw him play for Barcelona, and I wanted him to come to the Arsenal. Then that happened.

Oh, there were some other things that happened. The McPoyles (aka Liverpool Football Club) demanded that Sanchez come their way in a make weight deal as return for them losing their best player (and despite his perpetual biting, diving, and tendency to racially abuse black players, let's not deceive ourselves, Suarez was far and away their best player). They also got Rickie Lambert. That's a funny story.

Sanchez said, "Eh, hang on a minute! I don't really want to play for Liverpool. I don't like them, or their manager. I'D MUCH RATHER PLAY FOR THE ARSENAL."

Barcelona said, "Well, there's not much we can do about that. If you can't agree terms with Liverpool, we can't sell you to them." Then Juventus came along and said, "While we're signing Patrice Evra, who most people agree is utter shit, we'd like a bit of that Sanchez business," to which Sanchez and his agent replied, "Yeah? No thanks, really."

My opinion? This is the greatest signing for Arsenal since Dennis Bergkamp. That's almost 20 years that have passed since the other great signing in the club's history. Bergkamp was a superstar.

Yes, in that time, Arsenal signed Sol Campbell and Andrei Arshavin. Campbell was a free transfer, and Arshavin was...he was expensive, but probably not worth the price.

Last season Arsenal took advantage of the availability of Mesut Ozil after Real Madrid needed a bit of cash for the Bale deal. It was a great signing in terms of quality but not the same as this Sanchez deal. The reason being that, as great a player as he is, and I think he's magnificent, he wasn't a player that Arsenal particularly needed. It's great to have a brilliant talent, but Arsenal have a strong midfield in the attacking areas, and Mesut seemed a bit more of the same.

19 years have passed since Arsenal signed Bergkamp from Inter.

You may not remember it, but Bergkamp was not necessarily a brilliant star when Arsenal bought him, but he certainly was not a "typical" signing in the post-Graham, pre-Wenger era. Or hell, it was nothing like any signing Arsenal were making. Limpar? I hate to say it, because old Anders was such a great Gunner, but he was no Bergkamp.

Dennis was a genius, although at that moment he was a bit out of favour in Italy. Some people are mistaken that the story is "Arsene Wenger signed Bergkamp from Ajax." That would be so perfect, but it wasn't the truth. Bruce Rioch, Inter Milan, 1995, etc.

So, then, is Sanchez the biggest signing in Wenger's tenure at Arsenal?  Crikey, he signed some big names at Monaco. Actually, bigger names than he ever signed at Arsenal. I mean, you sign Klinzi and Hoddle, you're making a statement of intent. Fuck those Spud twats. But you understand what I mean.

Given the stakes, taking a "world class" forward like Sanchez from Barcelona, and keeping him from replacing Suarez at Liverpool, is an incredible signing. It fills a need with a dynamic, in-demand player. "Who are you, and what have you done with Arsene Wenger?"  Fills a need? Dynamic player? You mean you don't want to go through an entire campaign with only Olivier Giroud leading the line?

It's wages, not transfer fees, that drive the movement of players.  That's another reason I believe this is the biggest signing ever for Wenger, because I'm confident that Sanchez and his Mr. 20% didn't sign on to be a member of a new socialist order, or an old socialist order for that matter.  If Wenger is willing to blow up the wage structure even more, something is either very right or very wrong in Ashburton Grove. 

Ultimately, Arsenal can't compete with "the big clubs" on wages. If Sami Khedira wants £250k/week, it's unlikely that his destination is North London, despite his desire to drop round Mesut's flat and play the Xbox. Those are Chelsea/Man City/PSG/Monaco numbers. (Author's note: I would be more than happy to be proved wrong by any forthcoming developments.)

Another aspect of the Sanchez signing is that, as of now, no players have been moved along to offset the cost of his acquisition. This has been a hallmark of the Wenger era, that selling almost always preceded buying, or at least was being arranged. It makes one wonder, is he "front-loading" the squad with the cash on hand from new sponsorship deals, just as the club did when the move to the Grove first happened? Buy now when times are flush, go prudent again if the situation worsens?

It seems that the Sanchez signing has created more questions than it answers, at least from an existentialist point of view.  Until more signings arrive to fill the holes left by recent departures, we may not know. Strange delays in the introduction of the supposed new right back Debuchy, another fantasy football midfielder on order "from somewhere" but his identity remains a mystery are what we have. Oh, and the best striker available this summer. We have that, too.

No way that just happened...

 

In cinematic history, there have been few scenes quite like the one where a comatose deer awakens in the back of Richard's car in "Tommy Boy." 

In metaphorical terms, this is what Germany did to Brasil.

The scene is going in what one would think is a predictable direction, with no hint that the deer is about to wake up and destroy a vintage auto.  It takes a matter of seconds, and when it's over, all Richard can do is stare in shock and say "No way that just happened." 

Oh but it did, Richard. It did. 

I've seen a lot of football in my life. I've seen Arsenal take it up the proverbial hole to the tune of 8-2 at Old Trafford. I don't think in all that time I've ever seen anything quite like that I saw today.

What can you say after the host nation receives an anal pounding like the one that Brasil took today?  You don't offer perspective. You don't recount what happened. What's the point?

The deer woke up and destroyed the car. I suppose that Germany awoke as well. Or something.

Could Brasil be that bad? Awful? Horrendous? Wretched?  Pathetic? Useless? 

The story must be about Brasil, not about Germany. The shower that was Brasil's defence had nothing at all to do with poor Neymar. I don't even know how you explain what happened.  Barry Glendenning didn't know how to explain it. Baz's Guardian minute-by-minute recounting of that thing that happened.

Remember, this was a World Cup semifinal match, played by Brasil, who hadn't lost on home soil since 1975. 1975! Do you even understand how long that has been?  This was supposed to be the tournament that coronated Brasil and justified the somewhat troubling expense of staging this event there. This was supposed to be a reward.  

Instead, it was the most amazing, horrible, unthinkable bottom-spearing of a football contest that one could ever see. Arsenal's capitulation at Stamford Bridge on Wenger's 1000th match wasn't nearly this stunning. It was shite, but it wasn't this stunning. This was...

No way that just happened.

I'm nobody. Who are you?

Summer football, had me a blast. England were great--whoops! That's in the past!

Before the tournament, I picked the Argies to beat Brasil in the Maracana. After yesterday, I have to say that the Peronistas now look like the team most likely. The only blight on their possibilities is the injury to di Maria, one of my favourite players on the planet and other than Messi one of the engines of a side that are solid if unspectacular. They seem organised, disciplined, and talented enough to overcome whatever is set before them.

You feel watching the Argies that they're a bit of Italy light ca. 2006.  They defend with a purpose and players like Mascherano go out to interfere with the opposing attack and have the ability to accomplish that. They're so good that the shower that is Demichelis is completely disguised as a competent defender.

As much as I don't believe that a completely corrupt body such as FIFA would "allow" Brasil to lose this Cup, I think a Germany v. Argentina final ought to be on order. Imagine how conflicted former Nazis would feel! (Are there any left?  I hope not, but I won't let that stand in the way of a good nationalistic slur.)

This is how I feel about Holland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M


As for this blog, and the Arsenal, and all that, I just wanted to give a salute (I give salutes, not shoutouts, because I'm too old to give shoutouts) to the ITK bloggers during this transfer summer. Now, I'm not talking about "self-styled" ITK bloggers. No, I'm talking about the REAL ITK bloggers; those fellows who have been enlisted by the club to distribute the official line about goings on within the marble halls. Wink! You know who you are!

These people are the ones who all trotted out simultaneous columns and posts last year after the FA Cup semifinal that Podolski "couldn't play" because he's a lazy passenger who doesn't put in a real shift and only strikers who defend (Please. I don't understand it either.) can start at Arsenal. Then he scored 4 goals in the next two matches and they all had to backtrack and say, "Er, hmm, well, he did it against shit teams" as though scoring against ANYBODY is somehow not valuable (see "Giroud, Olivier: 27 league goals over the course of two seasons").

I knew that some of these people had close ties to the club and I don't slate them for that. If Ivan called me up and said he'd fly me to London and give me a tour of the training facilities, I'd probably be a complete whore for their drips and drabs of spin myself. That's no judgment, or judgement, against them.

Rather, I simply point out that where Arsenal are concerned, I'm nobody. I'm grateful that Georgina Turner reads my posts, but beyond that I'm literally less than a blip on the Arsenal radar. So nothing I write has been sanctioned or influenced by the club. Therefore I can say "I wish Arsene weren't managing Arsenal anymore" and you can be sure that it wasn't a story planted by the publicity staff.

So what do the hints from the ITK bloggers tell us? Since we know that they're essentially mouthpieces for the club, we can predict that Debuchy is definitely coming to Ashburton Grove, and that Sanchez is most likely not. When one of these insiders tells us "sounds like Higuain rumours" or "don't get your hopes up," it's coming from the club, not their intuition. Because that would be some more intuition.

One of them is the most widely read Arsenal blogger and he's never wrong. The other is "Mr. Rational Statistical Analysis Man" and he's never wrong, either. And one thing you notice about each of them is that they don't ever openly impugn Arsene Wenger. I'm sorry that I do that, because it means no matter the quality of my musings, I'll never be an ITK insider.

So there you have it. Expect Debuchy and some injured teenagers available on Bosman frees to show up this season. Don't believe me?  No problem. Accept the word of those who are truly "in the know."

NOT the most important football match in USMNT history

Quick thoughts before what idiots are calling "the most important match in US soccer history:"

1) Before this tournament, expectations were VERY low that the USA would advance out of this group. Why is it suddenly an imperative that they do so?  This is senseless. The entire mission of this World Cup finals experience for Klinzi was to put together a team with quite a few youngsters who would then be ready for Russia in four years. No Donovan, no Eddie Johnson--this was essentially the "developmental" World Cup for the Yanks.

2) Klinzi is going nowhere. He is on a long-term mission, so his job is NOT on the line.  I am well and truly sick of Eric Wynalda and his senseless pronouncements, and what he said yesterday about Klinzi being fired after today if the USA does not advance proves just how ridiculous he has become--as if the idiocy he spewed during the FA Cup final wasn't convincing enough.  The point is that there is no pressure on the manager to take this team beyond the group stages, so very little hangs in the balance.

3) The fanciful notion by the non-footballing world in the USA that losing today will somehow kill off the growth of the sport here proves once again that football writing should be left to people who know about football. They (these people raised on the tedium of baseball and gridiron) are once again marveling at the packed sports bars and plazas and parks where tens of thousands of football supporters are gathering to watch USA matches, conveniently forgetting the scenes of madness 4 years ago when Donovan scored the last-second winner versus Algeria. All the same tired stories feigning shock at the crowds following the matches have been trotted out again, seemingly with a simple "find and replace" done to change "South Africa" to "Brazil."  This narrative is BORING, OLD, and NEEDS TO BE RETIRED. The establishment has to simply accept the fact that the sport is now popular here. It is the second-most popular sport in the USA among people under the age of 35. Can we start writing something new about football support in the States?

4) I saved this one for last on purpose. From strictly a footballing perspective, the most important match in USA history was the round of 16 match versus arch-rival Mexico in 2002. It's not up for debate. This was the match that made the rest of the world finally take notice of the burgeoning football culture in the States. There has never been a bigger, more pressure-packed match than USA against its most bitter enemy for a chance to advance to the quarterfinals. It proved that the USA could win a big match on a big stage, and it validated a youth programme that had produced Donovan, Beasley, Mathis, Wolff--all of whom contributed to the team's success that tournament. How could anyone with even a passing interest in the sport and a connection to the interwebs not know how big that match was in the growth of the game in the USA?  I'll go on to say that in the 1990-present period of the USA matches, today's match is not even in the top 10 in terms of importance. Ending Spain's unbeaten streak, drawing with England in 2010, beating Mexico to win the Gold Cup, winning at the Azteca (finally), being cheated by Germany and a Uefa official out of a trip to the semifinals in 2002, simply qualifying for Italia '90--how can these idiots elevate a "Group of Death" match where the team has already miraculously taken 4 points above all of those? 

So there you have it. Wretched sports "journalists" in the USA, you should just admit that you don't know anything about the game of football and stop trying to frame it in your Cold War perspective that doesn't work anymore.  The outcome of today's match doesn't matter at all in the overall growth of the sport. I'm assuming you haven't bothered to see the crowded stadiums in Seattle or Portland or the sold out matches any time a big European club tours the States, so perhaps you just write another boring column about Lebron James or the New York Yankees. Your career, like your newspaper, will soon be a thing of the past.

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.

By My Troth!

When I first decided to follow the Arsenal Football Club, it was September 1996 and they were 8th in the table. A friend of mine from Atlanta, upon breaking up with his long-time girlfriend and being a member of the leisure class, had spent the spring in London shagging a Pakistani girl and going to West Ham matches whilst eating some delicious curry and listening to dub and reggae. I envied him most for the West Ham matches.

It's very difficult to recall what the planet was like in 1996. The interwebs had barely become a place where people sought information at that time, and really that's a demarcation line for me.  I was a research associate for a consulting firm and was tasked with figuring out just what this thing was where you could fire up a computer and read things from other parts of the world.

Atlanta and the Olympics--my friend and I had gone to Orlando (his home town) to watch 2 matches from the Olympic football tournament. France vs. Spain and Japan vs. Nigeria. Crikey, I saw some great players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_at_the_1996_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_team_squads if you want to see who was there. Raul, of course, and a few players from France you might have heard of who in two years time would go on to win the World Cup, plus Nakata from Japan and a bloke named Kanu from Nigeria. The official record says that Kanu was 19--"You're having a larf!"

I told my friend as he regaled me with stories of his time going to matches in London that I needed to find a club to support. The Atlanta newspaper published the Premier League table once per week and it was from there that I "chose" the Arsenal. I said "That's a cool name," found out they were in London, and that, as they say, was that.

This was so far in the past that phrases such as "trophy drought," "war chest," "dry powder," or even "Le Professeur" had yet to be associated with the Arsenal. I really liked Dutch football at the time and the eventual combination of Dennis Bergkamp and (my favourite player at the time) Marc Overmars made me love the team (love, as opposed to like). I followed the the French national side intensely at the 1998 World Cup finals and when they returned as World Champions, I was sure that Arsenal would follow on with more greatness, only to see United win the treble (well, I didn't actually see it as televising club football hadn't made inroads into the USA yet).

I've said many times that the first live Arsenal match I ever saw on television was the 2000 Uefa Cup final versus Galatasaray--failure! Yes, that conditioned me to be an Arsenal supporter. "Tough break for your boys," my West Ham-loving friend remarked. He didn't mean it, but that's enough of that.

The next season matches began to be broadcast live on Fox Soccer Channel. The FA Cup semifinal vs. Spuds is burned into my memory. David Rocastle had just passed on, Hod the Sod was in charge of that lot, Graham had just been sacked--that match had subplots on top of subplots and included a come-from-behind victory fueled by goals from PV4 and Dreamy Bob. That's my first FA Cup memory. It's not very old for a man of my advanced years, but for a Yank with no access to the coverage that's available today, I think it makes me auncient.

Of course Arsenal would go on to lose to the McPoyles (trust me, it's an obscure yet appropriate reference) in a stolen final in Cardiff, where I christened one of their players "Stephanie Handjob." More heartbreak. Finishing second to United in the league again was nothing compared to the pain of that final, a referee who couldn't see things that appeared so obvious. It was that day that I started hating Liverpool. Most of my Yank friends who follow the Arsenal didn't understand why Liverpool are the club I despise above all others. Well, it started that day in 2001. It only becomes more intense after every conversation I have with Scousers who feel the need to remind me that their club invented the game. I'll leave discussions of Herbert Chapman for another time.

In the early 2000s, it seemed that playing in the FA Cup final was an Arsenal birthright. In 2002 I was back in Blighty for the "It's only Ray Parlour" final (but Freddie's goal in that match is also one of my favourite Arsenal goals of all time). I watched the agonising victory over Southampton and the penalty shootout victory over MUFC in seasons where Arsenal didn't win the league and lifting the grand old trophy meant the season wasn't a total loss.

But much like everything else regarding Arsenal in the last 10 years, winning the FA Cup seemed to stop mattering to the manager and the club. The League Cup loss to Birmingham City hurt but I've never cared much for the Milk Cup and was able to take that in stride. I'm one of those romantic old fools that still feels that winning the FA Cup means something, because winning it is tied so deeply to my first Arsenal memories. It stands for vanquishing old foes, allowing your players to march up the steps and your captain to lift a trophy, singing songs about Wemberly (as opposed to Cardiff, which was never very romantic at all) and yellow ribbons--for me, recalling goals by Overmars and Anelka that are adopted memories but I've seen them so often that it feels as though I was there. Remembering Tony Adams demanding that Vieira help lift the Cup in 2002. Remembering Vieira's last kick of the ball for the Arsenal. Tell us, Freddie, what's it like to win the FA Cup?

I'm charmed to see my Yank friends "up for the Cup." It's a reminder of another era, a bit less cynical, a bit old fashioned, really. So let's have a lovely day out at Wembley. COME ON YOU GUNNERS!

For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnPaOi6F4wc A bit of "Hot Stuff" 1998
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP_8O05dSgc A Day in the Sun 2002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTI8E-tBNu0  A Penalty Shootout 2005

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.

11 from 33 = Failure

The former American basketball coach Bobby Knight used to stress that he coached his players to make the fewest mistakes as possible in a game. His theory was that even if your shot isn't falling or you're facing a team with more talent, making fewer mistakes than your opponent would keep you in the contest. I've heard many theories on coaching from hundreds of coaches and managers and one theme that kept popping up was that you can't coach from a negative perspective. Knight didn't believe this.

By a "negative perspective" I mean, it's more difficult to teach a player not to do something, to avoid an action, than it is to teach him to actively do a thing. A simple example is that it's easier to say to a player "Run fast!" than it is to say "Don't run slowly!" Putting a negative thought in a player's head makes him less decisive, forces him to start considering things instead of being instinctive, or so the theory goes.

Where Bobby Knight is concerned, let's put it in its most basic terms: He would lose his mind when a player made a mistake.  That's not an exaggeration, either. Nothing, not even incompetent officiating, grated on him like seeing a misplaced pass, a missed assignment, a forced play, a silly foul, or anything that can be classified as a "mental mistake." As such, he tended to recruit players who were perhaps less physically talented than others but had a greater mental acumen for the game, and his teams tended to play in a fundamentally sound style, no matter the changes in the team sheet over the decades. (Knight's lunacy and lack of self control are another subject for another writer.)

There were of course other aspects to Knight's teams but it always came back to avoiding the mistakes that kill momentum or give your opponent easy scoring opportunities. That was the foundation--everything else rested on it. Knight had much success in his career getting good performances out of teams that were less talented than those they defeated.

I bring this up because of what I saw in the latest Arsenal away defeat to a "top" club. Well, what I watched of the match, anyway, as I got to the point where I simply had to switch it off. Abject performances in big matches have that effect on me.

The mistakes that Arsenal made, both of omission and commission, undid them. This is aside from an overall tentativeness in attack that I'll leave for either another post or for someone else to describe. What I find galling about the losses that Arsenal have suffered this year where they've conceded 3 or more goals is that they've shown none of the organisation and "pragmatism" that saved them during last season's run in.

I was so disgusted after the opening home loss to Villa that I turned to my group of Gooners in our New Orleans pub and said "If this is the best we can do then Wenger needs to be fired." What made me furious was the way that Arsenal conceded in that match. There it was--the ridiculously high defensive line again. Leaving essentially one CB to try to defend 3 attackers running at full speed straight at Szcz. The same old mistakes that we thought had been eliminated since February of 2013 were there again, the exact same ones, Groundhog Day and all that.

That, and not the loss in and of itself, is why I was furious with Wenger.  That August fury has faded into a sad realisation that I was right, that Wenger cannot set out the team to play with the requisite toughness and help them minimise the mistakes that have cost them a league title this season.

Mistakes cost Arsenal first place in their CL group. A simple, pragmatic, even Teutonic game plan against Napoli would have settled it, we all thought going in that it was a fait acompli that we would win and avoid one of the big teams in the knockout phase. Instead, silly mistakes settled that and the rest, once again, is history.

The loss at City was one I could walk away from and say that, while it was hardly a glorious battle, it easily could have finished 4-4 and that would have been a fair result given the way both teams played. Of course that can't be said for the away defeats to Liverpool and Chelsea. Again, it wasn't about being outclassed, but rather it was down to silly mistakes and that insane high defensive line. (Pardon me for going all Stewie Robson on you by repeating that.)

So that brings us to "the biggest match of the season Mark VI" or whichever one it was away at Goodison. The team started out a bit more compact and the fullbacks didn't bomb forward like the bleeding Light Brigade, but again the mistakes crept in and led to the first 2 goals. I haven't seen the third and don't care to, but the first two were down to incredibly poor marking and a lack of composure around our own 18 yard box.

Mistakes, the same mistakes, over and over, season after season, simple, correctable mistakes are our undoing. League Cup against Birmingham City?  A mistake cost us a trophy. Mistakes, errors, gaffs, comical cock-ups, whatever you want to call them, they are the recurring theme in a decade of failure. Enough is enough, really.

I used to find it easy to blame the mistakes on the players--Gibbs falling over versus MUFC, Clichy continually doing something stupid, Alex Song leaving an huge gap at the back as he galloped forward like a riderless horse--but after so many years of seeing them, I can't do that anymore. Last season I thought Wenger had rid himself of all of his bad habits (tactical intransigence, misplaced loyalty to failing players) when he took the team to Bayern and benched Szcz and TV5. It seemed as though this was a new Arsenal, a new old Arsenal, a new old George Graham at his peak Arsenal. I wrote that Wenger had finally merged his need for Gallic flair with Teutonic pragmatism. In other words, "Just win, cheri."

This run in has undone all of that good will. There is none left.  This post simply addresses in-game errors and doesn't even begin to treat on the transfer window miscalculations. Arsenal are a tactical mess right now. What is the point of a side that pleads inequality in spending but is set out to attempt to overwhelm supposedly much more talented opponents? Why not continue to pile up results with pragmatic tactics that keep the flaws in the side hidden and actually minimise the potential for mistakes?

And that's it, isn't it?  You have to hide the flaws in your team and find a way to play to whatever strengths you have. Mertesacker has no pace but is masterful at reading the game. Why have him knocking it about in the other team's half?  Sagna is tops at winning headers but is rather crap at crossing. Is it sensible to have him stationed in the other side's penalty area when they've been sent out to hit you on the counter?  These are schoolboy mistakes, and quite frankly they're unacceptable after so many years.

Arsenal have taken 11 points from the last 11 league matches. 11 from 33. Mistakes piled on top of mistakes have destroyed what was a very pleasing season for the club and forced Wenger's supporters (I had counted myself among them) to be rather harsh in our assessments. These in-game errors are avoidable and a manager with Wenger's experience ought to have cut them out after the opening match of the season, but here we are and there they are, and nothing seems to have changed.

Last weekend I had to shamefully say to my friends that "right now, Pulisball > Wengerball." What a vulgar and disheartening thought.