Arsenal have, over the years, had some fantastic partnerships: Smith and Marwood, Adams and Bould, Bergkamp and Ljungberg, Pires and Henry, even Campbell and Toure.
Now, in the spring of 2009 / 2010, another might - just might - be emerging. As 2002 is remembered for Bergkamp - Ljungberg, could 2010 be remembered for Bendtner - Eboue?
At first, of course, it seems unlikely. Eboue is a right-back who can’t defend. Bendtner, meanwhile, has the touch of a blacksmith.
In August, neither was near the first team. If Arsene Wenger has an archetypal player, it isn’t Eboue, and it certainly isn’t Bendtner, the northern European number nine.
Yet their difference is their strength: both, in business terms, have Unique Selling Points. That, in Arsenal’s identikit squad, makes them valuable. They give variety to Arsenal’s one-dimensional attack.
A team of Arshavins, and Nasris, and Rosickys, is, on its day, fantastic. Ten-yard passes slip through ten-inch gaps; the team moves like five-thousand swifts in formation.
Problem is, that day doesn’t often happen. When teams defend deep, and narrow, and well, Arsenal suffocate. They need room, and without it, they’re dead. Chelsea and Manchester United have worked that out. Perhaps Stoke will, as well.
That’s why Arsenal need players that aren’t like Arshavin, Nasri, and Rosicky. They need players who want to win games, not Goal of the Month.
Eboue, unlike Arsenal’s midfielders, doesn’t want the ball every five seconds. He’s happy enough - and quick enough - to ignore the ball, run past opponents, and stretch them. Defenders are happy when everything’s in front of them. When they’re made to turn, they panic.
Bendtner, unlike Arsenal’s other attackers, doesn’t want the ball forty yards from goal. His touch isn’t good enough. He’d be happy to touch the ball three times a game, if it meant three goals.
Also - for the first time since John Hartson - he’s an Arsenal striker who attacks the ball at height. Wenger, since Francis Jeffers, has ditched the Fox in the Box tag. But that's what Bendtner is.
So Bendtner and Eboue are different. But that, alone, doesn’t make them a partnership. What makes them exciting - and why Wenger has dropped Bacary Sagna - is this: their strengths compliment each other. Bendtner and Eboue, Arsenal’s two odd-shaped pieces, fit together nicely.
Eboue likes to hit the byline, and cross. He likes to skim balls across the six-yard box, or smack balls to the far post. And that’s where Bedntner likes to play. He’s far happier at the back post, waiting for an Eboue cross, than on a defender’s shoulder, waiting for a Nasri one-two.
Arshavin, Nasri, and Rosicky score goals one way. Bendtner and Eboue score them another. Between them, they could score winners in ten of the next 11 games. And that - with Chelsea on the front pages, and Manchester United on the back foot - might be enough.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Porto was Fabianski's fault, not Wenger's
The whole world, according to Uefa, watches the Champions League. If so, the whole world was laughing at Arsenal last night. Lukasz Fabianksi's blushes won't fade for some time, and nor should they.
Has there ever been a worse performance in Arsenal's Champions League history? Kanu away at Juventus in 2002, perhaps? The whole team in the 4-1 defeat at Spartak Moscow in 2000?
Possibly. But last night, Fabianksi went beyond bad, sunk past shocking, and ended up somewhere around barely believable.
Why? Because, when goalkeepers have played poorly before, they've failed to react. They've dived over shots, for example, or missed a cross. In other words, some danger - however slight - already existed.
Fabianksi, on the other hand, was pro-active for Porto. He single-handedly created their two goals. Twice, when there was no danger, he gave them something. That takes some doing.
You know when you dream about work, and everything that can go wrong, does go wrong? Fabianski had that dream, for real, in front of 45,000 people last night.
And that's why last night - despite what the phone-ins and message boards say - wasn't Arsene Wenger's fault. How could it be?
When Manuel Almunia dropped the cross against Liverpool at Anfield, that was, ultimately, Wenger's fault. It was a mistake you could have expected; a mistake that poor goalkeepers - which Almunia is - are likely to make. Therefore, Wenger should have seen it coming. He should, in the summer, have bought a better goalkeeper.
Last night, though, Fabianski's mistakes slid off the scale. Yes, we expected mistakes. But not those mistakes. They were, genuinely, shocking.
What if Wenger had picked - say - Luke Freeman, and he'd missed two open goals. Would they have been the manager's fault? Of course not - because scoring open goals is something you learn at Primary School. It is, like kicking back-passes into the stand, a basic skill.
Somewhere, there's a limit to Wenger's responsibility. When players sink that low, he can't take the blame. Last night, Fabianski took incompetence to new, unseen levels.
That doesn't mean Wenger is right to have Fabianksi as second-choice. Far from it. The Pole, as he's proved before, isn't good enough, and certainly isn't old enough. But even if the 16-year-old from Rochdale reserves was Arsenal's second choice, he wouldn't have made those mistakes.
Put it this way: if you made lunch using cheap meat from Lidl, it would be your fault if it tasted bad. But, if the cheap meat made you ill, it wouldn't be your fault. There's a limit to responsbility.
What Wenger should do, but won't, is bring back Bob Wilson, who left the club in 2003. Not to play in goal - though, even aged 68, he couldn't do any worse - but to choose a goalkeeper. Unlike Wenger, he knows one when he sees one.
Has there ever been a worse performance in Arsenal's Champions League history? Kanu away at Juventus in 2002, perhaps? The whole team in the 4-1 defeat at Spartak Moscow in 2000?
Possibly. But last night, Fabianksi went beyond bad, sunk past shocking, and ended up somewhere around barely believable.
Why? Because, when goalkeepers have played poorly before, they've failed to react. They've dived over shots, for example, or missed a cross. In other words, some danger - however slight - already existed.
Fabianksi, on the other hand, was pro-active for Porto. He single-handedly created their two goals. Twice, when there was no danger, he gave them something. That takes some doing.
You know when you dream about work, and everything that can go wrong, does go wrong? Fabianski had that dream, for real, in front of 45,000 people last night.
And that's why last night - despite what the phone-ins and message boards say - wasn't Arsene Wenger's fault. How could it be?
When Manuel Almunia dropped the cross against Liverpool at Anfield, that was, ultimately, Wenger's fault. It was a mistake you could have expected; a mistake that poor goalkeepers - which Almunia is - are likely to make. Therefore, Wenger should have seen it coming. He should, in the summer, have bought a better goalkeeper.
Last night, though, Fabianski's mistakes slid off the scale. Yes, we expected mistakes. But not those mistakes. They were, genuinely, shocking.
What if Wenger had picked - say - Luke Freeman, and he'd missed two open goals. Would they have been the manager's fault? Of course not - because scoring open goals is something you learn at Primary School. It is, like kicking back-passes into the stand, a basic skill.
Somewhere, there's a limit to Wenger's responsibility. When players sink that low, he can't take the blame. Last night, Fabianski took incompetence to new, unseen levels.
That doesn't mean Wenger is right to have Fabianksi as second-choice. Far from it. The Pole, as he's proved before, isn't good enough, and certainly isn't old enough. But even if the 16-year-old from Rochdale reserves was Arsenal's second choice, he wouldn't have made those mistakes.
Put it this way: if you made lunch using cheap meat from Lidl, it would be your fault if it tasted bad. But, if the cheap meat made you ill, it wouldn't be your fault. There's a limit to responsbility.
What Wenger should do, but won't, is bring back Bob Wilson, who left the club in 2003. Not to play in goal - though, even aged 68, he couldn't do any worse - but to choose a goalkeeper. Unlike Wenger, he knows one when he sees one.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Is Sagna Arsenal's most over-rated player?
When Arsene Wenger signed Bacary Sagna in 2007, most fans were surprised. Another right-back?
Arsenal already had Emmanuel Eboue - who, that year, the BBC’s Alan Green called the best right-back in the Premier League - and Justin Hoyte, the perfect deputy. Post-Highbury, £6million signings were rare. Why waste money on a right-back?
And then Sagna played. Arsenal fans were, at first, amazed. He could tackle! He could head! When the other team attacked, he knew where to stand! After years of Eboue and Lauren, another midfield convert, this was a revelation: a right-back with a degree in defending. If Eboue and Hoyte were made of straw, Sagna was made of bricks.
In his first season, he made the PFA Team of the Year. Although right-back is, traditionally, the weakest part of that team - in 2006, it was Pascal Chimbonda, in 2003 and 2001, Stephen Carr - the award was deserved. Arsene, once again, Knew.
Since then, however, Sagna hasn’t progressed. Firstly, his defending is rarely tested. Arsenal’s opponents don’t often attack, and when they do, they're counters or set-pieces. In most games, especially at home, Sagna’s shorts stay clean.
Secondly - and most importantly - Sagna is poor in the opposition’s half. He’s like a jagged rock under the ocean’s surface: when Arsenal’s attacks reach him, they run aground.
Unless Nicklas Bendtner is playing centre-forward - and he rarely is - there’s no point playing crosses from the touchline. Arsenal don’t attack the ball at height. When they tried it against Chelsea, repeatedly, Petr Cech had an afternoon’s catching practice.
Yet Sagna constantly crosses, as if Eduardo, or Andrei Arshavin, will develop the height and heart of Les Ferdinand. Seemingly, Sagna views the side-foot, 30-yard ball as a get-out-of-jail-free card: if I lose possession this way, he thinks, no-one will shout.
But, with Arsenal, crosses have the same effect as ten-yard passes to the opposition. Those wouldn’t be tolerated. Neither should can’t-be-bothered crosses.
Instead of hitting and hoping, Sagna should be creative. He learnt defence in Ligue 1: now he must learn attack in the Premier League. He should make runs into the box, rather than down the touchline. He should play one-twos infield, rather than in cul-de-sacs. In short, he should watch tapes of Robert Pires and Ashley Cole.
In two-and-a-half seasons, Sagna has started 85 Premier League games. In that time, he’s scored one goal - a near-post header at Chelsea - and made eight assists. That’s less than one every ten games. If he’s graduated in defence, he hasn’t mustered a GCSE going forward.
Twenty years ago, attacking was a bonus for full-backs, like batting was a bonus for wicket keepers. (Jack Russell played 54 tests, despite an average of 27; Matt Prior’s average is 42). Times change. At the moment, Sagna seems like an unwelcome throw-back.
For the first time, Sagna has serious competition for his place. We know he defends better than Eboue. Now, please, he must attack better as well.
Arsenal already had Emmanuel Eboue - who, that year, the BBC’s Alan Green called the best right-back in the Premier League - and Justin Hoyte, the perfect deputy. Post-Highbury, £6million signings were rare. Why waste money on a right-back?
And then Sagna played. Arsenal fans were, at first, amazed. He could tackle! He could head! When the other team attacked, he knew where to stand! After years of Eboue and Lauren, another midfield convert, this was a revelation: a right-back with a degree in defending. If Eboue and Hoyte were made of straw, Sagna was made of bricks.
In his first season, he made the PFA Team of the Year. Although right-back is, traditionally, the weakest part of that team - in 2006, it was Pascal Chimbonda, in 2003 and 2001, Stephen Carr - the award was deserved. Arsene, once again, Knew.
Since then, however, Sagna hasn’t progressed. Firstly, his defending is rarely tested. Arsenal’s opponents don’t often attack, and when they do, they're counters or set-pieces. In most games, especially at home, Sagna’s shorts stay clean.
Secondly - and most importantly - Sagna is poor in the opposition’s half. He’s like a jagged rock under the ocean’s surface: when Arsenal’s attacks reach him, they run aground.
Unless Nicklas Bendtner is playing centre-forward - and he rarely is - there’s no point playing crosses from the touchline. Arsenal don’t attack the ball at height. When they tried it against Chelsea, repeatedly, Petr Cech had an afternoon’s catching practice.
Yet Sagna constantly crosses, as if Eduardo, or Andrei Arshavin, will develop the height and heart of Les Ferdinand. Seemingly, Sagna views the side-foot, 30-yard ball as a get-out-of-jail-free card: if I lose possession this way, he thinks, no-one will shout.
But, with Arsenal, crosses have the same effect as ten-yard passes to the opposition. Those wouldn’t be tolerated. Neither should can’t-be-bothered crosses.
Instead of hitting and hoping, Sagna should be creative. He learnt defence in Ligue 1: now he must learn attack in the Premier League. He should make runs into the box, rather than down the touchline. He should play one-twos infield, rather than in cul-de-sacs. In short, he should watch tapes of Robert Pires and Ashley Cole.
In two-and-a-half seasons, Sagna has started 85 Premier League games. In that time, he’s scored one goal - a near-post header at Chelsea - and made eight assists. That’s less than one every ten games. If he’s graduated in defence, he hasn’t mustered a GCSE going forward.
Twenty years ago, attacking was a bonus for full-backs, like batting was a bonus for wicket keepers. (Jack Russell played 54 tests, despite an average of 27; Matt Prior’s average is 42). Times change. At the moment, Sagna seems like an unwelcome throw-back.
For the first time, Sagna has serious competition for his place. We know he defends better than Eboue. Now, please, he must attack better as well.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Now, the most important player wears 52
With 12 games left in this barnstorming, bewildering season, who is Arsenal’s most important player? Clues: he has no pace, a bouncy touch, and wears 52 on his back.
Nicklas Bendtner, of course, isn’t Arsenal’s best player. In fact, he’s probably sixth, seventh, or eighth best. But without him, there’s a huge, unfillable hole where a centre-forward should be.
Remove any Arsenal player, bar Bendtner, and there’s a replacement. Sol Campbell, for example, could step in for Thomas Vermaelen or William Gallas. Lukasz Fabianksi couldn’t do worse than Manuel Almunia.
The full-backs have deputies, as do the stream of identikit, five-foot nothing midfielders, like Samir Nasri, Tomas Rosicky, and Fran Merida. Even Cesc Fabregas, as special as he is, has a Welsh protégé in the wings.
But without Bendtner, Arsene Wenger has two options: a half-paced Croatian with stale limbs, or a Russian midfielder who centre-halves look down on. In short, without Bendtner, Wenger has no options.
Of course, the Dane won’t be first pick in the London Colney five-a-sides. He hasn’t the touch. As Gooners remind him, he doesn’t look like an Arsenal player. But, in 4-5-1, does that matter? In that system, it’s the midfield five who play football.
They’re the ones who pass, move, and make chances. The striker should watch and admire from the 18-yard box, then finish the chances the midfield serve. The fewer touches the centre-forward has, the better the team are playing.
(When Robin van Persie first played up front alone, he chased the ball, playing one-twos on the right wing. He didn’t score in August. When he started goal-hanging, he started scoring.)
But, with van Persie injured, Bendtner is the only centre-forward left. His importance, therefore, is partly Hobson’s Choice: he’ll have to do, because there’s no-one else. Yet there’s another reason he’s vital. He, unlike any other Arsenal forward, can head the ball.
Last night’s game against Liverpool showed how important that is. Again, Arsenal’s one-touch, through-the-middle passing wasn’t working. So, for the first time in eight games, they played a good cross, from a good position, to a good header. It’s called variety, and it’s something Arsenal haven’t had.
In fact, it was Arsenal’s first headed league goal since December 30th, when Portsmouth were on the floor, and, with five minutes left, Alex Song rose above them. Of Arsenal’s 61 league goals this season, only six have come from headers. That’s fewer than Chelsea (ten), West Ham (ten), Aston Villa (9), Manchester United (8), Tottenham (8), and Everton (7).
Arsenal, remarkably, can still win the league. The next seven games prove that: Sunderland, Stoke, Burnley, Hull, West Ham, Birmingham, and Wolves. But they won’t take 19 points if they only score Goals of the Month.
The six-foot-five number 52 offers the much-sought-after Plan B. He should leave the passing to the passers, and use his head. With Marouane Chamakh likely to arrive this summer, he has 12 games to make his career. If he succeeds, he could celebrate with a league winner's medal.
Nicklas Bendtner, of course, isn’t Arsenal’s best player. In fact, he’s probably sixth, seventh, or eighth best. But without him, there’s a huge, unfillable hole where a centre-forward should be.
Remove any Arsenal player, bar Bendtner, and there’s a replacement. Sol Campbell, for example, could step in for Thomas Vermaelen or William Gallas. Lukasz Fabianksi couldn’t do worse than Manuel Almunia.
The full-backs have deputies, as do the stream of identikit, five-foot nothing midfielders, like Samir Nasri, Tomas Rosicky, and Fran Merida. Even Cesc Fabregas, as special as he is, has a Welsh protégé in the wings.
But without Bendtner, Arsene Wenger has two options: a half-paced Croatian with stale limbs, or a Russian midfielder who centre-halves look down on. In short, without Bendtner, Wenger has no options.
Of course, the Dane won’t be first pick in the London Colney five-a-sides. He hasn’t the touch. As Gooners remind him, he doesn’t look like an Arsenal player. But, in 4-5-1, does that matter? In that system, it’s the midfield five who play football.
They’re the ones who pass, move, and make chances. The striker should watch and admire from the 18-yard box, then finish the chances the midfield serve. The fewer touches the centre-forward has, the better the team are playing.
(When Robin van Persie first played up front alone, he chased the ball, playing one-twos on the right wing. He didn’t score in August. When he started goal-hanging, he started scoring.)
But, with van Persie injured, Bendtner is the only centre-forward left. His importance, therefore, is partly Hobson’s Choice: he’ll have to do, because there’s no-one else. Yet there’s another reason he’s vital. He, unlike any other Arsenal forward, can head the ball.
Last night’s game against Liverpool showed how important that is. Again, Arsenal’s one-touch, through-the-middle passing wasn’t working. So, for the first time in eight games, they played a good cross, from a good position, to a good header. It’s called variety, and it’s something Arsenal haven’t had.
In fact, it was Arsenal’s first headed league goal since December 30th, when Portsmouth were on the floor, and, with five minutes left, Alex Song rose above them. Of Arsenal’s 61 league goals this season, only six have come from headers. That’s fewer than Chelsea (ten), West Ham (ten), Aston Villa (9), Manchester United (8), Tottenham (8), and Everton (7).
Arsenal, remarkably, can still win the league. The next seven games prove that: Sunderland, Stoke, Burnley, Hull, West Ham, Birmingham, and Wolves. But they won’t take 19 points if they only score Goals of the Month.
The six-foot-five number 52 offers the much-sought-after Plan B. He should leave the passing to the passers, and use his head. With Marouane Chamakh likely to arrive this summer, he has 12 games to make his career. If he succeeds, he could celebrate with a league winner's medal.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Forget Tyler. Arsenal, again, were awful
With ten minutes to go, when Arsenal’s title challenge was leaking hope like a punctured balloon, Martin Tyler, the Sky Sports commentator, said this: “Alex Ferguson said he hoped Arsenal battered Chelsea. And, in a way, they have.”
True, Arsenal had more possession (56 percent), more attempts (14 to nine), and more corners (eight to six). But, like a Government press release, the figures hide the facts: Arsenal were awful. At Stamford Bridge, they couldn’t batter a sausage.
Of course, we saw it coming. Chelsea - like Manchester United - sat back, patted Arsenal on the head, then killed them with a set-piece and a counter attack. The hacks could have written their match reports at noon. Same old Arsenal, always losing.
This side have been worked out. In big games, they pass short, pass often, then lose. While the aesthetists applaud, the fans weep with frustration. For all Sky Sports’ warm words, did Arsenal ever look like winning?
Arsene Wenger’s side have become a self-fulfilling prophecy; a caricature of themselves. They are paper tigers. Arsenal, like boxing’s mandatory challengers, are indulged, hyped, then swatted away inside three rounds. Chelsea, by contrast, haven’t a mark on them.
Against big teams, Arsenal’s style is flawed. Chelsea had good defenders, organised by a good manager, and they sat deep and narrow. At times, you could have thrown a blanket across their outfield players.
It means that, unless Arsenal’s passing is inch perfect, their attacks are easily intercepted. When there’s no room, they’re squeezed from the game. They don’t go wide, because they don’t have wingers, and, if they did, they don’t have a striker who can head the ball.
As we’ve said, Arsenal are one-dimensional. When it works, that dimension soars like an in-tune symphony. When it doesn’t, it’s like a broken record, making the same mistake over, and over, and over.
That style can’t be changed by a team-talk. For Arsenal’s players, five-yard passing is indoctrinated. But, for a start, shouldn’t they shoot more often?
A 25-yard shot has – say – a ten percent chance of success. A cross from an Arsenal full-back has almost none. Yet on they go, like that broken record, giving Petr Cech catch after catch. He could, quite easily, have left his skullcap at home.
Arsenal didn’t play well, and it’s wrong to think they did. They played like Arsenal: neat, tidy, and toothless. Sol Campbell, sitting on the bench, must yearn for Thierry, and Patrick, and the other Invincibles. We know how he feels.
True, Arsenal had more possession (56 percent), more attempts (14 to nine), and more corners (eight to six). But, like a Government press release, the figures hide the facts: Arsenal were awful. At Stamford Bridge, they couldn’t batter a sausage.
Of course, we saw it coming. Chelsea - like Manchester United - sat back, patted Arsenal on the head, then killed them with a set-piece and a counter attack. The hacks could have written their match reports at noon. Same old Arsenal, always losing.
This side have been worked out. In big games, they pass short, pass often, then lose. While the aesthetists applaud, the fans weep with frustration. For all Sky Sports’ warm words, did Arsenal ever look like winning?
Arsene Wenger’s side have become a self-fulfilling prophecy; a caricature of themselves. They are paper tigers. Arsenal, like boxing’s mandatory challengers, are indulged, hyped, then swatted away inside three rounds. Chelsea, by contrast, haven’t a mark on them.
Against big teams, Arsenal’s style is flawed. Chelsea had good defenders, organised by a good manager, and they sat deep and narrow. At times, you could have thrown a blanket across their outfield players.
It means that, unless Arsenal’s passing is inch perfect, their attacks are easily intercepted. When there’s no room, they’re squeezed from the game. They don’t go wide, because they don’t have wingers, and, if they did, they don’t have a striker who can head the ball.
As we’ve said, Arsenal are one-dimensional. When it works, that dimension soars like an in-tune symphony. When it doesn’t, it’s like a broken record, making the same mistake over, and over, and over.
That style can’t be changed by a team-talk. For Arsenal’s players, five-yard passing is indoctrinated. But, for a start, shouldn’t they shoot more often?
A 25-yard shot has – say – a ten percent chance of success. A cross from an Arsenal full-back has almost none. Yet on they go, like that broken record, giving Petr Cech catch after catch. He could, quite easily, have left his skullcap at home.
Arsenal didn’t play well, and it’s wrong to think they did. They played like Arsenal: neat, tidy, and toothless. Sol Campbell, sitting on the bench, must yearn for Thierry, and Patrick, and the other Invincibles. We know how he feels.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Scoring first on Sunday is crucial
On Sunday, after Manchester United swatted Arsenal off their own pitch, Sir Alex Ferguson said what we’d all seen. Sir Alex told us - after his team showed us - how good teams beat Arsenal.
“Arsenal play a lot of good football, and get to the edge of your box regularly," he said. “But if you can win the ball there - and counter-attack quickly - you'll have chances against them.”
Arsenal, as we wrote yesterday, have been worked out. Like a kid who’s cracked algebra, Manchester United turn up, do what they’ve been told, and solve the problem. They sit deep, nick the ball, and burst. Easy. Now, Arsene Wenger must make the problem harder.
The first way - and the hardest - is to score first. Arsenal’s style means, against good teams, they’re poor at coming from behind.
In the past three seasons, they’ve conceded first to Manchester United five times. Only once did they avoid defeat: the 2-2 draw in November 2007 (0% win rate after going behind). Manchester United, on the other hand, have fallen behind three times, and won twice (67%).
Similarly, in the past three seasons against Chelsea, Arsenal have conceded first three times, and won once (33%). Chelsea - like Manchester United - have gone behind three times, and won twice (67%).
If Arsenal had scored first on Sunday, the full-backs could have played as full-backs, instead of wingers; the centre-backs could have played as centre-backs, instead of midfielders; and the midfielders could have played as midfielders, instead of support strikers.
As it was - after Manchester United scored - the whole team was sucked forward, out of position, desperate to equalise. It meant that, once Sir Alex’s team won the ball and played it forwards, they were playing against two, perhaps three defenders.
It was too easy. Arsenal’s defence, goalkeeper included, is bad enough with everyone in position.
Of course, scoring first isn’t a tactic, any more than “win the game” is. It’s a given, a presumed aim. But seeing as, statistically, it’s more important for Arsenal to score first, they should show more conviction.
Arsenal are the best attacking team in England, so they think they can score at any time. Against poor teams, like Bolton, they can. Against good teams, like Manchester United and Chelsea, they can’t.
Too often, goal chances in the first half are treated with contempt. Doesn’t matter if we don’t attack this corner, they think. We’ve got 80 minutes to score yet.
How many times, for example, have we seen Arsenal treat chances in the first 15 minutes as trial runs; experiments where something’s allowed to go wrong? After you, Tomas. No, after you Abou. Oh dear, we’ve lost the ball! Still - plenty of time yet!
Consider this: in the Premier League this season, Arsenal have scored one goal in the first 15 minutes. In the last 15, they’ve scored 14. The 2001 - 2005 team, by contrast, used to kill teams before their shorts were dirty.
Arsenal, of course, must do plenty of things to beat Chelsea on Sunday: defend well, and in numbers; attack well, but with restraint; maybe - just maybe - score from a corner.
But, you imagine, the most important thing is to score first. It’s hard to see last season, when Robin van Persie took charge, being repeated.
“Arsenal play a lot of good football, and get to the edge of your box regularly," he said. “But if you can win the ball there - and counter-attack quickly - you'll have chances against them.”
Arsenal, as we wrote yesterday, have been worked out. Like a kid who’s cracked algebra, Manchester United turn up, do what they’ve been told, and solve the problem. They sit deep, nick the ball, and burst. Easy. Now, Arsene Wenger must make the problem harder.
The first way - and the hardest - is to score first. Arsenal’s style means, against good teams, they’re poor at coming from behind.
In the past three seasons, they’ve conceded first to Manchester United five times. Only once did they avoid defeat: the 2-2 draw in November 2007 (0% win rate after going behind). Manchester United, on the other hand, have fallen behind three times, and won twice (67%).
Similarly, in the past three seasons against Chelsea, Arsenal have conceded first three times, and won once (33%). Chelsea - like Manchester United - have gone behind three times, and won twice (67%).
If Arsenal had scored first on Sunday, the full-backs could have played as full-backs, instead of wingers; the centre-backs could have played as centre-backs, instead of midfielders; and the midfielders could have played as midfielders, instead of support strikers.
As it was - after Manchester United scored - the whole team was sucked forward, out of position, desperate to equalise. It meant that, once Sir Alex’s team won the ball and played it forwards, they were playing against two, perhaps three defenders.
It was too easy. Arsenal’s defence, goalkeeper included, is bad enough with everyone in position.
Of course, scoring first isn’t a tactic, any more than “win the game” is. It’s a given, a presumed aim. But seeing as, statistically, it’s more important for Arsenal to score first, they should show more conviction.
Arsenal are the best attacking team in England, so they think they can score at any time. Against poor teams, like Bolton, they can. Against good teams, like Manchester United and Chelsea, they can’t.
Too often, goal chances in the first half are treated with contempt. Doesn’t matter if we don’t attack this corner, they think. We’ve got 80 minutes to score yet.
How many times, for example, have we seen Arsenal treat chances in the first 15 minutes as trial runs; experiments where something’s allowed to go wrong? After you, Tomas. No, after you Abou. Oh dear, we’ve lost the ball! Still - plenty of time yet!
Consider this: in the Premier League this season, Arsenal have scored one goal in the first 15 minutes. In the last 15, they’ve scored 14. The 2001 - 2005 team, by contrast, used to kill teams before their shorts were dirty.
Arsenal, of course, must do plenty of things to beat Chelsea on Sunday: defend well, and in numbers; attack well, but with restraint; maybe - just maybe - score from a corner.
But, you imagine, the most important thing is to score first. It’s hard to see last season, when Robin van Persie took charge, being repeated.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Why Arsenal lost another big game
Arsenal 1, Manchester United 3 can be explained by the following: Wayne Rooney is excellent; Manuel Almunia, Gael Clichy, and Denilson aren't; and Cesc Fabregas had - easily - his worst game of the season.
What that can't explain, however, are these results: Arsenal 1, Chelsea 2; Manchester United 1, Arsenal 0; Arsenal 1, Manchester United 3; Arsenal 1, Chelsea 4; Manchester United 2, Arsenal 1; Arsenal 0, Chelsea 3; Arsenal 1, Manchester United 3.
Those are Arsenal's last seven matches against the best two teams in England. One bad result - even two - can be explained by a great goal, or a bad ref. But, as any scientist will tell you, the same result seven times in a row means that, somewhere, there's a constant.
A third of Arsenal's players aren't good enough, but we knew that. What's also obvious, however, is the team style isn't good enough, either.
As Arsenal fans know, the great sides had at least one great winger: George Armstrong, Anders Limpar, Marc Overmars, Freddie Ljungberg, or Robert Pires. This side has none.
Theo Walcott's touch is too bad, Tomas Rosicky has no bottle - the only game he's ever won for Arsenal was at Liverpool, in the FA Cup - and Samir Nasri is too right-footed to play on the left. The team, therefore, has no width, which makes it easy for good defences.
Arsenal goals come from quick, three-pass moves down the middle. It works against Blackburn, and Bolton, but Manchester United were too good.
When their players sat deep, nine players between the 18-yard line and the centre circle, they removed Arsenal's space. They were quick enough, and clever enough, to intercept the passes. They smothered, then suffocated, Arsenal's attacks.
When that happens, good sides do two things: they go wide, or they go over the top. In short, they make room by stretching the pitch. But Arsenal have no wingers, and if they did, they have no striker who can head. They also, surprisingly, have no pace.
Wenger adores pace; he admires its pureness, its measurability. But Arsenal's attack has none. Once, Nicolas Anelka, Thierry Henry - even Jose Reyes - sped past defenders. Now, Nasri and Eduardo get caught, like their feet are stuck in cement.
By relying on Goals of the Month, Arsenal are as one-dimensional as Sam Allardyce's Bolton, or Dave Bassett's Wimbledon. Until that's solved, they won't consistently beat big teams in big games.
Arsenal can beat Chelsea, and Liverpool. Fagregas won't play that badly again, Arshavin won't miss those chances again, and Wenger - surely - won't pick Almunia again. But, after seven big defeats in a row, something has to change. What Wenger would do for Cristiano Ronaldo, or even a 32-year-old Thierry Henry.
Still, at least he doesn't have the FA Cup to worry about...
What that can't explain, however, are these results: Arsenal 1, Chelsea 2; Manchester United 1, Arsenal 0; Arsenal 1, Manchester United 3; Arsenal 1, Chelsea 4; Manchester United 2, Arsenal 1; Arsenal 0, Chelsea 3; Arsenal 1, Manchester United 3.
Those are Arsenal's last seven matches against the best two teams in England. One bad result - even two - can be explained by a great goal, or a bad ref. But, as any scientist will tell you, the same result seven times in a row means that, somewhere, there's a constant.
A third of Arsenal's players aren't good enough, but we knew that. What's also obvious, however, is the team style isn't good enough, either.
As Arsenal fans know, the great sides had at least one great winger: George Armstrong, Anders Limpar, Marc Overmars, Freddie Ljungberg, or Robert Pires. This side has none.
Theo Walcott's touch is too bad, Tomas Rosicky has no bottle - the only game he's ever won for Arsenal was at Liverpool, in the FA Cup - and Samir Nasri is too right-footed to play on the left. The team, therefore, has no width, which makes it easy for good defences.
Arsenal goals come from quick, three-pass moves down the middle. It works against Blackburn, and Bolton, but Manchester United were too good.
When their players sat deep, nine players between the 18-yard line and the centre circle, they removed Arsenal's space. They were quick enough, and clever enough, to intercept the passes. They smothered, then suffocated, Arsenal's attacks.
When that happens, good sides do two things: they go wide, or they go over the top. In short, they make room by stretching the pitch. But Arsenal have no wingers, and if they did, they have no striker who can head. They also, surprisingly, have no pace.
Wenger adores pace; he admires its pureness, its measurability. But Arsenal's attack has none. Once, Nicolas Anelka, Thierry Henry - even Jose Reyes - sped past defenders. Now, Nasri and Eduardo get caught, like their feet are stuck in cement.
By relying on Goals of the Month, Arsenal are as one-dimensional as Sam Allardyce's Bolton, or Dave Bassett's Wimbledon. Until that's solved, they won't consistently beat big teams in big games.
Arsenal can beat Chelsea, and Liverpool. Fagregas won't play that badly again, Arshavin won't miss those chances again, and Wenger - surely - won't pick Almunia again. But, after seven big defeats in a row, something has to change. What Wenger would do for Cristiano Ronaldo, or even a 32-year-old Thierry Henry.
Still, at least he doesn't have the FA Cup to worry about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
