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...
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Vela needs an English education
If Carlos Vela had a European passport, he’d have scored 20 Premier League goals. Sadly for Arsenal, Vela's passport is Mexican. Instead of 20 goals, he’s got one.
Why does his passport matter? Because, though Arsene Wenger signed Vela in November 2005, aged 16, he didn’t make his debut until August 2008. His passport, and the UK’s migration laws, meant he was banished.
Vela, like a kid starting late at school, is three years behind. He’s trying to catch up, but the Premier League’s not waiting.
While Vela should have been in England, learning English football, he was sent on a tour of Spain: Celta Vigo, Salamanca (eight goals in 31 games), then Osasuna (three in 30). But, while Vela’s left Spain, Spain hasn’t left him.
Like Twenty20 and Test cricket, English football and Spanish football are different. Spanish referees are stricter, meaning attackers have less chance of being kicked, and more time to play. English fans are louder, meaning players fly into tackles, even when their side’s losing.
In short, technique’s not enough in England: players need bravery, and patience. Vela hasn’t either. In three years, perhaps, he might. Until then, he’ll look like someone who scored three in 30 for Osasuna.
Compare Vela to Nicklas Bendtner. The Dane also signed aged 16, and also waited three years for his full league debut. The difference is what happened in between.
While Vela was in Spain, getting free-kicks for falling over, Bendtner played for Arsenal reserves and - more importantly - Birmingham City.
There, Bendtner learnt that, in England, refs don’t give free-kicks - let alone red cards - for elbows. He learnt that forwards are booed for not working back, while defenders are cheered for kicking forwards into hoardings.
His time at Birmingham, getting kicked by yeomen, meant Bendtner made a rolling start to his Arsenal career. Vela remains at the start line, trying to get in gear.
Of course, Vela has talent. Bags of it. He has good touch and good technique; a sharp turn of pace, and a sharper left foot.
He’s scored seven goals for Mexico (in 22 appearances); his chip against Sheffield United, in the League Cup, was voted Arsenal’s 29th best ever goal; and in 2005, he was top scorer in the Under-17 World Cup.
(The latter honour, however, is a mixed blessing. In 2003, Cesc Fabregas was top scorer; in 2001, it was Florent Sinama-Pongolle - last seen in England scoring one goal in ten games for Blackburn).
What Vela lacks is English experience, and that - as his performances prove - is crucial. Why else does Wenger want to send Jack Wilshere to Bolton, or Burnley, or anywhere but FC Twente?
Vela, thankfully, has time. He’s only 20. But, for a warning, he should visit Teesside. There, playing for Middlesbrough, will be another quick, left-footed forward, who never fulfilled his promise.
Like Vela, Jeremie Aliadiere only scored one league goal for Arsenal.
Why does his passport matter? Because, though Arsene Wenger signed Vela in November 2005, aged 16, he didn’t make his debut until August 2008. His passport, and the UK’s migration laws, meant he was banished.
Vela, like a kid starting late at school, is three years behind. He’s trying to catch up, but the Premier League’s not waiting.
While Vela should have been in England, learning English football, he was sent on a tour of Spain: Celta Vigo, Salamanca (eight goals in 31 games), then Osasuna (three in 30). But, while Vela’s left Spain, Spain hasn’t left him.
Like Twenty20 and Test cricket, English football and Spanish football are different. Spanish referees are stricter, meaning attackers have less chance of being kicked, and more time to play. English fans are louder, meaning players fly into tackles, even when their side’s losing.
In short, technique’s not enough in England: players need bravery, and patience. Vela hasn’t either. In three years, perhaps, he might. Until then, he’ll look like someone who scored three in 30 for Osasuna.
Compare Vela to Nicklas Bendtner. The Dane also signed aged 16, and also waited three years for his full league debut. The difference is what happened in between.
While Vela was in Spain, getting free-kicks for falling over, Bendtner played for Arsenal reserves and - more importantly - Birmingham City.
There, Bendtner learnt that, in England, refs don’t give free-kicks - let alone red cards - for elbows. He learnt that forwards are booed for not working back, while defenders are cheered for kicking forwards into hoardings.
His time at Birmingham, getting kicked by yeomen, meant Bendtner made a rolling start to his Arsenal career. Vela remains at the start line, trying to get in gear.
Of course, Vela has talent. Bags of it. He has good touch and good technique; a sharp turn of pace, and a sharper left foot.
He’s scored seven goals for Mexico (in 22 appearances); his chip against Sheffield United, in the League Cup, was voted Arsenal’s 29th best ever goal; and in 2005, he was top scorer in the Under-17 World Cup.
(The latter honour, however, is a mixed blessing. In 2003, Cesc Fabregas was top scorer; in 2001, it was Florent Sinama-Pongolle - last seen in England scoring one goal in ten games for Blackburn).
What Vela lacks is English experience, and that - as his performances prove - is crucial. Why else does Wenger want to send Jack Wilshere to Bolton, or Burnley, or anywhere but FC Twente?
Vela, thankfully, has time. He’s only 20. But, for a warning, he should visit Teesside. There, playing for Middlesbrough, will be another quick, left-footed forward, who never fulfilled his promise.
Like Vela, Jeremie Aliadiere only scored one league goal for Arsenal.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Wenger puts his chips on beating Chelsea
Arsene Wenger has removed Arsenal from two of the four competitions they entered this year. They haven’t been knocked out: they have, rightly or wrongly, been removed.
The team against Manchester City, in the League Cup, had three players with no league starts (Craig Eastmond, Fran Merida, and Jack Wilshere), one with two (Carlos Vela), and one with eight (Lukasz Fabianski).
The team against Stoke, in the FA Cup, had two players with no league starts (Francis Coquelin and Jay Emmanuel-Thomas), one with one (Craig Eastmond, who started away at Bolton after the Manchester City game), one with two (Vela), and one with eight (Fabianksi).
Injuries or not, the novices weren’t picked to progress. They were picked to save the stars, to ensure they didn’t have to lower themselves to the domestic cups. Their legs are precious; more precious than Eastmond’s, or Vela’s. For Wenger, winning cup games is a bonus. Losing is quickly - and easily - forgotten.
As he does every season, Wenger slid all his chips onto two bets: the Premier League, and the Champions’ League. Luckily, there’s plenty of chips. Unluckily, a team ten miles down the road is ready to take them all.
To win the Premier League, you imagine, Arsenal will have to beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on February 7. A win would mean a six-point swing, and would set belief in Arsenal’s molten mentality. A defeat would end the league season, and would carve another notch on the five-year waiting list.
But the blue shadow also looms in Europe. Wenger will pray Barcelona, the mongoose to Chelsea’s cobra, play them before Arsenal do. He knows Chelsea are weaker than they were under Jose Mourinho, but he also knows Arsenal can’t capitalise on their weakness: set-pieces.
Before the Sunderland game, 13 out of Chelsea’s 16 Premier League goals against were from corners, free-kicks, or penalties. The problem is, Arsenal’s set-piece delivery is poor - often failing to beat their first defender - and their heading is even worse.
At London Colney, the ball lives a fraction off the surface, like a hovercraft speeding across the sea. No wonder, then, that Arsenal’s players are so poor in the air. Only William Gallas and Thomas Vermaelen, raised far from Hertfordshire, attack the ball at height.
The rest ignore it – like, for example, Samir Nasri – or jump with their head tucked into their shoulders, eyes closed, hoping it won’t hurt, like Abou Diaby. Either way, Chelsea won’t panic.
And while Arsenal can’t capitalise on Chelsea’s main weakness, Chelsea can capitalise on Arsenal’s: lack of belief. Arsenal have lost their last three against Chelsea, and won two of the last 16. Two in 16! No wonder that, when Chelsea went one-up at the Emirates this season, the game was over.
In short, to be a success this season, Arsenal have to beat Chelsea. And to beat Chelsea, they’ll need to be brilliant. Chelsea can win by being good.
The team against Manchester City, in the League Cup, had three players with no league starts (Craig Eastmond, Fran Merida, and Jack Wilshere), one with two (Carlos Vela), and one with eight (Lukasz Fabianski).
The team against Stoke, in the FA Cup, had two players with no league starts (Francis Coquelin and Jay Emmanuel-Thomas), one with one (Craig Eastmond, who started away at Bolton after the Manchester City game), one with two (Vela), and one with eight (Fabianksi).
Injuries or not, the novices weren’t picked to progress. They were picked to save the stars, to ensure they didn’t have to lower themselves to the domestic cups. Their legs are precious; more precious than Eastmond’s, or Vela’s. For Wenger, winning cup games is a bonus. Losing is quickly - and easily - forgotten.
As he does every season, Wenger slid all his chips onto two bets: the Premier League, and the Champions’ League. Luckily, there’s plenty of chips. Unluckily, a team ten miles down the road is ready to take them all.
To win the Premier League, you imagine, Arsenal will have to beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on February 7. A win would mean a six-point swing, and would set belief in Arsenal’s molten mentality. A defeat would end the league season, and would carve another notch on the five-year waiting list.
But the blue shadow also looms in Europe. Wenger will pray Barcelona, the mongoose to Chelsea’s cobra, play them before Arsenal do. He knows Chelsea are weaker than they were under Jose Mourinho, but he also knows Arsenal can’t capitalise on their weakness: set-pieces.
Before the Sunderland game, 13 out of Chelsea’s 16 Premier League goals against were from corners, free-kicks, or penalties. The problem is, Arsenal’s set-piece delivery is poor - often failing to beat their first defender - and their heading is even worse.
At London Colney, the ball lives a fraction off the surface, like a hovercraft speeding across the sea. No wonder, then, that Arsenal’s players are so poor in the air. Only William Gallas and Thomas Vermaelen, raised far from Hertfordshire, attack the ball at height.
The rest ignore it – like, for example, Samir Nasri – or jump with their head tucked into their shoulders, eyes closed, hoping it won’t hurt, like Abou Diaby. Either way, Chelsea won’t panic.
And while Arsenal can’t capitalise on Chelsea’s main weakness, Chelsea can capitalise on Arsenal’s: lack of belief. Arsenal have lost their last three against Chelsea, and won two of the last 16. Two in 16! No wonder that, when Chelsea went one-up at the Emirates this season, the game was over.
In short, to be a success this season, Arsenal have to beat Chelsea. And to beat Chelsea, they’ll need to be brilliant. Chelsea can win by being good.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Throwing the Cup could throw the season
In theory, the idea’s great. Lose to Stoke, in the FA Cup fourth round, and Arsenal will save themselves - potentially - four games, excluding replays.
If they reach the FA Cup and Champions’ League finals, Arsenal will play 64 games this season. Lose to Stoke, and they’ll play 60, even if they make Madrid. That’s six percent less games, six percent less chance of suspensions, and - at least - six percent less chance of injury.
When you have nine players injured, as Arsenal do, that six percent is tempting. As Robin van Persie and Kieran Gibbs know, one tackle can end a season.
Instead of wet, windy, weekends in Preston (where Chelsea play on Saturday), or Scunthorpe (where Manchester City play on Sunday), Arsenal could rest their pampered prima donnas. Not even Theo Walcott gets injured playing X Box (but give him time).
And, of course, it’s not like Arsene Wenger cares about the FA Cup. For the media’s sake - who were raised on Ronnie Radford and Cup Final Grandstand - he pretends to. But he doesn’t.
For Wenger, the FA Cup is a consolation prize; the last bottle of wine on the two-bob raffle table. It’s a nice accompaniment to a league title - as in 1998 and 2002 - but, on its own, it’s lacking. It leaves the stomach empty.
And yet.
Sending the reserves to Stoke, and losing, could end Arsenal’s season. In 2007 / 2008, after a weakened side lost four-nil to Manchester United in the FA Cup fifth round, Arsenal won two of the next 12 games.
In 2003 / 2004, after a weakened side lost one-nil to Manchester United in the FA Cup semi-final, Arsenal lost two-one to Claudio Ranieri’s Chelsea. That cost the Invincibles the Champions' League.
It affects other teams, too. Last season, after Aston Villa’s all-stars - featuring Marc Albrighton, Marlon Harewood, and Barry Bannan - lost two-nil at CSKA Moscow, they didn’t win for nine games.
Why it happens - resting the first team is supposed to help them win, not lose - is a mystery. Does it fracture morale, or momentum? Does it increase pressure on the pampered few? (No excuse lads: you've missed Moscow, so you’d better beat Bolton).
Perhaps. But, whatever the reason, it happens.
If Arsenal lose on Sunday, it won’t affect the league. If Arsenal reserves lose on Sunday - a team of Eastmond, Emmanuel-Thomas, and Evina - it might.
If they need a rest, give them two days off training. After all, that’s where three of Arsenal’s nine absentees were injured.
But don’t, in the land of the long throw, throw the match. This season’s too good to waste.
If they reach the FA Cup and Champions’ League finals, Arsenal will play 64 games this season. Lose to Stoke, and they’ll play 60, even if they make Madrid. That’s six percent less games, six percent less chance of suspensions, and - at least - six percent less chance of injury.
When you have nine players injured, as Arsenal do, that six percent is tempting. As Robin van Persie and Kieran Gibbs know, one tackle can end a season.
Instead of wet, windy, weekends in Preston (where Chelsea play on Saturday), or Scunthorpe (where Manchester City play on Sunday), Arsenal could rest their pampered prima donnas. Not even Theo Walcott gets injured playing X Box (but give him time).
And, of course, it’s not like Arsene Wenger cares about the FA Cup. For the media’s sake - who were raised on Ronnie Radford and Cup Final Grandstand - he pretends to. But he doesn’t.
For Wenger, the FA Cup is a consolation prize; the last bottle of wine on the two-bob raffle table. It’s a nice accompaniment to a league title - as in 1998 and 2002 - but, on its own, it’s lacking. It leaves the stomach empty.
And yet.
Sending the reserves to Stoke, and losing, could end Arsenal’s season. In 2007 / 2008, after a weakened side lost four-nil to Manchester United in the FA Cup fifth round, Arsenal won two of the next 12 games.
In 2003 / 2004, after a weakened side lost one-nil to Manchester United in the FA Cup semi-final, Arsenal lost two-one to Claudio Ranieri’s Chelsea. That cost the Invincibles the Champions' League.
It affects other teams, too. Last season, after Aston Villa’s all-stars - featuring Marc Albrighton, Marlon Harewood, and Barry Bannan - lost two-nil at CSKA Moscow, they didn’t win for nine games.
Why it happens - resting the first team is supposed to help them win, not lose - is a mystery. Does it fracture morale, or momentum? Does it increase pressure on the pampered few? (No excuse lads: you've missed Moscow, so you’d better beat Bolton).
Perhaps. But, whatever the reason, it happens.
If Arsenal lose on Sunday, it won’t affect the league. If Arsenal reserves lose on Sunday - a team of Eastmond, Emmanuel-Thomas, and Evina - it might.
If they need a rest, give them two days off training. After all, that’s where three of Arsenal’s nine absentees were injured.
But don’t, in the land of the long throw, throw the match. This season’s too good to waste.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Almunia is a tail-end goalkeeper
If Manuel Almunia played cricket, he’d be a hopeless batsman.
The secret of top-class batting, we’re told, is concentration. If you play a bad shot, forget it. If the ball beats your bat, move on. Clear your head, and play the next ball.
Almunia couldn’t do that. He hasn’t the mentality. When’s he’s confident, he’s fine; when he makes a mistake, another mistake becomes far more likely. For one error, the team is punished twice, or more.
A mistake confuses Almunia, and the confusion is clear. He’ll come for crosses when he should stay, or vice versa; he’ll charge after through balls, sliding into his defenders’ territory, taking balls that should be theirs.
In short, Almunia’s like a tail-end slogger. If one ball beats him, he charges for the next one, and ends up stumped, stranded, five yards from safety.
It’s no way to run a back five. The goalkeeper, remember, should be the team’s best defender: after all, he’s the one who can use his hands. Any cross that arrives between the goal-line and the penalty spot should be the keeper’s, caught a yard above the striker’s leap.
For Arsenal, taking crosses is essential, because teams don’t often play through them. But Alumnia isn’t Arsenal’s best defender. In fact, he’s the worst.
Arsenal don’t have a back five: they have a back four, with the Spaniard left, like a liability, to his own devices.
Remember Liverpool? Despite what Arsene Wenger said, Almunia’s mistake almost cost Arsenal the title race. Without Glen Johnson, it would have.
Last season, Almunia looked like he’d changed. He played well in most games, and, without him, Arsenal would have lost 3-0 at Old Trafford in the Champions’ League.
But, after last season’s smooth ride, this year’s been downhill. Every mistake accelerates the end of his Arsenal career.
Consider this: Arsenal, on paper, have a better defence than last year. Thomas Vermaelen is better than Kolo Toure; a 4-5-1, with Alex Song in form, is more secure than 4-4-2.
Yet Arsenal have conceded 23 league goals in 21 games: worse than Chelsea, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Tottenham, and an off-form, off-key Manchester United.
That’s no better than last year, when they’d also conceded 23 goals after 21 games. So while the back four’s got better, and the formation’s more secure, the defensive record is the same. That means Almunia's got worse.
In his third Arsenal game, away at Manchester United in the Carling Cup, Almunia conceded a soft goal in the first minute from David Bellion. Have Arsenal’s players, manager, or fans got more faith now? Not much.
Since Almunia’s been first choice, Arsenal have won nothing. Of course, he’s not the only reason. But if Arsenal are to stay in this season’s title race, Almunia can’t afford another mistake.
We live in hope, not expectation.
The secret of top-class batting, we’re told, is concentration. If you play a bad shot, forget it. If the ball beats your bat, move on. Clear your head, and play the next ball.
Almunia couldn’t do that. He hasn’t the mentality. When’s he’s confident, he’s fine; when he makes a mistake, another mistake becomes far more likely. For one error, the team is punished twice, or more.
A mistake confuses Almunia, and the confusion is clear. He’ll come for crosses when he should stay, or vice versa; he’ll charge after through balls, sliding into his defenders’ territory, taking balls that should be theirs.
In short, Almunia’s like a tail-end slogger. If one ball beats him, he charges for the next one, and ends up stumped, stranded, five yards from safety.
It’s no way to run a back five. The goalkeeper, remember, should be the team’s best defender: after all, he’s the one who can use his hands. Any cross that arrives between the goal-line and the penalty spot should be the keeper’s, caught a yard above the striker’s leap.
For Arsenal, taking crosses is essential, because teams don’t often play through them. But Alumnia isn’t Arsenal’s best defender. In fact, he’s the worst.
Arsenal don’t have a back five: they have a back four, with the Spaniard left, like a liability, to his own devices.
Remember Liverpool? Despite what Arsene Wenger said, Almunia’s mistake almost cost Arsenal the title race. Without Glen Johnson, it would have.
Last season, Almunia looked like he’d changed. He played well in most games, and, without him, Arsenal would have lost 3-0 at Old Trafford in the Champions’ League.
But, after last season’s smooth ride, this year’s been downhill. Every mistake accelerates the end of his Arsenal career.
Consider this: Arsenal, on paper, have a better defence than last year. Thomas Vermaelen is better than Kolo Toure; a 4-5-1, with Alex Song in form, is more secure than 4-4-2.
Yet Arsenal have conceded 23 league goals in 21 games: worse than Chelsea, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Tottenham, and an off-form, off-key Manchester United.
That’s no better than last year, when they’d also conceded 23 goals after 21 games. So while the back four’s got better, and the formation’s more secure, the defensive record is the same. That means Almunia's got worse.
In his third Arsenal game, away at Manchester United in the Carling Cup, Almunia conceded a soft goal in the first minute from David Bellion. Have Arsenal’s players, manager, or fans got more faith now? Not much.
Since Almunia’s been first choice, Arsenal have won nothing. Of course, he’s not the only reason. But if Arsenal are to stay in this season’s title race, Almunia can’t afford another mistake.
We live in hope, not expectation.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Bendtner will be Arsenal's new striker
With 16 days of the transfer window left, Arsene Wenger still hasn’t signed a striker. Carlton Cole, who’s injured, is staying at West Ham. Marouane Chamakh, the French-born Moroccan, is seeing out his Bordeaux contract.
Arsenal will play the Bolton double-header with Eduardo up-front: the half-fit, half-frozen Eduardo, the lost Brazilian who can’t find his old self.
But, for once, Wenger’s money-under-the-mattress transfer policy is right. Why buy Cole, or Chamakh, when the best tall, young striker in Europe is at your club, and two weeks from fitness?
Nicklas Bendtner is 21 (22 tomorrow). At that age, Emmanuel Adebayor was throwing diamond watches out of his pram at Monaco, after scoring 20 goals in 100 games. Didier Drogba was at Le Mans, going a whole season (2000 / 2001) without scoring. Les Ferdinand, who had the best leap in English football, was playing for Hayes.
The point is, big strikers don’t arrive in top-level football like small strikers. When Wayne Rooney was 16, he danced round Arsenal and scored a 30-yard wonder goal. Michael Owen peaked - peaked - when he was 18, sprinting past Argentina at the World Cup.
Small strikers’ strengths - speed, movement, and agility - need young, unworn muscles. Big strikers’ strengths - leaping, muscle, and cunning - take age, and experience. Bendtner, a 21-year-old big man, is five years from his zenith.
Despite that, he hasn’t done badly. In 52 Arsenal starts, he’s scored 27 goals. Many of those appearances - and his 54 from the bench - have seen him stuck on the wing, out of place, like the tall kid in the school photo.
For Denmark, he’s scored ten goals in 30 games, and is their player of the year. Watch his goal at home to Portugal on You Tube: strength, touch, and perfect left-foot finish. He didn’t learn that from Adebayor. The African would have fallen at the first challenge, pleading for a penalty.
For more proof of Bendtner’s potential, how about this picture, taken while scoring the winner against Spurs? His feet are almost two yards from the floor! Even Les Ferdinand didn’t do that.
Bendtner frustrates Arsenal fans because he’s not a winger. When Wenger plays him there, his average touch, and average pace, are shown up. But if he played ten games up front, he’d score five goals, with at least two headers. And wouldn’t that add something to Arsenal’s one-dimensional, perfect-or-nothing attacks?
In 16 days, and without him kicking a ball, we’ll know where Bendtner’s Arsenal career is going. Let’s hope it’s onwards, and upwards.
Arsenal will play the Bolton double-header with Eduardo up-front: the half-fit, half-frozen Eduardo, the lost Brazilian who can’t find his old self.
But, for once, Wenger’s money-under-the-mattress transfer policy is right. Why buy Cole, or Chamakh, when the best tall, young striker in Europe is at your club, and two weeks from fitness?
Nicklas Bendtner is 21 (22 tomorrow). At that age, Emmanuel Adebayor was throwing diamond watches out of his pram at Monaco, after scoring 20 goals in 100 games. Didier Drogba was at Le Mans, going a whole season (2000 / 2001) without scoring. Les Ferdinand, who had the best leap in English football, was playing for Hayes.
The point is, big strikers don’t arrive in top-level football like small strikers. When Wayne Rooney was 16, he danced round Arsenal and scored a 30-yard wonder goal. Michael Owen peaked - peaked - when he was 18, sprinting past Argentina at the World Cup.
Small strikers’ strengths - speed, movement, and agility - need young, unworn muscles. Big strikers’ strengths - leaping, muscle, and cunning - take age, and experience. Bendtner, a 21-year-old big man, is five years from his zenith.
Despite that, he hasn’t done badly. In 52 Arsenal starts, he’s scored 27 goals. Many of those appearances - and his 54 from the bench - have seen him stuck on the wing, out of place, like the tall kid in the school photo.
For Denmark, he’s scored ten goals in 30 games, and is their player of the year. Watch his goal at home to Portugal on You Tube: strength, touch, and perfect left-foot finish. He didn’t learn that from Adebayor. The African would have fallen at the first challenge, pleading for a penalty.
For more proof of Bendtner’s potential, how about this picture, taken while scoring the winner against Spurs? His feet are almost two yards from the floor! Even Les Ferdinand didn’t do that.
Bendtner frustrates Arsenal fans because he’s not a winger. When Wenger plays him there, his average touch, and average pace, are shown up. But if he played ten games up front, he’d score five goals, with at least two headers. And wouldn’t that add something to Arsenal’s one-dimensional, perfect-or-nothing attacks?
In 16 days, and without him kicking a ball, we’ll know where Bendtner’s Arsenal career is going. Let’s hope it’s onwards, and upwards.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Wenger should welcome back Campbell
Sol Campbell, first time round, is Arsene Wenger’s third-best signing.
Thierry Henry, of course, is the best. He scored 226 goals in 380 games, and glided by defenders like a speed-skater passing a slipping drunk.
Patrick Vieira is second. He was everything: defender, attacker, and minder for the stars (Henry and, especially, Robert Pires). Vieira also gave the best performance of Wenger’s reign: the match-winning masterclass against Tottenham in the 2001 FA Cup semi-final.
But Campbell - who played in that game - is better than Wenger’s other signings, including Cesc Fabregas. It’s no coincidence that two of Wenger’s three great seasons - the 2002 Double, and the 2004 championship - had Campbell as the six-foot keystone.
Campbell was Tony Adams’ heir, the English centre-half who did things the Professor doesn‘t teach: head, and kick, and defend. One game, in particular, stands out, but it wasn’t against Manchester United, Chelsea, or even Tottenham.
It was against Blackburn, at Ewood Park, in January 2002. Arsenal went two-nil up, but Blackburn - willed on by 20,000 fans, shouting themselves warm in the snow - rushed back, like shoppers at the Boxing Day sales.
Blackburn banged on the door, but Campbell kept answering. Oleg Luzhny - who was used to the snow, but not the tactics - was sent off, yet Campbell kept heading, kept clearing, and kept Arsenal in the game.
Eventually, Dennis Bergkamp scored the winner, and took the headlines. But it was Campbell who won the game. That snowy evening summed up his Arsenal career.
While Henry, Pires, and Bergkamp wrote symphonies with their insteps, Campbell was the ballast that stopped the bantamweights being blown away. At his peak, he won two league titles in three years, and was - easily - the Premier League’s best defender. Just ask Kolo Toure.
Fabregas, despite his talent, hasn’t won one title. Until he does, he’s less important to Wenger’s history than Campbell. History, of course, means nothing to Arsenal’s team selection: if it did, David Seaman would be in goal, and Vieira wouldn’t have signed for Man City.
Yet Campbell, you suspect, could give Arsenal five months’ decent service. Only those who’ve seen him train know his speed, his sharpness, and - crucially - his weight. But his return would be far easier than, say, Vieira’s.
Firstly, he’d play five games, if that.
Secondly, he’d have William Gallas or Thomas Vermaelen to play the Toure role, scampering after strikers, while he made thirty-yard headers.
Thirdly, and most importantly, he’d have something to prove. Does the Double-winning Invincible want his final game to be a defeat at Christie Park, Morecambe?
Campbell, second time round, won’t be Wenger’s fourth best signing. But he could, in just one game, be the difference between one point and three. And that makes a short-term contract worthwhile.
Thierry Henry, of course, is the best. He scored 226 goals in 380 games, and glided by defenders like a speed-skater passing a slipping drunk.
Patrick Vieira is second. He was everything: defender, attacker, and minder for the stars (Henry and, especially, Robert Pires). Vieira also gave the best performance of Wenger’s reign: the match-winning masterclass against Tottenham in the 2001 FA Cup semi-final.
But Campbell - who played in that game - is better than Wenger’s other signings, including Cesc Fabregas. It’s no coincidence that two of Wenger’s three great seasons - the 2002 Double, and the 2004 championship - had Campbell as the six-foot keystone.
Campbell was Tony Adams’ heir, the English centre-half who did things the Professor doesn‘t teach: head, and kick, and defend. One game, in particular, stands out, but it wasn’t against Manchester United, Chelsea, or even Tottenham.
It was against Blackburn, at Ewood Park, in January 2002. Arsenal went two-nil up, but Blackburn - willed on by 20,000 fans, shouting themselves warm in the snow - rushed back, like shoppers at the Boxing Day sales.
Blackburn banged on the door, but Campbell kept answering. Oleg Luzhny - who was used to the snow, but not the tactics - was sent off, yet Campbell kept heading, kept clearing, and kept Arsenal in the game.
Eventually, Dennis Bergkamp scored the winner, and took the headlines. But it was Campbell who won the game. That snowy evening summed up his Arsenal career.
While Henry, Pires, and Bergkamp wrote symphonies with their insteps, Campbell was the ballast that stopped the bantamweights being blown away. At his peak, he won two league titles in three years, and was - easily - the Premier League’s best defender. Just ask Kolo Toure.
Fabregas, despite his talent, hasn’t won one title. Until he does, he’s less important to Wenger’s history than Campbell. History, of course, means nothing to Arsenal’s team selection: if it did, David Seaman would be in goal, and Vieira wouldn’t have signed for Man City.
Yet Campbell, you suspect, could give Arsenal five months’ decent service. Only those who’ve seen him train know his speed, his sharpness, and - crucially - his weight. But his return would be far easier than, say, Vieira’s.
Firstly, he’d play five games, if that.
Secondly, he’d have William Gallas or Thomas Vermaelen to play the Toure role, scampering after strikers, while he made thirty-yard headers.
Thirdly, and most importantly, he’d have something to prove. Does the Double-winning Invincible want his final game to be a defeat at Christie Park, Morecambe?
Campbell, second time round, won’t be Wenger’s fourth best signing. But he could, in just one game, be the difference between one point and three. And that makes a short-term contract worthwhile.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
What Merida tells us about Wenger
Some people collect stamps. Some people collect coins. One person - Arsene Wenger - collects talented teenage footballers, from every corner of the world.
The problem is, when you collect coins, you keep as many as you like. When you collect footballers, the display cabinet is finite. It only has eleven spaces.
Which means, every so often, you need a clear-out. A spring clean; a car boot sale, if you like. Who’ll take my Hoyte? Middlesbrough, three million quid, thanks very much. Anyone for a Connolly? QPR, one million, thank you.
And so Fran Merida, the 19-year-old Catalonian, will return to Spain this summer. Will he be missed? Not one bit.
Not, of course, because he isn’t talented. His only Arsenal goal - against Liverpool in the Carling Cup - showed daring, a quick brain, and a sharp left foot.
In 13 Arsenal appearances, he’s shown good speed, a good touch, and nice movement. He can switch play; he can slide in strikers. In fact, he’s like every midfielder to emerge from London Colney in the past three years: skilful, speedy, and short.
And that’s his problem: there’s too much competition. At Arsenal, happily, you have to seize your chance. Kieran Gibbs, for example, did that. Justin Hoyte, in 68 appearances, didn’t.
In the first team, Merida has Andrei Arshavin, Samir Nasri, Tomas Rosicky, and Jack Wilshere to compete with at left midfield. In reserve, there’s Henri Lansbury - who has signed a new deal - and, possibly, Nacer Barazite and Mark Randall, if either avoids the car boot sale.
But Merida’s departure, which newspapers barely covered, isn’t insignificant. It shows Arsenal’s depth of talent; it vindicates - in part - Wenger’s transfer policy. Would Merida, for example, be fifth choice left-winger at Liverpool? There, he’d probably start. He certainly wouldn’t leave, via the back door, for Madrid.
So Wenger - as the above names prove - can spot midfielders. Why, then, does his title-chasing squad have five left midfielders, and two centre-halves?
Because players like Nasri, and Rosicky, embody the manager’s ideal. They're his passion. They fizz the ball on the floor; their touch is perfect; they keep possession. When Wenger sees them, he wants them; wants them to admire, wants them in his display cabinet.
Asking Wenger to pick a decent centre-half, on the other hand, is like asking Eric Clapton to pick a clarinetist. Not interested. Don't care.
If Merida played centre-half as well as he plays left-wing, he wouldn’t be leaving. He’d be on the bench, every game, as Thomas Vermaelen’s deputy. He’d have played at West Ham. He’d have a five-year contract.
As it is, he’s leaving, with a production line of 5ft midfielders behind him. Meanwhile, Arsenal’s title challenge is one injury from extinction.
The problem is, when you collect coins, you keep as many as you like. When you collect footballers, the display cabinet is finite. It only has eleven spaces.
Which means, every so often, you need a clear-out. A spring clean; a car boot sale, if you like. Who’ll take my Hoyte? Middlesbrough, three million quid, thanks very much. Anyone for a Connolly? QPR, one million, thank you.
And so Fran Merida, the 19-year-old Catalonian, will return to Spain this summer. Will he be missed? Not one bit.
Not, of course, because he isn’t talented. His only Arsenal goal - against Liverpool in the Carling Cup - showed daring, a quick brain, and a sharp left foot.
In 13 Arsenal appearances, he’s shown good speed, a good touch, and nice movement. He can switch play; he can slide in strikers. In fact, he’s like every midfielder to emerge from London Colney in the past three years: skilful, speedy, and short.
And that’s his problem: there’s too much competition. At Arsenal, happily, you have to seize your chance. Kieran Gibbs, for example, did that. Justin Hoyte, in 68 appearances, didn’t.
In the first team, Merida has Andrei Arshavin, Samir Nasri, Tomas Rosicky, and Jack Wilshere to compete with at left midfield. In reserve, there’s Henri Lansbury - who has signed a new deal - and, possibly, Nacer Barazite and Mark Randall, if either avoids the car boot sale.
But Merida’s departure, which newspapers barely covered, isn’t insignificant. It shows Arsenal’s depth of talent; it vindicates - in part - Wenger’s transfer policy. Would Merida, for example, be fifth choice left-winger at Liverpool? There, he’d probably start. He certainly wouldn’t leave, via the back door, for Madrid.
So Wenger - as the above names prove - can spot midfielders. Why, then, does his title-chasing squad have five left midfielders, and two centre-halves?
Because players like Nasri, and Rosicky, embody the manager’s ideal. They're his passion. They fizz the ball on the floor; their touch is perfect; they keep possession. When Wenger sees them, he wants them; wants them to admire, wants them in his display cabinet.
Asking Wenger to pick a decent centre-half, on the other hand, is like asking Eric Clapton to pick a clarinetist. Not interested. Don't care.
If Merida played centre-half as well as he plays left-wing, he wouldn’t be leaving. He’d be on the bench, every game, as Thomas Vermaelen’s deputy. He’d have played at West Ham. He’d have a five-year contract.
As it is, he’s leaving, with a production line of 5ft midfielders behind him. Meanwhile, Arsenal’s title challenge is one injury from extinction.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Why Ramsey has time on the ball
Aaron Ramsey, who grew up in Caerphilly, just north of Cardiff, was a fine rugby union winger. So good, in fact, that St Helens rugby league club wanted to sign him. Luckily for him, and Arsenal, Ramsey associated with association.
But his time on the wing wasn’t wasted. Ramsey learnt that, to beat a man, you have to move – or be able to move – both ways. Rugby wings don’t just fly past people: they check inside, too; leaving 16-stone tackles flailing in their wake. In short, good wingers leave every option open - both in their mind, and their opponent’s.
And that’s what Ramsey does on the football pitch. When Theo Walcott has the ball, for example, you know he’ll knock it past the left-back’s left foot, and run. Problem is, the left-back knows that too.
When Ramsey gets the ball, every one of the pitch’s 360 degrees is an option. He can go right side or left side; backwards or forwards; short or long. Not even Dennis Bergkamp, who played in right-foot channels, did that.
But, of course, being a good rugby wing doesn’t mean you’ll play 44 times for Arsenal before your 19th birthday. Speed, balance, and awareness aren’t enough. Ramsey has something – or two things – that few others share.
How many times, watching football on tv, does the pundit say: “He always has time on the ball”? They said it about Zinedine Zidane; they say it about Xavi and Andreas Iniesta; they say it about Ramsey, too.
It’s not coincidence. The opponents don’t think: “He’s good. Let’s give him time on the ball.” The best players make time by using both feet.
If Zidane received the ball on his right foot, and there were five opponents on the right side of the pitch, he’d switch – instantly – to his left foot. So, instead of playing in the busy right-side of the pitch, he’d play in the empty left-side of the pitch. He hadn’t been given time on the ball; he’d created it.
Not many players do that. Most midfielders – even the best ones – play in the arc of their right foot.
Ramsey is like Zidane. If a shaven-headed full back is charging for his right-foot, invading those 180 degrees, he has the balance, and feet, to play in the other 180 degrees. Just watch the 2008 FA Cup final: even as a 17-year-old, against a three-man midfield including Lassana Diarra, he had time on the ball.
At Arsenal, he’s moved ahead of Denilson in Arsene Wenger’s mind. He’s even made Abou Diaby, after four years – four years! – look like a footballer, instead of a basketball player on the wrong court. It's amazing what competition does.
Aaron Ramsey has arrived, a season earlier than expected. When Cesc Fabregas is sold to Barcelona, this summer or next, Arsenal have a replacement.
But his time on the wing wasn’t wasted. Ramsey learnt that, to beat a man, you have to move – or be able to move – both ways. Rugby wings don’t just fly past people: they check inside, too; leaving 16-stone tackles flailing in their wake. In short, good wingers leave every option open - both in their mind, and their opponent’s.
And that’s what Ramsey does on the football pitch. When Theo Walcott has the ball, for example, you know he’ll knock it past the left-back’s left foot, and run. Problem is, the left-back knows that too.
When Ramsey gets the ball, every one of the pitch’s 360 degrees is an option. He can go right side or left side; backwards or forwards; short or long. Not even Dennis Bergkamp, who played in right-foot channels, did that.
But, of course, being a good rugby wing doesn’t mean you’ll play 44 times for Arsenal before your 19th birthday. Speed, balance, and awareness aren’t enough. Ramsey has something – or two things – that few others share.
How many times, watching football on tv, does the pundit say: “He always has time on the ball”? They said it about Zinedine Zidane; they say it about Xavi and Andreas Iniesta; they say it about Ramsey, too.
It’s not coincidence. The opponents don’t think: “He’s good. Let’s give him time on the ball.” The best players make time by using both feet.
If Zidane received the ball on his right foot, and there were five opponents on the right side of the pitch, he’d switch – instantly – to his left foot. So, instead of playing in the busy right-side of the pitch, he’d play in the empty left-side of the pitch. He hadn’t been given time on the ball; he’d created it.
Not many players do that. Most midfielders – even the best ones – play in the arc of their right foot.
Ramsey is like Zidane. If a shaven-headed full back is charging for his right-foot, invading those 180 degrees, he has the balance, and feet, to play in the other 180 degrees. Just watch the 2008 FA Cup final: even as a 17-year-old, against a three-man midfield including Lassana Diarra, he had time on the ball.
At Arsenal, he’s moved ahead of Denilson in Arsene Wenger’s mind. He’s even made Abou Diaby, after four years – four years! – look like a footballer, instead of a basketball player on the wrong court. It's amazing what competition does.
Aaron Ramsey has arrived, a season earlier than expected. When Cesc Fabregas is sold to Barcelona, this summer or next, Arsenal have a replacement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
