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.
Wednesday 27 January 2010
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)
