What are the practical concerns of adding new players to our squad? Here's a quick assessment.
HG = Home Grown
Number in brackets = requires a squad place (ie is over 21 on 01/01/2012)
Minimum 8 HG players required
Core players
Goalkeepers:
Szczesny (1) HG
Martinez
Defenders:
Sagna (2)
Vermaelen (3)
Santos (4)
Gibbs (5) HG
Mertesacker (6)
Koscielny (7)
Jenkinson
Midfielders:
Arteta (8)
Rosicky (9)
Ramsey (10) HG
Frimpong
Coquelin
Song (11) HG
Diaby (12)
Chamberlain
Wilshere
Forwards:
van Persie (13)
Walcott (14) HG
Gervais (15)
Miyaichi
Podolski (16)
Fringe players
Vela (17)
Fabianski (18)
Squillaci (19)
Park (20)
Chamakh (21)
Denilson (22)
Mannone (23) HG
Bendtner (24) HG
Arshavin (25)
Djourou (26) HG
-----
Lansbury (squad place needed) HG
Afobe
Bartley
Campbell (no squad place but now too old to be home grown)
Henderson (squad place needed) HG
So, put simply, without considerable departures, our squad is too big. We have 25 overage players but even that in itself is too many: since we don't have 8 overage homegrown players, we will need to cede some squad places. In the 'core' squad, we have five home grown players; thus, if we enter next season without having added any more home grown players, the maximum number of over 21s we can have is 22. Therefore adding Henri Lansbury and Conor Henderson (or indeed any other home grown over 21s) does not significantly affect us; we'd simply go from having a squad of 16 with 6 spaces for foreign over 21s to a squad of 18 with 6 places for additions over 21.
This does grant us a degree of latitude, if – and only if – we can find purchasers for our surplus. And that doesn't even mean getting rid of Diaby.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Beyond Good and Awful
Football is a passionate game and as such will always be subject to polemic views, especially when driven by an emotive and rabid tabloid media, whose job it is, let's remember, to shift copy, which is why every club that has a few bad results are 'in crisis' and every manager that has a decent season is 'the future of football'. It's easy to get caught up in; certainly I've been guilty of that in the past (and doubtless will be guilty of the same again in the future).
Having read an excellent article by Michael 'Zonal Marking' Cox, in which he asks 'What are Arsenal actually good at?' and having taken a look at the issues raised by the Arsenal Supporters' Trust, I found myself asking some fundamental questions about the state of the club: objective speaking, how are we doing? Where do we stand on the current spectrum of Premier League football clubs? How good a job has the manager actually been performing? What should we, as fans, expect now, next season, and beyond? What is the point of Arsenal Football Club?
It needs no mention that it has been a long time since Arsenal have won anything. For a club of Arsenal's calibre (still the third most successful in English football), 7 years potless is several years too many. In this respect alone, Arsène's recent tenure has been an abject failure. It would be remiss to suggest – as many have – that Arsenal have been nowhere near winning a trophy during that period, however. Two domestic finals, a European final (and a more recent Champions League semi final, our second best ever finish in that competition, let's not forget) and a league season in 07/08 in which we pushed it all the way to the wire, all represent a fair pop in various competitions.
Regardless of the odd cup run, many feel that Arsenal, under Wenger's continued stewardship, are regressing as a club. The blame for this, they feel, lies with manager. But objectively speaking, has he done such a bad job?
Those of you who have spent more than about thirty seconds discussing football with me will doubtless have been bored by me banging on about the peerless SimonKuper and Stefan Szymanski's seminal book Why England Lose. If you haven't read it, do so (particularly if you want some evidence as to why it is preposterous for Tottenham to be granted public money for a stadium). In this book, compelling evidence is put forward that league placing is, in essence, determined by wage spend, a point reiterated by Deloitte in their Annual Football Finances Report.
At this point, of course, I would expect Arsenal fans to point out the litany of overpaid, under-performing players in the current squad. This is, of course, something I agree with. I'm no more keen to pay to watch Denilson than the next man. From a subjective standpoint, too many players have not been pulling their weight. The same can be said of practically every big club and even most small ones, though, now and in the past. There are inefficiencies in Arsenal's wage spend; the question is whether or not these are being sufficiently offset by our 'good' performers. And the evidence suggests that, perhaps counter intuitively, even since the move to the Emirates, Arsenal have performed adequately or better than their wage bill would indicate.
A quote from an anonymous AST spokesman in this BBC article (presumably Tim) that “Our wage spend is 40% higher than the payroll at another club in north London and Arsenal are in danger of being overtaken more than temporarily by those who spend their wages more efficiently” is a strange and unnecessary red herring. Tottenham are without doubt having a remarkable season on a far smaller wage budget than Arsenal's, but whether they can sustain that next season and beyond, once the sharks start circling their underpaid star performers, and without the help of a free Togolese galloping lunatic remains to be seen. It would be statistically incredible if they did; the evidence suggests that without a significant increase in wage bill, it's unlikely. Even should they do so, they are not the barometer by which Arsenal should be measured.
The AST, by comparing our performance-per-pound to Tottenham's, leave themselves open to the obvious rebuttal that Arsenal are outperforming clubs such as Liverpool, who last season at least, had a larger wage bill than Arsenal, or if you are going to base your comparisons on just this season, which the AST have done, then Arsenal are hugely outperforming Chelsea, who have vastly more resources and yet find themselves level on points with Arsenal.
This data, taken from the Guardian, based on the most recent published end-of-year accounts available at the time of writing, shows Arsenal as having the fifth largest wage bill in the league and thus anything above fifth is performance beyond that which you should expect. A similar pattern can be seen since 2005: our wage bill has fluctuated between being the third and fifth largest. We have finished third and fourth. If we want to finish higher, we will have to either a) find as yet undiscovered inefficiencies to exploit, or b) spend more money.
The AST do raise importantquestions about what money we actually have to spend, why it isn't being spent, and what we can expect in the future. I fully expect the club to answer in the most ambiguous terms possible.
Whether Wenger has had money at his disposal since 2005 remains conjecture. As Arsenal fans we've been told the money is there if he wants it, but at times that has been totally at odds with the things Arsène has said directly and the inference of his actions. My gut feeling is that the sort of money we need to be able to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea and now Manchester City, is simply not available. Wenger is a peculiar and obstinate fellow but he isn't an idiot. Prior to the stadium move, he spent relatively freely, and he did so on players that would command comparatively large wages and was richly rewarded with trophies. In the Emirates era, this immediately stopped. I do not think that this is a coincidence. The other, quite obviously unforeseen, aspect is the new ownership paradigm exemplified by Roman Abramovic and followed by Sheikh Mansour. It is very difficult for a club operating on its own resources to compete with such spending and this model has been very much to Arsenal's detriment. One can raise questions about whether leaving Highbury was wise in retrospect, but I don't think that anyone would have predicted that owners would have invested literally hundreds of millions of pounds of personal funds into football clubs at the time the move was planned, and as such a move that was supposed to enable us to compete with Europe's elite in the long run has left us much further back than expected in the short-term.
It is interesting to note the 'money put in by owners' column in the Guardian data. An ominous 'none' in the Arsenal data. Whether or not you feel this is a good thing in the long run is a matter of personal opinion and business ethics, but it certainly hasn't hurt Chelsea or Manchester City in the short-term. Then again, Manchester United have managed to avoid such hand-outs without much (obvious and immediate) harm to their footballing fortunes.
So where does that leave us? Should we look to make changes so that we can once more compete for the league or should we accept our lot in life and be pleased that we are competing at the top end of the table? We've established that Arsenal have performed better than perception suggests in recent years but that is of little consolation to most Arsenal fans. Personally, I find it hard to form an opinion on what should happen at managerial level without knowing whether we have funds to spend. If money has been available (in large quantities) and Arsène Wenger has simply chosen not to spend it, then I think we need to look for a new manager; however, as I've said above, I think that is unlikely. I think one can make a reasonable argument that even if a new manager would have no more money to spend than Wenger has had, that a change in manager may provide fresh insight and thus new ways to compete against greater resources. But equally, we could end up worse off. Any change of manager from one who, previous trophies aside, has been delivering to expectation, is a gamble. The chances are that any change in manager would see those seasons in which we have the fifth-largest wage bill with a fifth place finish in the league.
What is without question is that something needs to change somewhere. At present, we are spinning around in a subsistence vortex; not good enough to win things, not bad enough – despite the broken cannons in the papers – to warrant marching orders. We could continue on this trajectory, of course: collectively buy in to the concept of '4th as a trophy', hope for the occasional good cup run, content with continued Champions League football. It is better than most clubs could ask for. In fact, scrap that, it's what most clubs aspire to. But personally speaking – and I really only can only speak personally here – I think it's not enough. In fact, I think it's a fairly pernicious attitude that is at odds with the point of sporting endeavour. But that's just me. I'm not a man who thinks that finishing sort of kinda ish near the top of the league deserves reward per se and that football has got it's priorities all wrong. But what I believe is at odds with the commercial realities of modern football. The simple fact is that the prize is money – bigger wages for players, greater share value for owners, more money for clubs to spend on better footballers – and winning money requires top four inertia, which Arsenal have happily sustained thus far and to hope to drive up commercial revenues.
We're not a club in freefall; we're a club in stasis, waiting for changes to happen in the world around us so that we can be relevant again. One wonders how long we will be waiting.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Get with the Programme
I recently had a piece published in the 'Final Word' section of the Arsenal Football Club matchday programme. Here it is:
This season marks will mark my twentieth anniversary of attending Arsenal matches. It's safe to say that the game has undergone seismic shifts in those two decades, whether tactically, technically or sociologically. I've watched the death throes of the flat 4-4-2 and I've watched the nascent globalisation of the game; I've seen the gentrification of football and I've seen the gratification of wealth. I've migrated from quiet, intimate, under-development Highbury to a state-of-the-art superdome at Ashburton Grove. I've seen Arsenal's aesthetic change from stern and pragmatic to visceral and direct, to élan and cosmopolitan, to considered and elaborate. Football has changed a lot in those two decades.
Many fans feel detached from the modern game. Today's multimillionaires are a step removed from the Tuesday Club you could find in an N5 boozer. Not that I'd know much about that; as a fresh-faced 7-year-old I had more interest in swapping Panini stickers, collecting my signed player photos - free in every junior gunner pack, your choice of player - or turning up to matches in full replica kit, shirt to socks, in case Merse was injured and Graham needed a replacement with a bit of flair than I was buying a player a pint. But with the advent of social media, to me at least, players seem closer than ever. Jack Wilshere is no further than a tweet away. RvP might see the YouTube compilation a friend lovingly compiled of him. Ray Parlour might tell the world what pub he's in or which nag he's backing. In an age when every player to pull on the red shirt is instantly a global superstar, the players are no further away from the fans than they want to be (and sometimes, who could blame them for wanting to be a little further away); they know how the fans felt about their performance and they can soak up the adulation they deserve or give the apologies that fans sometimes need. Today's fan knows every nuance of every player, from the academy boys through to the first team. Want to know more about Benik Afobe's loan to Huddersfield? Check YouTube. Want to know when Vermaelen started his career, and whether they really drink beer shots there? Check wikipedia.
And despite the fact that the beautiful game has evolved so much; despite the changes in location, personnel, tactics, badge, type of net, type of ball, type of player, type of ref; despite the loss and re-instatement of the clock; despite the liberalisation of the offside law; and despite a thousand changes besides, I know that when it comes to three o'clock on the first Saturday of the season, I will have that exact same mix of fear, excitement and ebullience that I had when I attended my first game two decades ago. And I'll be there, in full replica kit, shirt to socks, in case Wenger needs someone with a bit of flare to replace Nasri.
One final thought:
#getWengeronTwitter
This season marks will mark my twentieth anniversary of attending Arsenal matches. It's safe to say that the game has undergone seismic shifts in those two decades, whether tactically, technically or sociologically. I've watched the death throes of the flat 4-4-2 and I've watched the nascent globalisation of the game; I've seen the gentrification of football and I've seen the gratification of wealth. I've migrated from quiet, intimate, under-development Highbury to a state-of-the-art superdome at Ashburton Grove. I've seen Arsenal's aesthetic change from stern and pragmatic to visceral and direct, to élan and cosmopolitan, to considered and elaborate. Football has changed a lot in those two decades.
Many fans feel detached from the modern game. Today's multimillionaires are a step removed from the Tuesday Club you could find in an N5 boozer. Not that I'd know much about that; as a fresh-faced 7-year-old I had more interest in swapping Panini stickers, collecting my signed player photos - free in every junior gunner pack, your choice of player - or turning up to matches in full replica kit, shirt to socks, in case Merse was injured and Graham needed a replacement with a bit of flair than I was buying a player a pint. But with the advent of social media, to me at least, players seem closer than ever. Jack Wilshere is no further than a tweet away. RvP might see the YouTube compilation a friend lovingly compiled of him. Ray Parlour might tell the world what pub he's in or which nag he's backing. In an age when every player to pull on the red shirt is instantly a global superstar, the players are no further away from the fans than they want to be (and sometimes, who could blame them for wanting to be a little further away); they know how the fans felt about their performance and they can soak up the adulation they deserve or give the apologies that fans sometimes need. Today's fan knows every nuance of every player, from the academy boys through to the first team. Want to know more about Benik Afobe's loan to Huddersfield? Check YouTube. Want to know when Vermaelen started his career, and whether they really drink beer shots there? Check wikipedia.
And despite the fact that the beautiful game has evolved so much; despite the changes in location, personnel, tactics, badge, type of net, type of ball, type of player, type of ref; despite the loss and re-instatement of the clock; despite the liberalisation of the offside law; and despite a thousand changes besides, I know that when it comes to three o'clock on the first Saturday of the season, I will have that exact same mix of fear, excitement and ebullience that I had when I attended my first game two decades ago. And I'll be there, in full replica kit, shirt to socks, in case Wenger needs someone with a bit of flare to replace Nasri.
One final thought:
#getWengeronTwitter
Here is the picture of me that they used:
I don't have lego hair in real life (but I am that handsome).
I will take a couple of pictures and post them once I get my hands on a copy of the programme.
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Do You Believe in Squad and other Theo-logical Questions: an Assessment of Arsenal's Squad for 2011/12
Goalkeepers
This was perhaps the most pressing position at this time last year. That nobody is bothered that we have no bought a new ‘keeper in – even though we conceded eight at the weekend! – speaks volumes of Szczesny’s ability. Fabianski has established himself as second choice, having improved a great deal over the last 12 months. I suspect Mannone will be third choice and Almunia will be locked in a cupboard somewhere.
First Choice: Szczesny
Back up: Fabianski
Have we improved on this time last year? Yes
Defence
The loss of Gael Clichy is not one I will mourn for long. Clichy
Were you to draw up a Roy Santos
The return of Vermaelen cannot be underplayed and he has looked superb at the start of the season. It is imperative that he remains fit. Koscielny has steadily improved since his move last summer, but Djourou seems to have significantly regressed since the Carling Cup final, before which he displayed some fine form. Squillaci seems unlikely to play much and may find himself behind young Ignasi Miquel, who looks a talented prospect. Carl Jenkinson has impressed in patches in his nascent career and Bacary Sagna is a fine example for him to learn his trade from.
As ever, I feel that Arsenal’s defensive problems stem more from organisation than awareness. I hope that the switch to zonal marking means that this is something that is being actively addressed.
First choice: Sagna, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Santos
Back up: Jenkinson, Koscielny, Djourou, Gibbs
Have we improved on this time last year? Yes
Midfield
The loss of Cesc Fabregas was always going to be difficult for Arsenal to cope with. The team was built around him and the impact of not having him in the side can be seen by comparing results with him in the team to results without him in the side. He made us tick. Arteta, whilst obviously a good signing, isn’t of the same calibre. I do think, though, that perhaps he was the most appropriate replacement available. There might be players out there, with whom we were linked, who have more potential than Arteta. I don’t dount that Hazard and Gotze are fine young players who will probably reach a higher level than Arteta eventually, but frankly, what Arsenal need at this moment is an experienced player who will need little to no time to settle. Beyond one or two players who were almost certainly out of Arsenal’s reach – Sneijder, Kaka et al – it is hard to see how a more appropriate signing could have been made.
The other additions in this area are also fairly astute. Benayoun is an international captain with years of Premier League experience behind him. He is very much an Arsenal-type player – technically adroit, good ball control, tidy distribution – and added to this, he has a healthy career goals-to-games ratio. He’s like Alex Hleb with end product. Chamberlain, who remarkably was our most expensive signing, will need time to settle. I would expect him to be the main feature of this year’s Carling Cup side and I look forward to seeing what he can bring to the side.
It is remiss, though, to only focus on signings. Arsenal have a fine academy and it is a resource that should continue to be relied upon. It is easy to forget that this time last year, Jack Wilshere was only just establishing himself in the first team because he is now entrenched in the first team. The purchase of Arteta and Benayoun will allow Wilshere and Ramsey to develop without carrying the entire creative burden on their shoulders. Further to this, the emergence of Frimpong sees Arsenal finally obtain a legitimate option in defensive midfield to challenge Alex Song. But for his injury last summer, he might have established himself by now and his development is encouraging. Added to this is the strong working relationship he already has with Wilshere: the two have been playing together for a decade already and this will help settle Frimpong.
The enigmas that are Abou Diaby and Tomas Rosicky will also play a significant role. The former needs to add some consistency, though few would bet on this happening; the latter needs to become as commanding in the midfield as a man of his age and experienced should be.
First choice: Song, Wilshere, Arteta
Back up: Frimpong, Ramsey, Benayoun
Others: Diaby, Rosicky, Chamberlain
Have we improved on this time last year? No.
Have we improved on this time last year? No
Forwards
The principle concern from last season remains; namely, that an injury to van Persie would seriously inhibit the team. At the beginning of last season, whilst Robin was injured, Chamakh came into the side and did very well. His form since then, though, has taken as remarkable a decline as you are ever likely to see. I’m not sure that anyone would have any confidence that he could come into the side and score goals at this stage. Park is a more obvious replacement for van Persie than Chamakh as he will be able to take up the Dutchman’s false nine role as a striker-creator, something which we have the wide forwards to take advantage of. Arsenal’s new number nine remains an unknown quantity at Premier League level and it is more with hope than expectation that he will be regarded. Gervinho, who will take up Nasri’s wide forward role, is a much more direct option than his fellow Ligue Un alumnus. Pacy, tricky, quick on the turn, he has looked an inviting prospect thus far. With Walcott on the opposite flank, Arsenal have a very direct pair of forwards with RvP betwixt, and I expect this to yield plenty of goals. Arsenal have contrasting options from the bench in Miyaichi, who is pacy and energetic, and Arshavin, who is more lethargic but equally more experienced and with more guile to enable a defence to be cut open.
Injury to Robin van Persie remains the major concern.
First choice: Walcott, Robin van Persie, Gervinho
Back up: Miyaichi, Park, Arshavin
Others: Chamakh
Have we improved on this time last year? Time will tell.
Overall
There are some key trends to note in our new squad. Firstly, it is clear that Wenger has tried to address the leadership deficiency in the squad. We now have the Belgian captain, the former Werder Bremen captain, the sometime Everton captain, the Wales captain, the Czech captain, the Russia captain, the Israel captain and the South Korea
The other matter of note is the directness of this side, particularly the forward players. Arsenal have been guilty of over-elaborating and getting stuck in a sideways rut at times and it would seem that this is something that Wenger is keen to address. Walcott, Gervinho and Wilshere are all like to drive towards goal and there is sufficient pace in the side to allow Arsenal to break quickly, which has always been a key feature of successful Arsenal teams.
It is also notable that in Arteta and Park, we have acquired a couple of set-piece takers.
It is also notable that in Arteta and Park, we have acquired a couple of set-piece takers.
It is easy to forget that Arsenal actually did quite well for the majority of last season, even if the eventual flaws were all too familiar. A cup final, a tilt at the league and beating the European Champions would be regarded by most clubs as a successful year. For better or worse, this starting XI this year will be considerably different from last year (and almost recognisable from two seasons ago), particularly in defence. I’m not sure I expect to win the league with the current squad but I certainly expect us to be competing for a spot in the top four. In van Persie and Wilshere we have two players that almost every side in the world would be happy to accommodate; Walcott, Gervinho and Arshavin are all capable of making the difference when they are on form. There are talented youngsters coming through – still, again. There is much to exalt in this side and I look forward to watching them this season.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Arse About Face: Opportunities Missed
By Christopher Flanagan (Twitter - @FlannyFlaps)
Arsenal, so the joke runs, are the only team that can finish 4th in a 2-horse race.
Last year could have been our year. It perhaps should have been our year. Manchester United, who eventually won the league at a canter, were far from their dynamic and imposing best. They were, as ever, robust, confident and strong-willed, but as Didier Deschamps put it, they had "a bit less fantasy than we have seen in the past." That they won the league without too much consternation, despite Wayne Rooney throwing a titanic wobbly mid-way through the season, with their talisman all but leaving a pile of excrement in Alex Ferguson's shoes in order to engineer a move away (or few more quid in the wage packet to spend on hair replacement treatment, at least). It is testament to Ferguson's enduring quality as a leader of men that he could turn that situation into a title win, with Rooney the driving force no less; lesser managers would surely have failed to do so. Perhaps there are lessons to be taken by the Arsenal management from that saga. When Manchester United's two best players in recent years indicated they wanted to leave, one was sold to Real Madrid for a world record fee, the other stayed at the club and took them to another Premier League title and a Champions League final.
Chelsea, with their squad shorn of the sort of depth it had in previous years, endured the sort of capitulation that Arsenal would be proud of. Of course, they eventually found their feet and started grinding out the wins again, but their collapse cost their manager his job. Of course, it always helps when you can spend £75m on two players when your season isn't going too well.
Which brings us on to Manchester City. Last season demarked their transition from hopefuls to contenders. Their squad had an undoubted balance of power and finesse; of youth and experience; of desperate-to-get-there and been-there-seen-that, but it was always going to take some time to gel. Third place and their first silverware since some time in the middle ages gives them a neat springboard for this season but for the majority of last year they did not seem to impose the sort of threat to the title that Arsenal did for patches.
A pre-Dalglish Liverpool were unlikely to damage anyone but themselves and Tottenham had their first season of Champions League football to distract them from the day job.
And yet, Arsenal conspired to throw away a League Cup final and subsequently fall apart in the league. I don't think I need to add anything on why at this stage. Everyone - and I mean everyone - has their opinions on what went wrong with Arsenal last year and I don't think I have anything new to add to the matter. What I will say is that last season represented a wonderful opportunity missed.
Will we get that same chance again this year? Well, maybe is the only answer I can give.
I'm not going to go too deeply into the problems Arsenal have navigated (or, perhaps more appropriately, failed to navigate) this summer. Gingers for Limpar wrote a piece on the likely departure of Cesc Fabregas which says all I could hope to say on the matter; Yankee Gunner has written pieces on our problems with squad depth and a more eloquent piece on our overall summer travails than I could hope to write; the fantastically-monikered Arse-to-Mouse wrote a great piece on the need for fresh blood (not literally, it's not a vampire blog); and Arseblog has covered the whole sorry summer in his usual inimitable and insightful style.
What I will do is look at where we go from here.
Firstly, the positives (and yes, there are some). Arsenal aren't the only side to have substantial concerns going into the new season.
Manchester United have bought reasonably well. De Gea, Jones, Ashley Young are undoubtedly good players. But it is hard to see that they have added the sparkle that Deschamps felt they had lost last year, especially now they have let the modern-day Pele and Garrincha go in the sale of Brown and O'Shea to Sunderland. It is difficult to argue that Manchester United have significantly strengthened their starting XI. Will Young get into the side ahead of Valencia or Nani? Perhaps. Will he score, will he get assists? Probably. Does he make them a much better side? No. Phil Jones is a good purchase, one I'm sorry Arsenal have missed out on, and he will offer Manchester United some depth at centre back as well as being comfortable acting as an anchor in midfield, where I'm sure he will start his United career, in light of Hargreaves exit and Darren Fletcher's ongoing mystery virus.
The biggest question is David de Gea (which I'm reliably informed is not pronounced 'David the Gay,' despite the fact it obviously should be). He has looked a touch shaky in pre-season but I don't doubt he will settle quickly. I've seen him a fair bit and he is obviously a talented lad. But Edwin van der Sar's boots are big boots to fill. They are clown boots. Van der Sar is imperative to so much that Manchester United are good at: as well as being a wonderful shot stopper, he marshalls their defence and starts their attacks. Manchester United, in Schmeichel and van der Sar have operated with a sweeper goalkeeper. So many of United's most incisive attacks are quick breaks started by their goalkeeper and it remains to be seen whether de Gea can offer them that in the same way (that's assuming he starts, United's goalkeeping coach has said there are no guarantees whether it will be him or Lindegaard).
I don't think they will be affected by the retirement of Scholes in the manner some have suggested. However talented he was, he wasn't a guaranteed starter for them towards the end of his career. The gap that needs filling in the squad is one of a 20-game a season man, not a stalwart.
Chelsea, too, are not without their problems. They have a foetal manager and a geriatric squad. Their star signing, the £50m Nando Torres, has looked a man worth 10% of that fee thus far. They have made no major signings. Much like Arsenal, there are two Chelseas that could turn up this year: the calm, assured side that started last season and the nervous, jaded side that collapsed.
Liverpool are without doubt a different proposition under Dalglish to that which they were under Hodgson (I'm a big admirer of Roy's, but he went to the wrong club at the wrong time). They would have finished second last year if the league started in February. But their pre-season has been somewhat of a mess. 3-0 defeats to Hull and Galatasary (with a Baros brace) are hard to swallow, even if a full complement of players was not present. A 3-3 draw with Norweigan minnows Valerenga would have done lettle to quell the nerves. Add to this their buying policy, which is perhaps best summed up by the following joke:
There is, of course, the counterpart to this joke:
Adam and Henderson play in the same position as Liverpool's star man, Steven Gerrard, and Liverpool's best players from the second half of last year: Meireles, Lucas and Maxi.
Poulsen, Aquilani and Cole are still on their books. Perhaps this surfeit of CMs will play into their hands when injuries start to take their toll but surely it would have made more sense to address the areas of the squad that have desperately needed addressing for some seasons: a couple of full backs and some wingers. They have, of course, bought Stewart Downing for a not insignificant fee, so perhaps I do them an injustice.
Regardless of the men they have bought, I can't see Liverpool as being stronger than Arsenal. They might have galloping newborn foal-alike Andy Carroll, but he remains a relatively unproven quantity in the Premier League. He's certainly no Robin van Persie (apart from, perhaps, in terms of injury record). I suppose they at least have Dangerous 'Dirk' Kuyt. But if they can get their 0-9-1 formation to work, they will do ok.
Manchester City have added well to their already strong collection of players and I fully expect them to win the league this year. If I was a neutral, I would be salivating at the prospect of a team containing Mario Balotelli, the most entertaining human alive, and Kun Aguero, who is a wonderful footballer to watch. I'm not a neutral of course, so I hope they fail miserably. Their purchase of Gael Clichy, whom I am not particularly sad to see leave Arsenal (from a football perspective at least), strengthens them at left back. Clichy certainly has his problems, but he is an improvement on Zabaletta and Kolarov.
So, what of Arsenal?
I will start by saying that we are clearly not as bad a side as many proclaim. Last year we had victories against Barcelona, Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City. Bad sides don't do that. We are, however, a side with some fairly fundamental problems. Are they problems that can be addressed by simply throwing money at them? Not really, in my opinion.
With the obvious caveat that buying better players than you have will obviously improve you (and I do think there are a couple of areas we could strengthen), our starting XI, even accounting for the possible loss of Cesc and Nasri this summer with no replacement coming in, which seems unlikely, would look something like this:
Which is undeniably a strong line-up, not too dissimilar to that which beat Manchester United at the Grove last season.
But have our problems been addressed?
Well, first I supppose I should establish what our biggest problems were:
i) inability to break sides down and a propensity to pass sideways when we are struggling to do so
ii) weakness from set-pieces
iii) lack of motivation to press against 'lesser' sides in the same way that we did against, say, Chelsea
iv) misfiring replacements
Shape
I think we are likely to stay in broadly the same shape as we have for the last couple of seasons: a 4-3-3 with RvP acting as a false nine. It worked exceptionally well going forward when we had all of Walcott/Cesc/Nasri behind RvP. The Walcott to RvP combination was the most common assist/goal in the league last year. Of course, if we lose Cesc and Nasri, the continued fluidity of this formation is contingent on Ramsey and Gervinho settling into the first team very quickly.
Pressing
Arshavin said recently: "We’ll also play a pressing game – if we do that well, I’m sure you’ll see an improved team.” And I'm sure that's true. Our of our biggest problems last season was not doing enough when we weren't in possession. Against Chelsea in particular, we showed how effective we can be when we work hard to press the opposition. However, from what I have seen thus far in pre-season, and with the obvious caveat that, owing to fitness levels, you can't really judge a side's ability to press in pre-season friendlies, I don't think we are going to be pressing from the front in the way that Barcelona do (which Arshavin is probably quite happy with!). In pre-season, rather than putting pressure on the opposition defenders in possession, our forwards have dropped off as a unit and our defenders have pushed up. This constricts the amount of space available to play football in in the middle third. We go from
------------Forwards/Oppo Defenders------------
---------------Midfield--------------------
-----------------------Midfield------------------
-----------------------Half Way---------------------
-----------------Midfield-----------------------------
-----------------------------Midfield-------------
----------------Forward----------------------
---------------Defence---------------------------
to
---------------Oppo Defenders--------------------
-----------Forwards/Oppo midfield---------------
------------Half Way---Midfielders-------------
----------------Defence/Oppo forwards---------
Which is an idea espoused by Ariggo Sacchi:
The obvious problem with this, as I'm sure people have noticed, is that it makes us susceptible to balls over the top. This is where one would hope Chesney's mild lunacy and propensity to act as a sweeper will come into action. It's reasonably simple to cut out goals conceeded from balls over the top, but it does rely on us having some pace at centre back. I don't think it would work with a combination of Squillaci and Djourou, say (but then again, no combination of Squillaci and anything works particularly well, with the possible exception of the combination of Squillaci and ludicrous mistakes, which is quite an effective combo).
Set Pieces
Chesney and Arshavin have both hinted that we are working hard at set pieces and that there is going to be a change in which we operate. I think that we will probably end up marking zonally, which is fine by me (people have an arbitrary dislike of zonal marking because Liverpool came in some flack for it a few seasons ago, but the Invincibles marked zonally and I seem to recall that worked out ok for them). Zonal marking requires a great deal of organisation and discipline, so I hope that Chesney can sufficiently boss his players around for that; one suspects he will. It is worth noting, I suppose, that we will have an almost entirely different back five from that which we have last year.
Going Sideways
In essence, sometimes we get stuck in a rut. We are overly-reliant on one type of attacking - slow, patient, build up play - and whilst that is fine for the majority of time (Barca do very little else and it works ok for them) it does mean that if things aren't working out, that we are very easy to defend against. Just set up on the edge of your own 18 yard line and wait to break. Arsenal don't have an answer to that. One thing that the invincibles were very good at was fast break-out play. And we need to recapture that (which is contingent on having a defence that can do so). I have been encouraged by a move towards such play in pre-season and I hope it continues.
The ever fascinating Soccer by the Numbers published some quantitative data recently that showed a correlation between success and goals scored from fast breaks. Obviously this could be a bit of a post hoc as Manchester United have always played on the break, so perhaps they are skewing the stats, but I think the analysis backs it up. The singings that Wenger has made/is reportedly looking to make back this up somewhat. The likes of Gervinho, Miyaichi and Chamberlain are fast and direct, so I expect (and hope) to see more direct football over the next few seasons.
Whilst I profess to having slight misgivings about Ramsey's readiness to take over from Cesc Fabregas, I do have confidence in the young Welshman. He's a good footballer and clearly has a stern mental constitution. So overall, I am fairly confident in our first XI's ability to achieve. The problem, of course, is in the paucity of option beyond the starting XI, particularly in light of Arsenal's current injury crisis (which started some time in 2006 and has been ongoing since).
There are simply too many peripheral players who are not good enough to be playing regularly for Arsenal. Wenger has endeavoured to move a few of those players on, but a somnolent transfer market has stymied that somewhat. Whilst I think that we are lacking in depth, it wouldn't concern me in the slightest to see Squillaci, Almunia, Bendtner, Traore or Eboué follow Denilson out of the door. And that I think the squad is too thin as it is and yet would readily see some bodies moved on is indicative of the quality of some of the fringe players we have.
It goes beyond that: there are some players who I think are probably deserving of further chances but that I worry are not at this time ready to contribute to an Arsenal team capable of winning trophies. Chamakh holds the ball up well, but looks more likely to win Haircut of the Year award than he does score goals; Arshavin is incredibly gifted but looks like he has been on the pies over the summer; Rosicky is economical with the ball but hardly the most incisive of players (especially as he insists on hitting all passes and shots with the outside of his boot); Diaby is as erratic as he is injured; Djourou's form has plummeted since his last injury. It is concerning. It perhaps says something that the only position I'm not really worried about in terms of depth is goalkeeper.
So we need some additions. And if those additions come - and frankly, I have given up on guessing whether they will or not - I think we'll have a good pop at things this year. And if they don't... well, I'm still confident of a top four finish. But, frankly, I think Arsenal should be aiming a little higher than that.
What worries me more than anything, though, is the insidious atmosphere around the club. Additions are key, as much as to winning things, as to pacifying the supporters. Normally, I'm not an advocat of listening to what the fans want. Football supporters are, on the whole, a fairly stupid, mob-driven lot (and I include myself amongst that number). But Arsène has some work to do to win people over. Which might seem strange, given all he has contributed to the club, but it is the way things are.
Wenger no longer seems to be the calm, wry, witty man who has full control of every facet of the club. The Cesc and Nasri situations exemplify this. He has the demeanour of a man for whom things are spiralling away from him and I do think that perhaps a change at the top might be needed to engender a winning atmosphere at the club again.
Not that I wish to denigrate anything Arsène has done for Arsenal. He has been a wonderful manager for us, and I include the last five years in that, during which he has kept us competitive despite having zero funds. A remarkable achievement. I'd like to hope that Wenger will be viewed as Arsenal's answer to Bill Shankly; that he will be remembered as the man who turned Arsenal into what it was - the modern superclub. I'd also like to hope that the next man to come in will Arsenal's answer to Bob Paisley; that he will be the man who takes Arsenal to the next level, to become bona fide European giants. But time will tell.
And I'm not calling for Wenger's head. He has given the club too much for that. I think perhaps he may have run his course with the club but I don't give much creedance to the motto 'in Arsène we rust' which some people are citing ad nauseam. We are hardly in the state Liverpool have been for the last two seasons. We've been top of the table and in a cup final in the last twelve months. That's some decent rust.
So I hold hope and reservation for the new season in equal measure. I think this summer has represented a huge opportunity missed and I have sincere questions for the club's leadership structure. But I think we'll be ok and more than that, I think if we can get some business done by the end of August, we'll be a threat.
Either way, I hope this season has some highlights to match last season's... only with fewer lowlights.
Arsenal, so the joke runs, are the only team that can finish 4th in a 2-horse race.
Last year could have been our year. It perhaps should have been our year. Manchester United, who eventually won the league at a canter, were far from their dynamic and imposing best. They were, as ever, robust, confident and strong-willed, but as Didier Deschamps put it, they had "a bit less fantasy than we have seen in the past." That they won the league without too much consternation, despite Wayne Rooney throwing a titanic wobbly mid-way through the season, with their talisman all but leaving a pile of excrement in Alex Ferguson's shoes in order to engineer a move away (or few more quid in the wage packet to spend on hair replacement treatment, at least). It is testament to Ferguson's enduring quality as a leader of men that he could turn that situation into a title win, with Rooney the driving force no less; lesser managers would surely have failed to do so. Perhaps there are lessons to be taken by the Arsenal management from that saga. When Manchester United's two best players in recent years indicated they wanted to leave, one was sold to Real Madrid for a world record fee, the other stayed at the club and took them to another Premier League title and a Champions League final.
Chelsea, with their squad shorn of the sort of depth it had in previous years, endured the sort of capitulation that Arsenal would be proud of. Of course, they eventually found their feet and started grinding out the wins again, but their collapse cost their manager his job. Of course, it always helps when you can spend £75m on two players when your season isn't going too well.
Which brings us on to Manchester City. Last season demarked their transition from hopefuls to contenders. Their squad had an undoubted balance of power and finesse; of youth and experience; of desperate-to-get-there and been-there-seen-that, but it was always going to take some time to gel. Third place and their first silverware since some time in the middle ages gives them a neat springboard for this season but for the majority of last year they did not seem to impose the sort of threat to the title that Arsenal did for patches.
A pre-Dalglish Liverpool were unlikely to damage anyone but themselves and Tottenham had their first season of Champions League football to distract them from the day job.
And yet, Arsenal conspired to throw away a League Cup final and subsequently fall apart in the league. I don't think I need to add anything on why at this stage. Everyone - and I mean everyone - has their opinions on what went wrong with Arsenal last year and I don't think I have anything new to add to the matter. What I will say is that last season represented a wonderful opportunity missed.
Will we get that same chance again this year? Well, maybe is the only answer I can give.
I'm not going to go too deeply into the problems Arsenal have navigated (or, perhaps more appropriately, failed to navigate) this summer. Gingers for Limpar wrote a piece on the likely departure of Cesc Fabregas which says all I could hope to say on the matter; Yankee Gunner has written pieces on our problems with squad depth and a more eloquent piece on our overall summer travails than I could hope to write; the fantastically-monikered Arse-to-Mouse wrote a great piece on the need for fresh blood (not literally, it's not a vampire blog); and Arseblog has covered the whole sorry summer in his usual inimitable and insightful style.
What I will do is look at where we go from here.
Firstly, the positives (and yes, there are some). Arsenal aren't the only side to have substantial concerns going into the new season.
Manchester United have bought reasonably well. De Gea, Jones, Ashley Young are undoubtedly good players. But it is hard to see that they have added the sparkle that Deschamps felt they had lost last year, especially now they have let the modern-day Pele and Garrincha go in the sale of Brown and O'Shea to Sunderland. It is difficult to argue that Manchester United have significantly strengthened their starting XI. Will Young get into the side ahead of Valencia or Nani? Perhaps. Will he score, will he get assists? Probably. Does he make them a much better side? No. Phil Jones is a good purchase, one I'm sorry Arsenal have missed out on, and he will offer Manchester United some depth at centre back as well as being comfortable acting as an anchor in midfield, where I'm sure he will start his United career, in light of Hargreaves exit and Darren Fletcher's ongoing mystery virus.
The biggest question is David de Gea (which I'm reliably informed is not pronounced 'David the Gay,' despite the fact it obviously should be). He has looked a touch shaky in pre-season but I don't doubt he will settle quickly. I've seen him a fair bit and he is obviously a talented lad. But Edwin van der Sar's boots are big boots to fill. They are clown boots. Van der Sar is imperative to so much that Manchester United are good at: as well as being a wonderful shot stopper, he marshalls their defence and starts their attacks. Manchester United, in Schmeichel and van der Sar have operated with a sweeper goalkeeper. So many of United's most incisive attacks are quick breaks started by their goalkeeper and it remains to be seen whether de Gea can offer them that in the same way (that's assuming he starts, United's goalkeeping coach has said there are no guarantees whether it will be him or Lindegaard).
I don't think they will be affected by the retirement of Scholes in the manner some have suggested. However talented he was, he wasn't a guaranteed starter for them towards the end of his career. The gap that needs filling in the squad is one of a 20-game a season man, not a stalwart.
Chelsea, too, are not without their problems. They have a foetal manager and a geriatric squad. Their star signing, the £50m Nando Torres, has looked a man worth 10% of that fee thus far. They have made no major signings. Much like Arsenal, there are two Chelseas that could turn up this year: the calm, assured side that started last season and the nervous, jaded side that collapsed.
Liverpool are without doubt a different proposition under Dalglish to that which they were under Hodgson (I'm a big admirer of Roy's, but he went to the wrong club at the wrong time). They would have finished second last year if the league started in February. But their pre-season has been somewhat of a mess. 3-0 defeats to Hull and Galatasary (with a Baros brace) are hard to swallow, even if a full complement of players was not present. A 3-3 draw with Norweigan minnows Valerenga would have done lettle to quell the nerves. Add to this their buying policy, which is perhaps best summed up by the following joke:
Newcastle have announced that Joey Barton is available on a free. Liverpool have bid £20m.
There is, of course, the counterpart to this joke:
Newcastle have announced that Joey Barton is available on a free. Arsenal have asked for £20m.
Adam and Henderson play in the same position as Liverpool's star man, Steven Gerrard, and Liverpool's best players from the second half of last year: Meireles, Lucas and Maxi.
Poulsen, Aquilani and Cole are still on their books. Perhaps this surfeit of CMs will play into their hands when injuries start to take their toll but surely it would have made more sense to address the areas of the squad that have desperately needed addressing for some seasons: a couple of full backs and some wingers. They have, of course, bought Stewart Downing for a not insignificant fee, so perhaps I do them an injustice.
Regardless of the men they have bought, I can't see Liverpool as being stronger than Arsenal. They might have galloping newborn foal-alike Andy Carroll, but he remains a relatively unproven quantity in the Premier League. He's certainly no Robin van Persie (apart from, perhaps, in terms of injury record). I suppose they at least have Dangerous 'Dirk' Kuyt. But if they can get their 0-9-1 formation to work, they will do ok.
Manchester City have added well to their already strong collection of players and I fully expect them to win the league this year. If I was a neutral, I would be salivating at the prospect of a team containing Mario Balotelli, the most entertaining human alive, and Kun Aguero, who is a wonderful footballer to watch. I'm not a neutral of course, so I hope they fail miserably. Their purchase of Gael Clichy, whom I am not particularly sad to see leave Arsenal (from a football perspective at least), strengthens them at left back. Clichy certainly has his problems, but he is an improvement on Zabaletta and Kolarov.
So, what of Arsenal?
I will start by saying that we are clearly not as bad a side as many proclaim. Last year we had victories against Barcelona, Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City. Bad sides don't do that. We are, however, a side with some fairly fundamental problems. Are they problems that can be addressed by simply throwing money at them? Not really, in my opinion.
With the obvious caveat that buying better players than you have will obviously improve you (and I do think there are a couple of areas we could strengthen), our starting XI, even accounting for the possible loss of Cesc and Nasri this summer with no replacement coming in, which seems unlikely, would look something like this:
But have our problems been addressed?
Well, first I supppose I should establish what our biggest problems were:
i) inability to break sides down and a propensity to pass sideways when we are struggling to do so
ii) weakness from set-pieces
iii) lack of motivation to press against 'lesser' sides in the same way that we did against, say, Chelsea
iv) misfiring replacements
Shape
I think we are likely to stay in broadly the same shape as we have for the last couple of seasons: a 4-3-3 with RvP acting as a false nine. It worked exceptionally well going forward when we had all of Walcott/Cesc/Nasri behind RvP. The Walcott to RvP combination was the most common assist/goal in the league last year. Of course, if we lose Cesc and Nasri, the continued fluidity of this formation is contingent on Ramsey and Gervinho settling into the first team very quickly.
Pressing
Arshavin said recently: "We’ll also play a pressing game – if we do that well, I’m sure you’ll see an improved team.” And I'm sure that's true. Our of our biggest problems last season was not doing enough when we weren't in possession. Against Chelsea in particular, we showed how effective we can be when we work hard to press the opposition. However, from what I have seen thus far in pre-season, and with the obvious caveat that, owing to fitness levels, you can't really judge a side's ability to press in pre-season friendlies, I don't think we are going to be pressing from the front in the way that Barcelona do (which Arshavin is probably quite happy with!). In pre-season, rather than putting pressure on the opposition defenders in possession, our forwards have dropped off as a unit and our defenders have pushed up. This constricts the amount of space available to play football in in the middle third. We go from
------------Forwards/Oppo Defenders------------
---------------Midfield--------------------
-----------------------Midfield------------------
-----------------------Half Way---------------------
-----------------Midfield-----------------------------
-----------------------------Midfield-------------
----------------Forward----------------------
---------------Defence---------------------------
to
---------------Oppo Defenders--------------------
-----------Forwards/Oppo midfield---------------
------------Half Way---Midfielders-------------
----------------Defence/Oppo forwards---------
Which is an idea espoused by Ariggo Sacchi:
I used to tell my players that, if we played with twenty-five metres from the last defender to the centre-forward, given our ability, nobody could beat us. And thus, the team had to move as a unit up and down the pitch, and also from left to right.
The obvious problem with this, as I'm sure people have noticed, is that it makes us susceptible to balls over the top. This is where one would hope Chesney's mild lunacy and propensity to act as a sweeper will come into action. It's reasonably simple to cut out goals conceeded from balls over the top, but it does rely on us having some pace at centre back. I don't think it would work with a combination of Squillaci and Djourou, say (but then again, no combination of Squillaci and anything works particularly well, with the possible exception of the combination of Squillaci and ludicrous mistakes, which is quite an effective combo).
Set Pieces
Chesney and Arshavin have both hinted that we are working hard at set pieces and that there is going to be a change in which we operate. I think that we will probably end up marking zonally, which is fine by me (people have an arbitrary dislike of zonal marking because Liverpool came in some flack for it a few seasons ago, but the Invincibles marked zonally and I seem to recall that worked out ok for them). Zonal marking requires a great deal of organisation and discipline, so I hope that Chesney can sufficiently boss his players around for that; one suspects he will. It is worth noting, I suppose, that we will have an almost entirely different back five from that which we have last year.
Going Sideways
In essence, sometimes we get stuck in a rut. We are overly-reliant on one type of attacking - slow, patient, build up play - and whilst that is fine for the majority of time (Barca do very little else and it works ok for them) it does mean that if things aren't working out, that we are very easy to defend against. Just set up on the edge of your own 18 yard line and wait to break. Arsenal don't have an answer to that. One thing that the invincibles were very good at was fast break-out play. And we need to recapture that (which is contingent on having a defence that can do so). I have been encouraged by a move towards such play in pre-season and I hope it continues.
The ever fascinating Soccer by the Numbers published some quantitative data recently that showed a correlation between success and goals scored from fast breaks. Obviously this could be a bit of a post hoc as Manchester United have always played on the break, so perhaps they are skewing the stats, but I think the analysis backs it up. The singings that Wenger has made/is reportedly looking to make back this up somewhat. The likes of Gervinho, Miyaichi and Chamberlain are fast and direct, so I expect (and hope) to see more direct football over the next few seasons.
Whilst I profess to having slight misgivings about Ramsey's readiness to take over from Cesc Fabregas, I do have confidence in the young Welshman. He's a good footballer and clearly has a stern mental constitution. So overall, I am fairly confident in our first XI's ability to achieve. The problem, of course, is in the paucity of option beyond the starting XI, particularly in light of Arsenal's current injury crisis (which started some time in 2006 and has been ongoing since).
There are simply too many peripheral players who are not good enough to be playing regularly for Arsenal. Wenger has endeavoured to move a few of those players on, but a somnolent transfer market has stymied that somewhat. Whilst I think that we are lacking in depth, it wouldn't concern me in the slightest to see Squillaci, Almunia, Bendtner, Traore or Eboué follow Denilson out of the door. And that I think the squad is too thin as it is and yet would readily see some bodies moved on is indicative of the quality of some of the fringe players we have.
It goes beyond that: there are some players who I think are probably deserving of further chances but that I worry are not at this time ready to contribute to an Arsenal team capable of winning trophies. Chamakh holds the ball up well, but looks more likely to win Haircut of the Year award than he does score goals; Arshavin is incredibly gifted but looks like he has been on the pies over the summer; Rosicky is economical with the ball but hardly the most incisive of players (especially as he insists on hitting all passes and shots with the outside of his boot); Diaby is as erratic as he is injured; Djourou's form has plummeted since his last injury. It is concerning. It perhaps says something that the only position I'm not really worried about in terms of depth is goalkeeper.
So we need some additions. And if those additions come - and frankly, I have given up on guessing whether they will or not - I think we'll have a good pop at things this year. And if they don't... well, I'm still confident of a top four finish. But, frankly, I think Arsenal should be aiming a little higher than that.
What worries me more than anything, though, is the insidious atmosphere around the club. Additions are key, as much as to winning things, as to pacifying the supporters. Normally, I'm not an advocat of listening to what the fans want. Football supporters are, on the whole, a fairly stupid, mob-driven lot (and I include myself amongst that number). But Arsène has some work to do to win people over. Which might seem strange, given all he has contributed to the club, but it is the way things are.
Wenger no longer seems to be the calm, wry, witty man who has full control of every facet of the club. The Cesc and Nasri situations exemplify this. He has the demeanour of a man for whom things are spiralling away from him and I do think that perhaps a change at the top might be needed to engender a winning atmosphere at the club again.
Not that I wish to denigrate anything Arsène has done for Arsenal. He has been a wonderful manager for us, and I include the last five years in that, during which he has kept us competitive despite having zero funds. A remarkable achievement. I'd like to hope that Wenger will be viewed as Arsenal's answer to Bill Shankly; that he will be remembered as the man who turned Arsenal into what it was - the modern superclub. I'd also like to hope that the next man to come in will Arsenal's answer to Bob Paisley; that he will be the man who takes Arsenal to the next level, to become bona fide European giants. But time will tell.
And I'm not calling for Wenger's head. He has given the club too much for that. I think perhaps he may have run his course with the club but I don't give much creedance to the motto 'in Arsène we rust' which some people are citing ad nauseam. We are hardly in the state Liverpool have been for the last two seasons. We've been top of the table and in a cup final in the last twelve months. That's some decent rust.
So I hold hope and reservation for the new season in equal measure. I think this summer has represented a huge opportunity missed and I have sincere questions for the club's leadership structure. But I think we'll be ok and more than that, I think if we can get some business done by the end of August, we'll be a threat.
Either way, I hope this season has some highlights to match last season's... only with fewer lowlights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)