Excuse the cynical subtitle, because while losing to Chelsea certainly leaves my heart sore, I feel that I can be proud of the way my team played. Unlike the Manchester United horrorfest at home, Arsenal gave a respectable and spirited attacking performance against a team that, in my opinion, has the best defense in the world, just maybe the world's best striker, and beholds one of the world's most formidable home fortresses. While the match was exciting, the result was never very much in doubt, as Drogba scored his early brace, allowing the match to careen, almost predictably, into an Arsenal loss. One almost gets the sense that this was one of the highest-profile foregone conclusions in world soccer. It could be worse: Arsenal could have scored an own-goal.
I suppose one has to start with Wenger and an intriguing lineup-selection. With the standard back-four of Sagna, Gallas, Vermaelen, and Clichy, the standard goalkeeper, Manuel Almunia and best possible midfield of Fabregas, Song, and a fit-again Diaby (and thank God for him), the front-three certainly looked to be a roll of the dice: Arshavin, Nasri, and the ever-potentially-classy Theo Walcott.
Was Walcott a shocking, stupid, inexcusable roll of the dice, or a deceptively shrewd and experimental roll of the dice? After all, though Arsenal's biggest problem against the biggest teams has to be its rather disorganized and sometimes-soft defense, the biggest problem on the attacking end is the lack of players up-front with a real striker's mentality. Walcott has been tipped for a long time (too long) to be one of England's next great strikers. With Bendtner half-fit, do you give Arshavin another chance to go it alone in a position he, frankly, is not very good in, or do you take a chance and put in the man with the size-14 boots to fill, the man in all your commercials (for now)? Could a player like Walcott make a difference in the team's recent abject inability to put in final balls or finish chances? And, speaking defensively, what better way to shut up English critics accusing Wenger of not putting out an "English"-enough, physical side, than to give an English National Team player a chance to English-it-up? Would Walcott contribute to a more masculine, stiff-upper-lip, beat-the-snot-out-of-you-before-tea-time defense? The experiment didn't work out. Then, the biggest question is, perhaps, should a manager in his position try any experiments in such a big game? Probably not--but let's be honest. Would starting Bendtner be that much less of an experiment? I suppose I can forgive Wenger for a rather thoughtful team selection, but at the end of the day, it is he that must take the brunt of the blame for the team's loss and, in a broader sense, the team's fall from the tippy-top of world soccer.
Well, what can you say. The boys came out quite well, in fact, thanks in part to the all-important efforts of Abou Diaby, and a defense that seemed to have dusted itself off since the previous outing (especially with regard to the left side). It was looking to be an even contest until a pretty soft foul by Clichy outside the area led to a Chelsea free-kick that was headed out for a corner by Walcott. Malouda crossed the ball in to find Terry, who had made a great run from behind a teammate, escaping Diaby. Though he's apparently not a very good person, Terry proved to be quite a player, and flicked it on to Drogba, who (wouldn't you know it?) was left criminally unmarked by Song. 1-0 within ten minutes, and really, that was the ball game.
Arsenal responded very, very well to the goal. Instead of knocking a ball into their own net two or three minutes later in a very similar situation, the boys found cohesion in the midfield. Again, thank God Diaby is back. What a difference he would have made if he was not injured just before the Aston Villa match. With Denilson in the box-to-box role, Arsenal has almost nothing in defense, and very little in attack, with inconsequential passes, giveaways, and just maybe a long-shot threat. Diaby offers the quick reactions, physicality, and aggressiveness that makes Song's day infinitely easier, while providing more passing finesse and off-the-ball movement around the opposing box. Combine that with a flawless Fabregas and Nasri's cleanliness, and for awhile the team showed off the kind of midfield control that, if made more consistent, would make Arsenal the best midfield in England. Between picking up loose balls and passing-and-moving with more quickness and urgency, Arsenal's midfield looked awfully good through most of the rest of the first half, and a lot of the second. Meanwhile, ahead of all that, Arshavin was a live-wire, running about and creating all kinds of trouble in Chelsea's defense, honestly beginning to play a better game than he has played in some time. When Fabregas, in the middle of the team's best spell, dominating the midfield, lays off a vintage over-the-defense pass (haven't seen that in awhile either, have we?) to a streaking Arshavin, only a pretty lucky-cum-classy save from Petr Cech keeps the game from going 1-1. It was that close.
The second goal sums up Arsenal's situation at the moment so eloquently. Arsenal's playing at their absolute best, and when Chelsea has the ball for more than ten seconds, they score on a counter-attack. Our worst weakness prevails against us once again. Arshavin loses the ball inside Chelsea's box, but Fabregas is inside that box, while Song has just wrapped around Arshavin on the other side. The ball is loose and arrives at Lampard's feet. For a moment, Arsenal is confused, as Diaby (behind Lampard) expects Clichy to make a tackle, and Clichy expects the same of Diaby. Diaby starts running only too late, and Lampard runs 1/3 of the way down the field and passes it to the left side for Drogba. Here, Clichy's lengthy lay-off is exposed, as he and Vermaelen just do not communicate well enough to deal with the situation. Drogba smokes the both of them with two touches inside the box, and puts the goal past a flailing Almunia. The typical Arsenal concession, yes, but keep in mind who scored that goal: Didier Drogba. Yes, we hate him, he scores against our team for ridiculous fun, but now that it's been several months since his last bit of sulking, he can be legitimately called one of the world's great strikers. Wouldn't you just love it if he wanted a pay-raise, and came to Arsenal in exchange for five million pounds plus Nicklas Bendtner? Whooooa.
Though Clichy and Vermaelen (and maybe Almunia, anyone?) had blood all over their hands for the second goal, it's curious that Diaby and Song were in the mix for both goals, especially after the praise I've spent much of this post so far showering on the midfield. The first goal. I don't blame Diaby too much for not tracking Terry, because it was quite a good run. Maybe he could have done better, but those flick-ons should not turn into goals most of the time. Leaving Drogba free at the end of that flick-on was unforgiveable, and almost like Alex Song's own-goal. Bar none, that was the worst mistake I've seen him make all year. And though he did a lot right throughout most of the game as far as finding the right positions, putting on the right pressure, and passing well, his execution looked a bit off, as he fouled too many players, or looked to be fouling a player when in fact he was drawing fouls (funny refereeing this game), and just not getting the ball back where he normally would have. The second goal. Here, Diaby looked most "characteristic" of Arsenal's bad defending: he did not track back with as much urgency as he should have. I write it off to cobwebs, particularly his not having taken part in the Manchester United game. That would've taught him, as it seemed to have taught most of the rest of them.
The second half was tougher, as Arsenal never quite recovered the class they showed for those glorious 20 minutes in the first half. Chelsea took advantage of Arsenal's falling-to-expectations by powering through some midfielders and defenders a few times, but overall, Chelsea created no more clear-cut chances, while Arsenal had a few. I was particularly proud of the way the team continued to play with urgency in possession, even having one of their best second-half periods in stoppage time. Nasri almost had a replica-goal of the second one he scored against Man United last year (God, what I wouldn't give for a result like that about now) after orchestrating a decent attack down the left that perfectly demonstrated his mastery of passing-and-moving, but just hesitated to pull the trigger after Song's great return pass. Fabregas had a chance close to the end, when one of Sagna's very, very few good crosses found his head and just went a bit wide.
Walcott was substituted first, and boy did he deserve to be: experiment failed. He was utterly useless on attack. I think only one in every five touches--maybe less--resulted in anything positive. His first-touch was consistently horrendous, and Ashley Cole made him look like a black hole for attacks, completely dominating him (If you're going to experiment, Wenger, then I can defend you--but an experiment vs. Ashley Cole?). His tactical awareness looked conspicuously clueless. At the first hint of a counter-attack, he sprinted down the middle into the box; when he got the ball and actually completed a pass, he sprinted down the middle into the box. Sagna was playing virtually partner-less down the right, and the midfield constantly had to shift to make up space Walcott left vacant. Bendtner came on, but he was not very good. Only a slight hesitation in a run down the middle kept him from scoring from a Fabregas header from six yards out, which begs the question--would he have smacked it right at the goalkeeper like he did all last year? Both of these guys are seemingly in the same situation--coming into the season just a bit too late to be an influential part of it. Bendtner was looking to break the barrier and become useful before he was injured in October. And Walcott, well, last season was his big season to become a first-team regular wasn't it? He will need to become one hell of a player next season if he wants to keep getting those sponsorships.
Then Diaby and Sagna came off for Rosicky and Eboue, respectively. Diaby had started making some poor passes in his last few minutes, so his substitution was rather well-timed, but he played a great game overall. He is a must-start in the midfield now, as neither Ramsey nor Denilson can do what he does when fit. Rosicky, like Bendtner, looked ineffective: Rosicky always looks like an odd-cog when he comes off the bench. Sometimes he comes on and pulls off some one-touches that take your breath away; other times, like in this match, he comes on, makes a few passes, but does not come close to breaking a game. Sagna played very well in his time, and I have to think his substitution was necessitated by fatigue. But though he is probably the team's most consistent performer, it is interesting to see him against Chelsea and realize how average this regular fixture on our side is. Think about it: he's a fabulous workman that doesn't give the ball away often and usually plays the ball smartly, but what can he do that stands out? Despite being one of the only players on the team that crosses the ball, he's terrible at doing so, attacks still come down our right side, and though he's more physical and aggressive than a lot of our players, he's not all that physical and aggressive. A fine player he is, but I can name several right-fullbacks I'd rather have than this man, who is our most obvious choice for fullback on either side. Eboue (God bless him) had some very good attacking moments, and I admire his effort, but honestly, can't he have one game without doing something that makes him look totally inept, like falling backwards in his own box under attack?
Overall, I have to say that I was proud of the team. Though some players were not at their best, nobody was playing really badly. Vermaelen had his big mistake that contributed to the second goal, but he and Gallas played all-man defense for the rest of the game. Clichy had his big mistake as well, but he relieved me to an extent, because he seemed to be getting back to his normal, energetic self. Fabregas was excellent--you will not see him perform much better and not get himself or one of his teammates on the scoresheet. Nasri also had a huge influence on the game, and though Wenger compares him to Pires, does he sometimes look like a second Fabregas to anyone? The way he moves with the ball at his feet, and some of his distributive passes when he drifts into the middle are just so striking. Best of all, not one player quit on the game, and right until the end, the team was looking to get back into the match.
Except Arshavin. After looking very threatening when the team was at its best, he completely shut off after Drogba's second goal. When Bendtner came on, I thought that time on the left would snap him out of it, but it did not. Except for one pass that found Fabregas' head in the box (the one Bendtner left begging), Arshavin was alternately ineffective or invisible until the final whistle. Now, Walcott was terrible with the ball, but at least he tracked back to keep Ashley Cole relatively quiet. Arshavin, stunned after the second goal, quietly let the match slip away. The likes of Fabregas and Nasri can pull strings in the midfield all they like, but if Arshavin isn't making runs or creating space for teammates, Arsenal does not score.
If Arshavin was excellent the whole 90 minutes, and if Walcott showed up, would Arsenal have won anyway? This is a valid doubt. What I said about Fabregas very well may apply for most of the other players--you won't see him play much better. Liverpool is next, and at home, one must say Arsenal has the edge, but Liverpool is not really competing for the title, and at this point, neither is Arsenal.
No comments:
Post a Comment