Arsenal 1-0 Liverpool, or, Big Four Indeed

Yay! We finally won! I was beginning to think that starting a blog may have left some sort of curse on my team, but alas, the boys finally manage to grind out a win against a team that seemingly can do nothing these days but grind out wins. We did not see Arsenal at its flowing best, but a win is a win, and damn does it feel good to see Arsenal score again and enjoy it.

Still, our old demons came out to watch the match with us, and question marks continue to surround the team. Arsenal still appears utterly vulnerable on defense. To start the discussion with, I pose a question to the readers: can anyone really classify the team's defense? Are we a pressing team? At the beginning of the season, critics noticed Arsenal's shift from 442 to 433, and raved about our new "pressing" style. I have not heard very much of that lately, because the team does not press nearly as consistently or as hard as they did in the early stages of the season, when they were the highest-powered offense in the Premiership (perhaps there is a connection there...). Are we a zone defense? Fuhgetaboutit. Arsenal's defense continues to be characterized as a constant shape-shifter, with varying levels of discipline in tracking back and holding position from player to player. Great defenses get the ball back in such a way that the defender who gets the ball, in the end, is the beneficiary of the work of his teammates. Not Arsenal: most of the time, Arsenal players earn the ball back all by their lonesome, through great bits of defensive skill that have to be repeated again and again, or through fouls. Finally, do we man-mark anyone, ever? I do not see it very often...who was man-marking Rooney the other week? Perhaps effective man-marking kept players like Gerrard out of this game, or maybe he just played poorly, as has been his wont this season, not to mention the fact that he played with a brand new teammate and an almost-rookie in lieu of Liverpool's two hottest attackers.

In any case, it is clear that Arsenal does not appear to have defensive roles that the entire team abides by. The rule almost seems to be "defend when possible" instead of "defend when necessary," and so what I see out there is a lot of variation in individual decision-making and uneven shouldering of responsibility by different players. This is all not to mention our continued inadequacy in another vital area--clearances from our box. Time and again, teams all over the table have hammered Arsenal for these inadequacies, and with one sharper final ball, one better finish, and one man in the right place at the right time, Liverpool could have joined the bandwagon with three goals to boot.

But anyway...we won! We won! And after harping on the lack of a real central-striker being a huge part of the cause of our previous losses, Wenger rolls out a lineup seemingly designed for me: Almunia, Eboue, Gallas, Vermaelen, Clichy, Song, Diaby, Fabregas, Nasri, Arshavin, Bendtner. Sounds like 1) a glimmering opportunity for Maxi Rodriguez, 2) midfield domination for the Arsenal, 3) maybe, just maybe, some goals put into the preferred net? Well, it was not quite any of these things.

The first half was about the most boring half you will ever see from two of the Big Four. And I'm talking, boooorrrING! After all the vigilant, yet futile, pass-pass-pass that characterized much of Arsenal's performance against Chelsea, there looked to be no urgency whatsoever in attack for much of the first half. Liverpool meanwhile, lacking Glen Johnson, Yossi Benayoun, Fernando Torres, and Xabi Alonso (I swear, I've never seen so much damage wreaked on a team by the sale of a single player), could not muster much better. So, the defensive lines and defensive midfielders on each side racked up sterling passing stats, but nothing much happened. With Fabregas' recent goals getting into his head, he went into Don Quixote-mode and decided that he wanted to be a second-striker. This gave Song and Diaby a lot of ground to make up in the midfield, and so very little came through there--just one sign that our midfield is only potentially the best in England, and not the best. If Fabregas wants to play the #10 instead of the captain, that is on him, and comes at the expense of our midfield cohesion.

The brightest moments in the first half came from other sources, namely, Alex Song. While most of the front-six waited for the ball to come to them, The Symphony roved about, finding space to receive passes in the midfield and was in all honesty the only midfielder doing a full-time job, trying to link defense to attack. The man had tackles-galore, and did quite a bit of Gallas' and Vermaelen's jobs for them with his constant tracking-back, and of course, he kept Gerrard quiet as a baby. I would have put his picture up instead of Arshavin's but 1) Song almost always plays this well, and 2) he is such a workman-like anti-superstar that I cannot find a picture of him from this match. He fouls a bit too much, but it is almost refreshing to see an Arsenal player that can wear his yellow cards (is it nine now?) across his belt, like Chewbacca. When you think about it, if Arsenal was Star Wars...who else would be Chewbacca? Anyway.

Andrei Arshavin, the Russian I've been pounding on lately, had a good performance as well, until he was injured in the second half (pure Arsenal, isn't it? Uncommonly good performances often ending with injuries). Bendtner, I'm afraid, had a bit of an absentee-game--when I noticed him, about half the time I thought "what is he doing there?" And he proved that he has not changed much, when he skied his one chance--slipped in to him by Arshavin--way over the bar, from outside the box. BLAM! and put your hands on your head. Oh, Bendy...well, since he is still trying to find his place in the team after a long injury layoff, Arshavin rolled his eyes and found himself drifting into the middle at times--and boy, was he good. Look back at the first half, and witness how all forays into the final third came through good off-the-ball movement from Arshavin that found space and a passing lane for a teammate. Flawless passing, excellent skill to quickly turn and move the ball, and great awareness of of and trust in his teammates characterized a rather un-textbook performance from Arshavin. Even though many of these plays came from drifting "into the middle", perhaps the fact that he was not the guy in between two center-halves accounted for all the space he had to be a wonderful playmaker...just perhaps. In any case, the man really deserved two clear assists (one, Bendtner's BLAM!, and the other, a beautiful slipped in ball to Rosicky that was touched forward once too agonizingly much) and probably a few more. I hope he will not be out long, because now that Bendtner's fit again, we can expect more performances like this.

The second half brought the game to life. Nasri was finally off the field after wandering about, concussed, for about half an hour (dude, get off the damn field), and Rosicky was on. Fabregas still was not dropping back, but he did not need to, because Diaby turned on, and that was the key to it all. After a mediocre first half, Wenger must have given the big guy The Treatment, because he began to play the way he should always play. As if a switch was flipped, he started passing more fluently, completing a few wonderful, peaches of passes, running back and forth like his box-to-box self with aggression and desire, crashing the box, and earning balls back. And just like that, the ball started finding its way to Fabregas (rather than the other way around, and this is a problem), and good things happened.

The goal highlighted some very good things about the players involved. To begin with, Nicklas Bendtner. Now, what I have said so far about him has not been terribly flattering, but what stood out about him in this game was that when he got the ball, he showed off a wonderful pair of eyes. With a one-touch pass completed while running here, and a smart header there, Bendtner proved that he knows which pass and which teammate will be the most dangerous for a defense to deal with. Such was the case for the goal, when, after his cross was blocked, he had the humility to honor a great run from Rosicky and simply lay it off for him--kudos, Nicklas Bendtner. His physicality and goals will come, but he will be able to rely on his brain until he gets there, and developing that part of his game will only make him that much better when he arrives. Then, Rosicky put in just about the best cross you will ever see, the best in some time from Arsenal. On the run, behind the defense, right at Diaby's head, begging to be put away. Rosicky has a bit of a problem to overcome, in that he plays a bit too all-over-the-field for my tastes, but when he can show off this kind of skill, he can do whatever he damn well pleases. And then Diaby put away a real simple goal that, on his part, came from playing on-point. When he turned on in the second half, he became a constant threat in the box. He deserved a goal simply for being the most-improved player.

And so it ended, fairly uneventfully. In all honesty, the team did not create as much as it should have, and the goal was our best chance by a million miles. Better finishing by Rosicky could have nabbed one clear missed-chance, but Bendtner's BLAM! was at a bit of a distance anyway, and there really was not much else. A win is a win, but it was not dazzling. With Liverpool as weakened as they were, I was hoping for a bit more. In any case, four points from twelve on this terrible run is not a good thing, and we are almost surely out of the title race...but wait! Ten-man Man U draws 1-1 to Villa? And Chelsea LOSES to Everton 2-1 (how dare they make us look worse than EVERTON?!?!)? Just maybe...(crosses fingers, Googles where to buy a rosary...)

And now for the rest...

-Almunia looked adequate when he had very little to do in the first half, and did not have anything resembling a save in the second. However, when one ball was lofted in, he punched...shoft, directly over his teammates, and the ball landed right at the edge of the box. A well-positioned Gerrard buries that every day and every night, and then we would have had a 1-1 draw that would have looked quite deserved, and yet needless from our perspective.

-Eboue got his start and showed why he's second-best to the crackingly average Sagna. He does not get caught out constantly, but when he does, it seems to take him forever to get back. His dumb-looking moments in this match included clearly touching the ball out from five- or six-yards away from the touchline and vigorously appealing for an Arsenal throw-in, and covering his face when Maxi's boot came into his personal space. I still like his attacking-mentality, and he has all the qualities of a lovable fan-favorite, but that will not get him into the starting XI.

-Why was Gallas the captain for awhile? Unlike Fabregas, he communicates and looks like a leader. He and Vermaelen had little to do, but both were positionally sound and professional, showing why they deserve to be called two of the best players on the team and certainly our always-starts. Most of the time they made good plays, but each had one or two baaad plays that seem to be habitual for them...Gallas, getting completely fried by Babel, and Vermaelen, acting one of the primary culprits in the Arsenal-can't-clear reputation.

-Clichy seems to be returning to his old self, as he is starting to regain his stamina and prowling up-and-down the left, and so I expect him to only get better. Still, he has an unwelcome, I think new, habit of finding himself on the wrong side of his winger in critical situations--this could have led to a Liverpool goal in the first half.

-Walcott came on for Arshavin after he was injured in the second half, and showed that he is some time away from a starting-spot, unfortunately. On the bright side, he stayed in position a lot more, and so got a bit more of the ball. However, his touch is still appalling, and so he is having a tough time of getting his teammates to pass to him, even when he is open.

-Sagna came on for Bendtner in the last ten minutes and ran around just a bit.

Next is Porto in the return to the CHAAAAMPION'S LEEEEAGUE! It's a wonderful time of the year here on The Arsenal FC Project. Stay tuned...

Chelsea 2-0 Arsenal, or, And You Expected Differently?

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.

Manchester United 1-3 Arsenal, a.k.a. Hello and Welcome!

Is this thing on?

I suppose it is, but then again it isn't an issue of whether it's on or not, but whether anyone is seeing it. You know what they say about the tree falling in the woods...

But this is not a place for hopelessness or cynicism, this is a blog dedicated to the mighty Arsenal Football Club. So there might be a bit of hopelessness or cynicism, but not so much that it is dispiriting. My name is Alex. I am a relative newcomer to soccer, having been a close viewer for just over two years (that is, I am American). I am graduating from the University of Delaware with a Bachelor's degree in History (Political Science minor) this year, which means, of course, that I am scrambling from career counselor to career counselor considering how to get a job in the too-near future. One consultant recommended that if I would like to become a journalist (one of several options, none of which by any means are slam-dunks), then given my reputation for writing, I would "make an excellent candidate for starting a blog"--her exact words.

So here I am, no longer cluttering up other Arsenal blogs with lengthy comments, striking out on my own with a blog to point potential employers to. My aim is to create a blog that focuses on the play of the team, rather than the news and gossip that fills up the weekdays in between games. Here I will break down my view of every game, analyzing individual performances, team tactics, successes and failures, explaining why we lost and exploding when we won. Unfortunately, on the birthdate of the Arsenal FC Project, I regrettably must do the former.

---

This season, I think Arsenal has played some very good soccer, and coming into this hard run of games beginning with the trip to Villa Park, I believed we had a more legitimate shot at the title than we had all last season. However, at the beginning of this game, Arsenal came out playing garbage soccer. Arshavin squandered some early chances and made the game look, at least from a “highlights” point-of-view, more even than it was. The best chances at the start came from Man U’s own giveaways in the midfield, which were capitalized upon by one or two players—usually Arshavin and Fabregas—to reach the box quickly, but the boys could not finish the job. And they really needed to, because Arsenal was not creating anything on their own. Unfortunately, the boys were not playing as a team for most of the first half. Between bad passes and players not making themselves open, we surrendered possession too easily and too often. The story was worse on the defensive end, and I must say, the lack of cohesion on defense has never been more striking. Players like Arshavin and Nasri appeared to consider pressing defenders and midfielders on-the-ball a part-time job. The ball pinged all around the midfield at Man U feet, to end up on the wings, where players like Nani and Park had their way with our fullbacks, putting balls in the box. And when the ball came into the box, the center of the defense was caught in fire-drill mode. By the end of the first half, Arsenal had conceded two very-preventable goals, though they could have conceded five or six very-preventable goals.

The first goal exemplifies how woeful the team was defensively. The ball comes to Nani outside the box on the left, who has a ton of space that Clichy, playing too close to the middle, must close down. It looks as if Nani gets pinned to the sideline by Clichy and Nasri, who has tracked back, but Nani toe-pokes it between the two of them. Denilson is there when he gets inside the box, but Nani positively blows past the Brazilian—who just stands there—and makes for the endline, at which point he chips in a cross to the far post. Almunia reaches-full stretch and dives backward to touch it out, but he does not clear the bar, and it goes down as an own-goal. Now let’s take names. Clichy was at first caught out of position, and when he appears to pin Nani, he doesn’t make the tackle, and the winger beats him with a fairly simple touch around Clichy’s back. It was poor play as a fullback, but he has the defense at least to say that maybe it was Nasri’s duty to make the tackle, as Clichy’s back was to Nani (doing the pinning) while Nasri was facing Nani. However, Nasri played the pedestrian, standing there, not putting his foot out—if anything he was a hindrance. Denilson, also, just stood there, and moreso than Clichy and Nasri, played too-softly. In the box or not, he had to play far more aggressively than he did. Almunia is also to blame for not putting the ball out, but really, he was at full-stretch, backing up, with Park to worry about at the far-post, totally unmarked (and whose fault that was, I am not sure), so I have to say it was a difficult play to make. It is a damn shame that in another big game, we concede an own-goal.

And in like other big games, we concede a second shortly after the first. This was a team concession, and really, a well-done counter-attack from Man U. I believe it was Evra’s ball that cut through the mass of our players after cleaning up a corner, and found an aggressive run from Nani. Half our team chased him all the way down the field, and the furthest man back, Vermaelen, covered the only man forward, who I believe was Park, and the team realized too late that Park was not the only man forward. Alas, Wayne Rooney, in increasingly typical fashion, ran full-speed down the middle of the field, and absolutely everyone except Vermaelen, who turned away from Park after realizing his teammates’ mistake all too-late, did not notice his presence until he slotted the ball away. Just about everyone at the scene of the crime was ball-watching, letting up on their runs back when they reached the box when the threat was still there, but I think it is fair to single out one player more than the others—Denilson. Rooney ran through the whole team, but he ran right past Denilson, whose head was turned in the opposite direction. When you look back at the replay, the expression on his face when the ball comes to Rooney says it all. Just atrocious.

In the first half, the team made two primary mistakes in possession. Sometimes, they did what I call “hitting the end of the chain.” The ball would reach a lonely Arshavin with no support around him, often because the team was too slow on the transition from defense to offense. Arshavin, not being a true striker that can hold up play consistently, would lose the ball, and the team would be back on defense. Other times, the team played too deep. Again, this comes down to a lack of real forwards on the field. Most of the time we had only two players beyond the halfway line, often just beyond it, regardless of how long we had the ball. Because players off the ball did not make themselves open at the front end, Man U was able to pressure way up the field and force all kinds of poor passes. Most of all, and most frustratingly, everyone on the team made mistakes that added up in the end. Poor passes, poor decisions, poor touches…every Arsenal player had a few of these throughout the first half.

The second half was much better, because except for one moment in which they relived the first half and conceded a third, the team played like a team. But I will discuss the goal first, because everyone likes good news second—and this was certainly bad news. This was another stinker, almost as bad as the second goal. It began with a poor touch from Denilson around the halfway line, which came to Carrick. Meanwhile, Park ran past the two of them and did not stop. Rosicky went in for a tackle, but Carrick calmly passed it to Rooney, and then Song and—critically—Vermaelen rushed at him. Instead of turning and taking on either of them, Rooney passed it back to Carrick, under no pressure from a recovering Rosicky, and, too easily, floated the ball over the defense to Park. He ran about 40 yards with Song, Nasri, and Vermaelen chasing him, and a 2-on-1 situation in Man U’s favor alongside him, and did it all alone, slotting it past Almunia at the near-post. There are three major culprits here: Denilson, for giving the ball away; Vermaelen, who in choosing to take on a Rooney far from goal, with his back to goal, let Park run right down the field with no pressure whatsoever (where was Gallas? Where was Sagna?); and Almunia, in his first really costly mistake of the game, for leaving what was virtually loads of space open at his near-post. Clichy was the last man back, but it would be tough to blame him for leaving Park onside, since the rest of the defense was either at or pas the halfway line.

After that, however, the team played well. Players completed the simple passes simply, whereas they complicated them in the first half. More players opened themselves up as passing outlets, especially the fullbacks, who were anonymous in the first half. In short, everyone completed their passes in the second half, and things opened up. They moved up the field quickly and as a team, and forced Man U to track back, and when it came time to defend, most of them (but not all) did their tracking back far more aggressively than in the first half. And, they pressed upfield to get possession further and further upfield. The new mettle that came into the team showed itself in our highlights. Interestingly, we looked most threatening when the ball floated around the box, going from head to head and looking for a finish. We found a finish, too, when the ball found its way to Vermaelen’s feet for a very nice scissor-kick that rebounded off Brown for a goal. During a good spell of possession, Nasri on the left put in a very good cross in the middle where, for once, we had plenty of heads to find. And damned if it wasn’t Walcott, who played quite a decent game coming off the bench, who headed it back for Vermaelen, whose bit of skill brought me back to those glorious few weeks at the start of the season when it seemed like we could have played him like a striker. A deflection it was—a necessary one, too, since Van der Sar had the shot covered—but Arsenal deserved the consolation. It is a shame that for all the “pass-and-move” good play that the boys strung together in the second half, the goal had to go down as an “ugly” goal. In fact, throughout the whole game, our best chances seemed to be “ugly” chances, whether from a giveaway in the midfield that should have been capitalized on (a la Chelsea), or from the ball floating around the box.

What do you say about this game, except that if they play the way they know how to, the way they passed-and-moved in the second half, the game is a real contest. But once again, Arsenal falls to the only opposition that critics rate on their level. I cannot watch this game without thinking that the boys were victims of their own bad psychology. They may be getting older and more experienced, but they still psyche themselves out. They do not know that they can win, and they do not play like it. Against Chelsea, after Vermaelen’s OG, it looked like men against boys (hence my reference to them as such throughout this piece), as play looked rushed, desperate, and poor, and Arsenal players all over the field had their heads down, looking glum, sullen, and hopeless. This display wasn’t quite as bad. Instead of rushed, desperate, and poor, the play was simply poor, and instead of playing worse throughout the game, we began to play better and more calmly. Perhaps it would be a stretch to say that they played with hope, but they played with more heart and positivity, and only a few players were looking at the ground with every little misfortune (I’m looking at you, Andrei).

Arsenal does not win when players dribble past three or four players, or with unexpected passes that turn an entire defense. The former has always led to nothing in Arsenal’s system, and I don’t think I have ever seen the latter from Arsenal in all the time I’ve been watching. Arsenal wins by passing and moving, passing and moving. Throughout most of the second half and in glimpses of the first half, I felt like I was watching someone flipping a switch, as pass, we’re further upfield, move, we have options, pass, we’re further upfield—all in a simple and composed manner. Too often, players attempted passes to players that were not open, and it didn’t work out. Players on the ball were caught without options off the ball. Several times, I saw the likes of Fabregas skill his way through a midfield, but three passes later, Man U would have the ball right back. The defense should have been far better than what it was, but the team’s real downfall was losing the ball as much as it did, because the players did not play by the rules. Pass and move, they create chances; if they don’t, Man U dominates possession, and that’s what happened.

That is, I reject the idea that when a team is down, the way to get back on top is to “change their approach,” and implicitly, that the best teams in the world adapt to their opponent and beat them on their terms. John Terry does not play like Didier Drogba when Chelsea is down three goals—he continues to play like the player he is, only better and more consistently than he had played when Chelsea conceded the three goals. Arsenal did not lose to Man U because they are a one-dimensional team that Man U could handle any day of the week, because they knew how to handle Arsenal’s approach, and Arsenal refuses to change—meaning, in the minds of yellow commentators, that Arsenal does not and will not play physically enough against a robust Man U team that throws the team about like rag dolls. That sort of description leads one to believe that Man U players pushed Arsenal players off the ball with ease on defense, and then powered through Arsenal defenders offensively with arm-bars and sheer strength. I saw none of that in this game. What I saw was an Arsenal team that dramatically underperformed throughout most of the game. Not only did they not attack the way they know how to, they did not defend the way they know how to. When they did these, the attacking looked almost effortless and created chances, and the defending was aggressive, definitely physical. Arsenal has the reputation it has because of moments that characterized the defending of most of this game, when players were content to watch the ball, let the opposition run with the ball without pressure, and hope that teammates will make the tackle—not because Arsenal is not physical, or because we have the weakest players physically, but because they do not fight for the ball throughout the whole 90 minutes. Psychology and consistency are what keeps Arsenal from winning titles—not the players’ qualities, not the team’s qualities, not how the manager tells them to play.

I do not mean to say that Arsenal does not have only intangible problems, or problems totally within the players’ control. First of all, as I’ve indicated already, Arshavin cannot continue playing as “the” central striker. Wenger has said this before, and so I am surprised that he did not start Bendtner. Arshavin cannot play to his strengths in the out-and-out striker role. He is a world-class player with the ball at his feet, as he can change his pace and direction as well as anyone in the world, and on the wing, he can be counted on to beat his man a few times in a game. He has an eye for the assist, and has a deadly strike from the edges of the box. These qualities make him a top-class winger or second-striker, but it makes him a poor choice for playing in a lone-striker role. While Arshavin plays “dressy,” with all styles of turning and juking on the ball, a lone-striker must play simple. A lone-striker must deal with having few touches on the ball; Arshavin loves the ball at his feet. A lone-striker must distribute to his midfield accurately and consistently; Arshavin cannot do this. Arshavin’s goals all come from dribbling past his man and powering the ball in from medium- or long-range—while his goals are memorable, I cannot remember one goal he has scored with a single touch, from short-distance, or with what a critic would call “finesse”. In short, what makes him a great wing-forward makes him a deceptively poor striker. For my money, he has not had a good game playing in the middle yet, despite some cracking goals. However, in those end-of-game situations when Wenger has put him out wide (in the case of this game, when Bendtner came on), I have caught glimpses of a totally different player, Arshavin as he wants to be known. It’s frustrating to see what he can do in one part of the field, and know that he is being wasted in another part because of the squad’s injuries. What’s worse, he seems to be growing frustrated and sulky himself. I hope he isn’t eyeing the transfer window coming in June.

There were two very worrying players on the field: Clichy and Denilson. Clichy, in this game and in the trip to Villa, looks like a much slower player. Remember when Clichy, as recently as last season, constantly ran up and down the wings, when he looked like the one player that never, ever stopped running? Injuries seem to have marred him more than the average player, it seems, as not only was he fairly anonymous throughout most of the game on offense, but Nani was outstripping him almost every time the ball came to the left side. Clichy of old never got beat on pace by anyone, ever. It was extremely worrying to see our first-choice left-back get so thoroughly hammered, when we’ve been looking forward to his return as a relief from the nail-biting times of seeing wingers square up against Traore and Sylvestre. At this point, an over-worked Sagna seems to be our only really high-quality full-back—and Bac isn’t exactly a world-beater himself. Wenger may need to keep his eyes out for a fullback come transfer season, unless the reserves have a really great prospect coming up. For my money, Gilbert or Coquelin are not going to become true first-teamers any time soon. And then there’s Denilson, who was a disaster. This is another case of, “what happened to last season’s solid first-teamer?” Perhaps it’s his own niggling injuries, but when this guy has played badly over the last month or two, he reminds of Eboue at his most hated. Responsible in part for every goal, he looks completely lost tactically. Defensively he was useless, and that area of the midfield ahead of Vermaelen and Clichy looked quite porous. His anonymity put Song in fire-drill mode, making him cover far more space than one player should have to, and probably made Vermaelen and Clichy look worse than they were. He completed a few little passes and showed up to connect some forward play, but at the end of the day he was a weak link with no clear role.

The defense has to play better. While Clichy was terrible, Sagna also had several bad moments, from getting caught upfield to getting caught too close to the middle (something of a characteristic of his play). Gallas and Vermaelen, to be honest, had many bright moments, but took turns making their own mistakes in positioning and execution. While each had highlights in which they saved goals—Gallas twice, and Vermaelen at least once, with an honorable mention for being the only player that seemed to be trying to stop the second goal—they more than made up for them with huge mistakes that led to great chances for Man U, if not for one or more of the goals. Then there’s Almunia. He can perhaps be excused for the own-goal, though it is certainly an argument. But that does not stop him from a characteristically mediocre performance, as no spectacular saves come to mind, only low-lights: leaving too much space on the near-post for the third goal, giving away an awful clearance right to an attacker…the usual for this guy.

But everything bad started with the midfield and punished the defense. Of the three (five?) midfielders, only Song played consistently well. Song chased the ball all over the field, playing more physically than any of his teammates by miles. He tackled the opposition at the front, middle, and back of the field, and even powered his way through the defense for a few shots. The rest of the midfield did not come close to his effort. Denilson, as discussed, was terrible. Nasri has proved himself to be a neat and tidy player, and to his credit probably had one of the best pass-completion rates of all of them with great movement off the ball to match (like I said, “pass and move,” and we win), but his tracking back is lazy to say the least, and when he finds himself one-on-one with an opposing player with the ball, he never—never!—puts a boot out. For all his passing and moving, it must also be said, he does not push the envelope enough for a designated attacker. While Song wasn’t afraid to rumble forward and push his way through the box when the rest of the team does not, I can’t think of a moment when Nasri did not choose to distribute rather than do something truly dangerous. Rosicky was much the same. Perhaps he is a bit more physical and runs with a bit more commitment, but he was neither effective in his one-on-one defense nor was he committed enough to win any balls. His attacking, too, was inconsistent, as he rushed one too many passes for cheap giveaways, had some bad touches and moments of hesitation that slowed down attacks, and in general did not show off the one-touch passing effectiveness that he is known for.

Finally, there was Fabregas. This was a game that showed why he is not the best midfielder in the world yet. For all the credit he gets, he is not a midfield maestro…yet. Against Man U, he needed his teammates to string together some passes first before he could get involved in the passing rhythm. There were few moments, especially in the first half, when the boys could do that, but when sounded out it looked like: “Vermaelen, Song, Gallas, Vermaelen, Song, Clichy, Denilson, Nasri, Song, Fabregas…” and then Fabregas would get every other ball. He is not as central to the play as is widely assumed. Sure, he made some world-class runs. Was he really that involved? No. When we got into a rhythm, he would be in position to find the ball. His greatest assets in this game were accuracy and dynamic movement. But he didn’t make any world-class, groundbreaking passes, he was not pulling strings with every pass, and really, he did not influence the game like a player who deserves to be called a “maestro.” And where was the physicality he had been playing with of late? Fabregas did not come close to running this show.

And so, Wenger and the Arsenal must go to Stamford Bridge to beat the best team in England after a very mediocre performance at home against the second-best team in England. My goal for this difficult run from Villa to Liverpool was nine points: now our maximum possible is seven. The title seems to be slipping away, but if the boys can dust themselves off and take three points, they will be right back in it. Arsenal always plays their best after the critics write them off. The team can definitely play better than they did here. If Clichy can prove that he’s not damaged goods and that he’s just coming back from injury, if Diaby comes back to fill that box-to-box position with more confidence, and if they can show some real determination to prevent counterattacks and keep the ball in their half, we just might have a contest on our hands. The team has the quality, they just need to clean up their play and show it.

---

Please leave some comments and tell me what you all think. Keep it clean and polite. I know this one is late (a whole match late in fact), but the next one will come in the next two or three days, and I hope to make this a habit enough that I put out posts the day-of or day-after. I promise the next one will be shorter.