Search

Monday, 20 May 2024

Too Big to Fail

Arsenal fans were resigned to coming second in the Premier League after the home defeat to Aston Villa in mid-April, a loss that was quickly followed by a 0-1 exit to Bayern Munich in the Champions League. This wasn't because a more general collapse was anticipated but simply a recognition that Manchester City don't drop points during the run-in. The hope that this would be the season that they did was based on nothing more substantial than a belief that funny things happen. In the event, the funny stuff turned out to be Spurs fans willing their side to lose against City in order to ensure Arsenal wouldn't finish top. The reward for this was missing out on the last Champions League place to Villa and having to settle for Thursday night football in the Europa League. Perhaps the more lasting reward will be the realisation on the part of Ange Postecoglu that Tottenham simply don't have the mentality he demands. He certainly seemed mightily pissed-off with the behaviour of Spurs fans in the game against City and clearly felt that the malaise of "Spursiness" extended to parts of the club itself. At least he can console himself with a round trip to Melbourne on Wednesday for a friendly against Newcatle United.

Despite Arsenal's attempt to make a go of the final run of 6 matches, winning them all and matching City's final goal difference of +62, the predictable efficiency of the Abu Dhabi works team meant that only the most romantic still clung to the belief that West Ham might get something at the Etihad on Sunday. As the news of Kudus's goal went round the Emirates Stadium, swiftly followed by the rumour that the Hammers had pulled back another, there was obviously excitement, but as soon as the truth became clear there was mostly rueful chuckles rather than depression, as if the chief emotion was embarrassment for having been daft enough to believe the rumour. The real measure of how much Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan's money has surgically removed jeopardy from the title race was clear in the Arsenal crowd's reaction. We were happy that the team had produced a season statistically comparable to that of the Invincibles in 2003-4 (28 wins now versus 26 then, 89 points versus 90), but we also recognised that short of a fluke (such as the team 20 years ago drawing multiple games they should have lost), bumping City off their perch was never likely to happen.


In terms of thirds, the story of Arsenal's season was one of steady improvement, which seems paradoxical given the relentless way in which the team were overtaken in the final furlong. In points gained, we went from 27 to 28 and then 34. Goals for also went up, from 26 to 32 and then 33, but the most impressive trajectory was goals against: 10, 12 and finally 7. Had we managed to concede only 8 in that middle third then we'd probably have gained an extra 4 points (e.g. drawing with West Ham and beating Fulham). That would have given us the contingency of a possible defeat in the final third, so the Villa game might not have marked the end of our slim chances. It was the defence that got us to 89 points, a tally that was equalled or bettered only 11 times in the 25 seasons of the pre-Guardiola Premier League. Since then, the average points of the winners has been 93.7, with a points per game of 2.47. Arsenal finished with a points-per-game of 2.34. It's not a great difference, hence it went down to the wire, so the question must be: what can Arsenal do to marginally improve?

The answer could be divined in Sunday's final game. Bukayo Saka was injured, which meant Gabriel Martinelli took his place on the right of attack. Though he played well, we weren't as dangerous because he couldn't cut in on his left the way that Saka does. Martinelli has had a mixed season, but he remains close to a first choice on the left, where he can cut in on his right, in fruitful competition with Leandro Trossard. Arsenal's problem is that they lack a top-grade alternative to Saka, which means putting an excessive burden on him that at times has resulted in tired performances. We need another wide attacker. In the middle of the park, Thomas Partey gave what has become his signature performance: driving and dominant at times, but sloppy and easily caught at others. With Elneny going, and Jorginho staying as the old man of the squad who makes occasional cameo appearances, there was always going to be a defensive midfield recruit, and that will have to be a younger and more energetic model than Partey. The other interesting development was the return of the talented and flexible Jurrien Timber, reminding us that the defence can still improve.


Arsenal are getting close to having two top players available for each position. The most obvious gap now is central attack. Kai Havertz has done well, but his attraction for Arteta is his adaptability rather than his goalscoring prowess. In fact, I'm not sure that Arteta thinks in terms of positions at the top end of the pitch: it's more about having flexible patterns. Though he's still only 27, Jesus looks like he may be approaching the autumn of his career, and though flexible has never been prolific, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is allowed to move on if there's a decent offer. Pretty much every fan and pundit reckons Arsenal need a top goalscorer, but there aren't many about at the moment so I suspect Arteta may think laterally, just as he did with Havertz and before him with Ben White and David Raya. The latter has cemented his position as number 1, and gradually won over the fans, which probably means the popular Aaron Ramsdale moving on over the summer. There are still occasional heart-in-mouth moments but that low of only 29 goals conceded owes as much to Raya as to the widely-praised obduracy of Gabriel and Saliba. 

In the middle of the park Ødegaard and Rice are automatic starters and have struck up a fascinating odd couple relationship. It's not that they pass to each other that much - both are looking to feed the wings or slip balls into the penalty area - but that they complement each other's movement and positional play intelligently. The obvious issue for next season is how we replace them if they're injured. Smith-Rowe isn't quite at the captain's level in terms of pressing and general busyness, but he can deputise and has a good eye for both assists and goals. There's no obvious substitute for Rice, so that may be another area Arteta and Edu look to strengthen. There were hints in the Everton game that Tomiyasu could fill in the left-8 role, essentially as a more robust and energetic Zinchenko, not least his early wayward header in front of goal (shades of Xhaka) and then his smartly taken equaliser (ditto). Above all, Arsenal are going to have to evolve rather than just replicate what they already have. Constant evolution is what Guardiola has managed to achieve at City and that, as much as the financial doping, explains their dominance of the league.


There was a lot of love in the air after the final whistle, despite the players' obvious dissapointment at not winning the title, which is in marked contrast to a few season ago. Not only do the fans feel they've "got their Arsenal back" (a ridiculous but forgiveable trope), but there is an air of expectancy, rather than expectation, that a trophy may be there for the taking. Given the young squad's capacity for learning, and Arteta's proven ability to mastermind key wins (we've moved on from the mantra of "control" to something closer to "dominate"), I suspect the club wants to make a serious push for the Champions League, if only because that may actually turn out to be easier to win than the Premier League. The fans might prefer the latter, but it is no secret that the club hierarchy has long hankered for the one trophy to have eluded it over its storied history. At some point, we'll come up against one of City, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich, and I fancy us to beat any one of them across two-legs (or ideally in the final) if we can make those marginal improvements. Of course, the banter scenario is that we get knocked out by Bayer Leverkusen and specifically by a Xhaka rocket that deflects off a defender. Or is that just a bit too Spursy to be credible?

Looking at the league season more broadly, it was fortunate for the neutral that Arsenal made a contest of it. Liverpool ended 9 points off the top and stuttered to the finishing line, the announced departure of Jurgen Klopp failing to provide the spark for a late surge. They look like a team in need of further rebuilding, with too many of their recent acquisitions appearing oddly matched. In contrast, Chelsea have started to look less comical as Pochettino has started to work out the best combination of players, though the owners are perfectly capable of sabotaging his good work in the transfer window. Spurs will flatter to deceive early on next season; Villa look like they'll struggle with the extra demands of Champions League football, much as Newcastle did this season; and nobody can be sure what direction the clapped-out Manchester United team bus will head off in. VAR will stay - the issue isn't the technology but the PGMOL - and instead we'll all be chuntering about the new Champions League format. And the least surprising development of the coming season will be when Manchester City are acquitted on all charges of breaching Financial Fair Play rules. They have become too big to fail.

3 comments:

  1. I'm rather puzzled at your continued faith in VAR. Given that we're not talking about line calls here, an actual human or humans is going to have to interpret the raw material produced by 'technology'. The idea that it would be used for 'clear and obvious errors' bit the dust immediately because there is no objective dividing line and no-one was daring enough to suggest that one replay should be sufficient to eliminate blatant mistakes, while most decisions that are referred to VAR on infringements such as handballs and fouls tend to be matters of interpretation. Indeed, the attempt to rectify the more debatable decisions has led to most of the controversy, as the video referees tend to search for the slightest evidence of contact of hand/arm on ball or player on player in order to give some kind of justification to their decision. Even if you ignore the annoyance of postponed celebrations or prolonged waiting, how do you see it working?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you note, the idea was for VAR to correct clear & obvious errors by the on-field officials, but as its the same group of people managing VAR, it has become a tool to reinforce the refs.

      My preference would be for a separate group, ideally ex-players, to handle VAR so we don't get the arse-covering & prima donna "look at me & my pitchside monitor" nonsense that we get now.

      Of course, this is unlikely precisely because the PGMOL do not intend to be challenged. The problem isn't the tech; it's the organisation.

      VAR seems to work better elsewhere in Europe - fewer interventions & quicker decisions - and I can't help suspecting this is because other countries have a history of greater challenge to the refs.

      Delete
    2. Ben Philliskirk31 May 2024 at 07:24

      Yet given that pundits and fans are divided when they look at these decisions, it seems like your strategy is a minor mitigation rather than a solution to what is an intractable problem. Ultimately the whole issue has reinforced the myth that a referee is there as an infallible decision-maker rather than an impartial interpreter of the rules who avoids the chaotic situation of the players having to come to a consensus on decisions themselves.

      Delete