Wolves 0-2 Arsenal
After embarrassment against Newcastle, the result was paramount against Wolves. Marounane Chamakh stepped up to the plate after a poor showing at the weekend- it's good to see that his confidence wasn't damaged.
The first goal came very early and was the type that Arsenal would score a lot more if the full backs could only cross consistently. Rosicky spun into space in midfield, drove forward to pass to Song who found himself wide. His cross was measured onto the head of Chamakh who nodded it in nicely.
I only saw highlights so I can't be too critical of the overall performance, but the impression was that Wolves started slowly and Arsenal started well, and could have finished the game if Arshavin wasn't (again) wasteful when through on goal. As the match wore on though the home side exerted a lot of pressure. Fabianski was in fine form despite his latest catastrophe on Sunday. He made a few very good saves, one from a Kevin Doyle shot that seemed destined for the top corner, another in stoppage time from a low, powerful shot (Arsenal's second goal came directly after this).
Bacary Sagna also deserves credit for a great block early in the second half, right in front of goal, to deny Hunt. If that low cross was coming from the other side, would Gael Clichy have made a similar block?
Chamakh finished the game from a Fabregas through ball at the death but Arsenal were lucky overall. If Wolves had a more potent frontman than Doyle or Ebanks-Blake they surely would have scored. It's worrying that Arsenal can't seem to control away games but it's a good habit aswell to grind out apparently undeserved victories. Hopefully November will improve from here.
Also, it has to be pointed out that Karel Henry is an animal who shouldn't be allowed on a football pitch. Fabregas's tackle caused uproar but the BBC ignored a worse one on Arshavin by the Wolves clogger, just as they made a joke of it when he was kicking the shit out of Joey Barton earlier this campaign. His assault on Jordi Gomes, which thankfully did produce a red card, was almost hilariously bad, and the guy doesn't seem to recognise that he is a danger to everyone else on a football pitch. He's not learning his lesson and the football media would do well to be a bit more critical. The ex-players talking on TV seem scared to condemn, perhaps believing they have an obligation to "protect their own". Especially when the player is British.
Nigel De Jong probably wouldn't enjoy the same support.
Showing posts with label De Jong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label De Jong. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
MC + MU = zzzzzzzzz
Man City 0-0 Man United
It would take a horrid little team to have me almost wishing to see Manchester United score yet another late winner. Roberto Mancini has crafted such a team.
I used to resent Mourinho's Chelsea on the basis that a team built on hundreds of millions of pounds in transfers should be hugely entertaining rather than just functional and effective. But this City side makes that Chelsea side look like Barcelona. And they aren't even proving particularly effective.
Their whole game plan seems based on the idea that the opposition will overcommit. United were a bit too clever or cautious to do that, and the game was murdered as a spectacle.
There is an idea expressed in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson recently (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/nov/09/carlos-tevez-city-the-question) that Mancini is effectively deploying a strategy that was prevalent in Italy about a decade ago- having seven mainly defensive players, and three attack-minded ones. People say he conforms to an Italian stereotype but at least Juve at the turn of the century had Zidane in the playmaker role. Where is City's playmaker?
To be fair, while City did ostensibly field seven defence-minded players against United, Yaya Toure was clearly given license to get forward to support Tevez. Despite some buccaneering runs, he seems ill-suited to that role. It doesn't help that Gareth Barry and Nigel De Jong provide passing that's about as incisive as Jamie Redknapp's punditry.
With David Silva still apparently acclimatising to the unique rigours of the English game, you would expect Mancini to allow Adam Johnson the opportunity to provide the creativity City so desperately need; instead, James Milner invariably starts and looks busy while doing very little at all.
They're a miserable little team. Their best player is Tevez and even he is more a gifted workhorse than a superstar. They run all night and work hard but they make the creative side of the game look so laborious. Fuck off Manchester City.
It would take a horrid little team to have me almost wishing to see Manchester United score yet another late winner. Roberto Mancini has crafted such a team.
I used to resent Mourinho's Chelsea on the basis that a team built on hundreds of millions of pounds in transfers should be hugely entertaining rather than just functional and effective. But this City side makes that Chelsea side look like Barcelona. And they aren't even proving particularly effective.
Their whole game plan seems based on the idea that the opposition will overcommit. United were a bit too clever or cautious to do that, and the game was murdered as a spectacle.
There is an idea expressed in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson recently (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/nov/09/carlos-tevez-city-the-question) that Mancini is effectively deploying a strategy that was prevalent in Italy about a decade ago- having seven mainly defensive players, and three attack-minded ones. People say he conforms to an Italian stereotype but at least Juve at the turn of the century had Zidane in the playmaker role. Where is City's playmaker?
To be fair, while City did ostensibly field seven defence-minded players against United, Yaya Toure was clearly given license to get forward to support Tevez. Despite some buccaneering runs, he seems ill-suited to that role. It doesn't help that Gareth Barry and Nigel De Jong provide passing that's about as incisive as Jamie Redknapp's punditry.
With David Silva still apparently acclimatising to the unique rigours of the English game, you would expect Mancini to allow Adam Johnson the opportunity to provide the creativity City so desperately need; instead, James Milner invariably starts and looks busy while doing very little at all.
They're a miserable little team. Their best player is Tevez and even he is more a gifted workhorse than a superstar. They run all night and work hard but they make the creative side of the game look so laborious. Fuck off Manchester City.
Friday, October 22, 2010
City - Arsenal A Match of Contrasts
Arsenal play a positive, attacking game, while City are as dull as ditchwater.
City are solid at the back, where Arsenal are porous.
The midfielders in blue are robust but limited. In red, they are slight but creative.
City have two of the best keepers in the league... Arsenal, two of the worst.
HOPEFULLY, Nigel De Jong is suffering, distracted by the negative press he has received of late. Last year, he muzzled Fabregas at Eastlands in City's 4-2 victory, but last weekend, he and City's other midfielders couldn't get near Charlie Adam of Blackpool.
You would hope, then, that Arsenal's creative players can give City problems.
ADEBAYOR's hat trick in Europe could bode badly for us. While essentially a part-timer now thanks to his rotten attitude, he is unlikely to need motivation against Arsenal. His replacement by David Silva last weekend pretty much won City the game, so he's hardly going to start against Arsenal, but substitutions could be vital in what ought to be a close-fought game.
Arsenal continue to struggle with the oppressive weight of their recent failures in big games. That makes this weekend another crucial one. City have the players to soak up pressure and hit a team on the break, and Arsenal invite that kind of strategy, as has been seen against Chelsea, Manchester United, and City themselves in the recent past. Scoring the first goal would be a nice change, but even in such a situation, can Arsenal's rickety defence ever be trusted to hold firm? It promises to be an interesting game.
City are solid at the back, where Arsenal are porous.
The midfielders in blue are robust but limited. In red, they are slight but creative.
City have two of the best keepers in the league... Arsenal, two of the worst.
HOPEFULLY, Nigel De Jong is suffering, distracted by the negative press he has received of late. Last year, he muzzled Fabregas at Eastlands in City's 4-2 victory, but last weekend, he and City's other midfielders couldn't get near Charlie Adam of Blackpool.
You would hope, then, that Arsenal's creative players can give City problems.
ADEBAYOR's hat trick in Europe could bode badly for us. While essentially a part-timer now thanks to his rotten attitude, he is unlikely to need motivation against Arsenal. His replacement by David Silva last weekend pretty much won City the game, so he's hardly going to start against Arsenal, but substitutions could be vital in what ought to be a close-fought game.
Arsenal continue to struggle with the oppressive weight of their recent failures in big games. That makes this weekend another crucial one. City have the players to soak up pressure and hit a team on the break, and Arsenal invite that kind of strategy, as has been seen against Chelsea, Manchester United, and City themselves in the recent past. Scoring the first goal would be a nice change, but even in such a situation, can Arsenal's rickety defence ever be trusted to hold firm? It promises to be an interesting game.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Enough of the Rough Stuff [Typical Arsenal Fan]
Danny Murphy’s recent comments on the overuse of physicality in the English game were laudable on many levels. He was honest, and brave- especially when you consider that he still has to play against the teams he condemned.
The most significant aspect of this is an easily overlooked one. With so much negativity surrounding the English national team, critics should spend less time decrying the substandard performances of a substandard team, and more worrying about changing the culture of their game.
Every time there is an incident like the one involving Shawcross and Ramsey last season, and many in the game show sympathy towards the perpetrator and not the victim, they help cement an outdated attitude that it is ok to go in hard and hurt players. Not many would accuse Shawcross of intending to do the damage he did- that would make him a sociopath- but he has a proven track record of causing injury and so he is clearly acting recklessly.
Physicality is something that is important to the Premiership’s image as arguably the most exciting of the world’s football leagues. Rightly so. But in a game played so fast, by big, strong athletes, there has to be more emphasis on the safety of the players. It would serve England well.
Few seem to see the link between the encouragement of brutal play in the Premiership and the perceived underachievement of the English national side. There is plenty of artistic play on show in the league, but it must be said that most of the technical excellence has, in recent years, been provided by the continental players who have flooded it since the mid 1990s. There are less and less English players of the technical calibre of a Glenn Hoddle, a John Barnes, or a Paul Gascoigne, perhaps because the English clubs know they can import class from abroad, and look to their English players to provide grit and hard work.
And when an unpolished gem like Jack Wilshere is unearthed, look at the treatment that is dished out- he has already been the victim of some unnecessarily tough tackling this season, with more undoubtedly to come.
I don’t mean to be too black and white about the debate. It’s not only British players who apply brute force on a football pitch- Nigel De Jong plays like an assassin, and George Boateng has been at it for years, and there are plenty more continental examples. But I do think that aggression is over-emphasised in English footballing culture. Even looking at a Gerrard or a Rooney- they often have the look of a bull in a china shop, and they are regarded as the most skilful of English players.
This aggression, when allied to a reckless nature like that of Karl Henry or Ryan Shawcross, is dangerous and destructive. It can destroy careers. And if it is weeded out of the game, I believe it would be of immense benefit to the English national team, as technical brilliance may finally come to be privileged over the clichés of 110%, putting ‘em under pressure, and kicking the skilful players in the air until their spirit- or their legs- are broken.
The most significant aspect of this is an easily overlooked one. With so much negativity surrounding the English national team, critics should spend less time decrying the substandard performances of a substandard team, and more worrying about changing the culture of their game.
Every time there is an incident like the one involving Shawcross and Ramsey last season, and many in the game show sympathy towards the perpetrator and not the victim, they help cement an outdated attitude that it is ok to go in hard and hurt players. Not many would accuse Shawcross of intending to do the damage he did- that would make him a sociopath- but he has a proven track record of causing injury and so he is clearly acting recklessly.
Physicality is something that is important to the Premiership’s image as arguably the most exciting of the world’s football leagues. Rightly so. But in a game played so fast, by big, strong athletes, there has to be more emphasis on the safety of the players. It would serve England well.
Few seem to see the link between the encouragement of brutal play in the Premiership and the perceived underachievement of the English national side. There is plenty of artistic play on show in the league, but it must be said that most of the technical excellence has, in recent years, been provided by the continental players who have flooded it since the mid 1990s. There are less and less English players of the technical calibre of a Glenn Hoddle, a John Barnes, or a Paul Gascoigne, perhaps because the English clubs know they can import class from abroad, and look to their English players to provide grit and hard work.
And when an unpolished gem like Jack Wilshere is unearthed, look at the treatment that is dished out- he has already been the victim of some unnecessarily tough tackling this season, with more undoubtedly to come.
I don’t mean to be too black and white about the debate. It’s not only British players who apply brute force on a football pitch- Nigel De Jong plays like an assassin, and George Boateng has been at it for years, and there are plenty more continental examples. But I do think that aggression is over-emphasised in English footballing culture. Even looking at a Gerrard or a Rooney- they often have the look of a bull in a china shop, and they are regarded as the most skilful of English players.
This aggression, when allied to a reckless nature like that of Karl Henry or Ryan Shawcross, is dangerous and destructive. It can destroy careers. And if it is weeded out of the game, I believe it would be of immense benefit to the English national team, as technical brilliance may finally come to be privileged over the clichés of 110%, putting ‘em under pressure, and kicking the skilful players in the air until their spirit- or their legs- are broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)