You could scour London looking for a sane man to support the notion that Arsenal will progress beyond the second round of the Champions League; it would be a forlorn search.
There is no reason to expect anything other than a clear defeat over two legs.
This is Wenger's worst Arsenal team by a distance.
The Blackburn defeat may well have been the result of complacency, and the Gunners may well raise their game for Bayern.
But after years of steady decline, the line between success and failure is no longer defined only by mentality and motivation, it is now a question too of quality.
Arsenal, though far from completely lacking in it, have far less than they did in the recent past.
If they weren't good enough then, they certainly aren't now. Because if not superior quality, what else do they have in their favour?
To beat better opposition, you need a plan, and you need a backbone.
But Wenger doesn't do tactics, and Arsenal are so often spineless on the big occasion.
This last point is a particularly painful one, because for so long youth and callowness could be used as a convenient and indeed convincing excuse.
Now, the squad and the first team boasts several experienced heads, but the old problems of complacency (against the poor teams) and a lack of belief (against the good ones) continue to surface.
Bayern are the should-be-holders after Chelsea's flukey win last season, runaway leaders of the Bundesliga and among the favourites to triumph in Europe. For them, the Emirates will hold no fear. They may be vulnerable to wily, resourceful opponents who will sit deep and disciplined and wait for a chance to strike on the break. But for Arsenal, there are no precedents for such a performance. If it comes, it will come from nowhere. They have had it done to them so many times, by the great and the good and even by Championship Blackburn, but they've never done it themselves
If today affords no optimism, we can search for it in memories. In 2006, Arsenal were enduring what was, at the time, a shockingly bad domestic season, struggling to win on the road and struggling to fill the Vieira-shaped void in central midfield. Fourth place would be secured eventually, on the last day, after Spurs had led the way for most of the season. When the Gunners were drawn against Real Madrid in the first knockout round of the Champions League, most expected a drubbing.
Arsenal plundered a memorable win at the Bernebeau, via Henry's classic individual goal, and then progressed after a bonkers, unbelievably goalless slugfest at Highbury.
Unfortunately, it's hard to envisage a similar outcome this time around. That was bloated, late Galactico era Madrid, still boasting legends like Zidane, Raul and an ever-inflating Ronaldo and celebrities like Beckham. They were lacking in hunger, lacking in organisation, and Arsenal took sweet advantage, to kickstart a run that brought them to the very brink of that elusive European success.
And Arsenal themselves, while in something of a transitional phase (one that's arguably continued ever since!) still boasted their own attacking riches. Henry was enjoying his last season of true greatness. Players like Pires and Ljungberg were now plainly saving their best for Europe. Gilberto Silva was a selfless World Cup winner who shielded the defence and left the fancy stuff to the others. Fabregas alongside him was busy announcing himself as one of Europe's great young talents.
That said, there were reasons to be very surprised by that European run. In league games, Arsenal's defending was often shambolic. Senderos sometimes appeared a liability, embarrassingly vulnerable to fleet footed attackers. Because both Cole and Clichy were injured, Flamini was playing at left back. And with Lauren also struggling for fitness and form, a lunatic called Eboue was marshalling the right side of the defence, in front of the similarly insane but sometimes brilliant Lehmann.
Somehow, this motley crew, along with the then still reliable Kolo Toure, conjured clean sheet after clean sheet. Arsenal, basically, need something that weird to happen again. Starting tomorrow night.
Showing posts with label Pires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pires. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2013
Monday, March 8, 2010
Don't Underestimate Porto...
...or, more accurately, don't overestimate a Fabregas-less Arsenal.
It looks like Nasri will have another chance to show why he he would be infinitely more effective in a central role than he is marooned out wide. It is a pity for him that we have not seen more of this. I mentioned earlier in the season that there was a possibility in this formation of Fabregas working in tandem with either Nasri or Rosicky (or, more fancifully, Arshavin) as dual central playmakers, with Song doing the "donkey work" behind them and in front of the defence. Unfortunately but understandably, the manager has generally sought greater balance by playing Diaby, Denilson or Ramsey as the third midfielder, thus allowing Fabregas play with the freedom that makes him most dangerous.
One of the idiosyncracies of this squad is its enviable collection of creative players. Nasri, Rosicky and Arshavin are all players who would prefer to play behind the front man/ men, but are most often asked to do a shift out wide. It's not unheard of for a player to be able to pull the strings from a wide position; just ask anyone who witnessed Bobby Pires' awe-inspiring 01/02 season. But these players all look a little ill at ease on the wing. Again, with the balance of the formation seemingly a little off, it is amazing that we're so close to the top of the Premiership. We have a plethora of square pegs in round holes, not getting the job they want because Fabregas is just so good at it.
I still wonder about this 4-3-3, about whether it diminishes Fabregas, in a funny sort of way, to push him up the pitch. He is, after all, really a throwback, a midfield general who can control games from the middle of the park. But this is the age of specialised midfield play. Players like Lampard and Gerrard are said to run games, which is actually laughable, as good as they are. The truth is not many midfielders today are as influential as Keane, Vieira, or Scholes in their pomp, or generations of greats that came before. Usually, nowadays, one is "attacking" or "defensive", "creative" or "destructive", and those who shuttle from box to box have great athleticism but average technique. What I used to especially love about Fabregas was his difference from the average 21st century midfielder, but now he too is doing a specialised job. Of course, it wouldn't be a viable option if it was not effective, and fourteen league goals this season is ample justification for Wenger's tactical ploy. I just can't help thinking back to 07/08, when he and Flamini forged a brilliant partnership in a 4-4-2 that allowed him to dictate and to roam in equal measure. Sometimes you look at Denilson and think that he's not good enough to find an incisive pass from deep that will release Fabregas or another player further forward. It's hard not to feel short-changed by the penny-pinching that denied us the chance to see Alonso in this Arsenal team, but that ship has long sailed.
Perhaps the most obvious reason to play Fabregas a little further forward is that he has developed in to the best finisher in the team in Van Persie's absence, and this is what worries me ahead of tomorrow night.
I think we will need three goals to get the job done in ninety minutes. If we can't keep a clean sheet against Burnley without Gallas, we'll be lucky to do it against Porto. And the truth is we have become reliant on Fabregas for goals. We have a lot of good attacking players, and a likely front five of Diaby, Nasri, Arshavin, Walcott and, er, Bendtner suggests that even without Fabregas we shouldn't struggle to create chances. But who do you trust to TAKE them, on what is a very high-pressure occasion? Eduardo and Vela have not exactly been banging them in either. The profligacy of Saturday afternoon does not bode well, as Porto will surely not prove as easily opened up as Burnley did.
My feeling is that, if we are to progress, it might be time for Arshavin's long-overdue big night. Successful Arsenal sides since the early nineties have often relied on big contributions from left-wingers: think Limpar, Overmars, Pires. If this Arsenal team is to hit those heights, we need Arshavin to begin making a greater impression, even if he would probably tell you in that brutally honest way of his that Anders Limpar, Marc Overmars and Robert Pires were not asked to be square pegs in round holes.
It looks like Nasri will have another chance to show why he he would be infinitely more effective in a central role than he is marooned out wide. It is a pity for him that we have not seen more of this. I mentioned earlier in the season that there was a possibility in this formation of Fabregas working in tandem with either Nasri or Rosicky (or, more fancifully, Arshavin) as dual central playmakers, with Song doing the "donkey work" behind them and in front of the defence. Unfortunately but understandably, the manager has generally sought greater balance by playing Diaby, Denilson or Ramsey as the third midfielder, thus allowing Fabregas play with the freedom that makes him most dangerous.
One of the idiosyncracies of this squad is its enviable collection of creative players. Nasri, Rosicky and Arshavin are all players who would prefer to play behind the front man/ men, but are most often asked to do a shift out wide. It's not unheard of for a player to be able to pull the strings from a wide position; just ask anyone who witnessed Bobby Pires' awe-inspiring 01/02 season. But these players all look a little ill at ease on the wing. Again, with the balance of the formation seemingly a little off, it is amazing that we're so close to the top of the Premiership. We have a plethora of square pegs in round holes, not getting the job they want because Fabregas is just so good at it.
I still wonder about this 4-3-3, about whether it diminishes Fabregas, in a funny sort of way, to push him up the pitch. He is, after all, really a throwback, a midfield general who can control games from the middle of the park. But this is the age of specialised midfield play. Players like Lampard and Gerrard are said to run games, which is actually laughable, as good as they are. The truth is not many midfielders today are as influential as Keane, Vieira, or Scholes in their pomp, or generations of greats that came before. Usually, nowadays, one is "attacking" or "defensive", "creative" or "destructive", and those who shuttle from box to box have great athleticism but average technique. What I used to especially love about Fabregas was his difference from the average 21st century midfielder, but now he too is doing a specialised job. Of course, it wouldn't be a viable option if it was not effective, and fourteen league goals this season is ample justification for Wenger's tactical ploy. I just can't help thinking back to 07/08, when he and Flamini forged a brilliant partnership in a 4-4-2 that allowed him to dictate and to roam in equal measure. Sometimes you look at Denilson and think that he's not good enough to find an incisive pass from deep that will release Fabregas or another player further forward. It's hard not to feel short-changed by the penny-pinching that denied us the chance to see Alonso in this Arsenal team, but that ship has long sailed.
Perhaps the most obvious reason to play Fabregas a little further forward is that he has developed in to the best finisher in the team in Van Persie's absence, and this is what worries me ahead of tomorrow night.
I think we will need three goals to get the job done in ninety minutes. If we can't keep a clean sheet against Burnley without Gallas, we'll be lucky to do it against Porto. And the truth is we have become reliant on Fabregas for goals. We have a lot of good attacking players, and a likely front five of Diaby, Nasri, Arshavin, Walcott and, er, Bendtner suggests that even without Fabregas we shouldn't struggle to create chances. But who do you trust to TAKE them, on what is a very high-pressure occasion? Eduardo and Vela have not exactly been banging them in either. The profligacy of Saturday afternoon does not bode well, as Porto will surely not prove as easily opened up as Burnley did.
My feeling is that, if we are to progress, it might be time for Arshavin's long-overdue big night. Successful Arsenal sides since the early nineties have often relied on big contributions from left-wingers: think Limpar, Overmars, Pires. If this Arsenal team is to hit those heights, we need Arshavin to begin making a greater impression, even if he would probably tell you in that brutally honest way of his that Anders Limpar, Marc Overmars and Robert Pires were not asked to be square pegs in round holes.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Premiership Team of the Noughties
I had the misfortune to turn on Talksport one night recently and listen to Stan collymore harp on in a vaguely xenophobic manner about his "team of the decade" in the Premiership. After he dismissed Robert Pires from his rightful position on the left of such a dream team, on the supposed grounds that he LAcKED END PRODUcT, i could take no more.
So here is my riposte to mr. collymore and all of his dumbass callers- especially the guy who suggested Didi Fucking Hamann in central midfield. Admittedly, about half the team will probably be the same as his, but anyway...
1. SHAY GIVEN
I suppose there's still a question mark hanging over Given, and it goes a little something like this: if he's a truly great keeper, isn't it something of an unfortunate coincidence that he seems to always find himself behind a shambolic defence? Does he lack the organisational skills that would render it unnecessary for him to be making five amazing saves every game? Or is it his relative lack of height as a goalkeeper that dissuaded any of the Big Four from ever making a move for him?
Despite these reservations, it remains that Given has been, over the last decade, an unsurpassed shotstopper in the English game. Van Der Sar and perhaps Petr cech could be seen as rivals for this spot but the former always struck me at United as a merely very decent keeper playing behind an exceptional defence, whereas the latter has suffered a crippling loss of form, understandably perhaps, since the Stephen Hunt incident.
2. GARY NEVILLE
consistency wins the day here. He's never been the most pyrotechnic of full-backs, but in terms of longevity and reliability he hasn't had much competition in the past decade. And a shedload of medals doesn't do any harm either. This was probably the easiest choice. Arsenal have had good right backs and Lauren deserves credit for his part in the glories of 02 and 04. Let's hope that in the coming years Bacary Sagna makes himself a shoo-in for the best right back of whatever the next decade is going to be called.
5. JOHN TERRY
I had to think long and hard about this one. I wanted one centre back adept at carrying the ball out, and one big stopper- so it soon became a question of Terry vs campbell. I've had to go for Terry, probably because we haven't had the pleasure of viewing his inevitable decline yet.
6. RIO FERDINAND
This is a poignant choice in a way because there is already a whiff of stagnation about Ferdinand, not just on account of his injury problems but also due to his form. As a ball-playing centre back who sweeps up behind an aggressive partner, he had serious competition from our own Bill Gallas and Ricardo carvalho. But you have to admit that for the last few years especially Ferdinand was imperious and he seemed to have a special place in his pocket reserved for Thierry Henry.
3. ASHLEY cOLE
Moving swiftly on...
11. cRISTIANO RONALDO
So far this team is populated almost exclusively by players I have an intense hatred for. What an awful decade. Here it was a battle between Beckham and the Portuguese ponce. If you gave Ronaldo Beckham's delivery, it would be frightening, but as it is Ronaldo is superior in every other department. And, apart from the ability to score a whopping forty goals in one season- comprising tap-ins, solo goals, twenty-yard thunderbolts, free kicks, penalties, and salmon-leap headers- it's his searing pace that really seals the deal and makes Beckham look a little one-dimensional.
4. and 8. PATRIcK VIEIRA and ROY KEANE
At first I was thinking of picking one of these guys, and a more obviously attack-minded player like Lampard or Gerrard to partner. But here is my logic for picking these two. Firstly, I'm playing a 4-4-2, and Gerrard and Lampard have in my view always been at their impressive best playing in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 with two other central players to aid them with the workload and allow them to roam forward quite freely. I'm not convinced that either have proven themselves as true midfield generals in the mold of Vieira and Keane in their pomp. Perhaps this is indicative of one big change in the last few years of top-level football. Whereas a decade or so ago, we had players who played from box to box and could dominate games almost single-handedly, now midfield play is more specialist. Neither Vieira or Keane were simply holding players. Both were terrific ball-winners but could also be termed playmakers- witness Keane's famous performance in Turin in '99 where his hypnotic passing provided the platform for United's great comeback. But with the now widespread use of Makalele-style water carriers, it is usually possible to call a midfielder either attacking or defensive, and most teams have one player or even two focussed on shielding the back four. Illustrative of my point is the problem that England had with pairing Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-4-2, with neither really capable of curbing their offensive instincts. Vieira and Keane would never have had that problem. Both could drive forward to devastating effect at different times, with one always willing to drop back and add stability and solidity.
All that being said, there are still players of that ilk today. The fantastic Michael Essien could easily play in a 4-4-2, rampaging from box to box. It is an impossible fantasy of mine to see him in tandem with Fabregas, although both are now playing those aforementioned specialist roles in three or four-man midfields.
Anyway, sorry for banging on, what I really just wanted to say was, Keane and Vieira in tandem, early part of the last decade- when you were done shitting your pants, what would you do to beat that?
7. ROBERT PIRES
Despite Ryan Giggs' recent renaissance, there was only one winner of the left-wing spot. Football Writers Player of the year in 2002 after an astonishing season of roaming creativity from the wing, Pires reinvented himself subtly after a knee injury as a goalscoring midfielder who scored peaches and poached goals in equal number. He had a wonderful understanding with my team's left back, not to mention its two strikers....
10. DENNIS BERGKAMP
I've got to admit this is a sentimental choice in a way, as he is my favourite footballer of all time. But I want my team to be a work of art, not an ungainly battering ram, so there's no better man to drop into the hole and provide the ammo for Pires, Ronaldo and....
9. THIERRY HENRY
I was a bit harsh on him after that handball. He is a bit of a poser but it would be ungrateful to disregard just how staggeringly good this guy was for pretty much eight years on end. Probably, in terms of keeping up an amazing standard for a very long stretch of time, the Premiership's player of the decade. And nearly ever goal was a thing of beauty...
So here is my riposte to mr. collymore and all of his dumbass callers- especially the guy who suggested Didi Fucking Hamann in central midfield. Admittedly, about half the team will probably be the same as his, but anyway...
1. SHAY GIVEN
I suppose there's still a question mark hanging over Given, and it goes a little something like this: if he's a truly great keeper, isn't it something of an unfortunate coincidence that he seems to always find himself behind a shambolic defence? Does he lack the organisational skills that would render it unnecessary for him to be making five amazing saves every game? Or is it his relative lack of height as a goalkeeper that dissuaded any of the Big Four from ever making a move for him?
Despite these reservations, it remains that Given has been, over the last decade, an unsurpassed shotstopper in the English game. Van Der Sar and perhaps Petr cech could be seen as rivals for this spot but the former always struck me at United as a merely very decent keeper playing behind an exceptional defence, whereas the latter has suffered a crippling loss of form, understandably perhaps, since the Stephen Hunt incident.
2. GARY NEVILLE
consistency wins the day here. He's never been the most pyrotechnic of full-backs, but in terms of longevity and reliability he hasn't had much competition in the past decade. And a shedload of medals doesn't do any harm either. This was probably the easiest choice. Arsenal have had good right backs and Lauren deserves credit for his part in the glories of 02 and 04. Let's hope that in the coming years Bacary Sagna makes himself a shoo-in for the best right back of whatever the next decade is going to be called.
5. JOHN TERRY
I had to think long and hard about this one. I wanted one centre back adept at carrying the ball out, and one big stopper- so it soon became a question of Terry vs campbell. I've had to go for Terry, probably because we haven't had the pleasure of viewing his inevitable decline yet.
6. RIO FERDINAND
This is a poignant choice in a way because there is already a whiff of stagnation about Ferdinand, not just on account of his injury problems but also due to his form. As a ball-playing centre back who sweeps up behind an aggressive partner, he had serious competition from our own Bill Gallas and Ricardo carvalho. But you have to admit that for the last few years especially Ferdinand was imperious and he seemed to have a special place in his pocket reserved for Thierry Henry.
3. ASHLEY cOLE
Moving swiftly on...
11. cRISTIANO RONALDO
So far this team is populated almost exclusively by players I have an intense hatred for. What an awful decade. Here it was a battle between Beckham and the Portuguese ponce. If you gave Ronaldo Beckham's delivery, it would be frightening, but as it is Ronaldo is superior in every other department. And, apart from the ability to score a whopping forty goals in one season- comprising tap-ins, solo goals, twenty-yard thunderbolts, free kicks, penalties, and salmon-leap headers- it's his searing pace that really seals the deal and makes Beckham look a little one-dimensional.
4. and 8. PATRIcK VIEIRA and ROY KEANE
At first I was thinking of picking one of these guys, and a more obviously attack-minded player like Lampard or Gerrard to partner. But here is my logic for picking these two. Firstly, I'm playing a 4-4-2, and Gerrard and Lampard have in my view always been at their impressive best playing in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 with two other central players to aid them with the workload and allow them to roam forward quite freely. I'm not convinced that either have proven themselves as true midfield generals in the mold of Vieira and Keane in their pomp. Perhaps this is indicative of one big change in the last few years of top-level football. Whereas a decade or so ago, we had players who played from box to box and could dominate games almost single-handedly, now midfield play is more specialist. Neither Vieira or Keane were simply holding players. Both were terrific ball-winners but could also be termed playmakers- witness Keane's famous performance in Turin in '99 where his hypnotic passing provided the platform for United's great comeback. But with the now widespread use of Makalele-style water carriers, it is usually possible to call a midfielder either attacking or defensive, and most teams have one player or even two focussed on shielding the back four. Illustrative of my point is the problem that England had with pairing Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-4-2, with neither really capable of curbing their offensive instincts. Vieira and Keane would never have had that problem. Both could drive forward to devastating effect at different times, with one always willing to drop back and add stability and solidity.
All that being said, there are still players of that ilk today. The fantastic Michael Essien could easily play in a 4-4-2, rampaging from box to box. It is an impossible fantasy of mine to see him in tandem with Fabregas, although both are now playing those aforementioned specialist roles in three or four-man midfields.
Anyway, sorry for banging on, what I really just wanted to say was, Keane and Vieira in tandem, early part of the last decade- when you were done shitting your pants, what would you do to beat that?
7. ROBERT PIRES
Despite Ryan Giggs' recent renaissance, there was only one winner of the left-wing spot. Football Writers Player of the year in 2002 after an astonishing season of roaming creativity from the wing, Pires reinvented himself subtly after a knee injury as a goalscoring midfielder who scored peaches and poached goals in equal number. He had a wonderful understanding with my team's left back, not to mention its two strikers....
10. DENNIS BERGKAMP
I've got to admit this is a sentimental choice in a way, as he is my favourite footballer of all time. But I want my team to be a work of art, not an ungainly battering ram, so there's no better man to drop into the hole and provide the ammo for Pires, Ronaldo and....
9. THIERRY HENRY
I was a bit harsh on him after that handball. He is a bit of a poser but it would be ungrateful to disregard just how staggeringly good this guy was for pretty much eight years on end. Probably, in terms of keeping up an amazing standard for a very long stretch of time, the Premiership's player of the decade. And nearly ever goal was a thing of beauty...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)