May not seem the most suitable time to pose the question- Spurs league form has been patchy at best. This has generally been put down to their participation in the Champions League, but Harry Redknapp will have to learn how to juggle the dual demands of league and European competition, because, assuming Spurs can't win the Champions League, it does not look like they'll be in it next season.
But, to be fair, despite their frailties, Spurs are threatening Arsenal's supposed status as the most entertaining team in England. As was seen during the World Cup, the prevailing trend of 4-5-1 formations can lead to a lot of negative football, but Spurs' version of it has a striker supported by not only Van Der Vaart, but two fliers on the flanks, and the usual central duo of Modric and Huddlestone is more attack-minded than pretty much any I can think of- Huddlestone does sit, but he's more a quarter-back, a poor man's Xabi Alonso, than a Makalele-style terrier (stupid analogy- Huddlestone is clearly more a St. Bernard than a terrier).
That said, away to Arsenal there is a possibility that the strangely out-of-favour Wilson Palacios will be called on to add a bit more steel.
Arsenal have a strange record at home this season. Some of the wins have been less than routine, and then there were the woeful defeats to Newcastle and West Brom. Of course, Spurs ought to be a different proposition. They don't really have the personnel to play cat and mouse football. Both teams tend to play open football, and each will be confident of hurting the other. Signs are that it could be a thrilling encounter, although a kick-off time of around noon Saturday often leads to yawns of boredom, a poor atmosphere and a listless game.
With the injury crisis that has hit Chelsea, and United still struggling to convince, a win this weekend might have me eating my own pessimistic words. Could Arsenal emerge as leading contenders thanks to the flaws of the top sides? I remember asking similar questions last season, and that's the problem really. People seem to expect Arsenal to succeed almost despite themselves. It is only a fortnight since they capitulated so feebly to Newcastle and that shouldn't be forgotten just because Chelsea lost a couple of games. Ok, the Blues and Man Utd don't look as formidable as previous years, but that was the case last year aswell. Arsenal have to improve to take advantage. If United or Chelsea throw it away, Arsenal still have to catch it.
And watch out for that shnake Gallas...
Showing posts with label Bergkamp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bergkamp. Show all posts
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I'll Be The Asshole Saying "I Told You So"
Approaching my 100th post, and still saying the same things as the first one.
I know that this blog is almost always preaching negativity, but I think that a lot of this has proven to be justified negativity. Perhaps the more relevant issue is whether it is misdirected, because much of my ire has been aimed at the manager, who many still seem to see as an untouchable figure. To put him on such a lofty pedestal is foolish. George Graham had almost comparable success (albeit without the nice football) but Arsenal had descended into something of a shambles by the time he was sacked- less than a year after winning the European Cup Winners Cup. So surely it is time to question Wenger, as we look back on five years without a trophy. True, George Graham's Arsenal team were more erratic in the league, with mid-table finishes in 93 and the season in which he was sacked, 95, but back then, third or fourth did not mean Champions League football, and at least they were still winning silverware consistently.
With Wenger, things are admittedly a little more complex. He is the man who has revolutionised the club, on and off the pitch. We have a reputation, which I frankly now believe to be half bullshit, for playing nice football, and for being run the right way. Arsenal now exist as a different entity. Dennis Bergkamp was the starting point, but Arsene Wenger is clearly the most important figure in that. It is tempting to think that if Wenger went, a lot of the French players, Fabregas, and others would follow. For them, he is the club.
But let's rewind thirteen years or so. This club did NOT start with Arsene Wenger. It change into something more attractive for a lot of people, and became more successful, but a winning mentality was already there in the playing staff. While the manager is credited with prolonging the top-flight careers of Adams, Bould, Keown, Dixon and Winterburn, they provided him with the platform for success. Watching Arsenal today, does anyone believe that Arsene Wenger could ever have constructed himself a defence that good?
Some other things to consider. Arsenal reached their only ever European Cup final in 2006 mainly through defensive solidity. In every knockout round before the final, Arsenal failed to score in one leg- at home to Real Madrid, away to Juventus, and away to Villareal, where they barely threatened a shot. They got through because they conceded precisely zero goals in those ties. Martin Keown was at this time a member of the coaching staff. Apparently, Arsene the Autocrat bristles at suggestions that this was of some importance. Arsene the Autocrat this season often stated a Keeganesque belief that Arsenal could triumph through scoring more than the opposition. At the season's depressing end, he is blaming the defence for our lack of success, and absolving the likes of Denilson and Diaby, because they apparently made enough chances at the other end. Do they have no obligation to protect the defence? A defence that had Vermaelen and Gallas, two of our outstanding players?
Maybe he was always like this. Maybe it is the lack of experience on the pitch that is costing us. I used to think that argument too black-and-white but I'm coming around to it now. If not experience, professionalism. Petit and Vieira were professional enough, and good enough, to transform their games in order to better protect the defence in 97/98. Maybe it's telling that this was not Wenger's idea but the result of a team meeting in which senior players aired their views. Where before Wenger had Vieira as liuetenant, the old back four, Bergkamp, Parlour et al, what does he have now? You may say that Vieira grew up in that Arsenal team, but that's the whole point. He grew up beside Adams, Keown and the rest. Fabregas should still be growing up beside experience, instead, he's being asked to lead. Lead a team of (and forgive me) WANKERS. There, I said it. I have a genuine dislike for a lot of Arsenal's players today. They don't care what shirt they're wearing. That Wigan game was the last straw for me. It was unseemly. Abou Diaby should not be allowed play again. Fabianski should be put out of his misery, and Almunia likewise. Denilson needs a kick up the ass, and nobody's around to swing a leg.
I know that this blog is almost always preaching negativity, but I think that a lot of this has proven to be justified negativity. Perhaps the more relevant issue is whether it is misdirected, because much of my ire has been aimed at the manager, who many still seem to see as an untouchable figure. To put him on such a lofty pedestal is foolish. George Graham had almost comparable success (albeit without the nice football) but Arsenal had descended into something of a shambles by the time he was sacked- less than a year after winning the European Cup Winners Cup. So surely it is time to question Wenger, as we look back on five years without a trophy. True, George Graham's Arsenal team were more erratic in the league, with mid-table finishes in 93 and the season in which he was sacked, 95, but back then, third or fourth did not mean Champions League football, and at least they were still winning silverware consistently.
With Wenger, things are admittedly a little more complex. He is the man who has revolutionised the club, on and off the pitch. We have a reputation, which I frankly now believe to be half bullshit, for playing nice football, and for being run the right way. Arsenal now exist as a different entity. Dennis Bergkamp was the starting point, but Arsene Wenger is clearly the most important figure in that. It is tempting to think that if Wenger went, a lot of the French players, Fabregas, and others would follow. For them, he is the club.
But let's rewind thirteen years or so. This club did NOT start with Arsene Wenger. It change into something more attractive for a lot of people, and became more successful, but a winning mentality was already there in the playing staff. While the manager is credited with prolonging the top-flight careers of Adams, Bould, Keown, Dixon and Winterburn, they provided him with the platform for success. Watching Arsenal today, does anyone believe that Arsene Wenger could ever have constructed himself a defence that good?
Some other things to consider. Arsenal reached their only ever European Cup final in 2006 mainly through defensive solidity. In every knockout round before the final, Arsenal failed to score in one leg- at home to Real Madrid, away to Juventus, and away to Villareal, where they barely threatened a shot. They got through because they conceded precisely zero goals in those ties. Martin Keown was at this time a member of the coaching staff. Apparently, Arsene the Autocrat bristles at suggestions that this was of some importance. Arsene the Autocrat this season often stated a Keeganesque belief that Arsenal could triumph through scoring more than the opposition. At the season's depressing end, he is blaming the defence for our lack of success, and absolving the likes of Denilson and Diaby, because they apparently made enough chances at the other end. Do they have no obligation to protect the defence? A defence that had Vermaelen and Gallas, two of our outstanding players?
Maybe he was always like this. Maybe it is the lack of experience on the pitch that is costing us. I used to think that argument too black-and-white but I'm coming around to it now. If not experience, professionalism. Petit and Vieira were professional enough, and good enough, to transform their games in order to better protect the defence in 97/98. Maybe it's telling that this was not Wenger's idea but the result of a team meeting in which senior players aired their views. Where before Wenger had Vieira as liuetenant, the old back four, Bergkamp, Parlour et al, what does he have now? You may say that Vieira grew up in that Arsenal team, but that's the whole point. He grew up beside Adams, Keown and the rest. Fabregas should still be growing up beside experience, instead, he's being asked to lead. Lead a team of (and forgive me) WANKERS. There, I said it. I have a genuine dislike for a lot of Arsenal's players today. They don't care what shirt they're wearing. That Wigan game was the last straw for me. It was unseemly. Abou Diaby should not be allowed play again. Fabianski should be put out of his misery, and Almunia likewise. Denilson needs a kick up the ass, and nobody's around to swing a leg.
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...
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Progress Report: Arsenal 3-1 Birmingham
I only saw the highlights of Saturday's game, so I can only draw half-justified conclusions, but there were a few to be drawn nonetheless. One thing that stands out is the goalkeeping dilemma. Almunia was back from his "flu", but only returned to the bench. We can surmise then that his number 1 spot is under threat, but Mannone may have blown his big audition, and so the plot thickens. Expect Almunia to be starting midweek, and in need of a performance not just for all us fans who are tired of this debilitating flaw in the side, but more importantly for his own fragile confidence.
All of our home games so far had turned out to be relatively straightforward, in terms of scoreline: 4-1, 4-0, 6-2. Yet in all of these games, before the result was decided, we had moments of worrying fragility. Against Portsmouth, at 2-1, Gallas could easily have been sent off for an APPARENT professional foul (replays proved the referee was right- but I doubt if he was right for the right reasons!). Against Wigan, Mannone was forced into important saves as our defence creaked first half at 1-0. And against Blackburn two weeks ago, we were behind twice and could have been level again at 3-3 if the referee had given the trip on Dunn as a penalty.
Against Birmingham yesterday, again the game ended comfortably but for long stretches it was closer than it should have been. Two early goals seemed to herald a bit of a rout. First, a trademark Van Persie finish. I get annoyed when people compare him to Bergkamp, but one way in which he emulates his fellow Dutchman is in the high ratio of eye-catching goals he grabs. For both men, these are often the result of an accomplished first touch in tight areas. Alex Song's pass was well aimed but awkward for RVP to take in his stride. The way he manouevred it onto his left was fantastic, and the finish, when he's on this kind of form, a formality. He has the potential to be more prolific than his legendary countryman, and one feels we'll need him to be this season. When you think about it, how lucky have we been... Bergkamp, Henry, Van Persie. Not many scruffy goals in there, even for the Frenchman who scored more than two hundred.
Van Persie's strike was quickly followed by a second from Diaby, after great work down the right by Eboue and Rosicky. And how great it is to have the latter back. Because he's not a regular scorer it can be easy to ignore him but he really does oil the gears of the team very well and I think we've looked more fluid from the minute he returned. I believe he played twice for the czechs during the international break aswell, so that can only bode well for his contract prospects. Let's be cautious though, we all know his history...
In any case, after that it should have been plain sailing. But Arsenal wouldn't be Arsenal without a soft goal conceded. In one of the few instances he was called upon, Mannone dropped a cross under a slight bit of pressure and Bowyer smashed it in. This happened not long before half time, and it wasn't til the last few minutes that Arshavin put the game to bed with an Henryesque finish on the break. Admittedly, Bimingham didn't threaten to equalise too often, but it's worrying that we made such hard work of them. Then again, the first game after the international break doesn't often see a vintage attacking performance, so we can be pleased with the three points.
The main worries are the aforementioned goalkeeping dilemma, and the equally ever-running injury crisis. The brittle Walcott was predictably crocked after a (legitimate) clattering from Ridgewell, and replaced by Arshavin. From what Wenger said, he's out of the AZ game, and you get the feeling it could be a few more. Also with Eduardo and Bendtner out of the squad, Robin Van Persie was in the unfamiliar position of being the only FIT striker. I said at the start of the season that while our attacking options are plenty in the sense of having plenty of ATTAcKERS, we don't have enough FORWARDS. Two injury-prone strikers, and Bendtner who seems to be getting into the Arsenal spirit of being oft-crocked, is not enough. I've never seen Vela or Walcott play as the spearhead so Wenger naming them as options was disingenuous, a bit disrespectful towards supporters he's developed a bit of a habit of talking down to. So now we're in the position of praying that RVP's glass legs hold up.
All of our home games so far had turned out to be relatively straightforward, in terms of scoreline: 4-1, 4-0, 6-2. Yet in all of these games, before the result was decided, we had moments of worrying fragility. Against Portsmouth, at 2-1, Gallas could easily have been sent off for an APPARENT professional foul (replays proved the referee was right- but I doubt if he was right for the right reasons!). Against Wigan, Mannone was forced into important saves as our defence creaked first half at 1-0. And against Blackburn two weeks ago, we were behind twice and could have been level again at 3-3 if the referee had given the trip on Dunn as a penalty.
Against Birmingham yesterday, again the game ended comfortably but for long stretches it was closer than it should have been. Two early goals seemed to herald a bit of a rout. First, a trademark Van Persie finish. I get annoyed when people compare him to Bergkamp, but one way in which he emulates his fellow Dutchman is in the high ratio of eye-catching goals he grabs. For both men, these are often the result of an accomplished first touch in tight areas. Alex Song's pass was well aimed but awkward for RVP to take in his stride. The way he manouevred it onto his left was fantastic, and the finish, when he's on this kind of form, a formality. He has the potential to be more prolific than his legendary countryman, and one feels we'll need him to be this season. When you think about it, how lucky have we been... Bergkamp, Henry, Van Persie. Not many scruffy goals in there, even for the Frenchman who scored more than two hundred.
Van Persie's strike was quickly followed by a second from Diaby, after great work down the right by Eboue and Rosicky. And how great it is to have the latter back. Because he's not a regular scorer it can be easy to ignore him but he really does oil the gears of the team very well and I think we've looked more fluid from the minute he returned. I believe he played twice for the czechs during the international break aswell, so that can only bode well for his contract prospects. Let's be cautious though, we all know his history...
In any case, after that it should have been plain sailing. But Arsenal wouldn't be Arsenal without a soft goal conceded. In one of the few instances he was called upon, Mannone dropped a cross under a slight bit of pressure and Bowyer smashed it in. This happened not long before half time, and it wasn't til the last few minutes that Arshavin put the game to bed with an Henryesque finish on the break. Admittedly, Bimingham didn't threaten to equalise too often, but it's worrying that we made such hard work of them. Then again, the first game after the international break doesn't often see a vintage attacking performance, so we can be pleased with the three points.
The main worries are the aforementioned goalkeeping dilemma, and the equally ever-running injury crisis. The brittle Walcott was predictably crocked after a (legitimate) clattering from Ridgewell, and replaced by Arshavin. From what Wenger said, he's out of the AZ game, and you get the feeling it could be a few more. Also with Eduardo and Bendtner out of the squad, Robin Van Persie was in the unfamiliar position of being the only FIT striker. I said at the start of the season that while our attacking options are plenty in the sense of having plenty of ATTAcKERS, we don't have enough FORWARDS. Two injury-prone strikers, and Bendtner who seems to be getting into the Arsenal spirit of being oft-crocked, is not enough. I've never seen Vela or Walcott play as the spearhead so Wenger naming them as options was disingenuous, a bit disrespectful towards supporters he's developed a bit of a habit of talking down to. So now we're in the position of praying that RVP's glass legs hold up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)