It's a legitimate question.
Arsenal have gotten a bit holier-than-thou at times when players have been injured by bad tackles. But their own players make some bad tackles too. Fabregas could have done some damage to Ward lastnight and if a tackle like that was made against Arsenal, a lot of their fans, their manager and players would be up in arms.
I was listening to the Guardian's podcast just there and one of the journalists was insistent on Wenger's hypocrisy. He said that Arsenal fans he'd spoken to used Karl Henry's bad tackle in the same game in defence of Fabregas, and his response was "so what?".
Here's what: Karl Henry is a repeat offender. Cesc Fabregas's bad foul deserved attention, but so did Karl Henry's. In fact, Karl Henry's deserved MORE criticism because he seems to do it every second game. He's made more of these tackles in a year than all the Arsenal players put together. Instead, it seems, the Arsenal player gets all the negative scrutiny. It's understandable in a way because they want to portray Arsenal's stance as hypocritical, but what is the more pressing agenda? Ridding the game of the attitude that it's ok to do what the likes of Henry and De Jong do, or making fun of Arsenal?
They make big news out of bad fouls by Arsenal players. Only twice a year or so, because it doesn't happen much. And they gloss over the habitual thuggery of a talentless nutcase who never even acknowledges he's in the wrong.
Dangerous fouls happen. With th modern game played at such a high speed, the players are always at some risk. But Danny Murphy hit the nail on the head: some managers encourage a kind of systematic recklessness. How can anyone suggest that Arsenal are not deliberately subjected to rough treatment? Diaby, Eduardo and Ramsey all suffered leg breaks in recent years. It can't be a coincidence.
Fabregas's foul was petulant, but that's human nature. Anger, flashes of temper will lead to mistakes. Dangerous tackles will never be completely eradicated but I don't think that's what Wenger calls for. There are players at other teams who seem to be in a state of constant recklessness and that is surely more worth criticism than Arsenal's perceived double standards.
I find it sickening that on a night when Henry and Michael Essien, repeat offenders both, made shocking tackles, Cesc Fabregas and Arsenal were condemned for what was, on the whole, an aberration.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wolves Tamed, Not Convincingly
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.
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.
Alan Hansen: C***
Alan Hansen's anti-Arsenal bias really takes the biscuit.
Against Fulham, Michael Essien went in over the ball, with both feet, and was rightly dismissed.
"Is there any intent there?", asked the over-the-hill pundit, missing the point entirely for the 1000th time this season.
As Lee Dixon said, regardless of whether or not Essien wanted to hurt Dempsey, he was reckless and endangered his opponent's safety. I hate to bring THAT incident up again, but Ryan Shawcross probably didn't intend to break Aaron Ramsey in two... does that mean the Stoke blunderbus didn't deserve his dismissal?
Essien's been getting away with tackles like that for years. He has a dangerous habit of stamping down into tackles. At best, it's poor tackling technique; at worst, cowardly.
Hansen defending this showed him to be a misguided fool but soon he proved himself a hypocrite as well as that.
First things first, Fabregas' tackle on Ward was very bad. Initially I thought maybe it was one of those where the attacker dives to try to block a clearance and the defender kicks the attacker's foot. But the replays showed that Fabregas went in hard and nastily. It was a dangerous tackle borne out of frustration and a petulance that often darkens his game. He was lucky to get away with just a yellow.
But Hansen, in condemning Fabregas and absolving Essien, showed up his own double standards and his bias against a team that, no doubt, just aren't "British" enough for the prick.
Against Fulham, Michael Essien went in over the ball, with both feet, and was rightly dismissed.
"Is there any intent there?", asked the over-the-hill pundit, missing the point entirely for the 1000th time this season.
As Lee Dixon said, regardless of whether or not Essien wanted to hurt Dempsey, he was reckless and endangered his opponent's safety. I hate to bring THAT incident up again, but Ryan Shawcross probably didn't intend to break Aaron Ramsey in two... does that mean the Stoke blunderbus didn't deserve his dismissal?
Essien's been getting away with tackles like that for years. He has a dangerous habit of stamping down into tackles. At best, it's poor tackling technique; at worst, cowardly.
Hansen defending this showed him to be a misguided fool but soon he proved himself a hypocrite as well as that.
First things first, Fabregas' tackle on Ward was very bad. Initially I thought maybe it was one of those where the attacker dives to try to block a clearance and the defender kicks the attacker's foot. But the replays showed that Fabregas went in hard and nastily. It was a dangerous tackle borne out of frustration and a petulance that often darkens his game. He was lucky to get away with just a yellow.
But Hansen, in condemning Fabregas and absolving Essien, showed up his own double standards and his bias against a team that, no doubt, just aren't "British" enough for the prick.
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.
And Out Come The Wolves
Not an easy game to follow a rotten result: Wolves away.
And Arsenal have a habit of letting one bad result become two or three, letting a mere setback become a poor run. This has been the case for even the strongest of Wenger's Arsenal teams. When the unbeaten run ended against United in 2004, instead of forgetting a fairly unfortunate defeat and moving on, Arsenal were dragged down into a dreadful run that saw them unable to beat the likes of Crystal Palace.
Now is not a time for self-pity: this week sees a trip not only to Wolves but also to Everton, who usually, with the obvious exception of last season's surreal opening fixture, give Arsenal a stern test.
Excuses are, at this point, not well stocked. Injuries are fairly few by Arsenal standards (although many players, most obviously Fabregas, don't look 100% fit) and there have been enough warnings this season. Some games have been lost abjectly, and others have seen poor performances let off the hook. There's been little or no fluency to Arsenal's play, despite the myth that they are the league's great entertainers. Not being able to find top gear is forgivable but what isn't is the inability to find a way to dig out results consistently. The same mistakes are being made over and over, with no accountability. Bad as Arsenal were against Newcastle, they shouldn't have lost the game. Newcastle barely made an opportunity. But if you keep giving goals away as cheaply as Arsenal do, you're making a big problem for yourself.
There's a fundamental difference between Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger. I don't think 'nice' men would make great football managers, but Sir Alex Ferguson is a complete bastard. I mean this as a compliment. You can imagine the terror that United's players would feel after 45 minutes of poor play. The knowledge that you're about to be eaten alive. For some, this would motivate, for others, it would be paralysing. That, rather than than pure technical ability, is what defines good players. Character.
What other reason could you give for United continuing to outperform Arsenal? Their team features the likes of O'Shea, Park, and others. Players nobody would ever get excited about. But they're effective.
Arsene Wenger, at this juncture, seems hopelessly obsessed with technique at the expense of character (and arguably physical power).A lot of the Arsenal players don't look particularly bothered when they lose. In interviews, they talk a good game. Maturity and mentality are the buzzwords. But that's all bullshit. They have to do their talking on the pitch and the writing on the Emirates turf on Sunday carried a stark message. It said that these guys could be humiliated by West Brom, come back only a month or so later and repeat the trick.
How many times do they have to relapse into mediocrity before you just give up? You might see a win against Wolves as evidence of charcter, of bouncebackability, but a couple weeks back they beat Man City and it proved just another in a long list of false dawns.
If, sadly, a top four finish is the genuine summit of the club's ambition, Spur's dropped points at home to Sunderland are a boost. But with the top clubs generally looking vulnerable, it's an awful pity that we aren't looking at an Arsenal side capable of winning the league.
And Arsenal have a habit of letting one bad result become two or three, letting a mere setback become a poor run. This has been the case for even the strongest of Wenger's Arsenal teams. When the unbeaten run ended against United in 2004, instead of forgetting a fairly unfortunate defeat and moving on, Arsenal were dragged down into a dreadful run that saw them unable to beat the likes of Crystal Palace.
Now is not a time for self-pity: this week sees a trip not only to Wolves but also to Everton, who usually, with the obvious exception of last season's surreal opening fixture, give Arsenal a stern test.
Excuses are, at this point, not well stocked. Injuries are fairly few by Arsenal standards (although many players, most obviously Fabregas, don't look 100% fit) and there have been enough warnings this season. Some games have been lost abjectly, and others have seen poor performances let off the hook. There's been little or no fluency to Arsenal's play, despite the myth that they are the league's great entertainers. Not being able to find top gear is forgivable but what isn't is the inability to find a way to dig out results consistently. The same mistakes are being made over and over, with no accountability. Bad as Arsenal were against Newcastle, they shouldn't have lost the game. Newcastle barely made an opportunity. But if you keep giving goals away as cheaply as Arsenal do, you're making a big problem for yourself.
There's a fundamental difference between Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger. I don't think 'nice' men would make great football managers, but Sir Alex Ferguson is a complete bastard. I mean this as a compliment. You can imagine the terror that United's players would feel after 45 minutes of poor play. The knowledge that you're about to be eaten alive. For some, this would motivate, for others, it would be paralysing. That, rather than than pure technical ability, is what defines good players. Character.
What other reason could you give for United continuing to outperform Arsenal? Their team features the likes of O'Shea, Park, and others. Players nobody would ever get excited about. But they're effective.
Arsene Wenger, at this juncture, seems hopelessly obsessed with technique at the expense of character (and arguably physical power).A lot of the Arsenal players don't look particularly bothered when they lose. In interviews, they talk a good game. Maturity and mentality are the buzzwords. But that's all bullshit. They have to do their talking on the pitch and the writing on the Emirates turf on Sunday carried a stark message. It said that these guys could be humiliated by West Brom, come back only a month or so later and repeat the trick.
How many times do they have to relapse into mediocrity before you just give up? You might see a win against Wolves as evidence of charcter, of bouncebackability, but a couple weeks back they beat Man City and it proved just another in a long list of false dawns.
If, sadly, a top four finish is the genuine summit of the club's ambition, Spur's dropped points at home to Sunderland are a boost. But with the top clubs generally looking vulnerable, it's an awful pity that we aren't looking at an Arsenal side capable of winning the league.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Just One More About Walcott
Comparisons between Walcott and Henry are wildly unfair on the Frenchman, who despite being a preening ponce and a big game bottler was probably in the top five players in the world for quite a stretch, and, lest we forget, is Arsenal's all-time leading goalscorer. That is a status that Theo will certainly never threaten. He doesn't have the talent, he doesn't have that ego (the size of a small country)... he does have pace and finiishing ability but Henry in his pomp was about so much more than that.
But there is one other similarity. Thierry Henry spent a chunk of his early days pre-Arsenal marooned where Walcott is now: out on the wing. And because Walcott has only excelled in one area other than speed- his finishing- it makes sense that his future, if there is one for him at a top level club, is up front.
If that's the solution for his own development, though, it may only be another problem for Arsenal Football Club, who haven't played 4-4-2 since 08/09 and arguably no longer have the personnel to do it. Sure, you could pick two out of Bendtner, Walcott, Chamakh and (when available) Van Persie up top (and I haven't forgotten Carlos Vela, he just doesn't deserve to be even seen as an option), but if the midfield looks lightweight with three men, it would be even worse off with two. And the position behind a front three is the area in which Arsenal are best stocked- Fabregas, Nasri, Wilshere, Rosicky, Diaby (if he ever returns from injury hell), Ramsey (back soon apparently)...
If anything, this prospective dilemma underlines the lopsided nature of the current squad. Walcott is NEEDED in a wide position, despite being ill-suited to the role, because his pace offers a penetrative threat that is otherwise largely absent. Nasri and Arshavin don't really run beyond opposition defences when they don't have the ball. And Walcott, despite his pace, hasn't learned to do it consistently, which leaves Arsenal, on a bad day, looking one-dimensional and predictable.
But there is one other similarity. Thierry Henry spent a chunk of his early days pre-Arsenal marooned where Walcott is now: out on the wing. And because Walcott has only excelled in one area other than speed- his finishing- it makes sense that his future, if there is one for him at a top level club, is up front.
If that's the solution for his own development, though, it may only be another problem for Arsenal Football Club, who haven't played 4-4-2 since 08/09 and arguably no longer have the personnel to do it. Sure, you could pick two out of Bendtner, Walcott, Chamakh and (when available) Van Persie up top (and I haven't forgotten Carlos Vela, he just doesn't deserve to be even seen as an option), but if the midfield looks lightweight with three men, it would be even worse off with two. And the position behind a front three is the area in which Arsenal are best stocked- Fabregas, Nasri, Wilshere, Rosicky, Diaby (if he ever returns from injury hell), Ramsey (back soon apparently)...
If anything, this prospective dilemma underlines the lopsided nature of the current squad. Walcott is NEEDED in a wide position, despite being ill-suited to the role, because his pace offers a penetrative threat that is otherwise largely absent. Nasri and Arshavin don't really run beyond opposition defences when they don't have the ball. And Walcott, despite his pace, hasn't learned to do it consistently, which leaves Arsenal, on a bad day, looking one-dimensional and predictable.
Manchester United: RANK RANK RANK. . .
...but still only TWO POINTS off top spot.
What that underlines is that it's an open year in the Premiership. People, myself included, have portrayed Chelsea as obvious favourites but they are now only a couple of points ahead of the worst United team in memory, who started the season dropping silly points all over the place.
Chelsea have failed to score in their more testing away games: a goalless bore draw against Villa, the loss to City, and now the defeat to Torres and Liverpool.
What does it say about Arsenal? This season should be a huge opportunity, but they just don't look ready to grasp it. Had the home games against West Brom and Newcastle been won, Arsenal would now be top. Instead, they're five points adrift and, to turn that around, they'll probably have to turn around that woeful record against United and Chelsea. And remember how to beat the lesser lights. It's a sizeable task.
What that underlines is that it's an open year in the Premiership. People, myself included, have portrayed Chelsea as obvious favourites but they are now only a couple of points ahead of the worst United team in memory, who started the season dropping silly points all over the place.
Chelsea have failed to score in their more testing away games: a goalless bore draw against Villa, the loss to City, and now the defeat to Torres and Liverpool.
What does it say about Arsenal? This season should be a huge opportunity, but they just don't look ready to grasp it. Had the home games against West Brom and Newcastle been won, Arsenal would now be top. Instead, they're five points adrift and, to turn that around, they'll probably have to turn around that woeful record against United and Chelsea. And remember how to beat the lesser lights. It's a sizeable task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)