You all witnessed it on Sunday. A young, energetic, hungry Spurs side made Arsenal’s sluggish, plodding juggernaut look pedestrian. So what does this mean for the Gunners? I would argue, very little.
First things first, Spurs played very well. Their midfield stifled Arsenal’s, and under so much pressure, they really struggled. Gone was the calm absorbing of pressure that typified the brave rear guards against Bayern Munich a few weeks ago and at the Etihad last season and in came the sort of rash, panicked, quintessentially Arsenal defending that has provided so much free ammo to their critics over the past years. Even former Chelsea stalwart Cech was feeling nostalgic and decided to channel Manuel Almunia, Lukasz Fabianski and Wojciech Szczesny by getting caught on the ball way outside his own box.
Worrying signs indeed, but what, if any, is the correct response to such issues? I find it interesting how the media reacts to different team shaving poor performances. When Arsenal shot United to pieces in the first 20 minutes, the general consensus was that LVG got his tactics wrong, Bastian Schweinsteiger and Michael Carrick were simply too immobile to counter Francis Coquelin, Santi Cazorla and Mesut Özil in the middle of the pitch and this was to be the beginning of the end for Van Gaal’s ultra-pragmatic approach. When City went down 4-1 to Spurs (and indeed when they could only muster a 0-0 against battling Villa yesterday), that boring old chestnut of ‘City just show up to these games thinking they will win 5-0’ was trotted out, much to the discredit of Spurs and Villa, I might add.
When it comes to Arsenal, it always comes down to transfers.“Edinson Cavani would have buried that,” they say, clearly not having watched much of Cavani in the UEFA Champions League in recent seasons. “Arsenal need to spend big on William Carvalho in January,” comes the cry, in spite of the fact that he is completely unproven, with the Portuguese league providing a poor testing ground for Premier League readiness (just ask Eliaquim Mangala).
And yet, Schweinsteiger and Carrick have slowly found themselves playing regularly together for United; with their defence still one of the meanest in the country. Manchester City haven’t finished outside of the top two in the past four seasons, so assuming they have no game plan other than brute force and individual brilliance is doing Roberto Mancini and Manuel Pellegrini a disservice.
So what about Arsenal, surely this one performance shows that Wenger is tactically naïve and that a central midfield partnership of Coquelin and Cazorla is just a foolish vanity project of his that was always doomed to fail? Well, if you’ve picked up on my not too subtle hints, you’ll know I don’t think this is the case. This argument was put forward by the normally brilliant Gary Neville, but I’d like to draw your attention to some of the games I have already mentioned, namely vs. Munich and United this season, and away at City back in January.
All three of these games featured Coquelin and Cazorla at the heart of Arsenal’s midfield, and they are arguably the best three Arsenal performances of the last 12 months. Coquelin’s tenacity dovetailing brilliantly with the Spaniard’s vision and ball retention skills, either to relieve the pressure against Bayern and City or to boss the midfield as was the case against United.
So when Neville says Cazorla and Coquelin aren’t good enough as a partnership for such big games, what exactly is he saying? Are Spurs leagues ahead of United, City and Bayern? Of course not. So what was the difference on Sunday? Well, basically, Arsenal are on their last legs, and the international break couldn’t have come soon enough.
Alexis Sanchez needs a break – Wenger knows it, we all know it, last week against Swansea would have been a great opportunity to have given him a rest and use Danny Welbeck on the left to replace the Chilean’s pace and industry (if not his flair), but alas, he’s out injured until January. The unconventional, yet surprisingly effective pairing of Hector Bellerin and Aaron Ramsey were both absent, which not only necessitates a downgrade in quality, but also a change in tactics. Ramsey drifting inside would have helped shore up the midfield against such a mobile Spurs unit (a role that Jack Wilshere could have performed, if fit) while Bellerin’s attacking instincts and pace would have meant width needn’t have been sacrificed. Mathieu Debuchy and Joel Campbell are fine, but clearly they aren’t well suited to these roles. Wenger knows this too, he’s not tactically naïve, his hand were just tied by the players he had available. Cazorla was apparently dizzy too, which couldn’t have helped.
So congratulations to Spurs, they played well and look a very good bet for the top four (and I don’t just mean 4th place). But much as we don’t expect LVG to rip up his tactic’s book for a nightmare 20 minutes at the Emirates, or City to stop playing with the bravado and swagger that has made them a Premier League force because of two dropped points against Villa, don’t expect Wenger to panic either. Arsenal are second only on goal difference, have been brushing aside the weaker teams this season with ease, and when everyone is fit and available, have found both a method and the personnel to grind out results against the biggest teams.
Lazy reporting will always mean that Arsenal need to either be the Invincibles or in crisis, the best team in the country or the worst team in north London. For once with Arsenal, I would like to avoid hyperbole and stay grounded. Given the injuries and fatigue in the squad, it was a decent point against an impressive Spurs side. Manchester City visit the Emirates on 21st December, by which time Ramsey, Bellerin, Walcott and the Ox should be fit, with the fixtures before then looking prime for some squad rotation.
If Arsenal get completely overrun in that game, then perhaps questions will need to be asked, but I think the Coquelin, Cazorla and indeed Wenger have earned enough credit in the last year or so to get the benefit of the doubt this time.
