Why We Gave up Our Lead

So I had to give myself some time to cool down and think about the game with a clear head, as well as read other opinions before I said anything here.

Now I've noticed four popular theories on the internets: Diaby is stupid, Squillaci is crap, Arsenal have no mental strength, Dowd should be beheaded.

The latter, in my opinion, is the most plausible theory. I don't know if Dowd himself is biased, but the performance he put in was certainly biased, whether intentional or not.

Diaby's sending off certainly changed the game, and if one player could be held responsible for the result on Saturday, then it's him. But what he did is understandable, if not acceptable. He's been injured so badly and so often now that I can't blame him for losing his head against Barton, who had assaulted him and our players a few times in the game before Diaby retaliated.

I understand Diaby's anger, but he did exactly what Barton wanted him to, and he let his team down.

So you could say what Diaby did was stupid, but Diaby himself is not stupid. Some are saying that this is the end for him, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. He is an extremely good player and he'll more than make up for his mistake in the coming matches.

But it has to be said that if Dowd had done what he was supposed to (that is, discipline Barton), Diaby would never have needed to lash out the way he did.

I can't question the mental strength (what does that mean anyway?) of the team. They've proven quite a lot of times that they have what it takes to fight and win games, even when the referee is against them. In fact, just as recently as the Everton game everyone was praising the team's mental strength and fighting spirit. It's disappointing that so many people have taken a U-turn on that after this game, when in my opinion the result had nothing to do with mental strength.

The problem with questioning the team's mental strength or even their skill in this case is that you're dealing with very fine margins. Suppose that Tiote's equalizing shot hit the bar and bounced out instead of going in. We'd win 4-3, and I have no doubt that everyone would be saying how mentally strong and amazing this team is because they've managed to win two tough games despite the referee's best efforts to deny them. Just like Wolves' near-comeback against Man City, this wouldn't have lived long in anyone's memory.

Or let's say Barton's second penalty hits one of Szczesny's long legs and flies over the bar. Again, the match stays at 4-2, Newcastle score again at the death to make it 4-3 but Arsenal hold on. Once again, one little thing can change the outlook of the game completely.

So it's important that we don't draw any massive conclusions from this. Yes, it was a bad game, it was just one. And it doesn't change the mental or techinical make up of this team.

Besides the obvious influence of Dowd, I believe the following factors led to our downfall:

First, we lost, in Djourou, our best central defender, and our best central defensive pairing. Besides that, it's never good to change your defensive partnership during games so this was always going to hurt us.

Second, in Diaby we lost our only remaining holding midfielder. Wilshere plays that role well enough but he needs a more physical and defensive presence beside him. We were missing Song and Denilson so Fabregas and Wilshere were left to protect the back four. Not the ideal holding partnership, especially when you're down to ten men. And especially since the referee is happy to let Newcastle continue their bullying in midfield. We needed Diaby's physical presence in there.

Third, in both Diaby and Djourou, we lost all the height from our team, so set-pieces became a real threat. We didn't concede from one but it gave Newcastle something to aim at. Knowing they could score from a set-piece must have given them the impetus to keep fighting.

Fourth, fatigue probably kicked in in the second half, as you would expect after a 3 game week. With 11 men it wouldn't matter but with 10 the effect became all the more pronounced.

Fifth, we stopped attacking with any purpose. Even with ten men I expected us to create at least some danger for Newcastle, but, as Wenger said, we focused a bit too much on just protecting our lead. With a 4 goal cushion you can't blame them but I'm sure if the players had pushed on a bit we could've at least have stemmed the flow of the Newcastle attacks.

I don't think Wenger made any tactical errors. It was suggested that he should've brought on Chamakh and Bendtner to help with set pieces and crosses but the problem with playing too many strikers is that they're not very good at defending in open play. They can't mark and they can't tackle very well. Their presence would have hurt more than help, in my opinion.

Overall, Wenger did what he could and this was a game he really couldn't save.

Wilshere is England's Future

So Mr.Capello thinks Wilshere is an amazing player with super-human amazingness. I think he's absolutely right in what he thinks. But that's a fairly obvious thought to think. Obviously Mr. Capello thinks that because everyone else does.

What everyone might not agree with him on, though, is where he wants to put Wilshere in his England side. He wants Wilshere to play "the Makelele role" which is a role in which the player plays just ahead of the defenders. A defensive midfielder. Or a holding midfielder. But yeah, that's where Capello wants to put Wilshere.

Now people might think he's totally wasting young Wilshere back there near the defenders, when he should be playing just behind the striker and wreaking all sorts of havoc in the opponents defensive line. Which is a good point, but I think he can be an even more immense player for England if he plays in a deeper midfield role. Two reasons.

One, that's where England need him. As Capello rightly said, there are no English players at the top level who play this role. England need him there. On the other hand England have players like Lampard and Gerrard who can play that attacking role well.

But does Wilshere really play this role for Arsenal? He does, sort of. At Arsenal we play with two holding midfielders. They are both given license to go forward, but they are certainly tactically aware and defensively responsible players and are good at winning the ball.

If he replicates his Arsenal performances for England, Wilshere would be filling a gaping hole in the England squad.

Two, his technical abilities are needed deep in midfield as much as they are higher up in the final third. He may not be as influential in the final third but playing deep he can help England keep possession and build attacks from the back, which is crucial. It is better if all players, even the defensive ones, are able to play the ball and be effective in any part of the pitch. Mr.Capello and previous England coaches tried doing that by putting Lampard and Gerrard in the holding midfield roles but it didn't quite work, because while they are technically good, they aren't used to playing that role. Wilshere is.

So will he play exactly the Makelele role? Mr.Capello said that Wilshere can defend but he is more dangerous than Makelele when he has the ball. So Wilshere's better than Makelele. I think Mr.Capello is absolutely right, again!

Since Wilshere is better on the ball, we can expect him to make some forward runs and be more involved in the attacking moves. I can see him buzzing around the pitch, making a short passes and touching the ball everywhere on the pitch.

But here's the thing, today the best teams no longer play with just one holding midfielder ahead of the back four. The trend today is playing with two staggered central midfielders. Even Arsene Wenger decided to change the 4-1-4-1 of last season to a 4-2-3-1 in which Wilshere has excelled. So Mr. Capello is right again, Wilshere may be too lonely playing as the only holding midfielder, but that wouldn't be as much because of his age, as much as because one holding player has become a little too easy to beat. So the Makelele role may very well be dead.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.

It Doesn't Have to be Intentional

Everytime someone complains (usually the great Arsene Wenger, and quite rightly) about unfair, violent tackling and over the top physical play, the response usually is, "So he wants us to stop tackling? That's ridiculous!" Or, "So he's suggesting that players go out to intentionally injure their fellow professionals? That's ridiculous!"

B0th responses are strawman arguments. They create this ridiculous argument out of thin air (a strawman), something that has nothing to do with what was originally said, and is easy to knock down. And then, they laugh at it and smash it to bits.

No one's ever said that tackling needs to stop. Every time Wenger criticizes bad tackles, he mentions that he likes the physical battles and the "commitment" in English football. He understands that this is part of the game.

No one's ever said players intentionally try to injure other players. It doesn't have to be intentional. If you drive recklessly on the road, you might not be trying to hurt yourself and others, but there is a good chance that you will. When managers send their players out with instructions to kick and foul and the opposition players, there is a good chance that you will injure them, sometimes badly.

The player doesn't have to be an axe murderer either. If he's going out there sliding in studs up with two legs then he's bound to hurt someone. Maybe Shawcross et al aren't bad people. Maybe they are just stupid. Maybe they don't understand how dangerous their actions are. Either way, they are unfit to play the beautiful game until they change.

I'm glad Danny Murphy has spoken out. I hope more players do. And I hope mindless pundits, managers, and players don't get away with these pathetic excuses.

Our Defensive Combinations and Attacking Defensive Midfielders

Two things I'd like to touch upon.

One, our defensive combinations. We saw against Partizan, Koscielny was rested (or dropped?) and in came Djourou who played with Squillaci.

Although the Koscielny - Squillaci combo resumed on Sunday against Chelsea, I think what Wenger really wants is to have at least one of Djourou or Vermaelen playing together at any time.

The reason is that Djourou and Vermaelen are very good on the ball, and their distribution from the back is excellent. Koscielny and Squillaci, while not terrible, aren't as good with their passing. This might be part of the reason why we struggled to keep good possession against both West Brom and Sunderland.

Toward the end of last season, we had to play Campbell and Silvestre together, and we sorely missed the ball playing abilities of our first choice center halves as Campbell and Silvestre both kept hoofing the ball clear and inviting pressure back onto themselves, or just making awful passes into midfield and losing possesion. We saw a bit of that against West Brom on Saturday, as well, with Squillaci in particular playing some bad passes into midfield.

As the season wears on, our first choice CB pairing might end up being Vermaelen and Djourou (just like pre-season 09). But that depends on the fitness and form of Djourou, who so far has been a bit error prone but that could be mainly down to lack of match fitness.

I just thought of this and decided to share, I don't know if the statistics back this observation up sufficiently. I will check if I get the time, hopefully. Maybe Santry could help us?

---------------------------------------------------

Now, a lot of people have been complaining about Song pushing forward too much. I may be blind as a bat with red tinted glasses, but I have noticed that as well. I don't see much wrong with it either, to be honest.

The key to understand Song's new role is to understand our new formation. We still play a 4-3-3, but the triangle in midfield is sort of switched, and we now have 2 midfielders sitting deep, while one is given the freedom to go forward.
I wouldn't call it a 4-2-3-1 either because Fabregas, Nasri, Wilshere have a habit of going everywhere and if needed they drop very deep to pick up the ball. So there's no AM or second striker, but one of the midfielders moves up to take up that role at times.

But anyway, now that we have switched from a 4-1-2-3 (or 4-1-4-1 as Wenger described it) to a 4-2-1-3(?), Song has more support in midfield, with the other midfielder dropping in line with him to help out with the defending.
This means Song can make forward runs more often, knowing that there is another player there to cover for him.
So unlike what people have suggested, he is not leaving a gaping hole in midfield, but rather alternating with his midfield partner to attack or defend. As we saw against Partizan, Denilson was often times the deepest lying midfielder.

But is Song any good at this? We've seen in the past that he is extremely good at driving forward with the ball. He uses his size and strength well to guard the ball.
Maybe with Diaby or Wilshere alongside him he should do less of this, because they both like to dribble forward, but if someone like Denilson is playing beside him then it makes perfect sense for him to make these runs, because Denilson doesn't do that.

The only problem with this is that Song isn't the best passer. He goes forward and too often tries the killer pass which most of the time doesn't come off. Also, he can't shoot at all (although he can finish well from close range). I'd rather he lay it off to one of his teammates and try to work 1-2s. Or just work on his passing/shooting.

Song's new found attacking mentality isn't a bad thing. It gives us another attacking option if things aren't working well, and is one of the positives of this new midfield set up this season.

Blackburn Glorious Tactic Make Benefit Arsenal

In the game against us last weekend, Blackburn employed the tried and tested method of defeating the big teams - the glorious tactic of aerial football. A very unorthodox, innovative way of playing that catches every team off guard and they end up leaving Ewood park with no more than a point. A point if they are lucky.

The reason Blackburn's tactic is so surprising is that it goes against the very fundamentals of football. Players are required to not use their feet at all. Kicking of the football is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged. Usually, other parts of the body are employed, usually the head, to make contact with the ball, and elbows, shoulders, and sometimes the buttocks to make contact with opposition players. In some town meetings at the center of Blackburn, which happens to be a black hole, that the new tactic be renamed "headball" and Blackburn Rovers FC be renamed the Blacburn Headball Club.

The headball tactic might have been perfected by Sam Allardyce, but it actually came about as a result of the town's efforts to bring in bigger, heavier people to counteract the gravity of the newly discovered blackhole. One of those people was, as fate would have it, Sam Allardyce himself, as well as some of the Blackburn players key to this tactic.

There is also, another, possibly more important reason behind the invention of headball. The problem facing Blackburn was that the ball, when kept on the ground, would be too easy for the black hole to suck up. It would literally disappear into the ground. The solution? Keep the ball in the air for as long as possible, out of reach of the mighty black hole.

People have, in the past and present, called it an "ugly" tactic. But the game against us was anything but. The drying the ball with the touchline towel tactic was condemned by my fellow gooners but I thought it added to the suspense. Blackburn would have hoped Pederson's deliveries were a bit more accurate, though.

But as entertaining as the glorious tactic of headball can be, it can sometimes fall short in terms of end product. Sam Allardyce is constantly criticized for not adopting a more pragmatic approach. Pundits often saying he prefers style over substance. Although that is not entirely true, it is a fact that creating chances of scoring through the air is actually very difficult.

That proved true as Blackburn's only clear chance came with the ball firmly attached to the ground.

Other teams have shown that, at least at home, you can play football and get a result against the big teams. Fulham showed that recently in their 2-2 draw against United. They were passing the ball well, pressing well, and kept United on the back foot for much of the match. Blackburn, on the other hand, were content to give up their home advantage in favor of sticking to their tried and true principles of headball.

In the end, I think as great as the headball tactic of Blackburn is, perhaps they need to risk the ball being swallowed into the ground and play it with their feet. That may not be pretty but it'll give them a shot at becoming more than just a 10th place team.

Blackpool Join Training Session & Theo Plays Center Forward

Earlier today, Arsenal were going about their usual training when suddenly 10 men from the local Blackpool team showed up. They proceeded to challenge Arsenal to a match which our boys eagerly accepted.

But hold on, said the Blackpool players, we only have ten men! So you cannot play Cescman and Robin! Fineeee, said the Arsenal players, and the match was underway.

What Blackpool didn't realize was that this Arsenal side has an unbelievable depth of talent, and even without their two talismanic attackers, they were still too good for the ten men from Blackpool.

In the end, the match ended. The score was six-nil to The Arsenal.

It's easy to overlook such a match, since it was just a training exercise, but it is important to note a few things. One of them being that Rosicky is a genius. I can't believe people wanted him out. Every time he touches the ball, he makes something happen. He knows exactly what to do and when, and has the calmness to pull it off with two or three trolls breathing down his neck.

The other thing is Walcott. He is showing people that he is, indeed, a footballer, and that he does, in fact, have a brain. The man advantage we had helped him, because he was able to leave his right wing duties to Bakary Sagna (who was also impressive) and focused on playing in and around the box. At least that is how I remember it. Anyway, it worked for him because he got 3 goals, which is more than any of the Totts players have scored in the league put together. On today's evidence, I think Theo could play up front if required.

In fact, all of our front three seem completely interchangeable. Chamakh, van Persie, Arshavin, Walcott - put them anywhere you want across the front three and they'll score goals.

The last thing to notice was that we scored 5 goals without Cesc and Robin. Last season when Robin got injured our goals dried up, and although we started scoring again we never did with the same urgency as with him in the side. We just have an incredible depth of attacking talent in this team.

Liverpool Play American Football

Liverpool were being thoroughly outplayed in the first half. Arsenal, although, not creating many chances, were certainly dominating possession, and you felt that if things stayed the same way, Arsenal would find a way to unlock the Liverpool defence.

Roy Hodgson, the wily old manager that he is, thought of an unorthodox yet brilliant plan. He told Joe Cole to sacrifice himself.

After Joe Cole got sent off, the timid, fearful Liverpool finally came to life. They got a goal through some egg nogg and went ahead. While Arsenal, so comfortable in the first half, looked rattled. Hodgson's gamble had worked.

Then Liverpool did something strange. They started playing a type of American football. They would get the ball, move up ten yards, play would stop, then they'd start again . They did this by sending the ball down the wings and looking for throw-ins and freekicks and corners.

This worked as well to confuse Arsenal (they kept shooting over the bar thinking that'll get them points) and ruin their rhythm with all the starting and stopping.

Liverpool also tried some unorthodox time-wasting tactics (a certain slug must be envious) where their players would fall down and pretend to be blind. It all might have worked to give Liverpool the three points, if it weren't for Jose Reina.

Jose Reina, the nice guy that he is, decided that Chamakh's header deserved a goal, and threw the ball into his own net as it came off the post.

Soon the final whistle was blown, but Liverpool wanted to continue and play over-time. The referee, finally showing some sense, wouldn't allow it.

In the end, it was a draw both teams will not be unhappy with.