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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment