The problem with Arsenal

Since the end of the Invincibles era Arsenal have consistently been dominated by other top clubs, particularly in the biggest matches. Arsenal and Arsene Wenger, have been subject to some harsh criticism from Arsenal fans and the media. So what has gone wrong since the Invincibles era when they were so dominant themselves? And is the main man Wenger to blame?

1. The Invincibles broke up too quickly.

By 2007, Gilberto Silva was the only Invincible left. I'm sure Wenger would acknowledge now that his policy of only offering one year contracts to players over 30 was a massive mistake as the club was quickly shorn of players who knew how to win. 

Ironically, Wenger recently gave a two-year extension to 33-year-old-and-injury-prone Tomas Rosicky who personifies many of the weaknesses which Arsenal have had in recent years.

As research for this post I watched some videos of the Invincibles season on YouTube. What struck me is how many times they scored from rebounds. Whenever a shot came in there was always another Arsenal player lurking in the box. Players like Pires and Bergkamp were world class at anticipating what other players were going to do and where they needed to be to take advantage. But they didn't stay at the club long enough afterwards to be able to impart this kind of knowledge to younger players. Wenger really should have kept some of those seniors on (even if  in a part-time role) like Ferguson did with Giggs and Scholes at Manchester United.

2. Arsenal aren't physical enough

There is a perception that Arsenal are physically a bit weak. That they aren't good in the air, they don't 'get stuck in' and they can be 'outmuscled'. After the recent match with Chelsea, some pundits said that Arsenal had been 'outmuscled'. But don't think any team can win a match by simply 'outmuscling' another. A player with high upper-body weight is necessarily also going to be slower. A team full of John Terrys would get nowhere in the Premier League even though it would be able to 'outmuscle' everyone else. Physical duels and keeping other players off the ball is a relatively minor part of the game, pace is far more important.

What can happen though is that a team can be intimidated by physical aggression and can end up losing more because of the psychological effect of the intimidation rather than through the physical challenges themselves leading to a decisive advantage. I think it's certainly true in the past that Arsenal could be intimidated by physical aggression, but probably less so now. 

Arsenal have also already conceded eight goals this season from crosses and corners. So a perennial problem with dealing with balls into the box remains.

Looking back, the Invincibles were a highly aggressive team. Arsenal actually received the largest fine in British football history for the violence during and after The Battle of Old Trafford in 2003. They were also masters of the dark arts of diving and cheating (see Pires against Portsmouth and Henry for France against Ireland). They were bad-ass.

Physical aggression has certainly been missing from Arsenal's game over the past few years and Wenger has got to take the responsibility for that.

3. Injuries

The Invincibles were lucky in that they only had one serious injury all year, to Ashley Cole. However, Arsenal have been very unlucky with injuries over the lean years. I even think that the Eduardo injury (and resulting trauma) in 2008 cost them the league championship that year.

4. Player Recruitment

Every manager gets things wrong sometimes and and Wenger has certainly made some mistakes in the transfer market (e.g. Jeffers, Reyes and Arshavin). But Wenger's real problem is that he is less able than his rivals to afford to make mistakes because of the financial resources available to him.

5. Financial resources

The other top clubs have more money to spend than Arsenal do, that's why they haven't been so successful. Simples. Arsenal are 10th in the league on net spending since 2003 with £6 million a season in comparison to £20million for Liverpool, £26million for  United, £44 million for City and £48 million for Chelsea. To put it another way, Chelsea have a net spend on transfers of 800% more than Arsenal in the last eleven seasons. Arsenal's net spending is lower than Stoke's, for goodness sake!

That Arsenal can even compete with the top teams is testament to Wenger's managerial genius. But his insistence shipping out older players and his refusal to ever adopt a more physical approach are testament to his arrogance.

If you like this blog please share it and spread the word.