Hello and Goodbye

I had planned on making no new posts on this blog as I am switching sites and the format (more on that at the end) but then I realized that if I didn't, I couldn't be on the record with any predictions for the upcoming year and that just wouldn't be right. Last year's predictions were very accurate with the top four correct in order and six of the top seven foreseen. Newcastle in the top seven ends up looking rather garish but their fall and Everton's ascendancy were met with general surprise, so I won't feel too bad about it. At any rate, here's some details about my predictions for the top four.

1. Chelsea

Last season Chelsea looked like a team that were struggling to find out exactly what they were and how they wanted to play, yet still had a relatively easy run to third place even if the Manchester teams pulled away as things wound down. In fact, the Blues were basically in a civil war with the fans loathing Roman Abramovich's choice of interim manager Rafael Benitez, a man who famously taunted the Chelsea faithful while he was manger of Liverpool. This controversial hiring came on the heels of the firing of Roberto Di Matteo, who did nothing short of win the goddamn Champions League but was never in favor with the Russian owner. Two coaches, bitter resentment from fans, zero consistent striker play... yet Chelsea were still third. If this year is simple stable instead of violently disrupting, they should challenge for the title.

Let's not forget how talented Chelsea is. Last year they had a tremendous midfield with Ramires, Oscar, Eden Hazard, and Juan Mata. Mata at times looked like the best playing in the Premier League and Ramires impressed with charging runs and a high work rate. The defense was solid, giving up the third fewest goals in the league, and had interesting options with Branislav Ivanovic, Caesar Azpilicueta, and consistent racist John Terry. Plus Petr Chech was behind it all to clean us any potential messes (looking at you, Gary Cahill). The only thing they seriously lacked was quality play up top with neither Fernando Torres nor Demba Ba looking comfortable in front of goal. Frank Lampard, a player who I didn't even see fit to name while listing midfield highlights, led the team in goals. It is entirely possible that Torres or Ba could come back into form but if they don't, Romelu Lukaku is back from a very impressive loan spell at West Bromwich Albion and Andres Schurrle, the German international, has been brought in for even more options. This team looks like a contender already and I haven't even mentioned the biggest news of the summer, the return of beloved (and special) manager Jose Mourinho. This team will be disciplined, they will have a system, and they will be even more talented than last year. They are my preseason pick to win the title.

2. Manchester City

It's just not fair at this point. Manchester City finished second last year and while they weren't in it until the very end, they finished comfortably and had enough talent to challenge again this year with no changes. So what do they do? Fire manager Roberto Mancini and replace him with a different elite manager, Manuel Pellegrini. The Chilean comes to Manchester fresh off a Champions League quarterfinal run with Malaga, done while the team was having problems paying its players due to financial conditions, and has also coached at Real Madrid and Villareal. Also incoming are goal scoring machine Alvaro Negredo (25 in La Liga last season), versatile and skilled Stevan Jovetic to replace the departed Carlos Tevez, and Jesus Navas and Fernandinho to give the midfield speed and steel respectfully. These players come into a squad that was incredibly strong to begin with, boasting stars such as Yaya Toure, David Silva, Vincent Kompany, and Sergio Aguero.

Like Chelsea, Manchester City looked out of sorts like year, just slightly off from what the team should be. Many blame that on how Roberto Mancini's defensive tactics were an ill fit for his talent and while that narrative has reached the state where it is probably overblown, it has it's base in truth. With so much creativity in the squad, there is no reason to think that they should not only be improved stylistically, but also in results on the field and challenge for the title.

3. Manchester United

This might seem like an unfair ranking for last year's champions who strolled to their 20th league title with shocking ease, but I don't feel that's the case. This was a team that often stumbled their way to going down in games only to miraculously come from behind, usually on the boot of Robin Van Persie. It is not likely that Van Persie will suddenly dip in form but it is difficult to assume that United will once again recover from all those deficits, especially when they rely so much on one man to do so. That's really a minor quibble about how last year's team performed, however. They lead the league in goals scored and goal differential so what can you really complain about? This ranking is more about the teams around them than their own team. Chelsea and Manchester City weren't that far behind already and both teams brought in proven big name players to bolster their rosters. United have signed Wilifred Zaha and while he is a true talent, it's doubtful he'll have the impact that the stars on those other contenders will.

The biggest loss for Manchester is off the pitch. The club always exuded an air of invincibility with Sir Alex Ferguson on the bench and now they will have to do without him. David Moyes is by no means a poor manager and he may turn out to be more than a worthy replacement. The fact remains, however, that United have lost something at manager while both Chelsea and City have made real improvement. Moyes has made the classic Arsenal blunder of getting involved in transfer "sagas" and I find it incredibly unlikely that main target Cesc Fabregas will come to the club. The window is not closed though and Manchester United are a big team with big goals. It is likely that they will still bring in talent and challenge for the title as returning champions.

4. Arsenal

Sigh.

That pretty much describes Arsenal's summer so far. The team finished strong to close out the 2012-2013 season in fourth place and, for the first time in what seemed like ages, didn't have any stars leaving the team during the transfer window. With chief executive Ivan Gazidis talking about the team's £70 million budget for offseason acquisitions, this seemed like the season Arsenal were going to step back up to the big boys' table and become a serious threat. Then... nothing. The Gunners lost out on Stevan Jovetic, Gonzolo Higuain, Luis Gustavo, and seemingly Luis Suarez (thank god), and currently have brought in no one but a young French striker who will be used more for depth than to make an impact. Now Mikel Arteta will be out four to six weeks, Nacho Monreal and Thomas Vermaelen will miss the start of the season, and both Theo Walcott and Santi Cazorla have picked up minor knocks. Arsene Wenger did an excellent job of clearing out the dead weight over the summer but without anyone coming in, the team is thin and that money is freed up for nothing. There are young players on the team that can raise their level but then the team is looking like a project when it has a real chance to be a player. With everyone around them getting better, it's been frustrating to watch the Gunners sit on their hands and do nothing.

And yet... there is just something about this team. I enjoy watching them. I think there is real talent and there is also the chance for players to make improvements. I'm biased towards supporting handsome Frenchman Olivier Giroud but he's looked fantastic in preseason and his finishing should improve with a year in the league under his belt. Plus his passing and possession never let the team down even when he wasn't finding the back of the net. Aaron Ramsey has also been bossing the preseason and has continued to make his inclusion in the starting XI a foregone conclusion. Santi Cazorla was one of the best players in the league last year and if Wenger can simply bring in warm bodies so that our main playmaker doesn't look as tired this year as he did toward the end of last, the diminutive Spaniard's play should improve even more. The starting XI is top four if not higher right now, it's the depth that could end up costing the team.

What it comes down to is the assumption of transfers coming in and I just don't see Wenger standing pat, even if it takes until August 31st. He has to know that this team is on the brink of contending status and he can't think that this team is complete right now, especially with the injuries. If Arsenal does indeed do nothing before the window closes then I will regret this position for them, but I don't see that happening. Look for the Gunners to bring in players in the next two weeks, shore up the weaknesses, and be ready to compete again.

5. Tottenham (ha)
6. Liverpool
7. Everton

18. Stoke City
19. Cardiff City
20. Norwich

This is the last post you will see on this blog as I will be changing it up and moving to another site (most likely Wordpress, need to finalize this over the weekend) as early as this coming Monday. This is being done not so much due to problems with Blogger but because I want to change the format and expand beyond an Arsenal blog. There will be Arsenal posts still (probably even more) but there will also be a renewed commitment to more varied and more frequent writing. I will publicize once the switch is made and I invite you to join me there. In the mean time, check out my writing on the Boston Gooners website One Club on Boylston. My first post there will be Wednesday so be on the lookout. Thanks to anyone who has read me, good luck with the season, and Come On You Gunners.

Saving Sagna

It seems like every day there is another rumor flying around about an Arsenal player going out the door during the next transfer window. There are several types of rumors that make the rounds depending on what the prevailing state of the club is. Going into the transfer window, there are the wishlists of players that fans want to see the club sell because they're not wanted anymore. Who knows how many times Sebastien Squillaci, Andrei Arshavin, Marouane Chamakh, and Nicklas Bendtner have been sold or resold in fans minds over the years, only to have them loaned out instead or benched without hope of being used. There's also the ongoing transfer sagas that have dominated the headlines in years past. Robin Van Persie's status was in doubt even before his now infamous public letter, Samir Nasri was always suspected to be after a big payday, and Cesc Fabregas... I love the man, but the whole "Cesc to Barcelona" story carried on for far too long.

The most interesting type of transfer rumor though begin when players who don't have much time on their contract haven't signed new deals yet. This was the start of worry about Van Persie, who was ultimately sold, as well as Theo Walcott this past winter, who was ultimately resigned. The reason this type of situation is so fascinating is because it appears seemingly out of nowhere, catches hold, and then becomes a fan referendum on the merits of keeping the player versus selling the player, even if there have been no serious contract talks to that point. When Walcott hadn't yet signed there were cries of "sell him to City and we'll use the money to buy a younger, better version" (Wilfried Zaha anyone?) as well as "if Arsenal sell, that proves their intentions to other clubs as well as their fans." The debate itself gives insight into the psyche of fans and what they think their team is capable of. Right now, the foremost subject of this kind of rumor is right back Bacary Sagna. Some people say that he's one of the best backs in England and the Gunners would be mad to give him to a competitor ("it's the same thing as Van Persie" has come up before) while others think that he's out of form and we should get what we can for him so we can let Carl "The Corporal" Jenkinson take over. I could address both sides and the merits of their arguments, but let me instead choose a third option: Arsenal should re-sign Sagna... and move him to center back.

Right away let me say that this post is not an overreaction to one game in which Sagna committed a particular series of errors. That would be unfair and also intellectually dishonest. This is instead an idea for a post I've been toying around with for a while so the timing of said post is all that's affected by Sunday's events. Anyway, moving on.

Sagna has long been one of the best right backs in England (possibly the world) for several reasons: he has excellent understanding of position, he is a solid on the ball defender, he has the pace to both join the attack and recover on defense, and he is an excellent crosser of the ball. Most teams would happily settle for three out of the four abilities, perhaps even two of the four if the two the player has are exceptional. Arsenal have not had to settle with Sagna and that is why he has been a mainstay of the squad for so many years. However, those years are starting to catch up to the French national. This year has seen a significant drop in his form and there are serious doubts about his ability to regain it. Granted, this is his first full year of playing after missing the end of last season and Euro 2012 with a broken leg, no small injury. That injury though is a reason both for optimism and doubt. He may simply need some more time to fully regain his abilities but it's also entirely possible that the leg injury has hastened the inevitable countdown on a football player's career. In short, there is no guarantee that he will ever again be the Bacary Sagna that he once was and we have a season of data to show us that. He has crossed the ball very poorly this year, seems unwilling (or unable) to take on defenders, and is often caught out by speedier wings (or occasionally Flying Dutchmen). The cries for Jenkinson, a promising young back, are warranted and one can see why selling Sagna away makes sense to some.

However, Sagna's positional awareness never left him even if he can be exposed in space on the wing. He also is as dominant in the air as ever, consistently winning balls flung forward from the opposition as well as 50/50 balls popped up in his area. While he may not be wing-back-quick he still has quite a bit of speed and he is adept at passing in tight spaces, such as the triangles he's worked on the sidelines for years. Is it radical thinking to assume that he would be perfect as a new center back for Arsenal? This is not without precedent, after all. Sagna filled in next to Per Mertesacker against Sunderland earlier this season when Laurent Koscielny was a last minute scratch with an injury, and he performed immensely. By many accounts he was the man of the match and it was due to his natural abilities: winning tackles, heading the ball away, and playing the ball out of the back. Granted this was against Sunderland and the sample size is as small as it can get, but the possibility certainly exists. Arsenal haven't been the strongest in the center this year with the captain Thomas Vermaelen being relegated to the bench. The Mertesacker/Koscielny pair has worked quite well but Mertesacker has always been slow and there is talk of Bayern having interest in Koscielny. If he were indeed to leave, the Gunners would be short at the back once again and a replacement would be needed. Why not someone from within the squad whose ability is known? Jenkinson could then take over at right back with Sagna available as a last ditch backup, similar to Vermaelen's emergency duties on the left these past two seasons. Further right back cover would be necessary, but that is what a summer transfer window is for.

The fact of the matter is that Sagna is getting older. At 30 he is no longer able to get down the flanks like he once could or defend against faster players. But he is still an excellent defender and has abilities that apply to another area of the back line. Of course this is all said with no inkling whatsoever of the player's state of mind. It is entirely possible that Sagna still wants to play right back and will happily get that work elsewhere. He may be sick of Arsenal and need a change of scenery. Or, possibly, he would be open to the idea and it is something that he could transition into so that he could remain with his team and indeed improve it. Rather than getting into this false debate of sell him vs keep him, maybe the Gunners could play him in the position that he has evolved into.

An Enjoyable Flirtation

Yesterday I was forced to DVR the Borussia Dortmund vs Real Madrid match since I was stuck at work during the live broadcast. I normally am able to breakout early to watch Arsenal matches but for other good games (or "lesser" Arsenal matches) I will employ this strategy and to be honest, it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. The necessary social media blackout can make those last few hours of work a little slow and if you have asshole friends who like to text you updates without checking to see if you're watching it live, prepare to be filled with rage. But if you can get past these obstacles, the whole postponement of pleasure thing actually has some merit. I was excited all day yesterday to get home and flip the game on, mainly because I love watching Dortmund play. They are exciting, energetic, and supremely talented but without the douchiness that we often attribute to clubs that have won too much. Watching them is a delight and I was excited (while only marginally nervous) when I sat down to watch what most of the world had already seen.

*It should be obvious by now, but don't read any further if you have any need to keep the match unknown in your mind.*

Holy Jesus, the match did not disappoint. In short, Dortmund were electric. They buzzed around the pitch, pressuring the midfield and earning an early goal from world class striker Robert Lewandowski. Real were able to work their way into the game and even control it for a while, earning a fluke goal courtesy of a defensive mistake, but one that could have came on their own merit as well. In the second half, however, Dortmund made no doubt. With Westfalenstadion roaring, Lewandowski scored three more goals as last year's German champions buried Real and then spent the last 25 minutes patrolling the grave just to make sure. It was a fantastic sight and brought home the reason I feel both very happy and incredibly sad while watching such a vibrant squad.

It's easy to like Dortmund because, well, they're a very good team. They are loaded with exceptional young talent who play well together and are a delight for neutrals because of their attacking style. The style is what is so appealing because they are speedy and aggressive on both sides of the ball. The players attack relentlessly when the other team is in possession and break quickly once winning out. It is not at all uncommon to see quick one-twos through an opposing defense or one player gamely taking on defenders on a surging run (Marco Reus' early shot on goal came from just such a charge). While they are not a defensive stalwart in the way we normally understand that description, they are strong on defense and their overall style maximizes the ability of their players. It is attractive to watch and that is both the reason I love and loathe it: they play as Arsenal should.

This truly is the Arsenal style of play with gifted attackers fed through well won tackles and an aggressive bent. It is hard-working but not workmanlike because everything in the system feeds a beautiful style that is entertaining and highly effective. It is, in my biased opinion, the best way to play football and while it is so much fun to watch, it's saddening and maddening to have the team best executing it not be the Gunners. Arsenal has sunk into a strange hybrid style where they still try to break with speed when they win the ball, but they no longer press high which leads to a less frenetic pace, one that seems to bleed over into the offense. Possession often seems for its own sake with the ball moved around in a probing but lazy manner. It's both an inferior form of Dortmund's play and of the high possession Barcelona style and it can often lead to frustrating games where the lack of intent is the most damning criticism. Put simply, another team plays what I consider to be the Arsenal style with more skill than Arsenal. When watching Dortmund I feel like I'm looking at what could have been.

It's easy to be attracted to another, especially if they seem to be a better version of what you have. The thrill is there as is the awe, but what is also lacking is the attachment. I can enjoy how Dortmund play and still feel next to nothing if they lose save the usual "I wish they had won" or "I can't believe [insert team I don't like] had lost!" They are fun and they are wonderful, but they are not mine. I will watch them when they are on and I will enjoy doing so, but they are not Arsenal.

The Consistency Killer

Up to this point in the season many people have been blamed for the relative failures of the Arsenal. Off the field, owner Stan Kroenke and chief executive Ivan Gazidis have been lambasted for their failure to reinvest in the squad, for their concentration on business relationships, and for just not caring enough about winning. On the field we have seen both Gervinho and Aaron Ramsey turned into scapegoats, one for his maddening and instantaneous transitions between in-form and out-of-form, the other for no more than doing simple things wrong and being available to mock. The blame has even combined the two arenas with many fans calling for the resignation of Arsene Wenger due to his out of touch ways. At the heart of it for Arsenal, however, is a more simple recurring problem, one that can strike anywhere and anytime. Catastrophic individual errors are devastating the Gunners and destroying any sense of consistency the team might have. For a team that is lacking the talent and experience to win the title, consistency is the most important quality to surviving the race for the Champions League.

When I use the word "catastrophic" I do not mean a relatively simple play that leads to a goal. An own goal by itself is not a catastrophic error because crosses are pinged off of defenders and into the back of the net all the time. It's aggravating, but it's an understandable consequence of defenders trying to block the ball from coming through the area. No, a catastrophic individual error would be something like a defender facing away from his goal at the top of the box and attempting a simple volley to clear... only to shank the ball in such an awkward way that it ballooned backwards over the head of his keeper into the net for an own goal. Something that rears its head out of nowhere and instigates chaos. Something that is utterly indefensible and changes the game completely.

In that context, I would think a few readers would be nodding their heads right now. Thomas Vermaelen gifting a goal to Robin Van Persie in the third minute of the match at Old Trafford. Two different instances of failing to cover set pieces against Chelsea. Mikel Arteta not closing out the back post against Swansea when the Gunners could have sealed an FA Cup win. Because this kind of title is so results driven, there are going to be more defensive examples than offensive examples. After all a terrible play that leads to a goal has proof in the goal, while a similar play on offense leads to no goal, just like roughly 97% of the rest of matches. However, special attention can certainly be given to Gervinho blowing two golden chances to earn the win at Manchester City, not to mention his one foot sitter against Bradford in the Capital One Cup that inexplicably went wide. These are the types of plays that I am referring to and they change the complexion of games not the least due to how little they have to do with the rest of the match. Giving away free goals, or not taking advantage of free goals put on a plate for you, is a sure fire way to drop points and find yourself dropping in the league.

Of course it is true that giving goals away should hurt any team so why bring this up as a key point to Arsenal's season when it applies so broadly? Even if you are not ready to admit that the Gunners have been particularly prone to these types of errors this year (and I would strongly argue that they have), it turns out that they are also the type of team that is seriously hurt by such swings. On the surface, Arsenal have an impressive 40 goals in 20 league games (3rd overall), an average of 2.0 goals per game (2nd overall). They also boast a goal differential of +18, good for fourth in the league. However, they are prone to spontaneous goal scoring windfalls, having produced goal totals of six, five, five, and seven during their league matches. It is a good indication that they can score, yes, but it also shows their inconsistency as the Gunners have been shutout in five EPL games. 23 of their 40 league goals (57.5%) came in four of their 20 matches (20%). When you adjust these numbers, the result is a dismal 17 goals over 16 games or an average of 1.06 goals per game. However, this is an unfair way of looking at the numbers because they were obviously dominating those matches. It is intellectually dishonest to remove their results completely. Let us instead say that they would have won each of those matches by two goals in an attempt to normalize Arsenal's goal scoring record. We are left with 33 goals over 20 games, good for 7th in the league. It also knocks the goal differential down to +11, good for 5th in the league. Granted this method isn't perfect, but it does a better job of showing how Arsenal's blowouts have pumped up their gaudy numbers without acting like such games did not exist at all. 7th and 5th in the major goal scoring categories are not poor ranks, but they also show how the Gunners are far from a lock to make it to next year's Champions League due to their erratic offensive performances.

Consistency is what this team needs and the individual errors are killing that possibility. The team has defended well as a whole according to the numbers. Only 22 goals allowed over 20 games (4th in the league) and seven clean sheets. That said, every fan reading this can think of their "favorite" defensive blunders of the season, blunders that cost the Gunners goals and points. Even after the spectacular volley by Kieran Gibbs to go up 2-1 against Swansea in the FA Cup and all the celebrating that went with it, there could be no shocked gasps when Danny Graham was left unmarked and then not closed down properly before he tied the match. This is what needs to stop, this is what needs to change. That sinking expectation of an Arsenal collapse needs to be removed from fans, psychic surgery that cuts out the pit-of-your-stomach feeling and allows a healing calm to take over. Until they fix these errors, Arsenal will continue to be an inconsistent side, one that chases its form, and even catches it once and a while, only to have it escape again and again.

The Unpredictability of Arsene Wenger

It is his 17th season as Arsenal manager and people are still trying to prognosticate about what Arsense Wenger will do during the transfer windows. Why people put themselves through this kind of personal hell is something I'll never quite understand but it is an undertaking that resembles hitting in baseball, where batting .300 is considered elite. It has become fashionable lately to assume doom and gloom (not arguing against or for the veracity of this attitude) about the Gunners which has in turn showed people's true side to be one that believes in Wenger to "do the right thing." The vast majority of pundits, professional or otherwise, believe that the boss simply has to buy during the January transfer window. The reasoning is varied but mainly revolves around two points: the squad depth is sorely lacking and the team isn't good enough to guarantee a Champions League place as is.

The first point has been hovering at the margins of commentary as more pressing issues have stolen space in articles, but the players departing during the window have brought the discussion to the forefront. Johan Djourou is off to Hannover, Sebastien Squillaci is out as soon as he finds a team to take him, and Marouane Chamakh has convinced West Ham that he's more than just a pile of hair gel with a terrible first touch. Though these are bench players, they are still warm bodies who provide cover in case of injuries. Wenger only uses three competent center backs and one of them (Thomas Vermaelen) is also cover at left back because Andre Santos is, well, Andre Santos. Chamakh has been out of favor also but he is still the only dedicated striker on the current squad besides Olivier Giroud. Of course Gervinho and Theo Walcott have played up front, but Gervinho is in terrible form right now and he's off to the African Cup of Nations anyway. Walcott is a whole other story, one that many people have spent thousands of words discussing, but for now let's just say that he might not be around at the end of the month. Thus, the argument for Wenger to buy goes that he is forced into doing so due to the players he's allowing to leave, meaning that he has a plan for all of this, meaning that he's going to buy.

The second point's strength all comes down to how you want to define the word "guarantee." This team is certainly not a mathematical certainty to finish in fourth place or higher, but it would not be far-fetched to see them in fourth by the end of the season. However, even an eternal optimist like myself must see that not improving the team in any way is a risky proposition at the very least. Everton is going to be there until the end of the season (so long as they don't lose their players during this window), Liverpool is annoyingly starting to gel and only sits three points back of Arsenal at the moment, and Tottenham is somehow surviving their defensive deficiencies to excel. All of that doesn't even take into consideration Manchester United, Manchester City, and Chelsea, who are still the favorites to finish in the top three and would only do the Gunners more harm by sinking to a competition for fourth. So perhaps buying in order to improve has some merit to it.

As logical as those arguments are, they are simple to refute by someone who wanted to argue that Wenger will not make any significant signings during the January window based on past attitudes and actions. Here, I'll show you what I mean:

• Who is an impact player that is legitimately available during January? Demba Ba was obviously a favorite about rumormongers but he's off to Chelsea and he carries certain risks (extensive injury history, rumors of multiple agents wanting seven figures in fees, etc.). Who else? Wilfried Zaha is certainly a possibility, but he's more of an impact sub for this Arsenal team and should therefore be labeled a project. Besides, Manchester United are leading the race for him at the moment anyhow (The Short Fuse wasn't the first to report this, but I wanted to link them anyway due to how consistently great the blog is). Names could always pop up but we don't know the extent to which they are available or how much they're being valued at. It would not be shocking to see Wenger avoid desperation purchases that would hurt the team long term due to fees and wages paid.
• Djourou, Squillaci, and Chamakh were never going to play anyway. They don't make the bench half the time anyway and would have only seen time in Capital One Cup matches, which is over for the Gunners anyway. Wenger would be more likely to give time to promising youngsters, such as Ignasi Miquel and Serge Gnabry, and use the versatility of players like Podolski to cover at forward if it is absolutely necessary. The depth isn't gone as no one of true use has been sacrificed.
• Look at the bench during the last Arsenal match! Mertesacker! Ramsey! Rosicky! Giroud! Coquelin! Gervinho! There's a lot of talent on that bench, certainly enough to provide different looks as substitutes as well as spell players during the three competitions that the team is still in. Rosicky is still recovering from injury after all so he'll only get better. Plus Abou Diaby is coming back and will be, say it with me, like a new signing. This doesn't even begin to consider callups for players like Thomas Eisfeld and Chuba Akpom, so the depth in the club is not as bad as the naysayers are making it out to be.

Do I believe in all of those points? No, at least not in their entirety. But I could see those arguments being enough to convince Arsene to perhaps spend on a couple of projects that can also act as cover if necessary and avoid making the big purchases like David Villa that everyone is sure he's going to make.

This is not to say that I believe sincerely that Wenger will spend during the window. I am not afraid to admit that I have absolutely no idea what he is going to do. I have players that I'd like Arsenal to bid on but I also have no idea what the personal terms are for those players, or if there are better ones out there that scouts have their eyes on. I do hope that Arsene takes this window seriously as it is going to be a dogfight for the fourth spot even if someone like Villa was signed. However, I have come to recognize that I am powerless over this so I will continue to wait with bated breath, refreshing Twitter ever five minutes and praying that the boss is still The Boss.

A Tempered Ray of Sunshine

On Wednesday Arsenal announced that five of its younger players had signed lengthy contract extensions, establishing the core of the club further into the future. The key to this bit of news was assuredly that Jack "Savior of Arsenal From Here to Eternity" Wilshere is one of the signees, showing his Arsenal DNA and sending a very important message to potential transfer targets that there will be real quality on the side they may be interested in joining. Of only slightly less importance was that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain's name appeared in the press release. The Ox has been a fan favorite from his debut with the first team and though he is not as advanced as grizzled old veteran Wilshere, the newly minted England international is an important building block for the future of Arsenal as well. Throw in the commitment from Carl Jenkinson and most Arsenal fans will hail this as only the most positive of news.

There will, however, be some dissenters in the mix. They will say that this list is made more noteworthy by the name that was left off of it, and they will not be wrong. Theo Walcott still has yet to sign and when five other players have had their contracts extended while Walcott claims that "it's going to be a slow process," it is looking more and more like the mercurial winger-turned-kind-of-striker will be out the door. Exactly how important the loss of Walcott is to Arsenal is a topic that has already been debated ad nauseum, but it is fair to say that seeing a talented player able to force his way out the door is not usually seen as a good sign. Other commentators might debate the wisdom in extending Kieran Gibbs' contract given his history with injuries, or in keeping Aaron Ramsey around longer seeing how Ramsey has turned into the on-deck scapegoat for all non-Gervinhian (Gervinhoish? Gervinhcal?) episodes on the team. For my part I believe that all five signings were proper moves (though length and price certainly do matter and to the best of my knowledge that information has not been officially released) as Gibbs has obvious quality and likely was not such an expensive signing as to preclude bringing in another player should things go south. Ramsey is an interesting story that I may tackle in a future post, but let me say this: inside that nervous, twitchy body is a quality footballer that may simply need to get over the yips and play within himself again. This contract gives him assurance that he'll have the time to do that and it is hard to see this expenditure being a huge misstep.

The quibbling over the details of contracts and possible future outcomes for players ignores the true import of these signings. Arsenal, be it the board or Wenger or whomever, is taking steps to avoid making the same mistakes over again. With Walcott's talks dragging on and rumors swirling around Bacary Sagna, the club stepped up and made a statement about some of their most important assets. No, signing five young players (only two of whom are first choice starters) is not akin to immediately overhauling an entire roster. It is a step in the right direction though, a step that moves past prior errors and says to the fans of the club "we hear you and we are working to be better." Of course this may simply be contract economics at work that do not speak to a greater change in club signing/recruiting policy, and of course these signings do not immediately improve a team that will struggle to finish with a Champions League spot and holds next to no hope of anything above that. Still, progress is progress and it is nice to see the beginnings of improvement at the club.

This sign of movement forward in the boardroom comes at roughly the same time as an uptick in performance on the field. The Gunners were impressive in their 5-2 dismantling of Reading and it is indeed a good sign when Arsenal has essentially put an away game, er, away by halftime. There are several important caveats to be made here, however:

1. This was a Reading team that looked every bit the last place team that they are. For a home side to show almost zero heart or ambition in the opening half... it was shocking. Reading parked the bus on defense but unfortunately had parked it in a neighboring field and thus made no impact on the game whatsoever. No defenders closed the ball down, runs were left unchecked, movement was allowed freely, etc. It was a mess. Arsenal did well to take advantage and passed quite brilliantly for most of the game, but it is somewhat difficult to judge them properly because of the competition.

2. Catastrophic Individual Error is still having a hell of a season for the Gunners and these huge, glaring mistakes continue to change matches. The captain has not been immune this season with his excellent pass to notorious traitor Robin Van Persie during the Manchester United match, and this time it was Kieran Gibbs at fault, blowing a chance at a clean sheet and giving Arsenal fans heart problems usually associated with seeing Marouane Chamakh warming up. It's annoying that Arsenal can look so good over the course of a match and still leave fans feeling nervous, but that is what happens when massive mistakes can come from seemingly anywhere and anyone.

3. Arsenal was allowed to play exactly the kind of game that they wanted. This goes hand-in-hand with #1 but it is worth mentioning on its own. Mikel Arteta was given time to spread things around, back passes were never challenged, on ball pressure was virtually non-existent, opposition counters were executed poorly, Gunners attackers had time around the box, and so on and so on. If you wrote a script to see Arsenal execute the way they want to play and regain confidence going into a stretch of four very winnable games, this Reading game would have been the end result.

I do not mean to suggest that Monday's match should be thrown at as too extreme an outlier because of course that would be ridiculous. Results are results and Reading is a team that does exist within the structure of the Premier League. Hell, even that wouldn't be a necessary qualification to get Gooners' hopes up considering the Capital One Cup debacle. We should simply resist the annoying pundit habit of forgetting all previous evidence and focusing only on the latest match to determine the quality of a team.

For now though, Arsenal fans should have cause for minor celebration. Perhaps "celebration" is too strong a word, actually. Cause for slightly warmed cockles perhaps. The team put in a good performance (and two straight league wins) on the field against a team they should beat and the board did an excellent job locking up their young talent, primarily Wilshere who is looking more and more like the Jack of old with each match. The dark clouds still loom and could overtake us again certainly, but it is nice to have a reminder that not all is dull and grey in our Arsenal centered world.

A Statement Game Gone Horribly Wrong

"Nobody brings a fella the size of you unless they're trying to say something without talking, right boy?"

Arsene Wenger made a statement with his choice of a starting eleven for the trip to League 2 club Bradford for Tuesday's quarterfinal match of the Capital One Cup. The message of "we are desperate to win this trophy" was received loud and clear when fans saw names like Vermaelen, Cazorla, and Wilshere on the lineup card as it appeared the manager had no interest in messing around with five full days off before meeting Reading in a league match. It was a bold statement, a declaration of intent and an obvious attempt to deny critics their all too familiar plug-in line of "no trophies in eight years." With the match already infamous among Arsenal supporters it is difficult to think of a way things could have backfired worse than the lackluster showing that ended in a loss on penalties to a team three leagues lower than the perennial Champions League qualifying Gunners.

Soccer managers needs to perform three basic tasks when running their club: assemble the best squad possible, use proper tactics to put the players in the best position to succeed, and properly motivate the players to excel when it comes to game time. Arsene Wenger has long been hailed as a master of transfer dealings who encourages a general style of play (fluid passing in possession that leads to attacking opportunities) while letting the leaders among the players handle the main thrust of the motivating in order to bring everyone together. He is not a strict x's and o's man liable to put together 30 page Powerpoint presentations on the proper strategy in a given game and neither is he a Harry Redknapp type that tells his players to just kick the ball around and have fun. Wenger uses his strength, scouting and talent assessment, to support his weaker qualities. By bringing in the proper players who can lead he takes care of motivation and as all of his purchases fit the style of soccer he wants to play, he also handles the tactics.

It does need to be said here that while Arsene is not as good at tactics and motivation as he is with club assembly, that does not mean that he is poor or harshly lacking. The amount the man has won cannot be laid solely at the feet of the way he put his team together because that would ignore all that is required to make a champion. Players cannot win with a bumbling coach who is out of touch with how to communicate and the development that numerous players have undergone while at Arsenal before moving on shows that Wenger can certainly teach and improve the (generally) young men he coaches. However, most would agree that he prefers to let players handle their own business rather than lord over them like a task master and that he isn't the type to make brilliant halftime adjustments that lead to the Gunners exposing a weakness of their opponents that slowly became apparent over the first forty-five. His strength is in the players he brings in and the value he finds while purchasing them.

Recently though, Wenger's assessments have begun to slide and his transfer and wage philosophy has not been adapted to changing times. Everyone can point to obvious transfer misses like Marouane Chamakh and Sebastien Squillaci, but that's not fair as all managers have their mistakes. The more telling sign of a fading touch is the general level of skill that exists in the side, how finding hidden gems for cheap has turned into getting what you paid for and not much more. Mikel Arteta is a fantastic player who all Arsenal fans should be happy to have in the side. However, he is a 30 year-old midfielder that the Gunners paid £10 million for. This is certainly a fair price for a useful player but it is not the world-beater kind of find that Wenger was known for earlier in his Arsenal career. Arteta is of course one of the much more defensible signings, one that if we find fault with it's more an issue of nit-picking than objective analysis. The real problems are paying £7 million for Andre Santos and £11 million for Gervinho, players that were necessary to fill particular positions but were obvious overpays to bring someone in rather than spend bigger on a premium name. The result is a squad where the starting left back is a somewhat inconsistent young player with a history of injury, the cover at left back is a center back, and the cover at striker is best off as a disgruntled wannabe striker that will most likely be sold in January, at least in part due to the fact that no one trusts the Ivorian winger that cost half of the former captain's eventual transfer fee. These are small examples and there are more to be had, but evidence is mounting that the manager has lost his magic touch when it comes to exploiting blind spots in scouting and assessment to build the team.

The erosion of Wenger's primary skill has exacerbated his deficiencies in the other coaching areas. Again, for anyone who would inaccurately label me as ungrateful or reactionary, he is not by any stretch a poor manager nor is he inept in these areas; they are just the spots he has more trouble with. The tactics have not won any matches this year, nor has the general theory behind the play guided games along any better. The team is no longer talented enough to play crisp possession soccer (or at least the midfield hasn't gelled enough yet to do so) and the adjustment to this has been unclear. The team now sits deep rather than pressing the ball but cannot spring on the counter because it lacks the pace through midfield and the finishing up top to do so. Pressing high would seem to be the solution so that the ball would be won higher up the pitch but no one other than Jack Wilshere seems to believe this. Additionally, substitutions consistently come five to ten minutes too late and miss that instinctive feel for changing the game in the proper way when it is necessary. Hindsight is of course 20/20 but when everyone following a match in progress calls for changes in the same way yet never sees them carried out, there is something more at work than bloggers looking for things to write about. The level of talent coming off the bench is also an issue, and here we see Wenger's mistakes in the transfer market affecting other areas. After all, there is no "proper" time to bring Chamakh off the bench.

Where things look the worst is in terms of man motivation. This is painful to say because I have all the respect in the world for Arsene Wenger, but at times this squad looks like one that has quit on its manager. The problem is that the ways in which points are lost are so varied that it's difficult to say that for sure, but watching the dreadful performance against Swansea and following the debacle that was Bradford shows a team that cannot seem to elevate their play when it is necessary. It is not just the result, but the way in which the result occurs. Against Swansea the play was listless and the Gunners never looked like they were going to create positive chances and truly challenge the Swans. The same was true against Aston Villa earlier in the year where Arsenal were able to possess against an inferior team but never tested them. The players are not playing to their full potential and though this is a dip in form that will most likely be evened out by a corresponding rise, that equilibrium is far from guaranteed.

This brings us back to Bradford and the statement that was made. Wenger intended to show the rest of the league, and most likely his critics, just how good his team could play and just how serious he was in taking home some hardware to stock the cupboards. Instead a selection of mostly first team players was embarrassed by a team that had yet to sell out their stadium, a team that sits 64 places below Arsenal in the English leagues. All of Wenger's mistakes were on display here. Gervinho comically missed a golden opportunity for a goal while Chamakh came off the bench to the gasps of Arsenal supporters rather than Bradford players. A strong squad for a quarterfinal League Cup match still did not have the depth to bring on game changing players when it really needed to. More than anything though, the majority of Arsenal players thought that they would win this match by showing up rather than putting in the work to put their opponent away. That is certainly on the players. The players have to be professionals and find ways to get up for games that seem like they'll be easy, situations where is seems like the full effort won't be necessary to win. But one of the primary duties of a manager is to make sure that the team is properly coached and that includes giving them the motivation to win every match that they play. Losses are painful, but are much more acceptable when you can see the effort on the field that just came up short for the result. Losses that have no business being losses are the kind that drive fans crazy and the kind that managers must avoid.

Arsene Wenger is still the Arsenal manager and this is not a post advocating for the board to fire him or for him to step down. However, fans from all walks can now see the deficiencies of this team and the boss needs to work harder than ever to shore them up and turn this team around. "And if he isn't, he fucking should be."

A Fan is a Fan is a Fan

On Saturday morning I was a bundle of nerves. After dragging myself out of bed at an hour I never would have seen if left to my own lazy devices, I was soon swinging back and forth between depression and elation. Broken by the Adebayor goal, healed by his idiotic red card, redeemed by the Mertesacker goal and the 3-1 half time lead, exasperated by the Bale goal, furious at the Gunners for killing time in a 4-2 game at home against 10 men, and finally overjoyed at another 5-2 win in one of the most contentious rivalries in sports. All of this was happening on a couch in a living room in Boston and as I lay there jumping from one induced emotion to the next, I realized how invested I was in a soccer team from London: a city I had never lived in, studied in, or even visited. And I wondered how that was possible.

Some sports loyalties are easy to explain. If you grew up in the general area of a city, odds are you're a fan of teams from that city. People from Boston are Red Sox and Patriots fans, people from North Jersey are Knicks or Rangers or Mets or Yankees fans, people from Kansas who never even went to the school are still Jayhawks fans, and so on. Then there are the familial ties: even if a parent doesn't live in their hometown any more, odds are they're going to raise their kids to follow the same teams they did. My uncle grew up just outside of Milwaukee and though he now lives in Central Pennsylvania, you better believe that my cousins are diehard Packers fans. These connections make sense. They run through your home or through your veins. They are direct ties to a feeling of community or family. They are what sports are based on.

For American fans of European soccer, it's a different set of ties altogether. Though there are those among us who can claim to have lived in European City X for part of their life or have a parent who has long be a diehard of one particular club, the vast majority have none of these "automatic" connections. We have the privilege, and the burden, of choice. We can choose a club because we like a player than plays for them, or because maybe we took a vacation in a city one time, or just because we like the color of their kits. We can choose based on whatever we like and this is very freeing. However, it also comes with a scarlet letter, a badge of dishonor that can always be brought up to discredit our fandom. After all, how can I really be a true Arsenal fan? I've never been to Highbury or Emirates. I didn't grow up watching Anders Limpar or Alan Smith. I have no idea what the breakdown of neighborhoods in London is like and have that city's presence instilled in me. I'm just a longtime international soccer fan who liked the way a young Spanish kid played and started following his team. How can I count myself among those who grew up with the Gunners as their local club?

I might be the wrong person to answer that question, actually. I'm from Connecticut and I count myself a fan of the Minnesota Twins, Pittsburgh Penguins, and New York Giants. As well as the UConn Huskies, of course. I can give you good reasons for all of these associations. I can tell you how much of a sports hero Kirby Puckett was to me growing up. I can rattle off notable failures for the Giants at quarterback (well do I remember the Danny Kanell Era). I can talk with the best of them and I've been a fan of these teams for a long, long time. But the truth of the matter is that if someone from Minnesota heard me talking about the Twins and asked where I was from only to hear "Connecticut" back, he or she would be well within their rights to look down their nose at me and wonder why I was encroaching on their turf. I understand this completely, by the way. As someone who has been a hockey fan since watching the Whalers growing up, I'm sure I wrinkled my nose at a few Sully-Come-Latelys that sprung up when the Bruins won the Stanley Cup. Some people can't stake as much of a claim as others, either out of participation, geography, or genetics. There will always be, to some degree, classes of fans.

I don't see this as anything to be ashamed of though. I didn't grow up in Minnesota. As a matter of fact, I didn't grow up anywhere that can reasonably claim to support one particular team over all others. Oh well. I've been a Twins fan since I was six years old and I'll continue to be a Twins fan even if they can't develop a single pitcher whose fastball tops out over 90 mph. To me, that's the baseline of being a fan, the floor of staking any kind of claim: you stay a fan. If you're jumping around from team to team always making sure that you're rooting for a winner, you're not a fan of a team, you're a fan of a sport. Which is fine in its own way, but be aware of it. When you're rooting for the same team year-in and year-out, you have friends that come along with that culture. You've got bars that you frequent or websites that you check. You build a community around a team whether you're from there or not. So while I'll be at a bar in Boston for today's Montpellier match instead of anywhere in North London, I comfortable with that. I can never be what some fans are because I wasn't born with it, but I can sure as hell still be a Gooner.

Turning It Around

When a team is struggling not only to win but to play the way they are capable of playing, it's rare that they snap out of it all of a sudden with a thumping win. Multiple goalless performances are rarely followed up with an immediate 5-0 win and this makes logical sense. If a team is playing poorly - as opposed to losing close games in which they are playing well - then it's unlikely to come back all at once. In most cases, when the breakthrough finally comes it is a narrow win in which elements of the team's play started to come around. That's exactly what happened for Arsenal against Queens Park Rangers over the weekend, yet the way many Gooners are acting you'd think the team was in full blown Titanic mode rather than a luxury liner that's sprung a small leak. Are they right, or is this a team that is slowly starting their turnaround?

Let us state a few facts first so that we are on the same page as to what we are discussing. First, this Arsenal "implosion" that we are talking about is a two game skid: the 1-0 loss at Norwich and the 2-0 loss to Schalke at Emirates. Before that they had beaten both Olympiakos and West Ham 3-1 and I think most observers would say that they've been playing quite well. That being said, the two losses have been quite horrific results especially when you consider how low the quality of Arsenal's play has been. I admit to not seeing the Norwich match due to travel but what I've seen and heard has been less that positive. Even when playing away, losing to a team in a relegation zone that is tied for second worst in the league at conceding goals... ugh. The performance against Schalke might even have been more shocking because of the circumstances. You expected the team to be angry at themselves for the performance versus Norwich and ready to come out firing on all cylinders at home against a good but not dominant German squad. Instead, the Gunners were flat, the passing was slow, the defense abysmal at times (Andre Santos you make it so hard for me to stick up for you), and the whole team was below average.

At this point, it was perfectly fair for any fan to be worried about the direction of the team. Not only had they played poorly in recent games, but it was the aimless kind of poor that really gets in a fan's head. Any team can go out, play hard, and not execute. Fans are (generally) willing to forgive that. But show me a team who sleepwalks through a game and I'll show you a group of fans who are ready to freak the fuck out. So there was some merit behind the cries of alarm. Then again, this was a team that, according to some, had been playing the best football of the two months of the Premier League season. A team that had only allowed five goals in seven league games prior to Norwich. A team that some fans and pundits were starting to claim didn't need He Who Shall Not Be Named and could challenge for the title anyway. With this base of ability established, it doesn't make much sense to start crying Arsenal Armageddon in October with the league only eight matches old, Arsenal still on six points in three Champions League games, and the FA Cup not even begun yet. So, as with all things, it seems some moderation is in order. Arsenal weren't world beaters after the West Ham game, nor were they the dregs of the league after the Schalke defeat. They are a team that is talented but still coming together. Arsene Wenger is trying to find his best lineup and what tinkering must be done when he can't field it (missing Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Theo Walcott and Kieran Gibbs certainly has hurt them so far). Simply put, the Gunners will have ups and downs because they are still trying to reach their happy equilibrium.

Viewed in this light, the 1-0 defeat of QPR should be a good sign. Olivier Giroud is coming on stronger and stronger with the offense much better in general than the past couple matches. I've heard Arsenal's performance in this game called "listless" but I'm confused as to where someone would get that impression. The Gunners put 9 of their 22 shots on goal, controlled the ball for 66% of the game, and hit the woodwork to boot. If it wasn't for Julio Cesar going into his old "Best Goalkeeper In The World Julio Cesar," the Gunners could easily have put four more goals in. The defense still does look sloppy at times, but part of this is the domino effect from Gibbs being out and Santos being pressed into duty. Work will be done, things will get tighter, and things will get better. Besides, did you fucking see Jack Wilshere play? He came out for his first league start in over a year and not only acquitted himself well, but put in a Man of the Match performance. Arsenal are good through the middle but have obviously missed their number ten. With all of these positives from a team that is struggling, what is there to be up in arms about?

It's one of those situations where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. For years people have complained about Arsenal not being able to find a goal when they need one, how they can't win scrappy games because they're not built for it. Well, look at this one. This was a great example of a team that isn't firing on all cylinders and isn't getting the bounces going their way, but finds a way to win regardless. Instead, we hear about how Arsenal are out of sync or struggling to find their way. Sigh. Narratives are everything these days and the sooner people stop buying into them and watch the games without a pre-planned strategy on how to react, the sooner we can all get back to a state in which logic actually matters. Come on you Gunners.

Pick Your Poison

In recent years, the criticism of Arsenal most favored by pundits was that the Gunners were one dimensional in their attack. During the heyday of Cesc Fabregas everything was supposedly too narrow while last year He Who Shall Not Be Named was a black hole of goal-scoring prowess. To a degree, this critique could be explained away; of course Fabregas used the middle of the field as he is (though Barcelona don't seem to know it) an excellent direct creative force and of course players wanted to pass the ball to the guy who was leading the league in goals and having an all-world year. But if we can set aside the kneejerk responses to those who seem to relish in coming after Arsenal, we would see that not everything said is valueless. The Gunners did have a bad habit of trying to craft a perfect goal rather than just shooting the damn ball and the second leading scorer in all competitions behind The Dark Lord was Theo Walcott with just a fourth of the goals and not even half the shots. So, perhaps things were a bit limited in their different ways. However, a new team composition brings a new plan of attack, and that plan is diversity.

It starts with the strikers as the current options give two very different looks to opposing defenses. I still firmly believe that Olivier Giroud will be the first choice striker for the majority of this campaign and what he offers is a dedicated target man and an aerial threat. Giroud's height and strength, as well as his relative lack of pace, encourages defenders to play a higher line in order to keep him away from goal, opening up space behind. The likes of Lukas Podolski, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, and yes, Walcott are all adept at using this space to make runs using their pace and they can count are reliable service due to the creative influence of Santi Cazorla and others.

Though Giroud's style of play allows for all of this, it is a mistake to say that he is a target man and a target man alone. Giroud's movement is excellent and were his finishing up to snuff at the beginning of the year, we would be talking about the quality of his run to score the game winner goal against Sunderland rather than his admittedly poor attempt. The point though is that except for extreme cases of the yips (see: Fernando Torres, 2011-2012), scoring comes around for strikers. What's important is that even if Giroud is not scoring, he is still useful due to his excellent hold up play, his passing ability (look at his flick header to Aaron Ramsey against Olympiakos for a combination of the two), and his movement. He still has a goal and three assists in non Carling/Capital/League/Deargodcouldyouactuallycallitsomethingcool Cup romps so the numbers are coming along. Barring setback, he will be the go-to man up front and for good reason.

If we are going to praise Giroud for excellent play while not being in top scoring form, however, we would be remiss if we did not pay particular attention to the contributions of Gervinho. The mop-haired wonder has revitalized his image in the eyes of Arsenal fans with his five goals in all competitions and he has developed into a viable choice at striker. Because of his pace, defenses will sit deeper when playing against a Gervinho led attack and while this limits the space for runs in behind, it does leave more space for Cazorla and the other technically gifted players that the Gunners can field. In theory this leads to a more narrow attack but there are many defensive variables that can swing things one way or the other, such as man-marking Cazorla or defending the middle at the expense of the flanks, thus forcing Arsenal's attack wide. Gervinho's emergence creates another way that the team can attack and it gives Arsene Wenger additional options to choose from in order to best exploit an opponent's defense.

One problem is that this assumes that Gervinho can maintain the form he's in. I wrote already about the Gervinho paradox and while I'd like to believe that his deal with the devil in charge of inexplicable hair styles will hold up, I don't see it happening over the course of the full season. This might be ok though as Walcott is not an unreasonable option up front as well (I'm not going to dismiss everything the man says due to his contract status) and Wenger might be able to ride the striker in the better form when it is necessary to spell Giroud. Whether or not I'm right and whether or not Theo is ever given the chance up front that he wants, the speedy striker option allows Arsenal to do something different and challenge defenses that might handle Giroud's size better. In either system, the wings can do much to aid success.

Due to the rapidly improving play of Kieran Gibbs and Carl Jenkinson (England call-ups and courtships? I never would have thought it was possible at the beginning of the season), the flanks have been an area of considerable strength for the Gunners in the early season. Thus far Podolski has been used primarily on the left with a rotating cast (Chamberlain, Ramsey, Walcott, etc.) starting on the right and whoever is in there has benefited greatly from the attacking play of Gibbs and Jenkinson. Though they are still not the best crossers of the ball, the fullbacks can get downfield in a hurry, can challenge a man marking them, are not afraid to cut inside, and generally make good final decisions. Gibbs coming down the left allows Podolski to drift inside to link up with Cazorla and though Ramsey and Chamberlain haven't been as positive coming inside from the right, the combination play with Jenkinson has opened up defenses before and allowed Arsenal players to get to the endline and whip in dangerous balls. Giroud is of course a likely target but all the wing players are capable of intelligent cutback passes and their very presence creates more space in the middle due to defenders shifting to cover the vacated space. Narrow, tight passing is no longer the only way the Gunners can open up the defense and it's thanks in large part to the play of their young fullbacks.

The fact that it's taken this long for me to get to discussing Cazorla and Mikel Arteta is shocking when you consider that the Spaniards have been Arsenal's two most valuable players so far this season. Cazorla and Arteta control the midfield in two very different ways; Cazorla is the creative presence in the final third, playing just behind the striker (although he likes to drift left and link up with Podolski as well) and guiding the attack with his control and vision. Santi has two goals and two assists on the season but his influence goes beyond the basic numbers. He creates space for himself effortlessly and this leads to Arsenal holding the ball around the box more than if a less technically skilled player was put in the same position. His one-two passing is sharp, he's always looking for runs, and he showed against West Ham that he can create some magic with his shots from distance as well. Right now he is the engine driving this team and he's been one of the best players in all of the Premier League.

If Cazorla is Arsenal's engine, Arteta is more like the ABS, air bags, and crumple zones that create peace of mind. Deployed primarily in front of the defense, the former Everton player makes his living with sound tackling, clever ball pressure, and gathering possession so that the Gunners can start the attack. He has been a true defensive midfielder for much of this year, but not a brute with steel as his only positive quality (Nigel De Jong comes to mind). Arteta can put in a good tackle, but he's also technically gifted and can hold a ball he's just received - either from a teammate or off of an opponent - and then spray intelligent passes to the wings. To add to his value, due to the injury to Abou Diaby he's also been playing more in a double pivot role with players like Ramsey and Francis Coquelin. As the excellent @Gingers4Limpar points out in a recent article, this system lets Arteta move further forward and have more of a creative influence on the play, giving Arsenal yet another playmaker in the final third. The Spanish center of the midfield has been the heart of the team and there is no reason to suspect it will be any different going forward.

Perhaps this year's Arsenal team can finally put to bed that tired criticism about only having one way to play. Wenger can now choose a tall, physical striker, a forward with pace to test the defensive line, technical players that can come in from the wings to add to the attack, pure speed to overwhelm the flanks, a deep lying midfielder to control the game, two superlative creative forces working through the midfield to build the attack... the list goes on and on. There are weaknesses. There always will be. But this is now a team that can adapt to any circumstance and any opponent. More than anything, that will be their greatest strength and best chance of competing for trophies this year.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Gervinho?

A good test of a manager's eye for ability can be found in the tough decision over whether or not to give up on a rising talent. The siren song of "potential" and "upside" are always there to clutch tight, but at some point in a player's career their rise up the ranks will stop. It is only a question of where. Some players will fight through disappointment and rise to play at the highest level of the sport, such as Robin Van Persie in 2011-2012. Others will come to a team with expectations that they will grow into a permanent spot, but flame out before getting there like Carlos Vela did. The toughest kind of decision, however, is what to do with a player once he has proven himself good enough to play, but still has too many holes in his game to warrant a permanent starting spot. That seems to be the situation Arsene Wenger is in with Gervinho and it has become a full-on debate.

Going into this year, it seemed that the Gervinho issue was more or less settled in the minds of fans. He was fine as a depth winger, suitable to playing in league cup matches or spelling an established starter. With Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Theo Walcott ahead on the depth chart, plus the addition of Lukas Podolski to the left hand side of the pitch, the Ivorian international seemed to have reached his peak as a second choice winger and an impact sub. But Walcott moved into the manager's doghouse due to a contract dispute that he swears isn't about the money and Chamberlain is seeing limited playing time while being brought back very slowly from a minor injury, so Gervinho has had the chance to start both on the wing and at striker. The move up front caught most everyone by surprise, but even more shocking were the two goals that he scored against Southampton in his debut at the new position. The usual warnings were thrown out again. "He's always been inconsistent, so this is par for the course." "The opponent didn't know what to expect from him, which'll tail off with some scouting." "It was only Southampton." But even from the most jaded observers, these warnings sounded instead like the mantra of a child when something seems too good to be true, as if people were trying to convince themselves not to get too excited about the resurgence of a player they had written off. At the very least, the debate about Gervinho was reborn.

More than anything, the former Lille man brings pace to the table. He was brought into Arsenal as a winger precisely so he could receive the ball in space and run at defenders who would hopefully be too slow to adjust to his speed. This plan proved to be unreliable though for one main reason: his horrible, horrible decision making. At his best, Gervinho would burn past a man, get to the endline, and cut the ball back across to a wide open Van Persie, using his speed and ability to draw defenders to create for his teammates. The problem is that this was a Platonic ideal, once that never seemed to manifest itself in our reality. Too often we saw the incomplete version of this form: the strong touch that sent the ball out of bounds or into a waiting tackle; the "two steps behind the man" pass that wasted all previous efforts; the laughable attempt at finishing that never came near the frame. Gervinho's movement was intelligent and his natural abilities allowed him to execute the set-up for his grand designs, but his nerves or his brains or some other unknown malfunction almost always led to the rocket never getting off the launch pad.

The match against Southampton created more hope than the expected shrug and "wow, he finally put it together for once" comment because he was being used as a striker, a position he had never seen playing time at prior. When he turned in a two goal performance up front and then followed it up with a goal against Montpelier in the Champions League (while playing on the right wing, it should be noted), people began to wonder if this would lead to a reemergence. After all, it is an easy thing to talk yourself into in hindsight, especially if you are actively looking to be encouraged. He's still only 25 years old. He's only had one season to acclimate to the Premier League. He has loads of talent but was missing that final step. He might have been disheartened knowing he was down in the pecking order on the wing. The after-the-fact rationale could go on and on, but the basic idea was that this could be the start of something new.

Then there was the away match versus Manchester City, the game that sobered up any fans who were drunk on belief in their Comeback Kid. There are two quintessential Gervinho moments in this match that need to be mentioned from here on out in any analysis. One is the run in the 15th minute or so where Gervinho dashed into space to receive a perfectly weighted ball... only to give it an absurdly heavy touch and let Joe Hart scoop up the mistake without even facing a shot on goal.  The other is the chance in front of goal with less than 15 minutes left in the match that he skied and sliced to waste the best chance the Gunners would have of winning. This was Gervinho at his most Gervinhoest (Gervinhiest? Gervinhoesque?), at least as pessimistic fans have come to see him. Two golden platter chances and two complete blowups. He didn't force a save, he didn't ring it off the post, he didn't drop it to a teammate for them to miss. He never even came close.

The forgotten part of this focus on results only is that very few other Gunners could have put themselves in a position to receive that first pass in order to blunder it into the keeper. Yes, Gervinho botched that chance. But he only botched it because he got there in the first place, similar to a keeper who makes a great play to get to a nigh-unstoppable free kick but then mistimes the punch and looks like a fool. The second chance, however, probably would have been finished by any of the other attacking players who don't possess Aaron Ramsey's instinct for flubbing shots in the box. That was a made for tv moment type of goal where a player gets free, the home fans are screaming for someone to close him down, he rips the shot inside the left post past Hart at full extension, and the Gunners celebrate a gutty, impressive away win against the former champions thanks to the most natural of dramatic circumstances. Except instead, the player ended the moment in the saddest possible way. It reminded me of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, or maybe Zoidberg's slinky. Within every argument for why you have to have Gervinho on the pitch seems to be a reason for why he can never be there.

Unfortunately, we are no nearer to an answer now than when we started all of this just like we don't know Gervinho any better now than we did two weeks ago. We don't know if he's a still developing talent or a bench player. We don't know if he learned how to finish or if he got lucky over a short span. We certainly don't know whether he's true Arsenal material or if he's never going to be more than what he is now. Thankfully it's Arsene Wenger that has to make that decision, not us. Let's hope he doesn't duff it to the keeper.

The New Standard

Sport comes in many variations, both in terms of the types of sport but as well as the level of sport. Some people find college basketball more entertaining than pro basketball, others refuse to watch a sport unless it is played at the highest level, and still others consider international play to be the most important of all. When it comes to soccer, count me among the latter. That isn't to say that international soccer is the best played soccer in the world, because it isn't. Players spend more time with their clubs and the Champions League will always be of a higher quality than the World Cup. But international soccer has the pageantry that you simply don't get at the club level and the importance that cannot be matched by tournaments that are played every year rather than every four. For me, the pinnacle of sport will always be the World Cup and I am a die hard United States fan before all others. I bother with this preamble because I want anyone reading to understand that this comes from a place of love and support rather than one of kneejerk criticism or complaining for the sake of complaining. This is important because I believe that the United States will never become a force in international soccer until we begin to hold our team to a higher standard.

The United States qualifies out of CONCACAF, a region that is not the worst in the world but is still set up for the US to qualify for every World Cup in the foreseeable future. There is only one other dominant country in the confederation, Mexico, a team that is an outside candidate for one of the best eight teams in the world when speaking most charitably. After Mexico comes a bevy of potential dark horses, but no perennial challengers save Costa Rica, and the Ticos still do not compete on the same level as the powerhouses. The way qualification works for the 2014 World Cup is that the top three countries of the final group of six will play in Brazil automatically while the fourth place country must play the first place country from the OFC (note: the best country in this federation will routinely be New Zealand, which should give you an indication of quality) in a home and away series to move on to the big show.

What does all of this mean? The United States should never, ever fail to qualify for the World Cup under these rules. Even if they were to lose both matches to Mexico and then sink into fourth place below their arch rivals and two other countries that happened to get hot at the right time, they would still only have to win a playoff with New Zealand (worst case scenario) to advance. Do you see how embarrassing this would be? How just shy of mathematically impossible it is? Even with only seven points through four matches (!), the US still only needs a win over Antigua & Barbuda and (mostly likely) a draw in a home game with Guatemala to advance to the final round, which will consist of Mexico and four other teams that of course could win, but shouldn't. The US has played about as poorly as it could so far and they still need middling results in two very winnable matches to move on. This is CONCACAF.

Let me say here that I am aware this sounds dismissive towards Honduras, Panama, Canada, and a host of other countries. I mean no disrespect, and that is the honest truth, and it is also not to say that these teams couldn't beat the US or finish ahead of them in the final group. However, I would hope we could all agree that it is a stretch to think that this would be an acceptable result to a country with the United States' population and financial backing. Antigua and Barbuda has fewer residents in the entire country (shy of 82,000) than the capacity of many football stadiums in the US. The GDP per capita of the US is almost seven times that of El Salvador. These may be extreme examples, but these are countries the United States is participating against to make it into the final round of qualifying for the World Cup. Upsets happen and nothing is certain no matter how it looks on paper. But again, such failure would be unheard of for the US.

What this means for the men's national team and what it means for us as fans is that we cannot continue to be happy to pull out close, "must have" wins. We cannot continue to laud the team when they do the minimum that is required of them. This does not, of course, mean that every game must be a 4-0 blow out and that there will never be momentary setbacks, and it definitely does not mean that the fans should openly boo a team that is coming just short of putting it all together midway through a match. But we cannot be satisfied with the minimal standards that have been set for us. We need to aim higher and we need to be more. I watched this year's US team lose at Jamaica and then barely pull off a 1-0 win in the return match in Columbus, Ohio. Yes the team was missing Michael Bradley and Landon Donovan, yes they dominated the opening 45 minutes of the game in Columbus, and yes they are sitting in first place in the group (although Jamaica and Guatemala also have the same seven point as the US) even with all of this happening. But this is the "phew, glad that worked out" kind of attitude that keeps the fans happy with making the knockout stages of the World Cup and nothing more. It is what is keeping the United States from progressing to the next stage in their soccer development.

This men's team will not suddenly turn into Spain or Brazil or any other of the traditional powerhouses that dominate the major tournaments. But there is a path and it is one that the United States seems to have wandered off. Not backwards or to their violent death, but simply "off." 1998 was an embarrassment, but perhaps too much was expected too soon. 2002 was a perfect stepping stone but then 2006 was a letdown. The problem more than anything was that 2010 seemed fated. It was "fine" that the US barely qualified for the knockout stages out of a weak group and it was "understandable" that they were bested by a talented but beatable Ghana squad. At the time, you have to be grateful. Clap your players off the field and thank them for their service. They gave you something root for and they gave you at least one fantastic moment. But this respect is given with the understanding that the system is moving forward, that things are getting better and that more will be expected next time, not that we have achieved what we want to achieve and it's time to settle into a groove. We should always want more.

Jurgen Klinsmann has attempted to change the culture of United States soccer at multiple levels and I am aware that it is too soon to see the full results of what he wants to do. I understand this and I accept this. But that does not mean that he has freedom to operate forever. I still assume that the US will qualify for Brazil and I am far from crying for revolution in the system. But again, this patience comes with the assumption that things are moving forward, that we are progressing and not consolidating. If 2014 brings us another typical United States performance, we may need to find a new path.

Half of a Good Start

The Gunners have played their first two matches and naturally most of the talk is about the lack of goals scored. Were they right to sell Robin Van Persie, why isn't Olivier Giroud fitting into the side, can Santi Cazorla create good chances for his teammates, and so on and so forth. These are valid concerns of course, and going down that path of inquiry is quite reasonable for a team and fanbase that expect Champions League play again next year. However, rather than get into the questioning nature of that half of the ball after only two matches, I'd like to engage in some analysis of the defense and their play thus far.

Steve Bould is a former Arsenal (and Stoke, but let's never mention that again) center back who has worked with the youth academy for the past ten years or so in various roles. Prior to the start of the 2012-2013 season, he was named assistant manager of Arsenal, replacing Pat Rice, and the expectation was that he was brought in specifically to clean up the defense. Now, last year's Arsenal defense wasn't an old jalopy in desperate need of repair. Thomas Vermaelen is one of the Premier League's best center backs and Laurent Koscielny has been trending that way with his much improved play. When completely healthy, the Gunners can also put forward one of the best right backs in the league in Bacary Sagna, the uninteresting but mostly steady Kieran Gibbs, as well as backups like Per Mertesacker, Carl Jenkinson, and Andre Santos. The depth is lacking but the starting back line was nothing to scoff at. So why the focus on defensive improvement?

For one, Arsenal was a decent 9th in the league in goals allowed, but they lagged way behind their supposed competitors for the trophy as Manchester City and Manchester United allowed 29 and 33 goals respectively to the Gunners' 49. The defense wasn't exactly an aspect of their game worth hanging their hat on and with the far and away leading scorer leaving during the transfer window, the offense couldn't be relied upon to carry the team. More importantly, the team had a habit of giving up foolish and inopportune goals, the kind that should kill title or Champions League hopes and were simply unacceptable. Vermaelen was especially disappointing in this regard as he was caught out of position several times after pushing up into the attack, just the kind of attitude that you don't want from your supposed defensive leader. Knowing what went wrong last year, Arsenal was keen to learn from their mistakes and shore up the back.

Through two games, it is hard to argue with the success of the defense as the Gunners have held their opponents without a goal. The most important part of this transformation has been the understanding of the central defenders and their cooperation with Mikel Arteta, the deepest lying midfielder. Vermaelen is still making the occasional run forward but when he does, Arteta slides seamlessly into place to cover for him. This is a change from last year when Arteta and Alex Song were both set up deep in midfield, but Song often moved forward himself, leaving the covering responsibilities unclear. Now it is understood that Arteta is the deep man, responsible for controlling the spread of the ball, acting as the last line of defense in midfield, and providing cover when the center backs move forward. Mertesacker and Vermaelen have been an excellent pairing so far (Koscielny is currently sidelined with an injury) with Mertesacker's positional awareness playing well off of Vermaelen's pace and athleticism. Jenkinson has been starting in place of Sagna on the right side (only due to Sagna recovering from a broken femur) and while he has been less that useful going forward, he is doing a good job keeping control of his flank, especially on the quick counter. Gibbs has played both games on the left side and one thing that can always be said about him is that he's not afraid to stick a foot in. Like Jenkinson, I have problems with Gibbs' ability to provide offense but he generally is a solid defender who times his tackles well and knows how to slow a break. Altogether the defense has played well and even gave the likes of Vito Mannone a clean sheet.

The biggest problem in evaluating the defense is sample size and the challenge presented by the opposition. Sunderland and Stoke aren't teams likely to be relegated this season, but they also are known for sticking ten men behind the ball, especially against Arsenal, and relying on quick counters to score their goals rather than sustained pressure. It is positive to see that neither team managed to catch the Gunners napping on the break and even better that the defense has only allowed three shots on goal through 180 minutes of play. But again, the test has not been strong yet. Arsenal has not faced a side that attacks with pace and puts pressure on the defense in a variety of ways. This coming Sunday will be different as a match at Anfield against Liverpool looms. Vermaelen and Mertesacker will be tested by the intelligent movement of Luis Suarez and Liverpool has some speed on the flanks to put Jenkinson and Gibbs to the test. Moreover, we will see how Arteta holds up as that last line of midfield defense when he is required to continually prove himself against attackers rather than step up to stop the occasional counter or two.

Though the book isn't written on Arsenal's defense yet, the improvements are there through the first two matches. Getting Koscielny back into the rotation should help as well and we will see if Arsene Wenger can find that out-and-out defensive midfielder that he has been looking for. One thing is certain: if the offense continues to struggle to find the net and find their cohesion, Steve Bould's defense will be more important than ever.

The True Contenders

Early in the Premier League season, anything is possible. Before the ball is kicked, every fan thinks their team can win the whole thing and every worthwhile player probably does as well. A week in some may be crashing back to earth (sorry people of Norwich) but others are flying higher. After all, Swansea stands atop the table (discounting the absurd Chelsea scheduling, of course) and you never know who might probably sort of maybe join your favorite club during the rapidly narrowing transfer window. The dream has to end somewhere, however, and I may as well be the one to start things off.

Less than half the teams every year have a real chance to win the league. Everyone knows it but professional sports requires that we suspend belief to a degree because otherwise many people wouldn't bother. Of those teams, the majority are competing for Champions League spots while maintaining an outside chance of winning the title. This year I'd say that list includes Everton, Tottenham, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Arsenal. It's not that these teams can't win the title; it's that it will take an awful lot to go right (for some more than others) and some poor play at the top of the table. If Arsenal pick up another defender before the end of August, see Lukas Podolski and Olivier Giroud come into fine goal scoring form, have Santi Cazorla emerge as a true team-driving playmaker, and manage to stay healthy for the first time since broadband internet became a normal thing, they have a legitimate chance to win the title. But obviously this is a difficult situation to foresee and the Gunners will most likely be fighting for third place and focusing on winning their six point matches against the other teams on this short list. The reality is that, for better or for worse, the only real odds-on favorites to win the Premier League are Chelsea, Manchester City, and Manchester United.

Chelsea

Alphabetical order has a funny way of working things out as Chelsea are actually my pick to finish third in the league. Cynics will point to the relative inexperience of Roberto Di Matteo as a head coach as well as the team's sixth place finish in the league last year, and rightfully so. However, it is also important to consider last year's team within the context of that very turbulent season as well as address the changes that they have made. For starters, they are playing under the same head coach from start to finish (one would think) and that should have a measurable impact in terms of consistency and expectations for the players. For example, we know that Daniel Sturridge is not in Di Matteo's plans, at least not as a starter, and therefore someone else gets to take his spot and can work with his teammates to get comfortable. It seems like basic stuff I know, but the difference can be vital when the team is in danger of dropping points against teams they should be able to beat (see: last Wednesday's match vs Reading). Having the team play under one system throughout the year could be huge when you consider that the difference between 6th and 3rd last year was just six points.

Chelsea also changed their squad through offseason additions, notably bringing in Marko Marin, Oscar, Victor Moses, and of course Eden Hazard. We've heard for years (especially last year) about how Chelsea needed to rebuild and how the old guard had to be phased out. If you look at this year's squad you have 12 potential starters under 26 years of age including important pieces such as Juan Mata, Gary Cahill, David Luiz, Ramires, Oscar, and Hazard. This is no longer a team that has to play cautious for fear of being outpaced by opponents. This is a team that can use pace and youth to their advantage to fly around the pitch and attack from many angles. The project is not over, but serious steps have been made along the way.

Chelsea are still not without problems though, and this is why I have them finishing in third place. Their finishing seems to depend heavily on Fernando Torres returning to form (which might actually be likely based on the season thus far) and the defense is good but not unbeatable, especially considering the defensive play in midfield. There is plenty of exciting, young talent but it still is young talent, and young talent can surprise both positively and negatively. This team has an excellent chance of coming together and competing for a title until the very end, but there are too many variables for me to pick them over either Manchester team.

Manchester City

Last year's champions are back in the hunt again with a mostly unchanged squad. After all, why mess with success? Well, Liverpool showed them some reasons why in Sunday's game at Anfield and the injury to Sergio Aguero should provide additional motivation. Now it is said that Roberto Mancini has roughly £60 million to spend before the transfer window closes in a couple of days, making everything right with the world since City are once again throwing money around like Martin Atkinson does yellow cards. Last year, however, City performed best when their backs were up against the wall and they were getting great performances from their star players. Is spending in the transfer market the way to get them rolling forward again?

It seems that bringing in a new addition or two in order to shore up weak spots is what this team needs the most. Even with Aguero out, City are fine up front with Carlos Tevez, Mario Balotelli, and Edin Dzeko. They also should be mostly comfortable in the creative part of midfield with Yaya Toure, David Silva, and Samir Nasri, and their defense isn't shabby in the least with Vincent Kompany anchoring a backline that includes Joleon Lescott, Aleksander Kolarov, Gael Clichy, and Pablo Zabaleta. More than anything, City are shopping for a strong defensive midfielder and depth at the wing position. In the Liverpool match, we saw Mancini make his classic substitution: bring on a defensive minded midfielder (Jack Rodwell) so that Toure can move further up the field. Toure is so successful from this position that it is a wonder Mancini doesn't have him play there all the time with Silva and Nasri on the wings and a holding midfielder in front of the defense. But between Nigel De Jong and Rodwell, it doesn't look like the Italian coach has someone he trusts to do the job. That's why we see him experimenting with 3-5-2 formations and looking to spend money before September 1st comes around.

When all is said and done, the manager may be the key to Manchester City's season. Though he won the league trophy last year and has a wealth of talent at his disposal, it seems Mancini still does not know what his best formation and starting eleven are. Does he play Nasri inside or outside? How does he allow Toure to go forward? Does he have enough cover at the back if he plays four across? Does he love Balotelli like a son or is he secretly involved in an elaborate kidnapping plot to take the Most Entertaining Person in Soccer off his hands once and for all? Mancini will continue to toy with his lineup and his roster, especially once he brings new players into the squad, but how much does he need to do with a team that is as loaded with talent as City is? The manager settling into a groove may be the most necessary adjustment that the champs make, but I fear it will fall just short of being enough.

Manchester United

Consider this: Manchester United's midfield was in such disarray last year after Tom Cleverley (a unproven but talented youngster) limped off injured against Bolton that Paul Scholes was called out of retirement, Michael Carrick became an important part of the team, and United was routinely tested in the possession battle in their remaining matches. Where did they finish? Second. Only two stoppage time goals away from being champions yet again. With that entire team returning, plus Cleverley recovering from injury, as well as the transfer signings of Robin Van Persie and Shinji Kagawa, it should be fairly easy to see why Man U is my pick for Premier League champions.

United are now having that good kind of problem, the one where you have to pick which incredibly talented players you put on the field. Even with the injury to Wayne Rooney in Saturday's match against Fulham, Sir Alex Ferguson can roll out Van Persie, Danny Welbeck, or Javier Hernandez at striker, a stable of which every team but City would be jealous. Kagawa has already shown great promise as an attacking midfielder playing behind the strikers, with Cleverley and Scholes providing the control in the middle. The wings are incredibly strong as well with Patrice Evra and Ashley Young working together on the left while Rafael and Antonio Valencia combine on the right. The only real problem currently is the center of defense and that is only due to injuries. Once players like Rio Ferdinand and Phil Jones come back, United is solid from the back to the front.

The biggest challenge for Man U at this point is to make it through the injuries to the backline as well as the transition period where Ferguson figures out how best to include all the talent that he has at his disposal. Rooney being out may actually help that to some degree as Welbeck and Van Persie can work on figuring out their striker pairing on a consistent basis. Teams are always a work in progress at this point in the season, but United has the core, as well as the new talent, to become champions once again.