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.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
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."
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."
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)