Oh, brother. 1. Ivan was probably in that rather long line of "journalists" who were falling all over themselves fellating the Gunners - in print, of course - at any and every opportunity early in the season. Hindsight's a wonderful thing to have. 2. To put it all down to "attitude" is the typical lazy journalist's way - you don't understand the game very well, don't want to bother doing extensive analysis, so let's blame it on something as fuzzy and vague as "attitude." 3. They've demonstrated that they crack under pressure? Did they crack last season when they reeled off that great run? They've got essentially the same cast - what's changed to make them crack this year but not last? Again, your typical journalist is too lazy (and, sometimes, stupid) to dig beneath the surface and actually offer any analysis. 4. I agree with his point about the underperforming attacker (a point I made several months ago). Unfortunately, the supremely talented Thierry Henry was forced to shoulder too much of the load. Bergkamp, in particular, was extremely disappointing. 5. Sol Campbell is a "big girl's blouse?" What's this guy been smoking? 6. He quoted Billy Ocean, for God's sake. That should automatically disqualify him from anyone ever giving any credence to anything he writes or says ever again.
That Sol Campbell crack in particular annoys me. Sol was essentially forced to play at the back practically by himself after Ashley and Keown went down, especially since Cygan couldn't cover a dog with a blanket. If the guy actually watched Arsenal play (which, from the sound of things, he didn't), he would have seen Sol do a superhuman amount of defending at the back. But, as Dan said, the guy did the usual, "Arsenal thought they were so great" lazy piece of writing.
Does that mean you put our failure down entirely to defensive short comings? I would be interested to see the analytical differences between this season and last season. I didn't entirely agree for Ivan's article, but, to be fair he did statistically point out the reduced contributions of Wiltord, Pires, DB10, Ljungberg etc. Early in the season our attitude appeared to be "we don't care who you are we will beat you" or even "Okay you're doing well against us now, but don't relax because we'll keep coming for 90 minutes!" Then we complacently lost to Everton and at Old Trafford we were convincingly beaten by a team that clearly wanted it more and challenged full on for every ball. Any team that did well against us after that followed the same pattern. I suppose that means that rather than out playing us, teams just didn't let us play and we relinquished? For me, there were not enough occasions when we knuckled down and ground out results; exceptions being the FA Cup against ManUre and the replay against Chelsea. "Attitude", spirit, confidence, grit, whatever you call it Dwinkler something in the mix wasn't working as well. As you said it's pretty much the same group of players and we suffered from injuries last year too. Is our failure completely down to Pascal Cygan and MK being another year older?
Hmmm... good question. I'd say that our "failure" (which, given the fact that we managed our second-highest point total ever in the EPL and are still in line for the FA Cup, wasn't really much of a failure) has to do with several things: -Complacency (10%). It's natural, after expending blood, sweat, and tears over the course of a grueling season, to suffer a let down. With a few exceptions aside, how many dynasties are there any more in sports? Sure, ManUre have won, what, 8 of 11? But they're only 4-2 in the Wenger era (one of those by one solitary point), and they've done it with a big head start, a huge budget, and, most disappointingly, the absolute capitulation of any other team not named Arsenal who could actually challenge them for the title. How hard do you think it would be for ManUre to defend the title if the "contenders," apart from Arsenal, didn't bend over and spread 'em when it mattered (hello, Newcastle!). -Bad Luck (15%). Shay Given saves a sure goal - WITH HIS FREAKING HEAD! Are you kidding me? We pump in three own goals in the span of a couple of weeks - when's the last time that happened? Promising striker Jeramie Aliadiere goes out early in the season with a groin injury, caused by some idiot U-21 coach playing him when he's injured. (Also, I want to address the issue of linesmen and their terrible offsides call. Yes, I know we gained from one such bad call. But, over the course of the season, I will GUARANTEE you that we got jobbed on offsides calls by about a ratio of 5-1. One of the great myths in sports is that calls, both for and against you, even out over time. Absolutely untrue, and especially so when we're talking about an Arsenal team that's too fast for inept linesmen to keep up with.) -The Opposition (30%). Come on, let's admit it - we only lost a whopping two games since the New Year (including Leeds where they used a handball and a blatant offsides call to beat us), and we still lost a ton of ground. When a team sets the pace like ManUre, sometimes there's not a whole lot you can do except look at the view. -Performance (45%). Too many players played worse this season than they did last season. And the ones who played better this season than last (there were a couple), couldn't compensate for the underperformers. Even though most people blame our defense for losing the title, I think that, especially at the end of the season, it was our offense that cost us. It took us 30 minutes to put a shot on goal against Aston Freaking Villa. Sure, Brad Friedel's a stud, but we didn't make him break a sweat in the loss at Blackburn. (Contrast that with our home loss against Blackburn in which Friedel played the best game I've ever seen an opposing goalie play against Arsenal, and you'll see how badly our offense had regressed near the end of the season.) Dennis Bergkamp was the biggest offender - he was just flat-out awful for most of the season. Has he had a worse season for Arsenal? I highly doubt it. Pires and Ljungberg, despite the late-season hat tricks, were next on the list. Both, but especially Freddie, were talismans last season. They were nowhere near as good this year. Wiltord also was worse this season than last. Sure, he still managed clutch goals this season - that's just the type of player he is - but they weren't as frequent and not as clutch as last season. Kanu was pretty poor, but that wasn't much different than last season. Jeffers, despite showing some promise, fizzled at the end when we needed him most. On defense, I don't know if it was a case of underperforming, so much as not overachieving. That's tortured, I know, but here's what I mean. Last season Oleg Luzhny filled in anywhere along the back line, in crucial games, and played admirably. Remember, he was our starting left back - yes, left back - during the stretch run when Ashely got hurt. So what happens this season? He comes into a game (Bolton) and promptly clears a corner to an opponent that leads to a goal. Time caught up to Martin Keown, plain and simple. And Sol Campbell, one of the few players who was better this season than last, was terrible in our most important game of the season (ManUre), and made a rash judgement that really hurt the team at the end. So that's it in a (long) nutshell. I probably got some of this wrong - Wenger's share of the blame, maybe, or the fans not providing a strong enough atmosphere at home, or whatever. But this is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Dan Winkler is becoming a thread killer. I mean that in a positive way. I'm reading a thread, getting ready to fire off a response then I read DWink's righteous take a say to myself, "Right, then. Very well. It's been said then, hasn't it?" I will add this, though he really did cover it: I think the significant differences were: Freddie and SuperBob this year v. last year - Big dropoff this season, not just in quantity (they both grabbed three meaningless goals at the end this year) but in quality of goals. Last year, when we really HAD TO HAVE A GOAL, you knew, KNEW, we were going to get in from Freddie. Defensive chemistry - Last year Adams, Dixon and Keown, even when not at 100% could still be influential. This year there just wasn't any cohesion. Wenger - This is tricky. Can you place some blame at his feet? Perhaps, but quite honestly who am I to judge? I didn't hear what he said on the training pitch or at halftime. I think he's earned the right not to be second-guessed by some punter like me. Now, if Tony Adams wants to say he thinks Wenger blew it somewhere along the line, that's a different story.
Not a horrible article, but as Dwink noted, not particularly insightful either. The one point I will concede is the one about R. Pires and some of his ill-timed discussions of contract talks, club ambitions, etc. Now, of course, some of this is merely negotiating position, but he definitely wins the award for player who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut--especially a player who spent most of the season living off of last year's brilliance. I agree that Henry's supporting cast was not as productive as last year, but we didn't lose the title because of lack of offense. We lost it because--as has been noted on numerous threads--we just don't have the depth and talent in the back. Ashley Cole: excellent when he's healthy but GVB has been spotty, at best Sol: excellent also but however you slice it was not there when we needed him Keown: gritty but average at best this season Cygan: up and down, but what do you expect for someone's first year in the EPL? I think this is where Wenger deserves some blame (will Cygan ever be a dominant central defender?) Lauren: again, a decent perhaps above average right back Others: Luzny (did he play one decent game?) Toure (only one or two games in back line but does he have any composure on the ball?) GVB (already mentioned). Have I forgotten anyone? Finally, in one game, grit might beat skill, but over a 38-game season, skill will beat grit every time. jw
Re: Re: An Irish perspective on Arsenal's season. Perhaps, but I think ManU won primarily for two reasons - their depth and their mystique. Early in the year, even without Keane and Spice Boy, they played fairly well. I haven't analyzed their injury ratio versus Arsenal's, but they don't seem to be as vulnerable when key players are out. In Dwinkler's immortal words: "How hard do you think it would be for ManUre to defend the title if the "contenders," apart from Arsenal, didn't bend over and spread 'em when it mattered (hello, Newcastle!)." Other than Arsenal, ManU doesn't have any real opposition. The Toon and Liverpool folded against ManU in crucial late season matches that theoretically should have been nail biters (of course that cheap RVN penalty and associated red card in the 5th minute didn't help). I don't think ManU are as good as they were a few years ago, but once a club establishes a dynasty some slight slippage doesn't matter. They keep winning because they expect to and because the opposition accepts it as inevitable. I go back a long way and the best examples of this I've seen were the Boston Celtics and the Montreal Canadiens in the late 60s. Both teams were past their peak, but they continued to win titles largely because they had a psychological edge on their opponents. Those dynasties eventually ended, but then neither club was the sort of financial colossus that ManU has become over the last decade. More and more it's looking as if the EPL is evolving into a southern version of the SPL, with Arsenal and ManU assuming the roles of Rangers and Celtic.
See I'm not ready to buy into that yet. Four years ago I would have said, "That's it, the Yankees are going to win the next 15 World Series." But they didn't win the last two, and suddenly their mystique is gone (just ask the A's and Angels). Yes, they are still very good and probably the favorites, like ManU, but I don't think they are a mortal lock anymore. Sure, ManU will bring in new, expensive players, but that doesn't always work (see Rangers, New York). If ManU slip a little, let's say 80 points instead of 85, they could be in a dogfight with any number of teams. I think Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle and Blackburn are all potential title contenders. I think Everton will be better than average. I think Southampton, Charlton, 'Boro, Leeds, Man City and Bolton aren't pushovers. That's 12 teams that could put up a fight. Sure, some will tank, but not all. I'm not suggesting all those teams are as good as ManU and Arsenal, but if they get a draw here, or sneak a win there against the top 5 teams, it could be a very compelling race. Maybe not next year, but in the next five I would not be shocked to see someone other than ManU or Arsenal win it.
Interesting. I said the same about the Skankees. Heh, I'm a Ranger fan so I know all about "worst money could buy" thing. I don't think it's about whether or not ManUre slips or not. This season, it could've been another team other then Arsenal or ManUre to win the Premiership. Albeit it was all brief moments, but Liverpool was in first for a couple weeks until they fell into a horrific funk. Newcastle went on a tear as well and weren't that far off from ManUre until that thrashing they took. Sure, maybe ManUre will make a handsome new signing during the offseason but I think there are plenty of teams that will make a good run at the title next year other then the two usuals.
Re: Re: Re: An Irish perspective on Arsenal's season. Sorry I don't buy this. It's equally true that teams are more revved up to beat ManUre for the very same reasons you give for capitulation. Every match is a cup final when you are the top team. And if it was a matter of reputation then ManUre should have rolled over and allowed Us to take our rightful place. The fact is, at the start of the season everyone in football agreed with AW's claim that the power balance had shifted. I think teams were just as afraid and excited by the prospect of facing the Gunners. If anything, there was less pressure of expectation on ManUre than on us this year, and no more so than the pressure we put on ourselves. A perfect season and the treble? Neither do I buy the role of biased or mistaken officials. Sorry it just doesn't work like that. Our losing the title had nothing to do with poor decisions or ManUre Voodoo or, and I'm sick of hearing this excuse trotted out, greater spending power. They paid £19m for RVN, but, we've got TH14 (Players, writers and OPTA's best of the year). They paid £65m for Rio, Forlan and Veron and got "jack" for their money! Nough said? The reason we are not sitting back with a double double is down to the performance of our players and our strategy. Any speculation outside these two areas is a waste of typing. Tony Adams thinks it was a failure of Strategy. That AW was too offensive in his selection for away games; failing to have enough respect for the opposition on their home turf? He also sites attitude, in the form of ManUre's desire for revenge. The truth is, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, the capitulation that really mattered was not that of ManUre's opponents, it was ours! I pray that we win the FA CUP come Saturday because without that, or a major injection of new players in the summer, I fear that it could be a long haul to restore the morale of our lads? Come on you Gunners!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Irish perspective on Arsenal's season. Exactly. This is a must win game. A loss here would be much more shattering than the loss to Liverpool in 2001. It's imperative that a team believe in its own invincibility. A team does that by winning titles, not by talking about going undefeated. The mystique is born in the players' minds. ManU believes in itself, and the rest of the league, save Arsenal, believes they're right. More good replies than I have time to respond to. All I can do now is a very quick review of the last eight seasons, which clearly show the lack of competitiveness in the top rank of the EPL. Here are all the clubs, other than Arsenal or ManU, that have finished in 10 or fewer points of the top from 1996 to 2003: Newcastle - 96, 97 Liverpool - 97, 02 Chelsea - 99 That's it. Five clubs battling at the top in 8 years, only Arsenal and ManU winning. Compare that to the last 8 years of the old First Divison, when 8 clubs either won or were in 10 points of the top, four clubs winning (titles indicated in parentheses): Everton (85, 87) Liverpool (86, 88, 90) Arsenal (89, 91) Leeds (92) Sheffield Wednesday (7 points out in 1992!) West Ham Aston Villa ManU Someone will finish second or third every year. The real question is, will they make a challenge. It's clearly getting harder for anyone other than Arsenal to challenge ManU's supremacy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Irish perspective on Arsenal's season. I agree with 442. I think Newcastle have built a decent squad under Robson, if Chelsea can get Gudjohnson and Haisselbaink firing on all cylinders they could go close, but, I can't see Liverpool challenging without squad changes. The general standard of the Premiership seems to be on the up. Absolutely not the time for us to suffer a dip in form or confidence!
My line of thinking on who contends for a title is that there's usually two teams clearly at the top, one team not too far off, and one shock team that nobody saw coming maybe not getting to the top, but showing that they might be there soon. This year, the two were Man U and Arsenal, the one not far off was Newcastle, and I'd have to classify Blackburn as the one who might be there soon, especially if Friedel stays.
Now to completely contradict myself. I heard this past weekend that in the first year of the Premiership a team got relegated with 49 points! That would have put you in 11th place this year. So maybe the EPL, much like the American economy is becoming a have and have-nots where some big clubs compete, some middle clubs muddle about and the small ones are fodder then get relegated.
The EPL had 22 clubs the first year and played a 42 game schedule. Palace and Oldham each had 49 points, with Palace going down on goal difference. Four more games meant more opportunities for points. The league stayed at 22 teams until 1996. Here are the point totals for the top relegated club: 92-93 - 49 93-94 - 42 94-95 - 45 (four clubs relegated) At some point I'll post the analysis I'm doing of the first decade of the EPL versus the First Division in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. I've only done the 50s thus far, a much more competitive decade than the last 10 years from top to bottom. Ironically, the best team of the era was ManU, though Wolves were nearly as strong.
You'll have to do the 30's to find us on top! The CL Stats are interesting. Starting in 1955/6 English clubs didn't win it till ManUre in 67/68, Celtic were the first British Club to win it the year before. Then nothing till 76/77 when English clubs won 7 out 8 years running. I guess this is the period when England should've produced another squad capable of winning the World Cup? It also happened to be one of our leanest times - a solitary FA cup! This was followed by another long wait till ManUre did it again in 98/99. Only Spain has produced more CL wins than England and the English league is the only one in which 4 different clubs have won the title. (ManUre 2, The Pool 4, Forest 2 and Villa 1). I think it was somewhere after Liverpools last win in 84, or was it the mid 70's? English football almost ground to a halt. Much like Seria A, teams got really good at cancelling each other out and there were lots of 0-0 and 1-0 results. People stopped attending live games and there was a real fear that the league would collapse. Memories not so good, but I think this was when they introduced 3 points for a win instead of 2.
Sorry for the delay, I was out of the office this afternoon. I would state the obvious that they have had an incredible run since March, and that what they do, they generally do very well. But I was referring to our backline in my previous post, because that's where I think we didn't get it done this year. So let's compare: Neville bros. vs. Gilberto/Parlour I can't stand either one of them (Neville bros), but you always know when one of them is on the field. Gilberto gets lost for long stretches. Parlour hustles, but you know he's on the field. Slight edge: ManU. Ferdinand vs. Sol: This debate could go back and forth. I'll call it even. O'Shea, Brown, Silvestre vs. Cole, Lauren, Luzny, GVB. I'd take Cole first anytime but then... Edge: ManU Blanc vs. Keown: Blanc has aged more gracefully, IMO--especially this year. Edge: ManU So what I'm saying is that their defense is more talented than ours and over the 38 games, that was just enough of a difference to cost us the title.
The reason English clubs domination of Europe stopped was because they were banned from playing in Europe for a few years after the Heysel Stadium disaster where many Juventus fans died after a riot at the Juventus vs Liverpool final in 1985. The british government called for a ban on English teams in Europe due to hooliganism and UEFA were only too happy to oblige. If it weren't for that then who knows how things might have gone?
Re: Re: Re: An Irish perspective on Arsenal's season. I just don't agree with this line of reasoning. Isn't it just possible that Man. U. were the best team this year, and that some of the late season laughers were because they really did outplay thier opponents. They are as hated as we are (if not more) and most teams will practically make their seasons by beating them. It is easy to get up for teams like MU and Arsenal and I don't think any team lacked inspiration because of thinking they would inevitably lose. They didn't for us so why should they for them. A lot of what is written in this thread really is insightful but it seems to me that there is a presumption that we were the better team and that we "gave away" away the title due to all these factors. I don't buy it. We never had the title. MU went on an incredible run. They deserve it and are the better team this year. Did they not have injuries and off-the-field distractions like we did? Let's given them the credit they deserve, just as we would demand from them if they made excuses for losing.
I have no problem giving ManU credit for their results. They did the business. I do think their is some validity in the idea that teams are beaten before they take the field. And yes, some teams get "gee'd up" for big opponents. In the end, probably a wash. But even with their great run, they were 8 points behind us so we had to do our part, blowing games, for them to get the trophy.
To a certain point, you're right, local guy. Man U did go on an incredible run at the end of the season. However, you have to look at how in control of their own destiny Arsenal was at one point. We were eight points up in the table at one point. That gave us a pretty good margin for error. Man U could have won every game and, as long as Arsenal did no worse than two losses and a draw, the title was ours. It's not as if we were playing the top teams in the Premiership either. You can't draw against Bolton, especially after having a 2-0 lead, and win the title. You can't lose at home to Leeds in a game that is a must win. It's things like that that cost trophies, and they did. Remember, it takes one side winning and another side losing to create a change in the table. There was a 13-point swing in the standings, not just because Man U won, but because Arsenal couldn't win. And yes, Man U went through the injuries and the distractions, but it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as it hurts an Arsenal for one reason: because their coffers are so deep, so is the club. They have the luxury of plugging in players like Solskjaer and Forlan when players like Beckham and Scholes are hurt. Arsenal doesn't have that, and the frustration mounts when you realize that another team can do what you can't simply because of money.