Written by Iron Man on Wednesday, 06 October 2010 08:50

In the big 'six pointers', I would very much rather a scrappy 1-0 with our only shot on goal after playing in our own half for 89 minutes rather than being battered 3-0, ruing missed chances and 'boasting' about having more possession. – Me,12th May 2010

Being the self-absorbed, pompous egomaniac that I am privileged to be, I have decided to open this here summary of the game by quoting myself from my end of season review 09/10. I made this quote in reference to The Arsenal’s less than impressive surrenders during the cold winter months against both Chelsea and Manchester United but less than five months later becomes relevant once more. Same old Arsenal? You’d better believe it….

Drog Day Afternoon

Before we go on, I feel I need to get the following off my chest. To one Mr. Didier Drogba, I think I speak for all fans of The Arsenal when I say Just f*** off! Seriously, it’s f****** funny any f****** more. Leave us alone. Stop tormenting us! What are doing is tantamount to straight up physiological assault. Psychological rape some

might even say! Stay away otherwise next time I’m calling the authorities. This is beyond a joke.

Expect the Expected

The general feeling amongst the gooner fraternity is not one of bile-spitting rage but rather one of resignation and acceptance. At 10 to four on Sunday if someone had said the game was going finish 2-0 in Chelsea’s favour, you would be hard pressed to find many Arsenal fans who would have disagreed with you. People aren’t really

that disappointed because they knew we would lose. When it comes to Chelsea, the outcome is as predictable as night following day before a ball is even kicked in anger. Sad really.

Déjà Vu? Come again?

One of the main contributing factors to the expectation is that we’ve seen it all before. The veteran actor Bill Murray is perhaps best known for staring in the movie Groundhog Day. Although everyone knows that Ghostbusters was Bill Murray’s best film bar none. Anyone that disagrees is clearly mad and should have their tongue stapled to roof of a moving train so they can no longer pollute the populous with their misguided views on what constitutes good comedy. As I try and recover from what was quite simply unnecessary tangent, the premise of Groundhog Day involved a man doomed to relive the same 24 hours over and over and over again. Yes, as you’ve probably heard numerous times elsewhere before reading this article, matches between The Arsenal and Chelsea are now resembling a less funny version of that movie. The outcomes are all too familiar; lots of possession, failure to take chances, Drogba the difference, Chelsea win. Repeat to fade.

Charged with possession

Trying to look at the positives, in ‘football terms’ the possession stats will tell you that The Arsenal had the better of the game. No team will go to Stamford Bridge and keep the ball for so long in such a way as The Arsenal did. Also, you won’t find Chelsea sitting back as much in a home match against many (if any) teams in world football. The performance was a vast improvement on the West Brom game and if Kozza or Chamakhattack had taken the few chances presented to them, we may well be singing a different, more harmonious tune this morning. It’s games like this where I really wish Blatter went loopy and decided to award points for technical merit. If this were the case, The Arsenal would be head and shoulders above everyone else. Yes, I am aware this is a desperate and ludicrous suggestion but I’ll be damned if you ever try and prise my grip from this straw that I am tightly clutching.

The Indefenseibles

Despite the good performance, there were still one or two glaring deficiencies which ultimately means I’ll probably be cutting and pasting most of this article when we lose to Chelsea again in December. I’m loathe to criticise individuals but Alex Song needs to take a good long hard look at himself at the moment because he is at risk of reverting back to the gormless kid that was booed at Craven Cottage four years ago as he meandered around the pitch like a stoner trying to find his tent at Glastonbury. On Sunday he offered little protection to the defenders and on more than one occasion was in more advanced positions than Wee Jack. Having earned the love of gooners far and wide, Song has come a long way and I’m hoping that this is just a minor blip. Hopefully he can remember what he has actually been tasked to do and stop marauding forward so much. Also, the fouls he is giving away all too regularly are bordering on amateur.

Kozza and Squelch are, on the whole, a disciplined pairing. We are rarely at risk of them bombing forward too much ala Gallas/Toure/Verm. However, as this match wore on, they began to struggle and by the end looked about as secure as an Essex girl’s hymen on a Saturday night after one too many WKD Blues and some Akon blaring over the sound system of a cheesy nightclub. Aside from the lack of protection from the midfield, they were very indecisive and could well have gifted Chelsea at least two more goals in that second half.

I really like Gael Clichy and don’t want to keep criticising him but he worries me more than the impeding threat of global terrorist attacks at the minute. He doesn’t warrant a starting place in any team with serious title ambitions. Another dodgy game in which he struggled when under any serious pressure.

Left back to the future

There is a justified belief that when players leave Highbury/Ashburton, their careers go through the type of terminal decline akin to that of a successful city banker who pisses all his money away in a Casino, comes home and find his wife in bed with his brother, gets made redundant, loses his house and becomes an alcoholic who

finds himself now living on the stairs of a South London council estate suffering the indignity of pissing his pants on an hourly basis. But alas, while we can all point and laugh heartily at Adebayor, Sunday once again showed that one person is the exception to the rule. With Gael Clichy’s continued regression and Ashely Cole

looking about as good as he ever did playing for The Arsenal, the dirty little toe rag is continuing to make fools out of all of us and that almost hurts as much as any defeat.Turns out cheaters do prosper.

Keep it Up

Another plus was the performance of Fabianski who managed to get through a second game in a row with making a game-costing mistake. Still looked a bit unsure at times but could really not be blamed for either goal. Once more, I don’t think he deserves a massive amount of credit for the saves he made as they were all standard saves you’ve expect from any top flight keeper but kudos for not fucking up Lukasz. Long may it continue.

Injuries

Of course, things may have been different if so many players weren’t being wheeled around London Colney in wheelchairs and eating food through a straw. Yes, every team suffers from injuries but The Arsenal seem a special case. An excuse? Maybe. But what is being done to address these everlasting problems? How many years can

we keep saying ‘If so and so was fit’? By continuously doing so, we’re living in a fantasy world of fairies and pixie dust as it’s never going to be the case that the entire squad will be available for selection at the same time. Also, how many more chances do we give the perma-crocks? If van Persie suffers another long term injury this season, as good as he is, can he really justify his position as The Arsenal’s number one striker? When does it become time to cut your loses and rebuild? If your washing machine kept packing in every few months, rather than constantly paying to fix it, you’d eventually reach the point where you’d just buy a new one. I wouldn’t be

against getting rid of players whose contributions over a significant length of time prove to be minimal because of recurring injury no matter who they are. Mind you, they’d have to be sold at a discount like those bargain bucket broken biscuits that supermarkets have on their ‘reduced’ shelves.

People often talk about needing a ‘spine’ throughout the team. If we say that The Arsenal spine consists of Vermaelen, Cesc and RVP, then many a Jellyfish would be giving us a run for our money. Putting the terrible state of these injuries into perspective, The Arsenal lost just one game in all competitions last season (City

away) when all three of those players were on the pitch for a full 90 minutes. The trio also only featured in the same line up in 14 (winning 11) of 50 games (all of which were played before December!) last season telling you everything you need to know about the inherent problems at the club and how much injuries are hindering any team progress.

Mind the Gap

The performance would suggest that there isn’t much between the two teams but all the pretty play once again provided no end product. Yes, we look to the chances missed in the opening minutes with deep, near suicidal regret but beyond that, the next 89 minutes saw The Arsenal create the sum total of fuck all as Chelsea were

never really threatened. So despite what I said above, can we really pat ourselves on the back for a ‘good performance’ or has Le Boss been tactically outclassed yet again by a Chelsea manager? Jose Mourinho, Avram Grant, Gus Hiddink and now Carlo Ancellotti. Do Chelsea know they can allow Arsenal so much possession because they can rely on their deadly counter attack? Our recent record against The Blues can’t be

a fluke and ultimately leads to the despondent expectation of defeat detailed above. The sad reality is that they are better than us and the challenge we supposedly present is totally futile. If the match was replayed 10 times, how different would the outcome be on each of those occasions?

To quote a tweet (what is the world coming to?) from Arsenalvision Godfather Squid Boy: “is it not indicative of our relative standing that we have so few grievances[after defeat against Chelsea]?”

Losing against Chelsea is always a painful experience but in a perverse way, it is less painful the more it seems to happen. I know a Chelsea fan who told me that Arsenal “isn’t even a big game anymore”. A pretty depressing state of affairs it has to be said. I try and stay optimistic but our much talked about 10 year hoodoo over

them when they just couldn’t beat us is nothing more than a distant memory and quite poignantly, something that will probably never happen again. If fact, I struggle to see us being ‘better’ than them for quite some time. I hope I’m wrong and this is a case of the darkness before the dawn.

Ever heard of Battered Woman Syndrome? Thought not (Look it up). Well, it was a condition ascribed to victims of domestic violence as a legal defence for any retaliatory action including murder. The theory suggested that repeated abuse by their partner was a justifiable reason for any reaction. If there a footballing equivalent,

it seems to be apt in terms of Arsenal and Chelsea matches. Here’s hoping we can stand up to them and “lash out” in the form of some emphatic victory over them in the return match this December.

Get your tweets out. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. Go on.

http://twitter.com/IbrahimMustapha

There’s a whole world of football away from Arsenal and sometimes I manage to brainfart some stuff on a page about that too.

http://www.theibyss.blogspot.com/

• Add New
• RSS

Comments (45)

• 06-Oct-2010 09:16 | | MeanLean
  

  Good morning Iron Man and Gooners,
  
  I have to say that I respectfully disagree with you about the 'gap' between the two sides. If you are looking at it in black and white terms then yes, we lost to a side that has beaten us a plenty in recent times. Last season we were beaten by a team who were superior in the two matches.
  
  I didn't see this game like that at all.
  
  Many say that it was a tactical master class from Chelsea but in truth they came out from the whistle to attack us, but we pushed them back with our fantastic work in winning the ball back and playing a high line. Once we had the ball we didn't give it back to them which forced them back.
  
  I don't agree that we only had the early chances to score, Chamakh was wasteful with a few good chances. Nasri and a few others opened them up.
  
  Play that game again with the same players and the scores could have easily been 3-0 Chelsea, 3-0 Arsenal. 3-3 etc. The game was very much in the balance and either side could have won.
  
  On your point about Song, I think it is unfair for fans to tell him to stop doing this and that. I have heard other people on other blogs saying that he now thinks he is Cesc. No one knows what Arsene tells the players. If he wanted to put an end to Song's bursts forward then he would do that, if Song failed to stop then he would be replaced.
  
  In theory is that Alex Song presses the ball very well and Wenger wants him to do that further forward where we can start our attacks. I may be wrong but I think that is very possible.
  
  Players like Jack can control and dictate the game better from further back, although I still think we will see him playing as an attacking midfielder when he hits his peak.
  
  As gutted as I was about the defeat, I am much happier knowing that we can definitely compete with the champions and in my opinion we have a stronger and deeper squad.
  
  Obviously it is less strong and deep when we get so many injuries.

• 06-Oct-2010 09:16 | | MeanLean
  

  Will hopefully get the bloody paragraphing issue sorted by the end of the week or so I'm told.
  
  

• 06-Oct-2010 09:45 | | Stan Streason
  

  Its surprising how a game differs once you know the result. As a Chelsea fan there on Sunday I thought Arsenal were the better team. I was petrified at the number of opportunities they had which could have come to something if only they had had a shot rather than try to play more tippy-tappy through a crowded central area.
  
  Watching a full re run afterwards without the tension you could see that Chelsea did surrender possession as a tactical ploy and were never actually in any danger at all. Arsenals best chance was in the first minute (from the corner - not the prior attempt which was just a routine header without a run or a jump which even if on-target you would expect the keeper to save 10 out if 10.) Even Chelsea's missed chances were better.
  
  Goodness knows what the 50-50 challenge count was but it was vastly in Chelsea's favour as Arsenal were constantly muscled out of tackles.
  
  I think Wenger is pulling the wool over your supporters eyes with all this "better team - on the ropes" stuff. If leads to people like LeanMean actually believing that you were the better team (despite every statistic but % posession being to the contrary). There have been many comments over the last few day saying the sides were equal or Arsenal were somehow unlucky. Thats just fantasy. Arsenal even gave away twice as many fouls as Chelsea for goodness sake.
  
  Wenger may be a great manager but he is no longer a great coach. He has too much power at Arsenal and unfortunately the results are beginning to belittle all of his other fantastic achievements. If ever there was someone suited to a general manager or director of football position it is Wenger. He is now far too rigid and being outthought by the very best coaches. His pholosophy will only take you so far it needs some innovative new coaches to take it that next step. IMHO

• 06-Oct-2010 10:03 | | Bob
  

  ''Chelsea did surrender possession as a tactical ploy and were never actually in any danger at all.''
  
  What a load of tosh.

• 06-Oct-2010 10:22 | | stan streason
  

  We all have our own opinions but my justification in saying what I did was that once Arsenal had posession, Chelsea immediately all dropped back. They pretty much made no challenges in the middle third. That to me is a tactical ploy. Exactly what danger were they in? They were confident they could deal with any crosses and that their closed-rank banks of 4 could not be played through. Valid confidence as it turns out.

• 06-Oct-2010 10:48 | | Leebo
  

  STan you are completley right. They did it last year as well, drop off allow us possesion in wide areas deal with crosses easily. Not to mention how often we get done by therir overlapping full backs when they counter attack.
  
  I would have hapily watched us start the game
  Fab
  Sagna Koz Squillaci Clichy
  Eboue Denilson SOng Diaby Wilshere
  Chamack
  
  and just sat back ourselfs liek Liverpool or Mau U do let Chelsea bring the game to us, which they would refuse to do and a dull tight game would ensue and we could maybe nick a point. It work in the CL in 2006 away at Juve or Villareal so why not at the bridge it would stop te fu*king rot and we could just o move on.

• 06-Oct-2010 11:34 | | Stan Streason
  

  Why do Chelsea play that way against Arsenal when thy play another game entirely against every other club? Because they can and it works. Your midfield is not disciplined enough, too many go too far forwards and your defence is not good enough to keep out the counter attacks for 90 mins. Chelsea dont play that way against Man U. Admittedly the games are always fairly tedious as both sides slug it out but can you predict the winner in advance? Not with any certainty, both sides can beat each other. Dropping back against Man U is more dangerous, they have more attacking variety and their defence is not so open to counter attack. It comes back to the origional point I was trying to make. You are too predictable in your play, no matter how pretty it may look and Wenger is either too stubbon or not a good enough tactical coach to change it.

• 06-Oct-2010 11:53 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Stan Streason,
  
  I watched that game again. Arsenal played a player through on goal 4 different times in that game. Strangely enough, none of them ended in a shot on goal for whatever reason. From the 45th minute to the 65th minute, Arsenal cut Chelsea apart at will.
  
  It's ridiculous and frankly quite daft to claim Chelsea conceded possession. Arsenal won the ball, and kept possession despite Chelsea pressuring. Arsenal pinned Chelsea back. You could claim Chelsea were content to sit back and put 9 men behind the ball, but it's completely silly to claim they conceded possession. Arsenal won possession.
  
  Chelsea's 2 goals came from half chances. You did miss two clear chances through Anelka & Essien but Arsenal had more than those chances. But those were on the counterattack after Arsenal had pushed forward. One of your chances was a defender slipping under no pressure. It wasn't as a result of your team play in any way.
  
  Given how easily Arsenal cut Chelsea open, I'd say that Arsenal's tactics were spot on, and Chelsea's weren't.

• 06-Oct-2010 11:56 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Chelsea do play that way against Man Utd. In the 2 games against Man Utd last season they played exactly the same way. I remember Rooney saying they deserved to win.

• 06-Oct-2010 12:26 | | stan streason
  

  We are clearly wearing different coloured glasses! I dont wish to be rude but "through on goal 4 different times" yet not one shot? Even though I may dispute your numbers you must admit that thats symptomatic of some kind of problem. I agree Arsenal "cut chelsea apart at will" but only up to about 30 yards from goal when Chelsea got interested and it petered out into nothing - again and again. You had one bad miss in the first minute and 2 good but routine saves both from Arshavin I think. Chelsea had 2 one-on-ones well parried out by your keeper, (Drogba and Essien) one where Anelka rounded the keeper and missed badly plus a (rightly) disallowed goal for being 6 inches offside - Dont fall for Wengers rhetoric. You have lost the same way 5 times on the trot (to Chelsea plus more to Man U) yet you still say Arsenal's tactics were spot on.

• 06-Oct-2010 12:28 | | stan streason
  

  Oh and against Man U the defending and closing down is much higher up the pitch

• 06-Oct-2010 12:52 | | Ole Gunner
  

  stan streason,
  
  It's not about the colour of your glasses. As I said, we put players through on goal 4 times. If that's what represents not being bothered by Arsenal then Ancelotti has no clue whatever. Your claim that it was all 30 yards from goal is nonsense. We put players through on goal into your box 4 times.
  
  In one case, Chamakh played a high ball which hit Nasri's head when any ball along the line would have required a great save from Cech.
  Another time, Chamakh miscontrolled after getting behind Terry. Another time Vela had the ball stuck under his foot.
  
  On a normal day most of these would have led to shots on goal.
  
  I haven't counted the 2 sitters we missed.
  
  Arsenal had more chances in that game.
  
  We dictated what kind of game it was by seizing the initiative and pinning you back.
  
  You were dominated at home by s supposedly inferior team

• 06-Oct-2010 12:57 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Man Utd don't play like Chelsea. They're a big club even though I hate them more than you. They don't play catenaccio at home or even away. Against them last season, they actually had more possession than we had at the Grove. As far as I know Chelsea are the only so-called big club that always play catenaccio against top opposition.
  
  And that's because you're really a mid-sized club with a rich owner.
  

• 06-Oct-2010 13:00 | | stan streason
  

  Why do the words cow's arse and banjo spring to mind reading about these misses in your comment. But you are right, I see that now - here, you have the 3 points, you clearly deserve them. Everything is just tickedy boo in your garden - no need to change anything at all. The rest of us may as well crown you champions now, or am I somehow invading one of Wenger's dreams?

• 06-Oct-2010 13:09 | | stan streason
  

  Ole - you have just hit the nail right on the head. You think that playing a system that works and wins points (6 out of 6 last year against "big 4" with eleven goals scored against just one conceded) is somehow wrong. Only Arsenal supporters think that way - you have been dazzled by Wengers rhetoric.

• 06-Oct-2010 13:16 | | Ole Gunner
  

  stan streason,
  
  "ou think that playing a system that works and wins points (6 out of 6 last year against "big 4" with eleven goals scored against just one conceded) is somehow wrong."
  
  That's such a daft statement. Chelsea lost to Wigan, Villa, Blackburn last season. By your logic the Chelsea system is flawed. Afterall Chelsea lost all but 1 of the Big 4 clashes the season before playing your famous catenaccio system.
  
  Tactics are only what, 10% of the game?
  
  The games against Man Utd and Chelsea last season were different tactically. It wasn't all the same thing. Against Man Utd, Arsenal didn't dominate possession. Man Utd dominated possession till they took the lead. Chelsea were dominated.
  
  You're the one who's been conned.
  
  You don't even understand football when it unfolds in front of you. Somehow you watched a game in which your team was cut open at will in the final third and you are convinced you were never under threat. Blinkered.
  
  That's why your defensive players were collapsing with cramps at the end of the game.

• 06-Oct-2010 13:24 | | Ole Gunner
  

  "Everything is just tickedy boo in your garden - no need to change anything at all. The rest of us may as well crown you champions now, or am I somehow invading one of Wenger's dreams?"
  
  Don't be an idiot. 1 team will win the league. The rest won't. No team is about to be crowned champions. The media might be having a banquet up chelsea's arses but the last 3 games have shown you're not a class above other teams.
  
  1. The loss to City. 2. The loss to a Newcastle side that rested 10 players. 3. Being comprehensively outplayed by Arsenal at home despite winning.
  
  I don't understand the cause of all this smugness.

• 06-Oct-2010 13:43 | | stan streason
  

  Drew at Blackburn but you could have added Everton or even Spurs if you were really as nasty as you make out!. But you were talking about playing against the big teams. Yes we lost against others and were crap and lucky in several more, but we didnt play the same tactics against them which was the gist of your post. Yes re the previous season - which one of the 6 did we win? Oh thats right at Arsenal (plus a cup semi final). In addition we had Scolari for most of those - a man with less tactical nous than even Wenger so to say we played the same system back then is just wrong. I go back to the point I made in my first post in that at the game I was convinced that Chelsea were giving up too much posession whether by accident or design. Looking at it again without the tension and talking to a number of independent observers - Arsenal posed little more actual threat than any half decent team would expect in 90 mins. Like them or not most journalists reports did not refer to Arsenal being the superior team and you are the media darlings. By the way Alex is out for 3 weeks with a muscle injury. Mikel may or may not have had a cramp, hardly "defensive players collapsing" You are believing what Wenger says again rather that what is in front of your own eyes.

• 06-Oct-2010 13:54 | | stan
  

  Ouch that one hurt - I hope I am not being smug - no long standing Chelsea supporter should be smug - pessimist maybe. I came on an Arsenal board not to talk about or big up Chelsea but just initially to comment that IN MY OPINION Wenger has lost it as a coach and that his blinkered views on how good Arsenal are are being taken as gospel by many Arsenal supporters.

• 06-Oct-2010 14:18 | | Bob
  

  Well, it looks like Ole Gunner has pretty much said everything for me. I don't think I've ever heard anything as preposterous as a top team, the champions no less, conceding possession at home... on purpose.

• 06-Oct-2010 14:20 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Your point was silly. Still is. Man Utd lost all their games against the Top 4 en route to winning the league in 09. Does that mean what?
  
  Ancelotti has lost 3 times in a row to Man City. That means Ancelotti is a crap manager? Get real.
  
  How does conceding possession work? That Chelsea were passing the ball to Arsenal intentionally when they won it? What stupidity that gets accepted as conventional wisdom in this country.
  
  Arsenal dominate possession because they are good at winning the ball and then keeping it when they get it.
  
  That your team is content to sit back and defend does nothing whatsoever to negate the fact that Arsenal are very good in winning, keeping and using possession. While we ultimately wasted the chances we created on Sunday, we did create more chances. We had more shots. We had chances that didnt even end in shots on goal.
  
  How you can be smug about that shows the small mentality of your club. Do you think Real Madrid fans would be smug about being dominated at home by Barcelona even if they won. They'd be happy they won, you won't see this level of smugness.
  

• 06-Oct-2010 14:30 | | Ole Gunner
  

  stan,
  
  Wenger is still the manager who has won the most trophies in England in the Premier League era apart from Ferguson. He's won trophies everywhere spending a 20th of what you lot have. We're just not as idiotic as you are.
  
  On the merits of it, having watched the game on Sunday, Arsenal's tactics were more than adequate to win the match. As it was they dominated the match.
  
  

• 06-Oct-2010 14:54 | | Iron Man
  

  ML, in your honest opinion, do you believe Song has played well this season? Or more to the point has he been anywhere near as good as he has been over the past two seasons? Maybe I'm wrong but what I'm seeing is a player who is attempting things he really ought not to be. Of course we don't know what Wenger tells the players but isn't it obvious Song is playing (or at least trying to) a different game to what he was in years gone by? I'm not trying to blame him for the last three weeks but if the Alex Song of last season was playing, I reckon the results would have been very different. As for the two squads, Yes, we've missed key players but in truth, so have they over the last 12 months yet they still get on with it. Essien (their best player) missed most of last season, Drogba (we know how important he is to them) missed over a month for the ACN, Lampard has been sidelined for weeks, Terry missed a couple of games a few weeks back, Petr Cech suffered from injury last season, Ashley Cole missed three months. I could go on but I don't want to get bogged down comparing injury records (even though it appears I just have...). To say our squad is stronger doesn't really make much sense because if we did, we'd be able to compensate for our injuries in the same way they do.

• 06-Oct-2010 14:56 | | MeanLean
  

  "I think Wenger is pulling the wool over your supporters eyes with all this "better team - on the ropes" stuff. If leads to people like LeanMean actually believing that you were the better team"
  
  This is why Ole has called you smug. You go on talking about opinions and then attempt to ridicule my own. It is not just my own or even Arsenal fans opinion it was the view of many neutrals as well. Including those who are usually quick to shoot down Arsenal.
  
  If you watched the game then you would have noticed that Chelsea tried to attack Arsenal from the start but our superior ball possession and work to close you down forced you back. It wasn't an instant 'lets sit back in our own half and just defend until we break at home'
  
  I guess your manager would have looked at Arsenal and thought that without Cesc, Vermaelen, Van Persie and Walcott you could take us on, your manager would be right to think that given the fact that you are strong at home and had a full strength side out apart from Lampard.
  
  I can admit without any problems that you created some other good chances and should have scored through Anelka and Essien (when we were chasing the game) but this myth that Chelsea were sitting back smoking a cigar, having everything under control is just absolute nonsense.
  
  We failed to score, Chelsea did not stop Arsenal scoring.
  
  I wouldn't expect you to understand what Wenger is doing judging by your Wenger has lost it comment.
  
  What would you know about building a squad without spending vast amounts of money from your sugar daddy or from chasing Arsenal targets and offering them double the amount.

• 06-Oct-2010 15:13 | | MeanLean
  

  Iron Man, Song hasn't been at his best this season and does appear to have different responsibilities. Maybe this is a new role that will need adjusting or perhaps he is just simply out of form, who knows.
  
  I expect him to get back though, there is no reason why he shouldn't.
  
  IM, I hate talking about injuries but I refuse to just believe that they do not exist. Comparing them to other teams is futile.
  
  Injuries happen, Chelsea were unlucky to lose Essien for the length of time that they did. Arsenal can cope when we lose a few players in different areas. The reason why our problem is different is because we keep losing a number of players in the same positions at the same time.
  
  At the moment, I am not worried about injuries because it is reasonable. Although the fact that they are the best in their positions in this squad is quite annoying but that is not the problem.
  
  Before the Chelsea game I didn't talk much about injuries because I think we can handle pretty much everyone on our day even without those missing.
  
  As much as you rate Chelsea, do you think that they would have won the league had they had only Sturridge up front for the time we had Arshavin? Who knows, but they would have found things a little different.
  
  I am only making this point because everyone keeps saying that there is this massive gap between Arsenal and Chelsea without looking at any of the in between.
  
  I think Chelsea are a very good side, they ought to be, they have invested plenty into that squad. But we are not Aston Villa or Tottenham.
  
  I could be wrong, maybe we are light years away from being as good as Chelsea but from where I am standing I do not see it like that.
  
  We have our faults, the way we switch off and not always work as hard as we should makes me mad like hell. But I do think we are close, if not the best, we are close. I can cope with that as long as our players keep improving which they are.

• 06-Oct-2010 15:19 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Iron Man,
  
  go to physioroom.com. They show all the injuries suffered by each club in the league. They will show you that Chelsea suffered only 60% of Arsenal's injuries last season.
  
  At no time did they suffer injury situations as extreme as Arsenal's. For that crucial run of 4 games starting with Villa away, we had no fit striker. Eduardo went off injured against Villa. No RVP, Eduardo, Bendtner or Vela.
  
  If Chelsea had lost Drogba, Anelka, Kalou & Sturridge, how do you reckon they'd have coped.
  
  Or what about at the tail end of the season when we had Vermaelen, Gallas, Song, Fabregas & RVP missing?
  
  How strong would Chelsea have been without Terry, Carvalho, Essien & Drogba for 4, 5 games?
  
  I'm sorry it's just completely wrong to say they coped with injuries better, when they didn't suffer as many injuries or as extreme an injury crisis.
  
  

• 06-Oct-2010 15:47 | | stan
  

  Some quick replies then I really must do some work. At no stage in this discussion have I said Chelsea played well or even were the superior team. I have not even said Arsenal played poorly so I reject the smug claims entirely. All I have said is that Wengers comments are not backed up by facts. Even Ole at 14.20 "created more chances - had more shots" not according to Sky sports website stats they didnt. Just because Arsene says it, it doesnt make it true. Possession 47.6% compared to 52.4%, its hardly the sort of landslide you would have expected given Wengers glowing praise of the absolute stuffing you are supposed to have given us. If you are happy with Wenger then fine. A great team lasts for a couple of years before it needs tinkering with. Whats the point in building for 5 years for a team which may be at its peak for 2 and is no closer now than it was three years ago? Whats the point of making over £170m in profits over the last 5 years if everyone can see your prime objective (football) is in need of a bit of investment? Whats the point in playing the same system week in week out when you have been found out (especially unlike some others you have the ability and resources to cope with change). Has Pat Rice ever said "No Arsene I disagree"? (Has anyone at Arsenal)? Just like Jehovah's Witnesses keep putting back the day of armaggedon, when will someone say "enough is enough - we are a major international football club, shouldnt we have won something by now?".

• 06-Oct-2010 15:50 | | Iron Man
  

  Ole/ML, I don't dispute we suffered more injuries. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions. My point was that if as ML says, our squad is "stronger and deeper" then we would be able to cope with the 40% discrepancy better than we have done. Surely by virtue of the fact we pine for our crippled heroes so often proves that the replacements aren't good enough to compete with the likes of Chelsea? We have a decent squad that I am generally happy with but I think the evidence of recent results and the fact they have bested us in leagues and cups over the past 6 years should tell you that we aren't quite on their level. Even in the year we came closest to winning the league ('0 they STILL finished above us and reached the CL final, this despite having sacked their manager midway through the season. It pains me to see them better than us but when history keeps on repeating itself, what more is there left to say? Like I always say, hopefully the tide will turn but as far as I'm concerned, there is little to suggest in will anytime soon.

• 06-Oct-2010 15:58 | | stan
  

  Yes its me again - Injuries. If Chelsea had been left with just Sturridge last year they would have bought someone in January, as would 99% of the clubs in the leage especially one that had just trousered £30m+ from the sale of their last unreplaced centre forward. It didnt come as a surprise that you were going to be short of forwards in the second half of the season. Adebayour (sp?) may not have been liked at Arsenal but boy didnt you need him last January. Could have bought a centre forward but waited 6 months till he was free. Another season (when no one was running away with the title) potentially wasted just to save a bit of cash.

• 06-Oct-2010 16:00 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Iron Man,
  
  Our squad is deeper today, this season. Take a look at the 2 benches last Sunday. Also take a look at their 2nd string losing at home to a Newcastle side that rested 10 players.
  
  

• 06-Oct-2010 16:15 | | MeanLean
  

  "Has Pat Rice ever said "No Arsene I disagree"? (Has anyone at Arsenal)? Just like Jehovah's Witnesses keep putting back the day of armaggedon, when will someone say "enough is enough - we are a major international football club, shouldnt we have won something by now?"
  
  Stan, that comment is one that I have heard many times and from many Gooners. It is one that drives me crazy.
  
  Unless I have the Wenger and Pat Rice big brother channel missing from my Sky subscription then I have to ask you how exactly you know what Rice does or does not say to Wenger.
  
  Who is to say that it was Rice that told Arsene he should switch to 4-3-3, who knows how much input he has on team selection or player purchasing. I have no clue, if you do please tell me.
  
  As for just going out and buying a striker. Well as a Chelsea fan, that would certainly be the answer and why not when you have the cash. We do have money but not infinite amounts which it looks like you are finding out.
  
  Wenger was on the look out for a striker but could not find one that was a) good enough b) available and c) not over priced.
  
  If a spare Torres came available last January for £12 million then Wenger would have bought him but there wasn't. Bendtner came in and scored 10 goals in 18 games even at a period when many of our best players were not playing.
  
  Iron Man, we have coped as well as we can with injuries. Our squad cannot be full of players at the same quality of Cesc, Van Persie etc.
  
  A more valid argument would be should said player be replaced but not being able to compete with a Chelsea side with far less injuries is not a crime.
  
  Question for you.. how do you think Chelsea or Manchester United would have coped with our injury record of the last two seasons?
  
  Man Utd had a period where they had a crisis in defence and they shipped goals like a *****. The lost games and didn't play well because of it. They cannot pull out another Vidic or Ferdinand if they are not there.
  
  Right peps, gotta dash for now. On later.
  
  Peace

• 06-Oct-2010 16:35 | | jod
  

  Reading the comments re tactics, its not just Chelsea who use rope-a dope tactics successfuly against Arsenal. At White Hart Lane last season we conceded 65% possession, defending only in the last third, and won the game. We played Chelsea 4 days later, won again, but used completely different tactics going for all out attack. Had we played the same way against Chelsea as we did against Arsenal we would have lost, but for whatever reason you are particularly vulnerable to this tactic. After the match Wenger commented it was the first time he had seen us come into a game against Arsenal with a game plan, but he doesn't seem to have learnt the lesson.

• 06-Oct-2010 19:20 | | Ole Gunner
  

  "Whats the point in building for 5 years for a team which may be at its peak for 2 and is no closer now than it was three years ago? "
  
  It was close 3 years ago, it is close now. As to the peak of the team, look at the average age of the side. We're 5 years younger than Chelsea on average and we have a youth system that is proven to work and costs less than yours, and we have a viable financial model that sustains itself unlike yours.
  
  Arsenal had to develop a squad because we couldn't just buy one for £400M like you could.
  
  Of the 5 years you mention, 2 were the last years of the invincibles squad which had reached the end of its cycle. In any real sense this present squad has been together 3 years and they have contested the league 2 of the last 3 seasons. That was all you managed to do for 3 seasons too, until you won last season. So again, while many of our fans are getting impatient,
  
  You asked; "Whats the point of making over £170m in profits over the last 5 years if everyone can see your prime objective (football) is in need of a bit of investment?". The answer is that we don't have a chady Russian pumping 100s of millions into our club. The money we make in profit this year is what we can invest in the club next year.
  
  Arsenal have invested in the club. Some might want more money spent, but it's hard to pretend like there was some serious dosh the club is stashing somewhere.
  
  You asked; "Whats the point in playing the same system week in week out when you have been found out (especially unlike some others you have the ability and resources to cope with change)".
  
  Because that system has been proven to work. It's worked at Arsenal. It's worked elsewhere. It keeps the club competing for titles with clubs that have spent 20 times what they have spent. Because your club Chelsea, despite your rubbish negative football, went 3 seasons without winning the league with a £400M squad which just shows us you can win with negative football or with expansive football. But most top clubs play expansive football. That's what being a big club is about. That's why Moaninho was fired. he couldn't win and win in style. Again, winning is guaranteed to nobody even to negative teams. Moaninho's Chelsea wasn't any less negative when they lost the league to Man Utd and then started the league poorly in 07/08. A top team has to win in style.
  
  Again, I point you to the rubbishness of you saying we've been found out. We still win far more games than we lose. You have lost 3 times in a row to Man City, does that mean he's been found out? Benitez took Liverpool to 7th last season with negative tactics. His Liverpool always eliminated yours under Mourinho.

• 06-Oct-2010 19:31 | | Ole Gunner
  

  stan, I was talking about late February, after the window closed. So, I ask you, if Drogba, Anelka, Kalou & Sturridge were out injured, would you have won the league? With who upfront? Borrini? It's a counterfactual and all that but I'm pretty sure you'd not have won the league if when faced with a run of Villa, Man Utd, Arsenal (we had Chelsea) & Liverpool, (just before a Cl game against Barca) you had those 4 players out injured.

• 06-Oct-2010 19:33 | | Ole Gunner
  

  jod,
  
  At the Emirates we penned you into your half and bashed you good and proper. Just last week we came to WHL, penned you in your half and gave you a proper spanking.
  
  Maybe our tactics are more effective against decidedly inferior opposition.
  
  But

• 06-Oct-2010 21:33 | | stan
  

  Ole
  
  Sorry you've started to rant and make petty nasty comments. Don't even get me started about your financials. Your latest accounts have about 7 pages of narrative on the profits and about one on the football. Best comment in the accounts - "we have to make profits so we can continue to invest in the stadium to improve the matchday experience for fans". Would have thought investing in the team and winning something would improve the matchday experience far more than new stadium comforts and hospitality franchises. Was interesting whilst it remained civil but you have spoiled it. Bye

• 07-Oct-2010 06:33 | | luis zelaya
  

  i for one, wasn't too disappointed at the result.
  
  we did some things better, they did some things better,
  
  we're different teams. it was a pretty even match, could have gone
  
  either way.
  
  they were on their own turf, we had many important players missing,
  
  so they were at an advantage, so logically they should have won.
  
  when we're at home we will be at an advantage and should win, i mean
  more than the result i was happy that it wasn't men against boys, it was just two teams, and because of several factors one came on front but we musn't be ashamed of that performance.
  
  i did feel a difference comparing the game to recent ones against chelsea. they were the better team on the day but not by much, and not by as much as they expected.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 07-Oct-2010 08:37 | | Mr Reasonable
  

  Pity I was looking forward to coming back to the banter of this thread going backwards and forwards between Ole and Stan. It looks like Ole reached boiling point and turned it into an "everything I've ever hated about the Chavs" post.

• 07-Oct-2010 09:29 | | Ole Gunner
  

  Stan,
  For a Chelsea fan you're sure very engaged in Arsenal affairs. Good for you. Thanks for your advice. The only reason you're here touting Arsenal's spending is because you feel guilty about your club's financial recklessness. I personally don't feel Chelsea or a Chelsea fan is well placed to lecture us about matchday experience or how to run a club since Arsenal is a much better run club. Even with the double you won last season, (by the way wasn't that the weakest double-winning performance you've seen from a club?), you struggle to sell out Champions League and even some league games.
  
  Mr Reasonable,
  
  

• 07-Oct-2010 11:04 | | Blue Chris
  

  Did Mr Wenger tell you about us struggling to sell out games because I think you have just proved Stans point about being a bit loose with the facts. In the 6 seasons since the capacity was last increased we have averaged 99% attendance in the league (ITV.stats.football). My guess would be most of the missing would be away fans not taking up their allocation fully as Stoke certainly didnt recently. Champions league capacity is about 2k lower due to uefa rules. Also all sold out.

• 07-Oct-2010 11:19 | | blue chris
  

  Yes our 86 points last year was so much weaker than your 78 points when you won the double in 1998. You really are a fact free zone.

• 08-Oct-2010 12:17 | | dkgooner
  

  Bill Murray's best film is Lost in Translation.

• 08-Oct-2010 23:53 | | Gooner till i die
  

  Chelsea can act all high and mighty now, Arsenal will take them off the top soon
  
  You better believe it

• 09-Oct-2010 22:02 | | podge
  

  Lets look at the goals Chelsea scored 1 thunderbolt free kick from Alex and 1 lucky( I say lucky because it hit the post and went in and came from a passage of play where Song was fouled). the game was tight and neither team created too many clear cut chances. This giving Arsenal possesion as a counter attack ploy is the dumbest thing I have ever heard Arsenal are a team of creative accurate passers with great movement you give players like that time and space they score goals Chelsea worked hard to win the ball back especially Ramires who impressed me. We have closed the gap in these games significantly but Drogba remains the difference last time certain Dutchman played Chelsea he was the difference. Had Fabregas been playing our passing would have been quicker and more inventive

• 15-Oct-2010 07:52 | | CHGooner  - Stan the Chelski man
  

  Sadly having read this thread through, the most honest and realistic comments have been made by Stan. Based on Fabregas' comments today he would seem to agree as well. We always lose to Man U and Chelsea, we will not win the title, we have no tactical nuances, we are weak mentally and have fra too many sub standard foriegners in the squad. Why???? Have been for years and nowt has changed or will. That's our story and will remain so until the club get a grip of our not so great dictator.

Write comment

Your Details:

Name:

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Powered by Compojoom comment 4.1.7 stable