Football 3 Boxing 1. Stoke match report.

Stoke City 1 Arsenal 3

In America, the people go on about their 2nd Amendment rights to own a gun. And so, despite 2004 figures showing that almost 12,000 people are murdered a year by guns, it is oh so easy to acquire a gun in America.

The point here, is that the crime is not in owning a gun: if I had a pistol framed on my bedroom wall it wouldn't threaten anyone. But the gun gives individuals temptation and that is why so many people are murdered.

The parable to the Stoke match yesterday is clear: it's not having the ability to make a leg-breaking tackle which is the issue; it is putting it into action. Every football match, 22 players stride out onto the pitch before kick-off. And whilst I'm not saying that Ryan Shawcross broke Ramsey's leg on purpose, it is about how you play the game.

I struggle to believe that any footballer is that callous that they go out on the field to deliberately break an opponent's leg. But the indictment on Stoke is that if you play in that style, then this sort of thing should be expected. A tactic of trying to 'rough up' the opposition is not absolutely wrong in of itself although I think it is deplorable; but it is the by-products which come from it that are so terrible: you try and show someone you're there by clipping their heel early on but you're a little late and instead you break your leg. Of course it's an over-the-top example but no more so than Shawcross' tackle.

There's the old cliché 'you live by the sword, you die by the sword' and that might be true if there was some kind of reasonable punishment for Shawcross. But there isn't. Shawcross potentially ends the career of one of the best young talents in football and gets a three match ban; Alex Song does nothing wrong and gets a two match ban. Go figure.

Shawcross will be a little of a scapegoat, but this argument he is innocent is absolute rubbish. It's probably true that the baseball-cap wearing one sent Stoke out to 'rough us up' and insofar as it could have been any of their team who was guilty then perhaps there can be some sympathy for Shawcross.

But after the match, the manager spoke out, saying

"I don't believe in coincidence."

Quite. When I was eleven, my maths teacher told me that to forget your homework once was an accident, twice was forgetful and three times was worth a punishment. Well, go figure. If you look here and here, you can see this was not the first time Shawcross had been guilty of what, ultimately is, a heinous crime on a football pitch. And whilst the entire Stoke team seems to play in a - to these eyes - deplorable style, it is no coincidence that it has been Shawcross who has been repeatedly guilty.

This is particularly true as there is clearly some humanity in this Stoke team. Thomas Sorensen has played in English football for over ten years and has always seemed like a gentleman. Glen Whelan stayed with Ramsey the whole time he was down yesterday. But that wasn't there from Shawcross. And that, ultimately, is the point: I'll concede it wasn't intentional. But while some Stoke players understand that they are trying to play a physical game to negate Arsenal's options, Shawcross seemed to relish the tactical system, positively foaming at the mouth at the chance to hack some players down.

Partly, the problem lies with the referees: if they got their cards out early and tried to stamp it out then it would be less of an issue. But because of the rotational fouling which was clear last time we played Stoke, once they don't do that, they end up letting them get away with it all game.

Ramsey's potential has been clear to see to this observer and it is fair to ask where he will go from here? It is easy to criticise Wenger's youth project, but without it would a player like Ramsey have been enticed to Arsenal? That, is probably the most salient question right now. Ramsey was the golden egg of that perhaps costly goose, and arguably, with him out injured the youth project will come under ever more pressure to cease.

Unfortunately, because of the furore over Shawcross' tackle, the fact Arsenal put in a really excellent performance has been overlooked. Twice before we had been to the Britannia stadium and twice before we had been outfought and bullied out of the game. The corresponding League match last season was the last time an Arsenal player really lost it, when RVP got so wound up by Stoke's tactics he decided to get himself sent off. Clearly, Arsenal really don't enjoy playing away to Stoke.

Of course, in the interests of good banter, we had the early Stoke goal from a long throw. That, and the sun rising, were the two most predictable things which happened yesterday. But after the Sunderland match, Goodplaya had been quite right in describing this game as 'bellwether'. It was. And yet, as Kevin Whitcher has pointed out on the Online Gooner, despite twice being under the metaphorical cosh, Arsenal responded.

Wenger said in his post-match interview this team has changed and I'm inclined to agree. Aside from being wound up by Tony Pulis in November 2008, who I promptly branded with the moniker SCWWABC - see here for an explanation - it was also very depressing to see an Arsenal side who couldn't respond to going behind.

This time we did. It took a while, but suddenly we were competitive in the tackle and started to pass the ball properly. And then Bendtner scored for us: a real strikers' goal, something this team has been missing. 1-1 and you could see the heads go up.

In a sense, this is what makes the Ramsey/Shawcross incident even more surprising. Because after 35-40 minutes, Stoke sort of noticed the aggression wasn't working anf backed off a little bit. And yet Shawcross still did that. Maybe this is just me attempting character assassination but in my eyes, there is something seriously wrong with him.

But for all our dominance - and one or two good penalty shouts - we couldn't make it count. In the past, an incident like Ramsey's injury would have seen this team fold. Fabregas and Vermaelen, among others, were clearly upset.

Yet, the obvious comparison is easy: at St Andrews, despite defending Gallas at the time, the ex-captain let his team-mates down. This time Fabregas stood up and showed why he is such a great man, as well as a great player. To put that penalty home showed immense guts. If this was a bellwether game, the skipper surely showed the direction this Arsenal team is going in.

What with Chelsea's defeat earlier in the day, although Ramsey got injured it was still a good day for us. The potential three horse race alluded to after the Liverpool match is most certainly on. The fixture list is kind to us now, and if we produce a marvellous March, there could be some silverware at Ashburton Grove.

In 2008, there was the sentiment of winning it for Eduardo and we actually went off and didn't win for a few weeks; this time, let's actually win for Ramsey.

Keep the faith,
Adam

Bread and butter stuff. Sunderland match report.

Arsenal 2 Sunderland 0

It is probably worth remarking now that whilst the three points dropped at the Stadium of Light did not seem that bad at the time - Sunderland were in a great run of form - it now appears to be a very costly result.

Having beaten Liverpool and Sunderland, Chelsea's lead has been cut to six points. 11 games to play, 33 points available. Andrey Arshavin has said we need to take all of them; realistically, we may be able to drop 2/3/4 points and still win the League. But the timing of those bad results will be really important.

It was Sunderland this Saturday, Stoke next Saturday, and Burnley the Saturday after. So at the moment there's a week between each match: if we lose at the Britannia next Saturday, there will be an entire week of recriminations and negative energy in the media and on the training ground. What's more, Chelsea could be out of sight if they beat Man City.

But, if results go our way this coming weekend, then even if we do drop points to, say, Man City, we should still be in the title race.

On Saturday, Arsenal were good if uninspiring. Frankly, one would expect aspiring champions to beat a struggling Sunderland by more than two goals, but that scoreline doesn't really tell the story of the game: arguably, there was further evidence this team lacks footballing intelligence - if Zenden had put that free-kick away at the end for Sunderland, it would have been one of the most ill-deserved results that an opposition team had taken from The Grove. But with this team, at 1-0 it is always somewhat worrying that they will concede. And the point here, is that it wouldn't be the same if this team had a defence which was a beacon of solidity. Yet, although Vermaelen has been the best centre back in England this year, it simply does not give across that impression: one of the perks of our fixture list being light at the moment is that William Gallas will hopefully be back next Saturday because Silvestre does not inspire confidence.

Bendtner took his goal well and aside from one moment at the end of the first half where Kenwyne Jones should of scored for Sunderland we were very comfortable. Although I don't agree with the praise being bandied his way in some of the newspapers, Walcott wasn't as bad as usual. He didn't seem afraid of the ball like he usually is and once or twice he beat a man with his pace.

Lets not get too over-excited though: George McCartney, aside from being the amalgam of two Beatles has no star-quality - he is a very average defender. Theo's crossing was still p*ss-poor and his lack of any tricks or a decent cross means he is never going to be a great attacking weapon until he acquires them. Don't get me wrong: I'd love Theo Walcott to be a great player and prove me wrong; but at the moment he seems over-hyped and over-rated.

The contrast with Emmanuel Eboué is extraordinary. Of course, it is true that the Ivorian in a fine run of form but he always seems to make more effort than Walcott and, for a man who is primarily a defender, the contrast in crossing ability between the two is extraordinary. Eboué was excellent, as was Nasri which was good to see.

Nasri's season certainly seems to have been hampered by the fact he missed pre-season - and hence lost his fitness - and also the first two months of the season through his leg break. Regular readers of this site will know what a fan I am of Nasri and when he was first brought in, his impression was instant: a goal within three minutes of his Premier League debut, and six goals by the beginning of November, three with each foot. In terms of a comparison with Hleb, there wasn't one: Nasri was so many times better it was amazing.

But this season he hasn't quite hit those heights - the goals had dried up but not only that, in general he didn't seem to be giving us enough. That changed against Sunderland: he dribbled well, crossed well and just seemed to have an extra drive. To use a Wenger-ism he 'played without the handbrake'. Long may it continue.

Having beaten Sunderland, Wenger has a full week of training to prepare the team for their visit to the Britannia. Win there, and its gonna be one hell of a ride; lose, and then fail to beat Porto and our season could be over in a couple of weeks: the polarity is there and it is real.

This team could be heroes. Let's hope they become them.

Keep the faith,
Adam

This team has the

That's four defeats from six. Match report.

Porto 2 Arsenal 1

Poor. Very, very poor.

Porto are a bit like Aston Villa: nothing special but a solid side who will always do reasonably well in the Champions League without winning it (unless they have an inspirational manager and help from the referees). They've got a big man and a little man up front and two reasonably talented wingers. In fact, they're very like Aston Villa.

So one would hope we would have learnt our lesson from Villa and told our full-backs to sit back and try and attack through the middle. Alas.

The fact we managed to score a goal disguises nothing: that was a goal which came outside of the tactical framework of the match; it came from a corner and the manager probably didn't like it as footballistically it was ugly.

But in general, the young team which is supposed to be learning does not learn: it's true that the first goal came from an unforgivable mistake by Fabianski and to blame it on Clichy would be disingenuous: but if we know that our goalkeeper is dodgy, why make him face extra chances? The problem, is that Gael Clichy wants to play far too high up the pitch.

One of the main reasons we were knocked out of the Champions League last year was because Gibbs was out of position so he slipped. When will this team start to learn its lessons?

It is, in short, bereft of footballing intelligence, Fabregas aside. Sure, as Gunnerblog points out, the ref got in the way of Sol. But as I mentioned in my Audioboo, a sensible keeper would have kicked the ball away: sure, he would have taken a booking but I've never seen a keeper get sent off for two bookable offences. Now, instead of 1-1 which would have been a positive result, it's going to be an incredibly tense second leg. At risk of stating the obvious, if Porto score once we have to score twice just to force extra time.

In the past, I would happily have blamed the referee. But the reality is that he let quite a lot go for both team. He was just poor, period. We probably should have had a penalty, but the back-pass goal contained exactly the sort of quick thinking which this Arsenal side is lacking. He probably should have got his cards out for one or two fouls but if we had got Bendtner involved, the ref would not be the post-match topic of conversation.

But, whichever way you look, a serious analysis of goalkeeping at the club is in order. Gerry Peyton is in his seventh year at the club as goalkeeping coach, and it's fair to say he's not really earning his corn.

Fabianski was a good shot-stopper when he came to the club and that hasn't changed. Almunia being crap at crosses is hardly great evidence of a flaw in the system because he's generally been crap this season.

However, last year, even when he was making good saves, he still wasn't great at crosses. The same must be said for Fabianski and I can recall Mannone dropping a couple of balls in his short time between the sticks.

Arsenal is definitely run as a top-down football club, and the impression which comes out of the club, is that Wenger doesn't believe in crosses as a weapon, either in defence or in attack. How often do we score from a corner? Last night was so momentous because it does not happen very often. Look at how much the press wrote about Diaby's goal last week: because it was completely out of character for the club.

If I was having a punt, I'd back us to go through to the next round. But that doesn't disguise the fact that our form is awful and far too many players are not nearly good enough. Andrey Arshavin said we needed to win all 12 games in order to win the League. On this showing, fat chance.

Keep the faith,
Adam

At least we won. Liverpool match report.

Because of our FA Cup defeat to Stoke, this has been a football-free weekend for Arsenal. So I thought I'd take my time to consider my thoughts about the Liverpool match, rather than rush into writing something whilst still in the euphoria of victory. To cut this rather long and bloated preamble a little bit shorter, I simply don't agree with a lot of what I've read in the blogosphere and in the papers: this was not a performance based on old-style footballing values. It was merely that Liverpool are not as good a side as Man United or Chelsea.

Alright, there are some mitigating arguments: William Gallas was imperious in probably his best performance for the club and Almunia did put in a much-improved performance but to suggest that this means we're suddenly much more defensively sound is profoundly untrue.

Lets make no mistake: the reason we lost to Chelsea but beat Liverpool three days later, is because Liverpool are not as clinical: Drogba scores lots of goals; David N'Gog does not.

If Drogba had got into the box, in the position N'Gog was in, he would have buried it. I'd bet my left testicle on that outcome. If Drogba had been over the free-kick at the end, it would have been in the back of the net. This isn't supposed to be some kind of Drogba love-in, merely a reminder that without Torres, Liverpool will struggle to score goals against a fellow 'big side'.

What's more, the suggestion that having been beaten by Chelsea and United, Wenger and the team have decided to change the style of play is (and I cannot stress this enough) completely and utterly untrue: perhaps those two results were an indictment on the style of play on the team, but they have not pre-empted the team to change what they do.

Matt Hughes in The Times had this to say:

Arsenal scrapped their way to a hard-fought, if not downright ugly, win, which while not quite putting them back in title contention, gives them complete control in the race for third place. Given the torrid time they have endured over the past fortnight, a return of “1-0 to the Arsenal” will have done nicely.

It was scrappy, and it was hard-fought, but this idea being pedalled around that Arsenal have suddenly started playing ugly is preposterous. Sure, we lacked fluency: but that was because the players were unsure of themselves having been monumentally spanked in their two previous matches.

But basically, the evidence for this "ugly Arsenal" is coming from one thing and one thing only: that Tomas Rosicky put a good cross into the box and Abou Diaby powerfully headed home, in a goal which would more usually be scored by Didier Drogba or Wayne Rooney. To quote Joseph Conrad, "The horror! The horror!".

Seriously. You would have thought that Arsenal had radically changed their style of play. But that is completely and utterly disingenuous. With Bendtner and Diaby both together in the team for the first time since October (and hence we had some big men to cross to) it made much more sense to try and score a goal from a cross.

That doesn't make our play ugly. Alas, that does not mean it was a good performance either. One would hope that lessons had been learnt from the oft-mentioned defeats. But it didn't seem that way.

There were several times when it was left far too easy for Liverpool to counter. Ultimately, we won the game so in the context of this individual match it did not matter; but results went our way. The League could be a three horse race.

In spite of not signing anyone; in spite of losing four times out of four to United and Chelsea; in spite of playing without a striker for two months, this League is still winnable. But to make us genuine contenders, we need to make sure we can defend properly. And that still wasn't really there on Wednesday night, at least in my eyes.

It is fixable, but it will require work on the training ground. History suggests Arsene Wenger does not devote enough training time to defending. The one thing the papers were right about, is that this team - even if not its manager - is prepared to compromise its ideals to get a result. Will the manager follow suit and give us defensive solidity? One would hope that the allure of two pieces of silverware would let him give up on this attacking utopia.

Maybe then we'll win something. But the Liverpool match, whilst a turned corner, was not a milestone in terms of us playing differently; Arsenal can play their usual style against Porto and win. But the real acid test for this team is how they perform in the next few weeks in the Premier League. We'll just have to wait and see...

Keep the faith,
Adam

Leopards don't change their spots in a week. Match report.

Chelsea 2 Arsenal 0

Shambles. Gutless. No teamwork. Pathetic. Can’t defend. Worst goalkeeper ever in the history of world football.

I’m sure you’ve heard all these jibes at this Arsenal side following the defeat at Chelsea on Sunday. Some of it, is probably merited; but the vast majority is hyperbole and plain nonsense.

What is true though, is that from the outset, the tactics the team were sent out to play were a tactical nonsense.

Samir Nasri and Andrey Arshavin may have hit a relative glut of goals when they first arrived at the club; Cesc Fabregas does go through some purple patches when he bangs the goals in left, right and centre; Abou Diaby may occasionally smash one home; but as a group of four players, they are more likely to not score in a game than to score.

Yet, they were the forward line. It was they who were expected to score the goals to try and get us a result at Stamford Bridge. Now perhaps I’m wrong, but this was the error with the Arsenal team on Sunday.

To blame the players who were on the pitch is disingenuous: perhaps Bendtner wasn’t fully fit, but by the time he was introduced, the game was realistically lost. If he had played a barn-storming 45 minutes, scored a couple of goals, and then had to be withdrawn because he looked tired that would be one thing. But he played for half an hour and looked fresh as a daisy at the final whistle.

It’s obvious this Arsenal team isn’t the greatest at defending; so to blame Vermaelen and Song for losing their men at the corner which led to the opening goal, whilst fair in one sense, is unfair in another: that, has almost come to be expected.

But what we also expect is to see a bloody good attacking side. They’ve shown throughout the season that this is their strength so they might as well play to it. And yet they didn’t. A side which began the season playing 4-3-3 is now playing 4-6-0.

It’s defending without defenders. And this is where the finger has to be pointed at the manager: because looking at the Arsenal teamsheet before the match it hardly seemed to be bristling with goals.

And the remarkable thing is that Wenger pointed this out: when there were goals spread around the team, whilst acknowledging it was impressive, he also conceded it was not something we could depend upon all season. So the manager himself saw this coming, it wasn’t just the supporters.

Alas. Faced with the chance of improving our team by something called the transfer window, he did nothing. No strikers brought in, because Bendtner was going to be fit. And it was obvious that this run of four games would go a long way to deciding how our League campaign finished.

So the supporters could only believe what the manager said: that the striker would be fit. But he wasn’t: when he was needed in the big games against Man United and Chelsea, he could only give us half an hour each time.

So the team with five creative midfield players in it, has scored two goals in its last four matches, both of which were deflected.

It’s an absolute tragedy: five brilliant – and uniquely different – midfielders’ talents are being wasted because there is nobody to finish the chances. Sure, Bendtner is ostensibly a finisher but he’s not playing so it’s a moot point.

Blaming Almunia for a lack of talent is unfair: its probably true but you cannot blame a player for his own deficiencies. We do have two centre backs with a desire to play centre forward; we do have a left back who cannot really defend; and we do have a goalkeeper who lets in goals he should save. But this is nothing new: we’d counter-acted this by scoring lots of goals.

If we were playing a couple of strikers who just happened not to be scoring that would be one thing. But the manager sent out a team who did not have within it a proven goalscorer. The result of the match tells you exactly what happened. Better, to have a half-fit striker than none at all.

The question is where do we go from here: its possible though unlikely that we will still win the League. But that would merely mask the deficiencies within this Arsenal team: at the moment we probably have eight elevenths of a good side.

That cannot be changed before the summer but the left-back problem may be solved by the return of Kieran Gibbs. It has been said before and it will be said again: Robin Van Persie is not a player who can be depended on to last a season. No other player at the club has the ability to score goals in his numbers so we need another striker who can play next to him: hopefully, Chamakh is the answer. But it is the goalkeeping situation which is the worst because I genuinely pity Manuel Almunia. His fall from grace has been spectacular and its hard to see how he can return to form.

The problem is that there are also clear problems with Fabianski and Mannone and perhaps the hope is that eventually Almunia will get out of this dreadful rut of form.

Realistically, we have one competition left to play for this season: for all our many shortcomings, perennially we seem to at least get to the quarter finals of the Champions League.

Perhaps we’ll get a friendly draw and somebody else will knock United and Chelsea out. What this season has emphatically shown, is that we sure can’t.

It’s not a good time to be a Gooner right now. Let’s stick together and maybe Liverpool will allow us to lift our spirits slightly.

Keep the faith,
Adam

Pitiful. Arsenal beaten in every department by United

Arsenal 1 Manchester United 3
(And it's worth noting that the '1' was a consolation goal - perhaps we woke up from our lethargy thereafter, but United are far too professional a team to let a three goal lead slip.

If you want to clutch at straws, perhaps you could point out that United were due a win away at us in the League - February 2005, almost five years ago, was when they won away to us last (as long as you discount the Champions League...)

But fundamentally we were poor. Really, really poor in fact. This may sound hyperbolic, but I cannot recall a worse performance at home: at least on other occasions when we've been hammered, the opposition have had to be excellent. United were average, they placed some nice counter-attacking football but the three points were gifted to them on a platter.

It's worth looking at why we looked so good at the beginning of the season - the new formation looked like it worked, because we pressed high up the field. Bendtner and Van Persie made sure the opposition could not clear the ball easily. Above all else, it was a formation based on working hard - 4-3-3 became 4-5-1 when we didn't have the ball.

Perhaps our players are tired, but the high work rate has gone out the window. Gael Clichy is clearly not the player he once was, but it's unforgivable that the midfielders and attackers refuse to track back and help the defence. It's very easy to characterise us as flat-track bullies but that's because we can score three our four goals against a mediocre team.

When we play United or Chelsea we can't - I can't recall the last time we scored three against either of them which is telling in of itself. The point is though, that although Gallas and Vermaelen have been excellent, we've looked dodgy defensively all season - there's no hiding from that.

Playing gung ho may work against the smaller teams because out-scoring them work so a lack of clean sheets is not an issue. But against United or Chelsea, it is inexcusable. Look at results like when we last won at Old Trafford (sadly, in 2006). It was a performance underpinned by defensive solidity and we managed to nick a goal. We've played United and Chelsea eight times in the last 12 months. And in that time we've scored five and conceded eighteen, with seven defeats from eight.

There's no way you can spin that: its not a one-off result, there may have been an occasional dodgy refereeing decision but eight games is enough to tell a reasonable story.

Part of me, struggles to get angry. In my lifetime of supporting Arsenal we have always been a top team. But although statistics don't tell the whole story they seem to indicate United and Chelsea are simply better than us. It's hard to write and it's hard to take. But it's probably true.

The saving grace, is that is only on a one-on-one basis. We are still in the title race because we have been rather excellent against the smaller teams this year. Maybe that will continue. Frankly, it has to. United won the League last year while only taking five points from the rest of the Big Four. Arguably, that is our problem - although they haven't been as majestic against the bottom ten teams this season, they're raising their game for big games - something Arsenal are emphatically not managing.

Look at the team from the United game and who can you absolve of blame? Vermaelen, Arshavin and perhaps Rosicky. It's difficult to criticise Nasri because as a team we didn't press and didn't close down - it wasn't only him. But while there were poor performances all round, there were three players who deserve an absolute rollicking.

First and foremost amongst these is Manuel Almunia. It pains me to say that. If any other keeper had scuffed that kick towards the end of the match, it would be fair to conclude they had merely been unlucky. With Almunia, it was the culmination of six months of mediocrity. It would be disingenuous to imply he was responsible for all three goals: the latter two were counter-attacks where he was put in a very difficult position, and even for the first goal Nani should never have been allowed to put his cross-cum-shot into the box.

Indeed, although we conceded three goals, if this was a one-off it would be easy to excuse Almunia. But whereas last year I made him my player of the year, his fall from grace has been spectacular. He adds nothing to this team: no doubt goalkeeping is about confidence but right now he must be at rock bottom. His excellent shot-stopping is nowhere to be seen. To see how his standards have fallen, it is merely necessary to juxtapose two performances: in the Champions League semi-final first leg last year, Almunia kept us in the tie with a series of great saves; on Sunday, he didn't make a single save of note and scored an own goal. Need I say more?

It is even harder to write a piece criticising Gael Clichy: but in a sense Clichy is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the current Arsenal team. Everything Cashley wrote in his book about nearly crashing his car was ridiculous. But considering the high wages paid to young players, it is unbelievable that for five grand a week, we let the best left-back in world football leave. For a while, it seemed the correct decision: Gallas became an inspirational skipper and Clichy played as an excellent left-back. Then we played a certain match at St Andrews and I'm unconvinced he's been the same player since. Gibbs is an exciting prospect but as long as he is injured, teams will continue to try and attack the left-back area, just as United did. Perhaps this will give Clichy the chance to turn it around and show he really is a top level left-back but it is more likely that we'll continue to ship goals.

Although Denilson was very responsible for all three goals, I think it's fair to say he just had a dreadful game - his performance was shocking but as it was out of character, it is the easiest one to let slide. The problem with Denilson, is that he'll probably play well against Porto in the Champions League. But without any time on the ball - as soon as he faces an aggressive side - he gets shaken up and doesn't play nearly as well.

The question now is whether this team can pick themselves up. Cesc and Sagna have made pronouncements on the official site about how we have to beat Chelsea. It's difficult to disagree with that. But it's also hard to see it happen.

Generally, I disregard everything Myles Palmer says. But his point about Shava repeatedly shooting on Sunday because he had no other choice might be true. This Arsenal side needs to play to its strengths and with RVP out injured, the two world-class attackers in the team are Arshavin and Fabregas. Maybe, as I was saying post-match on Sunday, opposition teams have Arshavin worked out so all he can do is shoot early and hope. But what seems more plausible, is that he wants more support in attack. If we want to play 4-3-3, we have to see far more from our wide men. At the beginning of the year, it was Shava and Bendtner playing out of their skins with RVP up front.

We can't bring Van Persie back yet. But what we can do is look at what made us relatively successful and try and re-capture that. Arsene Wenger is paid five million pounds a year: he needs to earn some of that on the training ground this week.

Keep the faith,
Adam