Five thoughts on Arsenal's form

Theo Walcott's importance to this team misses the point...
Anybody who knows me or who has read this blog knows that I am far from a Theo Walcott fanboy. Yet even I, in the giddy aftermath of the North London Derby was moved to declare that he had improved a great deal.

This is true. He is playing at a consistently higher level than ever before. He has also hit a purple patch of form and been particularly good for the past couple of months. Even so, it only takes those of us with a memory longer than eight weeks to remember just how appalling he was in his substitute appearance vs Chelsea.

But the truth is he's been good. The issue is he's been no more than that; his importance to the team is more an indictment on our general attacking play. So sure, give him a new contract - but that shouldn't be mutually exclusive with serious attacking reinforcements. And if it is a choice of one or the other, I would choose the new signings; even in his purple patch, Theo has continued to be a flat-track bully with his poorer performances coming against the better teams we've faced.

There's a legitimate case for Arsène Wenger to go…
But unfortunately, it's being made by the wrong people. And in the wrong way.

That Arsenal did not win anything between 2005 and 2011 is of very little bearing to me. I did not believe Arsene Wenger should go then because the team was competitive. So banging a drum about how we've won nothing for seven years and therefore he should go is absurd.

At the beginning of 2007/08, we went on a 22 game unbeaten run. We were a win at Old Trafford away from winning the Premier League and a couple of very dodgy decisions away from a winnable Champions League semi-final against a Chelsea side managed by Avram Grant. That team wasn't rubbish; that team didn't merit the sack.

Even as recently as April 2011, it's worth questioning what happens if Eboue doesn't bundle Lucas over in the 101st minute? Would we have gone on to win the title? Probably not, but maybe. So I don't accept the idea that Wenger's failings are long-term.

The current team is pretty bad. Since Clichy, Fabregas, Nasri and latterly Van Persie left, we are quite clearly a much weaker team. I'm inclined to agree with the manager that third was about as well as the team could hope to have done last season - but I'm also quite happy to hold him responsible for that. He signed the players; the poverty of the squad is largely his fault. I think he's slightly unlikely that the current generation of youngsters (Jack apart) aren't up to much, but he should probably have done something to counter-act that.

As far as I'm concerned, he should stay because no manager could make drastic changes to the playing staff until the summer - but then his position should be seriously considered.

What to say about the lack of saves from our keepers?
It is very hard to work out exactly what is going on in goal. When you concede a lot of shots from outside the box, is it fair to criticise the goalkeeper, the defence, or both? And if both, to what extent is each culpable?

I'm prepared to believe that the skill of our defence means that opposition chances (when they do occur) are of a higher quality because they come from a mistake by one of our players - but that does not excuse our keepers saving nothing.

When there was speculation a couple of years back about Szczesny's contract, everyone wondered what Wenger's issue was; it's pretty obvious now.

It's pretty much impossible to win with substitutions…
I remember when I used to complain when Wenger used to bring on striker after striker in search of victory that it was a move bereft of any real tactical nous, and doesn't really help if you're trying to create chances.

But then, if you bring on a winger for a winger, it's termed 'like for like' and therefore not changing the game. And, if heaven forbid you bring on a defensive player when chasing the game, you are clearly a complete buffoon who hasn't got a clue.

The truth about substitutions is that unless the substitute quite clearly wins the game, it's very hard to evaluate them. In pretty much all football analysis, the importance given to them is grossly disproportionate to their actual importance.

The great irony in all this…
Is that after the press went on and on and on and on about how we've won nothing for seven years, we're 2/1 to win the Carling Cup with this team. If Thomas does lift the trophy, no doubt we'll hear about how it's not a real trophy. Them's the breaks.

Keep the faith.

Some opinions presented as facts. What's going on at Arsenal?

- It is profoundly odd to argue this Arsenal team is not a mediocre Arsenal team. That we were an incredibly poor side in the 1950s and 60s somewhat misses the point, for two reasons: it's not short-term thinking to compare the team with the last 20 years - that's a reasonable data-set - and this is the worst Arsenal side in that period, at least on form.

But more importantly, the mediocrity needs to be viewed in context: when you have the fourth largest wage bill in the League, the team should be performing much better.

- That said, the argument going around at the moment that we cannot hold a lead is patently false: it is unfortunate to blow a two goal lead twice in a week. The fact remains though that the only other time this season we have been pegged back after taking the lead was the ridiculous match against Reading. It is simply untrue to say we cannot hold a lead.

- Explaining the lack of defensive stability is difficult. It's easy to blame the goalkeeper but he was in goal at the beginning of the season when we were more solid. Certainly, losing Gibbs to injury has not helped, and Thomas Vermaelen has not played well this season, but the biggest issue has been losing Abou Diaby.

Diaby would sit in front of the defence and contest all the aerial balls, meaning that Koscielny/Vermaelen/Mertesacker could do what they do well - mopping up all the loose balls and winning the ball on the ground. Mikel Arteta, for his many strengths, cannot do that and what the table below shows is that although we're conceding maybe one more shot on target per game than when Diaby was fit, a much higher proportion are going in.

It's a little simplistic to blame it solely on Diaby's injury - Mannone has made some clangers and there's been a series of defensive mistakes - but teams have been getting chances which are easier to convert and that's certainly partly because we're not competing in the air; it's also shown by us repeatedly conceding from set pieces since he went off injured against Chelsea.

- Even so, before this week, nobody would really have accused this Arsenal team of leaking goals. At current rates, we're projected to concede about 38 goals this seasons, which whilst nowhere near good enough to win the League would be a staunch improvement on last season. The problems with the defence have been over-hyped - get Szczesny, a keeper the defence trust, back in goal and the players in front of him will play better and the keeper will also save more of the shots on target.

Obviously we're a much stronger team when Diaby plays - but that's a bit like saying we would have scored more goals in the last six seasons if Van Persie had always been fit. It's true, but completely irrelevant, because neither Diaby or Van Persie are players whose fitness can be relied upon.

- So what's the problem? It's basically the midfield and attack. Not exactly a small problem then.

All the midfield players are too similar, which puts a massive onus on Cazorla to create chances. When Wilshere and Rosicky are back playing properly that will be less of an issue, but the lack of another player who can create chances is an enormous problem. It's why - I suspect - Wenger persists with picking Aaron Ramsey: at least he tries to create chances. For all we mocked Alex Song and his chipped through balls, he still had the most assists at the club last season - and that from what was ostensibly the holding midfield role. Compare and contrast with Mikel Arteta.

Our forwards' conversion rates are not bad, but we don't create enough for them.

It's especially galling because one of the reasons we're weak defensively is that Walcott and Podolski don't defend anywhere near as much as they should do. In theory, this should mean they're in great positions for counter-attacks but it's just not happening. That particularly irritates me because Andrey Arshavin does create chances (where Podolski doesn't) but isn't allowed to play because of his supposed lack of defensive nous.

The wingers just aren't particularly good players - Chamberlain's done nothing all season, Gervinho couldn't cross a ball if he was paid to (oh wait, he is), Walcott's decision-making is awful and his new thing is shooting when he should cross to prove he should play up front, and I'm very confused as to what Lukas Podolski actually does.

I like Olivier Giroud but even Robin van Persie - the best player in the League last season - struggled with this motley bunch, so he's not exactly in an easy situation.

- This really hits at the key problem at Arsenal - and why so many fans are unhappy. Yeah, the ticket prices are high but London is one of the most expensive cities in the world and ticket prices are also high at Chelsea and Tottenham and it's a complete straw man to keep on bringing up ticket prices as a reason the fans are unhappy, not least because the stadium is (still) consistently sold out.

It's inconsistent to complain about the club not extracting enough from sponsorship deals and then complaining about the tickets being overpriced: the club does not care about the individual supporter and no Premier League club does - when you're turning over tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, one fan not spending a thousand pounds is unimportant.

As long as the stadium remains full, the board - rightly - will not care about ticket prices.

But the real problem is then not spending the money from the gate receipts on players: when we challenged for the League in 2010 we had Nasri, Fabregas, Song and Van Persie; instead, we now have Podolski, Cazorla, Arteta and Giroud - not bad footballers, but nowhere near as good as their predecessors who (lest we forget) didn't manage to win anything. So where we needed to move forward, we've actually regressed.

And alongside them, there's a series of very average players - Vermaelen, Ramsey, Chamberlain, Coquelin, Walcott - and some absolute dross.

The great irony is that a few years back we were praising the medium-priced players Wenger was signing (Eduardo, Sagna, Nasri, Arshavin) and asking for more of them. The difference then was the quality of the young players coming through was much higher - people of the calibre of Clichy, Song, Fabregas (and the slightly older) Van Persie came through to play for the first team and were key players.

Because these days the young players are nowhere near as good, the need to go out and spend on the top young players - like, for example, Juan Mata - is tremendous, but the board/the manager appear to be ignoring it. And therefore, we will only challenge for the top four, if we're lucky.

- To come full circle and go back to the original point about the wage bill, there's an argument often made that the only reason teams want our top players is because they're very talented.

That's true. But the reason teams don't want our squad players - despite them being quite talented - is because of their wages. It's something which needs to be sorted out, because although our wage bill is large, it's artificially large as it doesn't represent the strength of the squad. And that's the reason we may well finish outside the top four.

Keep the faith.