Five thoughts on Arsenal 0 Bayern 2

Arsenal 0 Bayern Munich 2

The referee took a massive punt
Whether the rule of giving a penalty and a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity is fair or not, it was entirely moot last night: Wojciech Szczesny did not deny a clear goalscoring opportunity. He fouled Arjen Robben, certainly. But before any contact was made, Robben went to control the ball and a reasonably heavy touch pushed the ball away from the goal, well to the left of the goal-mouth. As Szczesny brings Robben down, two Arsenal defenders come over to cover the goal-line, so that even if he had stayed on his feet and managed to get the ball back under control, it was far from a clear goalscoring opportunity. It was, without a shadow of a doubt, a terrible decision.

But here's the really important thing: even if you buy the argument (which I don't) that it's incredibly hard to judge these things in real time, the ref still then took a massive punt on deciding it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. Given the disproportionate harm to the defending team of taking such a punt - not to mention that he was wrong - it seems a very bizarre thing to do.

And at risk of sounding like a broken record, it continues a long, long run of highly contentious decisions going against us in the Champions League.

Sometimes there's not a lot you can do
There's a completely absurd column from Tony Cascarino in today's Times criticising Arsene Wenger for being tactically inflexible and basically blaming last night's result on this. I know this will annoy a lot of 16 year-old tactical whizz-kids, but sometimes there's not a lot you can do.

An Arsenal win was the least likely result going into the match, before playing 55 minutes a man down. The idea that it was Wenger's tactics which made Arsenal lose is frankly ridiculous.

In reality, by playing very narrow for most of the second half, we actually kept a very good shape. A 1-0 defeat to a brilliant goal while playing a man down would have been quite a good result. Should Mesut Özil have gone off instead of Santi Cazorla? Maybe, it's very hard to say. I think Özil provides more of an attacking threat and you need to continue to offer a threat or the opposition will just throw everybody forward.

The second goal was a disaster
After playing really very well for 87 minutes, the second goal was a real hammer-blow, killing the tie competitively with one swift flick of Thomas Muller's head.

It's particularly galling as it came from our most atrocious phase of play of the night. Laurent Koscielny drove forward from defence, winning a free kick just inside the Bayern half, finally giving us some breathing space. To pass it sideways and retain possession would have been a reasonable option - Arsenal were tired and running the clock down, at least a bit, would have been a reasonable option. To commit five or six players to the box, pushing Bayern back and giving us a goal threat would also have been a sensible choice.

Instead, they chose some sort of middle way - Koscielny went forward, there were maybe two other Arsenal players in the box, and it was easy to defend for Bayern. The lack of defensive organisation then stemmed from it taking Koscielny an age to get back into defence and in my opinion, almost certainly contributed to conceding what was a very soft goal. Bill Clinton might have advocated for a 'third way' but on this occasion it was a bad, bad decision.

The sheer absurdity of the away goals rule
I'm not one for inductive reasoning and obviously four matches is a very small sample size, but in all four Champions League games this week, the away team won, furthering the case that playing away in the Champions League really isn't that great a disadvantage. Given all the other reasons which Jonathan Wilson has gone into about it being a misguided rule, isn't it time it was scrapped?

The myth of Bayern 0 Arsenal 2
The narrative promulgated by the media about Arsenal's victory in Munich last season is that it was borne out of complacency. This really is utter bollocks. Bayern had 21 shots to Arsenal's 8, 9 shots on target to Arsenal's 3. The idea they weren't trying is just untrue. So to therefore claim Arsenal have no chance in the second leg as "Bayern won't make the same mistake again" is just unfair.

What is true is that it was a freaky result - there is no way on the balance of play Arsenal deserved to win 2-0. But Arsenal are now much improved. Score the first goal in Munich and they might get nervous: they were certainly rattled in the first twenty minutes last night.

Keep the faith.

The strange case of Lukas Podolski

There was a point towards the end of August, when despite Arsenal's only summer signing being Yaya Sanogo, the papers were insistent that Lukas Podolski was about to move to Schalke in a swap deal for Kyrgiakos Papadopoulos. Even ignoring the press' obsession with pretending that real life is like Football Manager and that swap deals are a regular and realistic option for clubs, it raised a very important point: Arsenal bought Podolski for around 11 million pounds, a cheap fee because his beloved Köln had been relegated. He then proceeded to have a successful first season and in August was 28, in the peak years of his career.

In other words, it would have been fair to value him at about 20 million pounds. And yet I couldn't think of one team who would pay that and I would be upset if my team did for a player of Podolski's calibre. Therein lies the problem: people speculate about him being off this summer but who is going to pay his fee? Maybe that means he is worth less than 20 million - typical Tory argument about the market always being right - but if so, the benefit to Arsenal of selling Podolski is diminished.

More to the point, at which top team is he going to get more game time than he is currently getting at Arsenal? All speculation about him leaving is entirely contingent on him being happy to go back to being the best player at a mid-table club, and that sort of club being able to afford him. I think it's unlikely.

I find the idea that the manager doesn't "fancy him" slightly fatuous. If you look at how often he has picked Podolski when he is fit, it suggests that he is indeed a player who is highly rated at the club. That he hasn't come off the bench in certain recent matches is more an indicator of how in a tight game, introducing a player as defensively incompetent as Podolski is a big risk. It's not that he doesn't attempt to track back - he does, that's why he's always knackered after 65-70 minutes - it's just that he's not very good at it. He doesn't understand defensive positioning and consistently helps to leave his full-back exposed. The contrast with Cazorla is vast. Santi wasn't especially good defensively when he came to the club, but has improved enormously. He was even making slide tackles against Man United - my friend Chris has nicknamed him "Santi the enforcer".

The idea that Podolski is subbed off for any reason other than fitness simply does not explain why he is consistently subbed off. If Wenger simply "didn't fancy him" why would he start Podolski and play him for 65-70 minutes before taking him off? Even the argument that he wasn't subbed off much at Köln has little substance to it - at Köln he had far fewer defensive responsibilities as a central striker, and hence played a less tiring role. And As Köln were relegated, striving to emulate them is probably misguided.

It's certainly true that Podolski has been subbed off less for Germany than for Arsenal, but that's probably just because he has played alongside players with even worse stamina - Mario Gomez, Miroslav Klose and Thomas Muller stand out here. Given that the vast majority of substitutions are made for physical rather than tactical reasons - and Wenger consistently replaces Podolski with another left winger - it's reasonable to surmise from all the evidence available that the main reason Podolski is subbed off is because of his fitness.

With regard to the wider question of how good Podolski is, I think the answer is not as good as his record suggests. People who compare his conversion rates with Giroud's miss the point - Podolski almost only shoots when a goal is likely. That's not a criticism of him. But if the entire team played like him, the 'SHOOOOOOOT' brigade at the Emirates would get even angrier, so comparing the two strikers' conversation rates to work out who is a better player is absurd. In general, one stat on its own reveals almost nothing and quite often actually points you in the wrong direction.

People rave about his bullet shot but guess what - opposition managers watch Arsenal too. The reason he's not banging in brilliant goals the whole time is that opposition teams know to close Podolski down when he gets the ball in a shooting position, a job made considerably easier by - how shall I put this delicately? - Podolski's less-than-brilliant anticipation. He grabbed the headlines as he scored the winning goal, but there was more than one occasion during Sunday's match against Liverpool where I was screaming "run Lukas, run" as Mesut Özil held the ball up for what felt like an eternity for Podolski to catch up with the play. Even when he's up with play, his movement in terms of getting into positions where he can actually pick the ball up and look threatening, without team-mates' producing moments of sheer brilliance to assist him, are few and far between.

This might seem like a hyper-critical take on Podolski, and to an extent, it is. But the value of a player who both struggles to play centre forward in Arsenal's current system, and also lacks the defensive nous to protect his full back effectively as a wide player is limited. Certainly Podolski gets lots of goals and assists, and in a way he reminds me of Theo Walcott three years ago, in terms of being able to point to end product. The difference is that Walcott's pace was an added advantage for the team as it made difficult for the opposition to commit vast numbers of players forward; Podolski doesn't have a similar attribute.

Realistically, I expect Podolski to remain at Arsenal in the summer and continue in roughly the same vein: contributing a reasonable number of goals and assists, playing regularly against smaller teams where his defensive lapses matter less, but playing in fewer big games than some pundits might like. Podolski is a very good player but not a great player. And he should be viewed in that light.

Keep the faith.

Why I hate Manchester United so much

I had something of an epiphany around September 2010. For many years I had attended Arsenal matches and gone home raging when Arsenal failed to win, moaning about refereeing conspiracies and how the other team cheated. To this day, my mother continues to check the football scores to find out what my state of mind will be like.

But that autumn I started going to the pub after matches. This might seem like a benign addition to the matchday experience, but it actually fundamentally altered it. From being pretty much the only part of going to the football, the actual match became relatively insignificant. Sure, I prefer it if Arsenal win but ultimately I acknowledge that football is played by 22 mercenaries kicking a bit of rubber around some grass, and that they probably only play for my team because they cannot earn more elsewhere.

I accept that any meaning football has is purely constructed and so while I derive enormous enjoyment from seeing my team win, I also enjoy seeing them draw or lose. Afterwards, I go and have three or four pints with a group of friends and by the time you’ve been chatting for two or three hours, it’s unlikely we’re even discussing football anymore and the result has probably become incidental. So I’m far less likely to go home angry and moan about referees, even if I still do the latter quite a lot.

Except with Manchester United it’s different. The visceral hatred remains. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly why. For other Gooners, they hate Tottenham or Chelsea the most but for me it will always be Manchester United. For one thing I’m a child of the 90s and the first seven or eight years I spent attending matches involved Arsenal and United being by far the best teams in the country.

But I think much more importantly, the hatred has always been spurred on by knowing a comical amount of United fans. Coming from a Jewish family in North London, you’d probably expect me to know many more Spurs fans than United fans but that’s genuinely not the case. It might seem like a tired joke about United fans coming from the South – hey, it is a tired joke – but it also remains true. Not only do they come from the South, but they make up absurd reasons for supporting their team rather than just accepting they’re glory hunters: “It doesn’t matter I lived in South Africa until I was 8 and then moved to North London because Great Uncle Herbert once flew over Manchester and was so captivated by the view of Old Trafford from 30,000 feet that it was simply impossible for the whole family not to support United. Despite broadband internet not existing then and a lack of satellite TV, I remember watching every single of the treble-winning season”.

I’m not even exaggerating and it’s enough to make anybody retch. It’s the same with the wearing of the yellow and green scarves until they continued to do quite well under the Glazers. Manchester United fans literally do not care about anything as long as their team wins.

And that’s probably the second reason I hate Manchester United so much: the countless refereeing decisions that have gone in their favour. If you’re tired of being told that Arsenal haven’t won anything in eight seasons, just remember the comical penalty and free-kick United were awarded at Old Trafford in the title-deciding game in 2007/08. Or the impact Wayne Rooney’s dive had on the 2004-05 season.

More generally, Patrick Vieira was right to call Ruud Van Nistelrooy a cheat and when Arsenal and United were the two best teams in the country, United repeatedly set out to cheat against us. Witness the Neville brothers’ malicious attack on José Reyes, Ole Solskjaer feigning an elbow from Sol Campbell to get him sent off, and the general attitude of United players that it was okay and within the rules to kick Arsenal players, an attitude encouraged by the consistently favourable refereeing United received in matches against Arsenal. And this is without even mentioning the number of questionable decisions United have consistently been given against other teams.

This is why when we play Manchester United I still care enormously. Patrice Evra continues to irritate me more than anybody else in football and there is something particularly satisfying about beating United, as well as enjoying their demise this season.

If nothing else, even fifteen years on, I still have nightmares about Ryan Giggs’ phallic chest-hair design. That alone is enough to make anybody hate Manchester United.

Why does nobody talk about stamina anymore?

Watch almost any interview with players who played against the Invincibles and they all mention the same thing. Although Arsenal fans remember them for their skill and perhaps their fighting spirit, opposition players consistently mention their athleticism. Over and over again, you hear the same comments about how you'd stand next to them in the tunnel and they just looked much stronger. Out on the pitch, similarly, former players comment on the "unbelievable" stamina the Arsenal boys had.

I think this is interesting and worth writing about, mainly because it highlights a really important point: the recent explosion of interest in tactics does seem to make people - even very intelligent people - ignore the physical side of the game.

There's an oft-told story, perhaps apocryphal but I see no reason to believe so, that Arsene Wenger's interest in Mathieu Flamini was originally piqued by seeing stats about how far Flamini ran. Granted he then went to watch him to make sure he was running 'intelligently' but it still goes to show how important fitness and athleticism is, perhaps even superseding tactics and positioning. Obviously this can manifest itself in different ways - witness recent Arsenal matches against Newcastle and Spurs where Tomas Rosicky demonstrated the utility of a series of short, sharp sprints in pressing, even if he cannot keep that sort of running up for 90 minutes.

The weird thing about those who doubted the impressiveness of Gareth Bale's performances last season was that they conveniently overlooked how many of his goals were scored late on. I think Bale's greatest – or rarest – attribute is his stamina. Definitely his pace is very important to his game, but it's very unlikely early in a game that a defender's starting position is going to be so bad that Bale can truly just surge past a whole team. But after 80 or 85 minutes, his ability to continue to deliver the same bursts of pace are a lot more effective because a defender's starting position becomes less important if he simply does not have the legs to close Bale down. It's not a lack of tactical awareness that causes mistakes - players at the top level often know what they should do, they simply lack the fitness to execute that play.

When Martin Jol managed Spurs, it was no coincidence or quirk of fate that Arsenal kept on coming from behind in North London Derbies. Jol basically did no conditioning, while Arsenal were the fittest team in the League (or so the story goes).

And something's changed. No longer are Arsenal by far the fittest team in the League. Between about 2008 and 2011, the last 15-20 minutes were very much 'Arsenal's time'. Definitely, other teams following what might be described simply as ‘sensible nutrition’ has ameliorated some of the fitness advantage Arsenal had when Wenger first came in. But that had already happened by 2008 when three seasons followed where Arsenal scored the most goals in the last 15 minutes of any team in the Premier League. In two matches against Barcelona (a team conventionally thought of as super-fit) in which Arsenal were neither decimated by injury nor hampered by preposterous refereeing, Arsenal scored four goals in the final quarter of the game.

It's hard to work out precisely what has changed. Perhaps it was simply isolated figures within that Arsenal team had particularly good stamina – Gallas, Clichy and Robin van Persie were all super-fit. Contrast that with how somebody like Santi Cazorla, for all his immense talent seems to fade badly when asked to track back and the players in the squad with great stamina like Vermaelen and Diaby (don’t laugh!) can’t get in the team for varying reasons. It’s also presumably about rotation – in recent seasons first Van Persie, then Cazorla and now Ozil have been required to play basically every game which isn’t going to help make somebody look super-fit.

But perhaps it really is after all about tactics. In 2010/11, there were almost no games in the second half of the season that were decided by 75 minutes, forcing Arsenal to demonstrate their stamina by chasing almost every match for a late winner. Somebody more intelligent than me could probably do some statistical analysis and use the energy exerted for a full 90 minutes for months on end as a causative factor in the complete meltdown at the end of that season, as fatigue did not so much take hold, as cling on for dear life before wringing every last possible bit of disappointment out of that season. I would know, I was at Wigan.

This season, the BBC says Arsenal have scored the first goal in 16 of 21 League games – when you’re leading it’s harder to prove your fitness, and yet when they had to at West Ham, they did. Even if they are more tired, it’s understandable – since March, there’s been a move away from a possession-based game to keeping a very good shape without the ball. Having to chase the game and press for longer probably is more tiring, but it’s also supremely effective as results show – the last 20 minutes no longer being ‘Arsenal’s time’ may well not be a bad thing.

Perhaps my main point here is just that people should understand footballers are humans, not robots – they may make mistakes, but that doesn’t make them tactically deficient, they’re probably just knackered.

Five thoughts pre Arsenal-Chelsea

Jack Wilshere is an idiot
It wasn't so long ago that Arsenal fans were bemoaning Jack Wilshere's prolonged absence, expecting his return to catalyse an often ponderous Arsenal team to improved performances. Certainly Wilshere has suffered from a weight of expectation - not helped by the club giving him the famous number 10 shirt while he was out injured - but to a large extent, he has also just not played at the same level since returning from injury.

This is entirely understandable: although there's a tendency amongst Arsenal fans to always need to have someone to criticise, I think it's natural that a young player coming back from a serious injury would need some time to bed back into the team. With the signings of Ozil, Cazorla and Flamini, as well as the improved performances of Aaron Ramsey, Wilshere's position in the team has gone from assured to under threat.

This lengthy preamble is intended to contextualise Wilshere's place at Arsenal. If you're performing brilliantly, you can get away with picking up a two-match ban for no reason whatsoever a lot more easily. Where once I thought of him as "a cunt but our cunt", now I really don't know what to think of him. I found the response from Arsenal fans to him being banned utterly bizarre. Whether it should be a one-match ban or a two-match ban is irrelevant to the greater issue of why he was behaving in a way that would inevitably see him punished post-hoc. Poor performances I can deal with - the talent is there and has been on show at times this season. So I can cope with how poor Wilshere was against Man City. What I can't abide - and frankly, there should have been a lot more opprobrium thrown towards Wilshere's proverbial door - is getting yourself unnecessarily banned before a series of three matches in five and a half days. The boy needs to learn.

Defeat to Chelsea would not be a disaster
Given Chelsea's patchy form and dodgy defensive record, this is certainly a chance to get an important win in a big game that would also re-enforce Arsenal's emerging confidence. But it is by no means a must-win game.

I've seen it mentioned all over Twitter that defeat would leave Arsenal fourth in the table. What's not been mentioned is that first to fourth would then be separated by one point.

After this game, there'll be 21 games left. Keep up the sensational form in so-called 'smaller' fixtures and it will all be moot.

It's a tough Christmas fixture list
Maybe it's because I've been convinced for a week now that West Ham will beat Arsenal on Boxing Day, but regardless, I'm worried about these Christmas fixtures. I can see Chelsea grinding out a win and going away to Newcastle, one of the most in-form teams in the League will be far from easy.

It's a strange one: there's no necessity to be Chelsea, but the momentum would be very useful before a couple more tough games in very quick succession.

Maybe Tim Sherwood isn't such an idiot after all
I was discussing Spurs' tactics against Southampton with my brother and he convinced me that Tim Sherwood has probably been a victim of a media narrative, or at least has taken unfair stick.

Whether AVB deserved to be sacked or not, it's clear he was trying to pick the best players in the squad, irrespective of whether they had actually gelled into a team, rather than picking players who could play together. Spurs have many players who are probably not quite good enough to propel them to fourth, but are still pretty decent players. Against a Southampton team riddled with injuries, perhaps it makes sense to forgo the defensive solidity of playing a double pivot and attempting to play to the strengths of your side.

It's a little disingenuous to dismiss him as a tactical neanderthal on the basis of one game, where the tactics actually seemed to work out pretty well. I think it's a nonsense to praise him for playing in 'the Spurs way' when this actually just seems to mean scoring goals in big games but ultimately losing, but equally, it's also a nonsense to simply dismiss 4-4-2 out of hand.

Maybe this is me being a simpleton, but I always feel that you pick a team to try and beat your opponents, and as Southampton are riddled with defensive injuries, trying to get at them seems quite a good idea.

For all the merriment and mirth generated by Spurs' heavy defeats to Liverpool and City, they're only six points off the top of the table. Everything is very constrained, and if they can get (some of) their summer signings working effectively, there's a lot to be optimistic about at Spurs. Alas.

The League table has now taken shape
That Spurs remain so close to the top of the table underscores what a tight season this is proving to be. Even so, I'd be shocked if any team currently in the top eight ends up outside the top eight. Beyond that, it's difficult to say what's going to happen.

Chelsea have done okay without performing especially well but I've seen nothing to suggest that they can put together a string of eight wins to go and win the League. They've averaged 70 points over the last two seasons, and it's going to take a considerable improvement on that to win the League.

For the top four, I genuinely do wonder whether United will make it. Suarez is inspiring Liverpool, Spurs aren't at all bad, and City, Chelsea and Arsenal all look to have better teams. One thing's for sure: the standard's the highest it has been for several seasons, and the next few months should prove very exciting.

Keep the faith.

Six thoughts on Manchester City 6 Arsenal 3

This was very unlike Arsenal this season
Since March, there's been a clear tactical shift from Arsenal from a possession-based game to more of a late 1990s swift counter-attacking style. For the first time in a number of years, the team has been happy to surrender possession in return for a good defensive shape and a tight backline.

Which is why I found the tactics today very odd. Without dominating possession like they used to, Arsenal still allowed the game to be very open. There was very little cover offered to the full-backs and this was compounded by giving the ball away in dangerous areas.

Normally, you might be able to moan about a team scoring six goals from seven shots on target but it's not as if Szczesny had a bad game - City repeatedly cut Arsenal open, leaving the goalscorers easy finishes. It was even worse after Flamini was withdrawn. There was no link play to get the ball to the attackers and Arsenal were even more under pressure.

Given City's obvious attacking strength, it would have made far more sense to keep it tight, as Arsenal ended up playing a very different style from how they've played this season. Unsurprisingly, they payed the price.

There will doubtless be a gross over-reaction to this result
It's not just that much of the Arsenal eleven played in Napoli on Wednesday night. It's that - like in so many of these games which finish with comedy scorelines - City scored two goals between the 88th minute and the end of the game. What made Spurs' defeat here so extraordinary was that they were 5-0 down after 55 minutes.

The implications for Arsenal's title challenge
With a tough and relentless run of games coming up, Arsenal are now one injury away from Bacary Sagna at centre back and Jenkinson at right-back. It's not good. I felt at the beginning of the season the squad was a defender light and a lack of injuries in that area has gone some way to covering that up.

More generally, this was certainly the hardest game of the season. If City can play like this away from home they will win the League - but they haven't managed that all season.

Removing Flamini was a terrible substitution
It's often easy to criticise these things with hindsight but I did actually comment at the time that it was an odd change. If you're being over-run in midfield with scant protection for the defence, removing the only protection they do have is just strange.

In a very similar situation in Manchester two years ago, Wenger removed a French holding midfielder for a winger and it ended 8-2. The way City dominated after Flamini went off, they could have scored even more.

If you're struggling because of a lack of defensive protection, all-out-attack is an odd response. It certainly didn't work.

Olivier Giroud is knackered
I don't expect him to be a brilliant finisher - he's not. I'm doubtful he ever will be. But Giroud's defensive work, off-the-ball and hold-up play was the worst I've seen it all season today. The guy's biggest asset is that he is a brilliant defensive striker, but that requires enormous energy, something he simply didn't have. He desperately needs a rest: I don't need the stats to tell you he is in the famous red-zone.

Mertesacker was in the wrong
You can debate at length whether players should go and applaud the away fans. I tend to think that even if it's a token gesture it requires very little effort and the reaction to not doing it makes it worthwhile.

But I think it's comparatively a lot worse to see two senior players having an angry argument on the pitch. It's the very opposite of what Arsenal have been about all season: a team with an enormous sense of unity. It brought back memories of Adebayor and Bendtner at White Hart Lane in 2009 and it gives people the impression there are divisions in the camp.

Perhaps Mertesacker was right. If he was, he should have told Ozil in the dressing room - there's no reason to air your dirty laundry in public.

Keep the faith.

Arsenal have improved. Deal with it.

There is a bizarre fascination in the media with pointing out that Arsenal have taken fewer points and scored fewer goals than in the corresponding 14 League games from last season and therefore, nobody quite knows what. But it's important dammit and they're going to keep on saying it to make it more true, even though having dropped points against West Brom and Villa, it would have taken an unlikely result at Old Trafford to stop this stat remaining true for several weeks.

Leaving aside how fixtures are obviously not directly comparable year-on-year (squad turnover, refereeing decisions, the rarity of goals within the course of a football match), it is just cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Are we supposed to have watched Arsenal this season and think the team look poor? Presumably. It's certainly the conclusion I would draw from harping on about this statistic, devoid of any further context.

It might have been an interesting stat after five or six games because of a lack of a sample size this season, but after twelve it's pretty fair to say Arsenal have improved. The other reason it's entirely meaningless, is that seven of the twelve games being compared year-on-year were played from February 2013 onwards. Nobody disputes Arsenal improved in the last third of last season, so comparing those fixtures is even more pointless. Given Arsenal had the best League form of anybody in the last third of the season, it's probably quite good to be about on a par with that so far - it signifies a title challenge which is all anybody who supports Arsenal has been speaking of.

Seriously, I am genuinely confused. Presumably what they're trying to show is that Arsenal are not as good as Chelsea or Manchester City. But I don't - and I think almost all Gooners - don't dispute that. The media have not so much destroyed their own straw man as utterly obliterated it into a ball of anti-Arsenal flames.

And what happens if Arsenal beat Man City or Chelsea or even both? Then we'll be told there's still half the season left. It's an odd attack on a much-improved team to say "well they're not the best yet so we're not going to give them any praise at all". Having lost to United, a quirk of the fixture list means Arsenal need to wait until the 8th of December (a month on) to try and improve our year-on-year record, and meanwhile the press can wheel this largely pointless statistic out to prove what? That Arsenal aren't top of the League? They are. I promise.

It's particularly odd as there are legitimate statistical points to be raised with this Arsenal team: the number of shots on target they've been allowing is worrying, for example, but that's not even brought up.

All a team can do is beat the teams they face. If it's a quirk of the fixture list that they don't face the two best teams until fifteen games into the season, what are we supposed to do? Have some sort of amnesty on proffering any opinions on Arsenal until they've played them? I remain confused.

Keep the faith.