Arsenal. A Rallying Call. Sort Of.

Blogger: #14

At the very core of a football supporter, there is but one emotion: hope. Hope drives the season ticket holder at Coventry to renew for another season. Hope drives the average Indian supporter to stay up till 3 am to watch his team get steamrolled. To a casual observer, the answer is simple. Why not pick the team that's winning? Why not just switch? Toward that casual observer I direct a glare that burns and freezes all at once, and I ask why not disown your father for a richer benefactor? A football club is a place where you feel you belong. Maybe not with your fellow fans. But when your team loses, you lose. When they win, you win. It is one of the finest examples of a human's ability to give without expecting anything in return. For years, Arsenal has been the master of my mood. How well they do, nay, we do, affects my outlook on life. It may seem hard to believe, but I identify myself more as an Arsenal fan than as an Indian, or as a left handed dude who likes death metal, or as a really bad writer.
Season after season, we all come back hoping things will be better. You lose hope, you lose your club.

Of course, logic tempers expectations. Sure, no Saints fan thought they'd win the league or finish in the top 4 when they were on the crest of a wave of fine form early on in the season, but surely, there was just a tiny murmur of what if, wasn't there? When Arsenal got turned over 4-0 by Milan, I stayed up for the second leg. I knew we wouldn't overturn the deficit, I didn't EXPECT to qualify, but I sure did hope so. There's a line, and that line has been giving me the red carpet treatment all season, whispering in a husky, silvery voice to cross it. What line you ask? The line between hope and expectation, what did you think?

This season, for the first time since 2009-10 personally speaking, has Arsenal flirted with that line. I never gave up hope. No, Sir. Even after the 8-2 hiding, I harboured hopes of a stirring comeback to win the title. Did I expect us to? That's where, I'm afraid, I must shake my head. All season long, I have been playing down expectations, wary of the heartbreaks that I've endured. Wary, that there will be heartbreaks to come. But this team is different, you know? They know how to fight. There's steel. There's doggedness. This isn't a silky Arsenal that makes me swoon and sweeps me off my feet only to leave me stranded after a wild night that seems like a distant dream. This is a steady, functional Arsenal that leaves me with a glowing satisfied feeling whose face I know I'll see when I wake up in the morning. Yes, I chose to use that analogy fully knowing what it sounds like, sue me. But I held firm, telling myself it wasn't to last. That we'd crumble, like we always did. I thought so after the Villa game, we went on a ten match winning run. When United beat us, we rose up again. When City huffed and puffed and blew our house down, we responded with 20 points from a possible 24. Despite myself, hope was beginning to crystallize into expectation. I told myself fatigue would set in. That we'd lose our legs. That injuries would take their toll. I didn't want it to, but hey, you can't knock logic.

And then, Liverpool happened. Now, every defeat had some positives up to this point. United was a tight affair, the City game was marred by poor officiating, and I felt we did turn up. But at Anfield, we took the cannon and pointed it footwards. Five times. Those tiny crystals of expectation were killed in the womb, so to speak. Ozil, Giroud, Cazorla, had they not come up with the answers every single time by hook or by crook? Sagna, Mertesacker, Koscielny, hadn't they stymied most attacks that faced them? Had both failed, didn't Szczesny ensure we remained in the hunt? This wasn't the Arsenal I knew. Yet, it was the Arsenal I knew. The old Arsenal, that defended like a bunch of headless chickens. That played into the hands of the opposition. That looked like falling down made it scared of getting up again.

At this point, I must apologize for what seems like a pointless ramble. It was my intention to evaluate our chances post the Liverpool and United games. I intended it to be an objective analysis, however, I feel it would be better to do my feelings justice. After all, it is through this game, that most people like me experience emotions nobler than hunger or thirst or the relief one gets after, well, relieving oneself. The United game is one I always watch in a haze. An almost obsessive desire to defeat Robin van Persie clouds any rational thought that comes my way. Yet, this time, I wasn't expecting or hoping for a win. A point would be good, I felt, though I knew we could beat this United side. There was rebuilding to be done. The battle had to be compromised to salvage the war. And compromise we did. Never being too adventurous, never leaving ourselves too open. Sure, that can be looked upon as negativity, but that feeling was something else wasn't it? The feeling that bigger things needed to be looked after than a solitary game. That's something I haven't felt in a while. The question now is, have we done enough to salvage the war? We are, after all, only a point behind the leaders. But I look back, and I see Liverpool a mere 3 points off us, and with a heavy heart I must admit, I think it is more likely we'll be lugged into a top 4 dogfight. The squad is thin, we haven't strengthened when we could, and I fear this is as far as our title challenge goes. Yet, that feeling remains from the United game, like the aftertaste in your mouth when you use too much toothpaste. That the United game was a necessity. That beating them at their weakest wasn't quite as important as the task at hand. Logic dismisses my feeling though. Logic tells me to see us slip into a top 4 struggle. Logic tells me to look to next season.

But, it is a wondrous ability of humans to abandon logic as and when they choose. There comes a point, when as a fan, you just throw statistics out of the window, along with rationale and whatnot, and just back your team to the hilt. The United game turned out to be that point for me. They've been proving me wrong all season, they can prove me wrong again, right? Right?

It is an uphill task. It is unlikely, to the point of being fanciful. In all likelihood, come May, I will be reading about our ninth successive season without a trophy. But, hey, what can you do, eh? After all, if I don't back us, who will?

Arsenal haven't convinced a lot of people quite yet. But what I've not realized up to this point is that they don't need to. We've played up to this point without crystallizing hope into expectation. The odds are stacked against us and hope isn't going to be enough. But tell you what, when transformed, it gives you a fighting chance. Transformed into what, you ask? Belief. This team, and its fans need to believe. We've hit a blip, we've got to respond. And we're not going to be doing that without believing we can.

Cynical about it? Well, a wise man once said, "If you do not believe you can do it, you have no chance at all."

Arsenal fans would do well to remember who that wise man is.

Think you know who it is? Why don't you tell us in a comment? No negative points for guesses either. It's free guys, give it a shot.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
#14

Man City v. Chelsea - The Review

Blogger #18

11 straight home wins, a 20 match unbeaten run, and a scoring at home run of 61 games. Chelsea’s win at the Etihad on Monday night brought an end to a number of City’s streaks. But despite thrashing teams week after week at the Etihad, the two times they’ve lost there this season (against Bayern and Chelsea), they have looked shorn of creativity as both teams exploited the flaws of City’s 4-4-2 system.

Mourinho seems to have adopted a ‘don’t lose’ policy against the big teams away from home. Games at both Old Trafford and The Emirates finished 0-0 and all signs seemed to point to a similar approach. Perhaps that was his greatest trick, convincing the media, fans and maybe even the managers that he had just the one game plan. All the talk before the game was about parking the bus. When questioned about it before the match, he responded by saying “Parking the bus [in front ofgoal] has no relation with the players the manager chooses, but how the team plays. You can play with six, seven, eight defensive players and be an attacking team."

How true it turned out to be.

Line Ups and Shape:

The Line-Ups

City lined up in their customary 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2). Fernandinho and Aguero’s absence meant that Pellegrini went with Demichelis in midfield, with Dzeko and Negredo upfront. In the return leg this season, Pellegrini went for three in the middle with the midfield battle in mind, and was unlucky to lose that game. It made sense to go for a similar approach here, but City’s brilliant run at home (over 4 goals a game) seems to have convinced him to leave their shape untouched. But Aguero’s absence lead to the side having a predictable feel, with Dzeko and Negredo quite similar in their approach to donning the center forward role.

Initial impressions of Chelsea’s starting line-up seemed to suggest a 4-3-3 with a midfield trio of Matic, Luiz, and Ramires. But as the match played out, Chelsea looked more like a 4-2-3-1, a formation Mourinho has come to favour and love since his initial departure from the Premier League. Willian played behind Eto’o as Ramires played a central midfielder/winger role on the right, with Matic and Luiz patrolling midfield. It is also entirely possible that Mourinho changed his plans at the last minute after seeing Demichelis in the City line up, wanting to make the most out of a player in an uncomfortable position.  

David Silva and the free flank:

City get away with playing a 4-4-2 largely due to the way Silva (or Nasri) drift in field to dictate play, essentially becoming the third man in midfield. A winger drifting in played a major part when they thrashed Manchester United. This also allows Kolarov (or Clichy) acres of space to run into on the overlap.

Having recognized this, Mourinho seemed to have instructed Luiz to sit on Silva. Luiz was quite good in his role, and Silva failed to dictate play to the extent he usually does. While Kolarov did have a chance or two to put in dangerous crosses, the opportunities were few and far between. Looking to escape from Luiz’s shadowing, Silva seemed to consciously drift towards the right flank towards the end of the first half and for the entirety of the second. Being City’s playmaker, this also reduced City’s threat down the left and much of their build up in the second half was through their right flank. It was an interesting shift in shape that seemed to slightly unsettle Chelsea. With Hazard stationed high up for the counter attack, it was Matic who often helped out Azpilicueta with the defensive duties on that flank. With Silva drifting, and Zabeleta overlapping Navas, City easily created numerous 3v2 situations, which they failed to make the most of. Azpilicueta had a good game, matching Navas for pace, and Matic showed that not everyone requires time to ‘get accustomed to the Premier League’. He was splendid in his reading of the game and was comfortable on the ball, passing it around sensibly.

Silva's zones - 1st half v. 2nd half

City's passing in 2nd half concentrated down the right.

With Silva drifting in, and Ramires slightly tucked in, that entire flank was left to the two wing-backs, Kolarov and Ivanovic. Ivanovic was very brave with his positioning, and was often found challenging for Chelsea goal kicks against Kolarov way beyond the half line. Exploiting this situation was clearly instructed into Ramires as he often advanced into the vacant space behind Kolarov pulling Nastastic wide. Chelsea made the most of Silva’s free role and while it might have not been in their plans to score the way they did, it was an indicator of Chelsea’s plans.

Chelsea’s individuals and City’s midfield:

Despite their free scoring run, City’s soft center has been exposed on occasions. Liverpool were unlucky to lose against them, and Bayern by and large thrashed them. Demichelis in midfield compounded City’s problems. Despite staying back for most of the game, he lacked the positional sense of a proper DM and often rushed into tackles when staying on his feet and covering space would’ve been a better option. He was also a liability on the ball, often slowing down play and losing possession at times in crucial zones. A more solid and dependable DM would’ve helped City’s cause (even if Les Ferdinand doesn’t agree).

Much has been made of Mourinho’s tactical master class in this win, but so much of it depended on the individual brilliance of Hazard and Willian. Hazard was in a class of his own, skipping past tackles with ease, and dragging the City defence out of shape. Hazard and Willian’s movements were co-related as each exploited the space created by the other. The City back four often had to deal with Chelsea’s front four on their own, and were exposed numerous times. While he does make a huge difference in the attacking third, you have to question Yaya Toure’s defensive awareness (Probably why Hamann called him a liability).

Hazard attempting more take-ons than the entire City side (Chelsea attempted 37)

Eto’o worked hard to keep the City center backs occupied and while he certainly wasn’t their best player, it was a hardworking performance, much similar to what he did under Mourinho at Inter. The City defenders also showed a surprising inability to defend high up the pitch against Chelsea’s fast transitions from defence to attack.

Pellegrini made just the one change, Jovetic on for Negredo, and it was a generally good move. Jovetic positioned himself behind Dzeko, drifting into pockets of space. His lack of fitness led to a poor touch or two, but his presence caused some disturbance in the Chelsea midfielders. With two nimble footed players, Silva and Jovetic, trying to find space between the lines, it brought some unpredictability to the City attack.  

Final Thoughts:

City’s midfield weakness was exploited very well by Chelsea, who were comfortable to sit in numbers behind the ball. The Chelsea defenders rarely had to face a City attacker 1v1. Both Terry and Cahill were splendid, mainly because they were never dragged out of their comfort zones.

High pressing, pro-active possession football has often been declared the way to play in recent times, but this Chelsea performance (and Bayern against Barcelona) shows us that there’s nothing wrong in playing defensive, counter-attacking football, despite what Mourinho said about the same last week.

Pellegrini will learn from this, and it’s tough to see him play with a 2 man midfield against Barcelona. As for the rest of the season, City can afford to drop points against the likes of Chelsea, as long as they continue to blow away the smaller teams. Chelsea have now faced both Manchester clubs home and away and come away with 10 points from 12. It’s a remarkable record, and shows Mourinho’s capability to get results from the big games.