That's What He Said - In Giroud Health: Is Olivier Giroud Good Enough To Win The League?

Blogger: #14

One of the great challenges in life is to write up a snappy title for your latest article. Whilst constantly handing out articles that resemble the underside of my toenails, we at The Four Man Wall haven't had too many issues with snappy titles. From "That's What He Said" to "I Did Not See It" to "Has Ozil Mesut It Up?", I think it's fair to say we've usually hit the target with the headline. However, this latest one has me scratching my head. I'm not sure if it's a hit, or one for the failure bin. Which is interesting, because the bloke we're going to be talking about is usually held in the same light. Sometimes he's the bee's knees, sometimes he's the bee's knees with an ACL injury. Geddit? No? Well, let's dig in anyway.

So, not too long ago, a certain Thierry Henry - who played a few games for Arsenal as their centre forward, bit-part player really - said that the current occupant of that role, Monsieur Olivier Giroud, wasn't quite good enough to win the league. Then another former bit-part player, one Ian Wright, famous for being Shaun Wright-Phillips's dad, said Giroud was good enough to win Arsenal the league, you just need to get players contributing to the goals alongside him. So, when two blokes who've amassed 413 goals in 664 appearances for the club between them disagree on the Handsome French Bloke (HFB for future reference), an insignificant blogger (yours truly) decided to dig deeper and see if Giroud is good enough to win the league or not.

Giroud is a player whose success I fervently wished for. More so than I do for most Arsenal signings, because he was brought in as a replacement for one Robin van Persie, whose descent into hell or a particularly foul gutter cannot come soon enough for me. He's got his limitations, but he's grown by leaps and bounds since coming to Arsenal. There are some flaws which he shall never be able to rectify, such as his obvious lack of pace and...

He can't help that he's gorgeous

So, first off, let's examine Henry's charge. Does Giroud, despite being 6'4", fall short of the Premier League elite strikeforce? I'm going to compare his performance this season (his best season at Arsenal to date) with those of the lead strikers of title winning sides since Giroud's been around. So, the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 seasons shall be used for the comparison.

Using the excellent Squawka Comparison Matrix, I could get the following numbers per 90 minutes. I've added Dzeko's 2013-14 campaign since he only scored one goal less than Aguero that season.

If we were to follow a very simplistic scoring pattern where the best performer got 5 points, the second best got 4 and so on, the scores would be:

Aguero takes first place with 18 points out of a maximum of 20. Van Persie is second on 15. Costa takes 12 points. Giroud comes in fourth with 10 points. Dzeko brings up the tail with 5 points.

It's a little inconclusive. While not exactly shining, Giroud's numbers do hold up respectably against the league winning strikers. One could certainly argue that the league winning strikers aren't the best strikers around (Look at Suarez and Sturridge from last season), and they certainly have a point. So, I decided to compare Giroud's season with strikers who scored more than the league winning striker that season. In 2012/2013, Van Persie was the league's top scorer, so we'll add no one else from that season. From 2013/14 we get Luis Suarez and Daniel Sturridge. From 2014/15 we get Sergio Aguero and Harry Kane. Take a look.

Using the same scoring system as before, we get

1. Aguero 14/15 17 points

2. Suarez 13/14 14 points

3. Sturridge 13/14 12 points

4. Giroud 14/15 11 points

5. Kane 14/15 8 points

Again, Giroud isn't exactly convincing, but to say he isn't good enough to win the league doesn't seem clad in iron either. If one were to take an overall comparison of all 9 strikers, the standings would be:

1. Aguero 13/14 31 points out of a maximum of 36

2. Aguero 2014/15 & van Persie 2014/15 26 points

4. Suarez 2013/14 23 points

5. Costa 2014/15 22 points

6. Giroud 2014/15 17 points

7. Sturridge 2013/14 16 points

8. Kane 2014/15 13 points

9. Dzeko 2013/14 7 points

Giroud is in the middle of the pile again. What's interesting to note is, Dzeko aside, Giroud doesn't outperform any league winning striker. However, does that consign him to the not-good-enough bin? It's too hard to tell.

One argument that could be put forth is that Giroud scores/doesn't score important goals. This prompted me to look at goals + assists against Top 4 opposition in that season.

Here, Giroud is bang in the middle of the pile again. However, this time, only Van Persie outperforms him from the title winning strikers. So, Henry wasn't exactly proven right, but it does seem that Giroud's performance this season is a notch below what's required. Or is it? Let's look at Ian Wright's claim that Giroud needs more goalscorers around him. For this exercise, we'll look at the number of goals scored by the top 3 scorers of the top 4 sides for the last 3 seasons.

There you go, teams where the goal-scoring burden is shared tend to do better. In the past three seasons, the team that won the league had the second-best or best attacking triumvirate around. If you look at Arsenal's top 3 scorers' contributions over the past 3 seasons, you'll notice that there is very little difference. The numbers back up Wenger's claim that Arsenal need another 10-15 goal player. That player could very well be Theo Walcott. If (Massive "if" at that), he stays fit and is at Arsenal next season, a front three of Walcott, Giroud and Alexis could contribute 45-50 goals in the Premier League. And the numbers suggest that that could mean a serious title tilt for the Gunners.

So, in conclusion, is Giroud really good enough to win you the league? The numbers suggest that he is...and isn't. Whilst he's probably not going to have a blistering season like Aguero, Suarez or van Persie did, Giroud is more than capable of nabbing 15-20 goals next season, which is enough to win the league if Arsenal can get two more players to do that. If/When that happens we could see Wright say, "I was Wright all along" on television. Quite the obvious joke, but it is better to make a crappy joke than make no joke at all. Really, ask anyone.

Don't think Giroud's good enough? Think Giroud's good enough? Have thoughts on Giroud's little dig at Henry or Henry's clarification? Drop in a comment if you do. Drop in a comment even if you don't, we don't really mind.

Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
#14

I Did Not See It: Liverpool vs Manchester United

Blogger: #14

So, #18's insightful article on the toughest league in the world was part one of our little comeback. Part two is......A SERIES OF MATCH REPORTS!!!! Wait, so what's so earth shattering about that, you ask? Well, it's a blind match report. Not the kind of blind associated with the Michael Owen school of blindness - where you watch the match but talk like you didn't watch it - but with the school of blindness that advocates not watching the match but talking about it.

So, the idea is simple. The writer of the post will not watch the match, will not watch any highlights, will not read any tweets or match reports, nor will he ask anybody their opinion of the game. He will look at numbers of his choosing (he will mention the source, don't worry) and try to recreate what happened in the game. It's an experiment, and we confess we aren't sure how successful it's going to be. We anticipate that our reports could be wildly off from time to time. But the idea is to see how close the numbers get to the general consensus. Hopefully, we get better at this over time. Don't bet on it though.

I must start off by confessing I read a few stray tweets about the game. Nothing too insightful, so no harm, no foul. I did however, take a look at one stat. I apologize for breaching your trust. What's the stat, you ask? Well...

Steven Gerrard's Heat map

 With that out of the way, let's get down to business.

In the first period of the game, right up to Mata's goal in the 13th minute, United absolutely battered Liverpool. United comfortably led their rivals in passes made, ball recoveries, tackles, interceptions, and aerial duels won. This was dominance of a high order. Take a look.

Numbers courtesy FourFourTwo

Had United continued in the same vein for the entire game, they would have completed 707 passes out of 847 attempts ( 83.47% pass accuracy). One thing that caught my eye was the influence regions that the excellent FourFourTwo website provides in its match centre. Liverpool were very narrow, and perhaps, this was a game more suited to a player who liked staying wide for United. The left footed Mata and the right footed Young started on the right and the left respectively and tended to stay wider than their Liverpudlian counterparts.

Not as expansive as Rodgers would have liked

A more spread out United

This is backed up by WhoScored's heatmaps. Take a look at Mata and Valencia's heat-map versus Sterling, Can and Lallana's.

Young and Blind's heat-map compared to Moreno and Coutinho's tells a similar tale.

So successful were United's wide players that the top 9 passing combinations of the entire game involved at least one of Blind, Mata and Valencia (On another note, 9 of the top 10 passing combinations were between United players). Young was a spectator throughout and it's no surprise that he was hooked for Di Maria. Perhaps starting with the Argentine would have yielded better results.

That's not to say Liverpool completely surrendered. They responded strongly after going one down, winning 7 out of 11 aerial duels contested, creating 4 out of their 5 chances and taking 4 of their 7 shots between the 13th and 45th minutes. Despite Steven Gerrard's red card, Liverpool didn't really falter. United didn't really dominate the opening 13 minutes of the second half like they did in the first. Interestingly, their second goal came 13 minutes after the restart. Take a look at the numbers. For convenience, I've compared the opening 13 minutes with the 45-58 window and then compared the 45-58 minute window (projected to 90 minutes) with the entire game. Take a look.

A more even battle

It's interesting to note that in both these periods, United won the majority of the aerial duels. In these two windows, totalling 26 minutes, United won 10 out of 13 duels. In other words, in the remaining 64 minutes, United won 11 duels out of 26 contested. In this game, Fellaini contested 16 aerial duels, winning 11 of them. In these 26 minutes, he won 7 out of 8 duels (Conversely, he won just 4 out of 8 in the remaining 64 minutes). It would be interesting if this pattern continues in more games for United. They would also be a trifle concerned, methinks, that their remaining players won just 10 out of 23 duels.

In the 10 minutes between Mata's (and United's) second goal and Liverpool's first, Liverpool recovered the ball 7 times (and won 2/2 aerial duels, but that's too small a sample to lend weight to the trend observed in this game). Outside of this, there wasn't any notable shift in the game's play. The game petered out to a rather comfortable win for United. Liverpool created zero chances after their goal, despite whipping in half of their 8 unsuccessful crosses and winning both their corners in the last 10 minutes of the game. Far from having to cling on for dear life, United were allowed to walk away from Anfield with 3 easy points.

Summary:

• United started brilliantly, set up camp in Liverpool's half. Whilst not really cutting them open, they ensured Liverpool were completely suppressed
• Liverpool wrestle back some measure of control. In the ascendancy by the end of the first half
• Gerrard's red card takes the sting out of Liverpool's tail. United take control in a very professional manner. Second goal effectively kills the game
• Liverpool get a fresh lease on life with Sturridge's goal in the 68th minute, but do very little afterwards. United hold steady and take home a well-deserved 3 points
• United's wide players key to dominating the game. Liverpool too narrow. Lallana, Sturridge, Sterling, Coutinho are all given license to roam. When it works, it's wonderfully fluid. In this game, they seemed to get in each other's way more than anything
• Valencia and Blind greatly involved, along with Mata. Had Young done better out on the left hand side (only 20 touches in his 55 minutes on the pitch. In contrast, his replacement, Di Maria, had 32 touches in 35 minutes), United could have had an even better result

There you go, my blind match report. Though given my eyesight, I don't think my watching the game makes much difference. This is an experimental venture. Maybe next time, we'll look at player stats in more detail. Or look at different numbers. Or look at the same numbers differently. We'll not look at the match though, we promise (I know it's 'see', but I had to make that lame joke, I'm sorry).

Do drop in a comment with your view on how the match panned out and how you think I did in the report. Even if you think I did terribly. It's perfectly alright. Given the state we're in, any publicity is good publicity. With that in mind...

Your reward for reading the entire article......or for scrolling down

Thanking You (Should seriously be welcoming you this time),

Yours sincerely,

#14
P.S. Once again, FourFourTwo and WhoScored for the numbers and graphs.

That's What He Said - Anyone can beat anyone in the Premier League

Blogger #18

Well hi there. Almost 6 months ago, #14 came out with this. And almost ten months back, I came out with this. Yes, we already did promise a return to regular blogging in our last post, and obviously we didn't live up to that. I can go on with reasons as to why it panned out that way, but I don't think you, our reader, are interested in that, and honestly, I can't come up with any good excuses either. So let's get right in to our 'comeback' article.

We thought we'll start something like a series, where we test the comments made by managers, commentators , players (yeah, we're going to call it 'That's What he Said') and anyone else mildly related to the football industry and see if the numbers line up.

Around two weeks back Jose Mourinho said "I am surprised with nothing here, in this country every team can take points [from each other] so, no, I am not surprised". He was talking about the English League, and continued about how competitive the PL is compared to top flights in every other country. Now, this got us thinking. The claim that the PL is the most competitive league has been a much touted one. But do the numbers back it up? Is the English top flight really that much tougher than its counterparts in the rest of Europe?

Now, there are numerous angles to answering this question. What defines a tough league? Is it the number of points required to win the league, or the number of points required to avoid relegation? Is it the quality of your mid table teams, or the number of teams competing for a Champions League spot? Now obviously the perfect answer would be an optimum combination of these factors . But while thinking about this, we remembered a quote that really struck home. "A team is only as strong as its weakest player", and that's the angle we've chosen to approach this from. A league is only as strong as its weakest teams. Yes, plural. You can't really punish the entire league for having one Derby County (2007-2008). So which country has the best of the worst?

Our idea was to compare a few metrics across the leagues to see if the PL stood out, or if it was at least marginally better (or worse) than the other leagues. To start with a little preliminary analysis, we looked at the average Points per Game (PPG) of the bottom 5 teams in La Liga, the PL, Bundesliga and Serie A (the top 4 leagues according to the UEFA coefficients) over the last 4 seasons. We chose the bottom 5 as the worst in a league as we didn't want to miss out on those teams that just escape relegation. 

PPG trends over last 4 seasons

Looking at this alone, La Liga looks pretty strong. Apart from a minor blip in the 10-11 season, on an average, the lower teams in La Liga have consistently scored more points per game than their counterparts in other leagues. While the other three leagues' teams seem to be more or less close to each other, the bottom ones in La Liga really seem to be that little better, looking at points per game. The Bundesliga presents an interesting case here, where the PPG for the weak teams seems to be on a constant decline. Increasing inequality? Possibly, but this could be a trend captured only by the seasons selected for the analysis here and could vanish if more seasons data was included. Now getting back to the point, you can argue that the top 5 in Spain aren't really as good as the top 5 in other countries and you might have a point. This would make it easier for the bottom teams in La Liga to score some points off the teams closer to the top.


To test this premise, we decided to look at points dropped by the top teams in each league, playing at home. This could be a proxy for top teams' strength, the logic being that good teams rarely drop points at home. Now this is hardly an assumption that always holds, but the results were quite surprising, even encouraging.

Over the past 4 years, the top 5 in La Liga were strongest at home, compared to the top 5 in other leagues. The table scrappers in La Liga maybe getting more points per game, but they sure aren't doing it at the expense of the big boys.

What's interesting here is that this graph is almost an exact replica of the previous one, just with an inverted axis. Again, the Bundesliga seems to be following a trend. Are the weaker teams declining every season cause the top 5 are getting stronger at home, as this plot suggests? That calls for a separate analysis of its own, as there's no sign of any trend whatsoever when we look at what the bottom teams have done at home.

Now this was all really frustrating. The PL wasn't standing out in any metric. We didn't really start on this article with the aim of proving Mourinho wrong, but this far in, it didn't look like he had much proof to base his claim on. The PL as a clean outlier would have been really pleasing to see, and who knows, maybe could have lead to Jose handing out copies of our article to 'prove his point'?

Determined to look for a different interpretation, we chose to abandon the points pathway, and look at goals, namely goal difference. Now, is it possible that the bottom teams in England don't really take more points off their more illustrious compatriots, but just make life that little bit tougher for them? It's quite common to see the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern posting routine 5-0 and 6-0 victories over hapless teams. Isn't that the reason Messi and Ronaldo routinely clock 50 goals by Christmas? Maybe that doesn't happen that often in the PL. Maybe in the PL, the top teams win as often, if not more, against the bottom teams as the top teams in other leagues, but don't do it as comfortably? Now this could be a valid reason to suggest that the PL is tougher, because leading by smaller margins keeps the game open, thereby keeping Jose tense for longer periods.

GD for the top 5 against bottom 5

Not really isn't it? Apart from the 2012-2013 season, where the top teams seem to have had a real shocker in front of goal, the top teams in the PL seem to have a relatively easy ride (2nd easiest in fact) in front of goal. From the looks of it, you should be heading to Serie A for the nail biting games, and maybe even the Bundesliga (as this lovely article seems to suggest).

We're sorry Jose, we don't really see it. We didn't really think much about it when Martin Tyler harped on and on about it after every goal scored in the PL after the 85th minute, but when you said that, we had to investigate. But based on this evidence, we just have to agree to disagree.

P.S : @BabakGolriz came up with this a week ago on the same topic, and came to a similar conclusion. We're not suggesting our article is better, but why don't you read it for yourself and find out?

Back From The Dead On Deadline Day. Arsenal Season Preview.

Blogger: #14

It was a little over a year ago that four idiots, united by their love of football, decided to start a blog. What ensued was a shitstorm that their friends still shudder about. The friends of our four heroes had to face a deluge of spam messages asking them to read, like, share articles that were of a quality not dissimilar to Marouane Chamakh's hair. Yes, that bad. After a bit of a lull, you know, what with the World Cup and college ending and whatnot, the Four Man Wall is back! I can imagine my social media acquaintances squirming in their seats when they read this, but a great man once said, "Haters gonna hate", so we shall plod along, ignoring your catcalls and jeers.

Spikes and male pattern baldness. A match made in Morocco.

Life has a way of uprooting everything around you and yet, give you this feeling that nothing has changed. #7, our silent tech-guy, and #25, our not-so-silent tech-guy, have moved to Canada and the U.S. respectively to study cool tech stuff and whatnot. #18 and myself have shifted cities, new job and all that. So, in short, we've gone international. A lot can happen in a year eh?

But, as it invariably does, a new season has dawned upon us. That glorious constant that changes every single time. We're a couple of weeks into the new season; the transfer deadline day is upon us, so previewing one of the clubs may seem a tad late, but that's what I'm going to do. So, ladies (hehe) and gentlemen, here cometh the pain: The Arsenal 2014-15 Season Preview.

I must admit, I feel a little awkward not having to mention the trophy drought. Now that that monkey is off our backs, hopefully we can kick on and have a real go at major honours (read Premier League and Champions League) this season.

The transfer window started off with us turning down the chance to re-sign one Francesc Fabregas. A decision that rankled with me not because I was still hung up over him (I wasn't), but because I didn't think we'd have a plan in place. Yes, we signed Mesut Ozil last season, but that was a shambles of a transfer window, and turning down one of the best playmakers in the world seemed a little stupid (especially in light of us playing Ozil on the left. What is up with that?!). However, we bought, and how. We started off with signing shorts-hating Alexis Sanchez from our youth feeder club Barcelona, and then bringing in Frenchman Mathieu Debuchy from Premiere Ligue side Newcastle United. This was followed by the signings of Colombian 'keeper David Ospina from Nice and Calum Chambers from the Great Southampton Fire Sale. How about that, Arsenal doing transfer business nice and early, which really does make me not regret passing up Cesc....yet.

As is often the case, the additions meant the departures of some players. Lukasz Fabianski and Bacary Sagna left for free. Vermaelen moved to Barcelona, Jenkinson went on loan to West Ham and Nicklas Bendtner signed for Wolfsburg. But, I think, overall, we've ended up on the positive side of the ledger. The squad is pretty strong, but I think we'll fall short and finish 3rd. Chelsea and Manchester City have outstanding squads, and ours, though not shabby, doesn't quite match up. We've got two really good keepers in Szczesny and Ospina. Last season, I wanted a goalkeeper because I had m reservations about Szczesny, but he had a very good season, and I've no qualms about our number one. At left back, Nacho Monreal and Kieran Gibbs are quality. Debuchy has, surprisingly for me, filled in Sagna's boots quite well early on this season. Calum Chambers has been absolutely fantastic, and the guy is just 19. Makes you feel a little worthless eh? No? Right, just me then.

It's at centre-back where we have a massive shortage. Laurent Koscielny and Per Mertesacker are a great pairing, but Chambers aside, there's nobody else who can play there. We've got one day to get a centre-back in, or else, we're playing with fire. A bloody big fire. Right next to an oil tanker. Our midfield, on the other hand, is chock full. We've got two players for every position and I'm not even counting Diaby. Out wide, we've got the numbers, but Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain aside, I don't think we've got real quality. Our striking department doesn't really strike fear into the hearts of opposition defences either (geddit?). With Giroud out for the rest of the year, there will be a clamour for us to buy a new striker, but Wenger has indicated that Alexis was bought to play as a striker, so there's that. A proper beast of a defensive midfielder would do nicely, but that would almost certainly mean curtains for Flamini.

So, we're going into the final day of the window desperately needing a centre-back and ideally, also adding a DM. Knowing Wenger, he'll buy a bloke who can play both positions. Or a bloke who can play neither and force him to play both positions. Square pegs and round holes. Or rather, the other way round. Or not, I don't really know. Any buying will mean selling, considering the numbers we've got:
Szczesny (HG)
Ospina
Monreal
Gibbs (HG)
Mertesacker
Koscielny
Debuchy
Arteta
Flamini
Wilshere (HG)
Ramsey (HG)
Diaby
Rosicky
Coquelin
Cazorla
Ozil
Walcott (HG)
Podolski
Campbell
Sanchez
Giroud

That's 16 foreign players, and this is off the top of my head. Sanogo, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Martinez and Chambers are all U21, so I haven't added them. It's a strong squad, and with a couple of good additions, I think we could just go all the way. Just.

That is if this new formation works. I don't know why we're playing Mesut Ozil on the left. The idea that most Gooners, myself included, harboured was that Ozil would be racking up the assists from the middle of the park feeding the speed-demons Sanchez and Walcott. Doesn't look like happening in this formation right now. We've looked unspectacular in our games so far, but that's largely down to a lack of match fitness. So, barring any new additions, I'm predicting a 3rd place finish in the Premier League and a quarterfinal exit in the Champions League.

Right, so, we're back. Not really with a bang, we know. We lack match fitness too. But hey, we were as rubbish as we usually are. Let's hope Arsenal have a nice surprise for us come May.

Don't want us back? Want someone less shitty to write? Drop in a comment.
Thanking You,
Sincerely,
#14

P.S. Manchester United have hired a thumb as their new manager. What in God's name.

Thumbs up if you see the resemblance

P.P.S. Don't take offence United fans, it's all thumbtongue-in-cheek.

9th Time Lucky: Arsenal End Trophy Drought

Blogger: #14

As someone whose first ever Arsenal game was an F.A. Cup Final (2005 vs Manchester United), the 17th of May, 2014 had a sense of occasion to it that earlier trophy challenges didn't have. In short, if one wanted to make a crappy movie about the trophy drought, one would choose the drought to be ended the way it started: with an F.A. Cup. In hindsight, that wasn't in short, was it?

Jokes aside, what a fantastic day it was. Yours truly hasn't ever won a trophy as a fan, and this was every bit as sweet as I had imagined it to be. I'll be honest, the F.A. Cup was never really high on my priority list, but boy, did 'the romance of the cup' sweep me off my feet, buy me a fancy gown and expensive jewellery, and then take me out to that fancy bistro I've been meaning to go. I know, I said jokes aside, I'm sorry. This truly was a liberating moment. It was a victory that brought a sense of completion to the myriad of emotions this wonderful football club evokes in me. I've felt anguish, heartbreak, fleeting moments of joy, disbelief, hope, expectation, excitement, anxiety, exasperation in one combination or the other over the past 9 years. But with this trophy, I can finally experience peace; that warm glow of satisfaction when you see a 'PASS' in your report card.

What was truly remarkable about that victory was that it wasn't an Arsenal that was different from the Arsenal of the previous 9 years that turned up, it was the same old Arsenal. Those 120 minutes encapsulated 9 years of Arsenal: the woeful defending, the indomitable spirit to shoot ourselves in the foot before pulling a rabbit out of the hat when there is no hat to be seen - let alone a rabbit, the atypical scruffy goal, the silky interplay with no end product, the silky interplay with some serious end product, the relief when we finally take control, the almost instantaneous wiping out of said relief by an almighty defensive screw-up. Yet, we pulled through. And somehow, pulling through in this manner makes it seem all the more significant. An assured Arsenal, a calm, surgical one, ending the trophy drought would have felt a little out of place. No Sir, we wanted the Arsenal that we've loved and despaired over to end it. And end it they did.

The implications are immense. We've finally put a full stop to the stadium move chapter and have started a new chapter. A chapter of belief, firepower and ability. Many people attribute City's ascension to the Premier League summit to their F.A. Cup victory the previous season. There's absolutely no reason why the F.A. Cup can't do the same for us. You could see that a weight had been lifted off the players' shoulders. The celebrations were incredible and I shall most certainly tell my grandchildren about how Lukas Podolski poured champagne all over Arsene Wenger. Assuming I have grandchildren.

The parade was a party after the party, an afterpartyparty if you will. I know I'm just rambling on making this a bit of a shit report instead of a shit celebratory post but hey, my team just won the F.A. Cup. The players seem to be a bunch of incredibly nice guys and you can't help but love people like Arteta, Ramsey, Rosicky, Mertesacker, Koscielny, Diaby, Szczesny, Gibbs, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Gibbs, Podolski, Sagna,... them. Speaking of Sagna, I sincerely hope his teammates and a bunch of fans asking him to stay is enough to convince him. Because who needs wage demands to be met?

I kid, I kid. It'd be brilliant if he signed on. Top quality right back who can double up as a top centre back. The contract's on the table. Fabianski signing on would be great too, but that would be really stretching things. Kallstrom will be leaving, and Vermaelen could too. But there are two men who require special mention.
Arsene Wenger has faced a lot of stick, he's made a few mistakes, and as long as he's around I shall always hate transfer windows, but he absolutely deserves to and should stay on as Arsenal manager. His contribution to this football club is immeasurable and the man truly deserves a fair crack at the job with fewer restrictions. Next season, with a few signings, this team could seriously contend for the league (some might say it already did this season) and maybe even the Champions League.

But wait, what was the 2nd departure I wanted to address, you ask? Well, it is the departure of Emiliano Viviano, who shall go down in history for enjoying the greatest gap year of all time. Seriously, the guy took one year off to sit on his arse and look a little like Almunia and not only was he paid for it, he also got a winner's medal. Legend. Arsenal have been privileged to watch this unfold. Oooh to be a Gooner!

Think you know of a better gap year? Drop in a comment.
Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
#14

Bus breakdown at The Bridge : A Tactical Review

Blogger #18:

In the face of scathing criticism from various sections of the media, players and fans after a series of performances from Chelsea that has been dubbed ‘ugly football’ (#14 found that quite distasteful), you might have been forgiven for thinking Jose Mourinho might go for a drastic change of approach from the first leg of this tie, which, to be honest, was quite dull. But this isn’t a guy known to give into conformity (or agree with Jamie Redknapp,for that matter) and Jose put out what was probably his most defensive line up of the season, with 6 defenders in the side (Luiz and Azpilicueta in midfield positions).

Atletico Madrid have had the season of their lives and a win at Lisbon this month, forty years since their last final, against Real Madrid coupled with a league title would serve to show the incredible character of this side, moulded in their manager’s image. They aren’t the most attractive side to watch, but they defend with their lives and are clinical at taking their chances. Simeone aptly chose to discuss the character shown by his players when he said "I would like to congratulate the mothers of these players because they have big cojones."

Line Ups and shape:

With Cech still out, Schwarzer played in goal for Chelsea, while Adrian surprisingly replaced Raul Garcia upfront for Atletico. Atletico played in their customary ‘out-dated’ 4-4-2, and Chelsea’s shape seemed to be a 4-3-3, a Jose Mourinho favourite, with Willian dropping very deep to find space and Azpilicueta playing a role akin to that of a defensive winger.

Chelsea Approach:

Chelsea were content to sit deep and stifle space in midfield. This was quite similar to the first leg, where both teams cancelled each other out. Costa once again had little impact on the game. With little space to run into, he was often forced to compete with Terry and Cahill in aerial duels and was often crowded out. Unable to counter attack and run into space behind the defence, this certainly wasn’t a performance that should be used as an example to show why Chelsea are so desperate to buy him in the summer.

Lacking a proper playmaker in the deep center midfield roles, Chelsea were content to concentrate their build up through the wings. Ramires and Luiz were mostly content with simple passes to the wings, although Luiz did indulge in the occasional cross-field ball to switch play.

Atletico seemed content to deal with this method of attack and Chelsea rarely created good openings from the wide areas. Ashley Cole seemed to have been instructed to stay back and hence with no overlaps to worry about, Turan and Juanfran easily dealt with Hazard on the majority of occasions by double-teaming on him. On a few occasions when Chelsea did get in good crosses into the box, Torres’ positioning was poor. A rare good run from him saw him score the opener. Azpilicueta, primarily in that position to track the runs of Filipe Luis, provided the assist.

 

Chelsea also relied on set-pieces to create attacking openings, and had it not been for a couple of very good saves from Courtois, Chelsea could have seen this approach pay off.

Eden Hazard:

In hindsight, Chelsea could have done with a player similar to Azpilicueta on the opposite flank. The first leg of this tie saw Chelsea line up with Ramires, a defensive midfielder, and Willian, a player noted for his hard work off the ball, on the wings. While they rarely created good openings with that approach, they quite easily dealt with Atletico’s wingers and wingbacks. Mourinho could have also played Hazard in a central role and Willian on the left flank. As it turned out, the decision to play Hazard on the left cost Chelsea their place in the competition. Juanfran, left free by Hazard, twice made late runs into the box which led to Atletico’s first and third goals.

The first and third goals had strikingly similar build-ups

It brings up the debate of the role that such attacking players can have in such a defensive system.  Hazard was burdened with almost all of Chelsea’s attacking responsibilities, a role he wasn’t pleased with. He was often left frustrated due to a lack of support around him and excellent defensive play from Atletico.

Chelsea changes:

To everyone’s surprise (especially Gary Neville), Mourinho made changes as soon as the 54^th minute. Eto’o came on and Chelsea switched to two upfront. While this gave them more men in the box, it allowed Atletico the freedom of the midfield. It was easier for them to keep possession which they did admirably in Chelsea’s own half. This was admirable, as any other team would have been content to sit deep in their own boxes, looking to play on the break. Tiago had a great game, popping up everywhere to receive the ball and keeping it moving. 

Tiago was everywhere

Final Thoughts:

Chelsea weren’t exactly outclassed by Atletico over the two legs. They are two very similar teams, based on counterattacking and cancelled each other for the most part of the two legs. With a bit of luck and some vigilant defensive work from Hazard, Chelsea could’ve been the team facing up against Real Madrid later this month.

Mourinho clearly wasn’t pleased with Hazard and the comments made by the Belgian after the game. While he does go on to criticise Hazard for the first goal, he also showed an understandable reluctance to make Hazard, arguably Chelsea’s best player, change his game. It will be interesting to see if Mourinho goes on to jettison Hazard from the club, as was the case with Mata.

For Atletico, the incredible work done by Simeone has shined through. They have excelled in more than one competition with such a small set of players and without spending big. Should it happen, it will be the greatest European triumph since Mourinho’s Porto won it in 2004.

Winning Ugly.

Blogger: #14

"If you want entertainment, go and watch a bunch of clowns"- Alan Durban, former Stoke City manager.

I can imagine how this must be for you. I do apologize profusely and all that. When one's local football blog, the one run by the bright fellows living down the street, takes an unannounced hiatus, one fidgets. One scours the web, hoping for some signs of life. Much like misplacing that thriller you've been reading, eh? You search, you search, and finally you throw your arms up in the air in resignation and get yourself another whodunit from the library. You struggle to tear yourself away from the old plot and immerse yourself into this new mystery. But by and by, you manage. And just when you forgot all about the discovery of Count Bradley's corpse in the lake and worked yourself up about the missing diamond necklace of Lady Agincourt, you find the old humdinger underneath your pillow. Can't be pleasant that. Our latest resurrection would undoubtedly reignite your interest in the Count's corpse and with a heavy heart you wave Agincourt, in this case, The Guardian, or The Daily Mail, goodbye.

So, what brings us back to life, you ask? Well, like the leopard that stalks its customary morning antelope, we've been waiting for something that would spark us into action, you know? The lowering of the guard, so to speak, enabling the leopard that is this fine football blog to pounce upon the unfortunate antelope. The antelope in this case being the debate that Chelsea's dogged 2-0 victory against Liverpool at Anfield has sparked about the beauty of the game.

Now, long story short, Chelsea came to Liverpool's den, defended for their lives, took their chances when they presented themselves, and then went back to defending for their lives. All very smash and grab stuff. Raiding that would make a certain Attila doff his hat at the Dark Lord of Defense that is Jose Mourinho. However, there's been a general outrage about the manner of victory. The consensus of this outraged section being Chelsea ought to have been more enterprising. That they were "negative" and "boring". Which really is an interesting debate that polarizes most fans. Does style matter? Is merely winning not enough? It's a philosophical debate that nobody can ever really put an end to, so yours truly is here to give you his take on things. Yes, it took me 3 paragraphs to get to this, deal with it.

Now, as an Arsenal fan, I have never really had to complain about entertainment. In fact, I've often wished for dour, comfortable 2-0 victories. If Arsenal were to change to a more pragmatic style, you wouldn't find me complaining. No Sir, whatever works. Winning with style is great, but if I had to choose one of the two, give me winning all day. Keep your style, thank you very much. A season's worth of grinding out 1-0s is fine by me if it fetches us the league.

Well, that's my two cents. "But what about delighting the spectators? What about entertaining the fans?", cry out the purists. This is where, my romantic friends, I differ from you. Sport, for me, is not entertainment. Sport is art. When my team grinds out a 1-0, or blows away the opposition 6-0, the base emotion is the same, I am happy. "But art is beautiful!", shouts one purist. Of course it is. But art is also subtle. Pain is art. Struggle is art. Repulsion is art. Entertainment is but a shallow feeling. One that seldom permeates to the heart of a supporter. The fans who watch it for entertainment do lose out on the bigger picture. And losing out on the bigger picture often deprives you of the better story.

I can see a few purists scratch their heads. Allow me to explain using music as an example. What sort of music sells? The Justin Biebers of this world sell. The Rihannas sell. I don't mean to undermine their appeal, but this sort of music is easy to interpret, easy to understand, and thus, easy to listen to. There aren't too many layers to the thing. It's more entertainment than art. But take a truly complex piece of music. An Iron Maiden song, or a Beethoven symphony. It won't get people onto the dance floor, but when you listen, actually listen, it speaks to your soul. It stirs a story within you. A story you never knew you could tell. A story you never suspected of knowing. But it takes effort to appreciate this. It takes time. Because, Beethoven is not entertainment. Beethoven is art.

"So is beautiful football!", cries one purist triumphantly.

So it is. Undoubtedly. And so is dour, defensive football. Don't follow? Let's look at a much maligned genre of music. Death metal, with it's growling and incredibly heavy sound, is often dismissed as trash. But when one actually looks at how much complexity is involved, and takes the effort to actually listen, there is a sense of appreciation, if not enjoyment for the art form. It is art. It has layers, complexity, it evokes a reaction, it demands effort from the listener. It is everything that Beethoven is, and yet, it is everything that it isn't. It isn't about the nobler emotions, it's about the wilder side of things. But yet, it is art, no?

I see a few eyebrows being raised. "What is this idiot saying?", mutters one. "I don't know, but he seems to be quite sure about himself", says another. "Why is he writing about our reactions, when he knows nobody will read this garbage?", asks a third, a most intuitive fellow. True though that undoubtedly is, I shall plod along nevertheless clinging onto slivers of hope that have not yet been crushed. So, what am I saying?

I'm saying that if one can win with a bit of oomph then well done. Fair play to you. But if one wins with a zzzz more than anything else, well done again. As long as the team's playing within the rules, I don't think it ought to be chastised. Take Barcelona for example. All they do is pass, pass, pass, pass, pass and then pass some more. It bores me frankly, but hey, somehow it's hailed as beautiful football. It won them everything, so I'm not arguing against its effectiveness. I just fail to see how defend, defend, defend which, if you notice, has the same monotonous feel to it as Barcelona's tiki-taka is condemned to the gallows.

It is art. "What, it is ART?!", screams yet another purist. I try shushing him, but he does not relent, "Explain, my good sir! Explain!" he says. And so I shall. With support from a very unlikely corner. The purist is uneasy. "Well..?", is all he can muster.
Well, one of the greatest champions of the "Winning with style" school made a statement that I surprisingly find to be in favour of my argument.

“I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art. When you read some books they are fantastic, the writer touches something in you that you know you would not have brought out of yourself. He makes you discover something interesting in your life. If you are living like an animal, what is the point of living? What makes daily life interesting is that we try to transform it to something that is close to art.”- Arsene Wenger

Chelsea defended so well that it became art. They stopped an absolutely rampaging Liverpool attack which was pillaging all comers. It was a nullification, a defanging, a declawing. It worked. Their doggedness was a triumph of substance over style. A triumph of the steady, dependable guy who holds the umbrella for the girl over the swashbuckling charmer who takes her dancing in the rain. A triumph of the kid who slogged all year for the finals over the genius who slacked off all year (not saying Liverpool didn't try, think of the analogy in terms of style and substance, thanks). Struggle is an art. The next time you gasp at a beautiful field of flowers, remember that it all started with the digging of some pretty ugly furrows.

History remembers the victors. Sure, there are notable exceptions. The Dutch team of the 1970s, the Brazil of the 80s come to mind. For good reason too. But to dismiss success because it failed to take one's breath away is a tad ridiculous. Branding it "negative" is something that one fails to understand. If the target is being achieved, one really can't complain can they? Or call it negative.

In years to come, if there is a team that sweeps all before it while playing an enterprising brand of football that takes the breath away, people will undoubtedly toast it. But, if this all-conquering team wins its battles by digging in, by organizing itself, by being defensive (and not negative), I hope people realize that what they're witnessing is art in itself. Don't bring the pitchforks out, because Durban had a point. Go watch clowns if you want entertainment. Or 'Modern Family', that's a pretty good show. 

Don't agree with me? Agree with me but don't want to agree with me because I'm really annoying? Let us know which side of the fence you're on in this philosophical battle, drop in a comment.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

#14