Newcastle 1-2 Arsenal: the Good, Bad, and Ugly

62 comments

1. Agree on Guendouzi. Having him and Torriera both on the pitch at the same time is a must. Emery out!

   Seriously, it’s difficult to understand what he (Emery) is doing at times. And we need to like, defend and stuff, but the boss clearly has other priorities.

   Still I appreciate a man with a plan even if that plan seems somewhat inscrutable. We have a good, winnable run of games before the big one against Liverpool. Let’s do this thing.

2. The fundamental issue is that Torreira has to play, not accomodating Guendouzi. If Guendouzi was so crucial, we looked better than we do with him on the pitch. We created basically nothing offensively in the first half. I’m skeptical the statistics you present are telling the whole story about Guendouzi.

   1. I’m skeptical that “just playing Torreira” makes us better. I think Emery makes a LOT of changes at half time. I’ve written about it extensively so far this season. Maybe I’ll gather it all into a post this week.

      1. Great point, Tim. I’m excited by LT, but couldn’t agree more about this one.

         (For one thing: other teams tire and tend to leave us more gaps to exploit in second halves as opposed to firsts.)

3. Insightful analysis but dripping with cynical sarcasm :-/ C’mon Tim, where’s the blissfully ignorant hopeful positivity these days?

   I would actually say that having multiple competent central midfielders is a great problem to have, but I suppose that’s the other side of the coin to the one you’re pointing out. It’s also entirely possible that the halftime substitution was a planned one, albeit unlikely given that our game clearly needed something different. But let me ask you this: if Guendouzi is really the better player, why does Unai, who knows him better than anyone, consistently remove him and not Xhaka? And why have we looked a better team for that change two games running? I know Guendouzi’s a more active player, but maybe that’s not what makes our midfield tick; maybe it’s Granit’s positional discipline, physique and experience. The picture is incomplete because we haven’t seen Guendouzi partner Torreira yet, so I will withhold final judgment until then. I do think most people are selling low on Xhaka though because he also produces quality in the final third and from set pieces, and not just in this game. If direct free kick goals are so rare than shouldn’t it be celebrated even more as the accomplishment it is for a player not know for them? He also assisted our opener against Cardiff. Guendouzi has had some nice passes too and I think he’s already one of the best on the team at the through ball played on the ground between the lines, but he hasn’t been able to translate that into too many chances. Chances are, Emery sees his activity near the touchline, however laudable it may be for effort, as detrimental to the overall team shape. To me, being the best player on the pitch in a half when the whole team hasn’t got going is not the sign of a great player; that was Alexis Sanchez for most of 2017. Great players elevate their teams, even if it comes at the expense of their own visibility. Guendouzi can and probably will become that player, but maybe he isn’t there just yet, and why would we expect him to be?

   1. Xhaka stays on the pitch because he is one of the five captains. I think it’s going to take an injury (I AM NOT WISHING FOR AN INJURY) for him to be dropped.

      I don’t think Xhaka’s chances created are special nor very voluminous. Looking at just CMs and DMs who played more than 20 matches last season the top bulk passers were: Fernandinho, Silva, Xhaka, Fabregas, de Bruyne, Pogba, Matic, Dier, and Kante.

      Here are how their non-set play key passes shape up:

      Xhaka – 23 + 1 throughball
      Ferna – 16 + 5 throughballs
      deBru – 52 + 9 throughballs
      Matic – 23 + 1 throughball
      Silva – 48 + 4
      Fabra – 39 + 6
      Henda – 21 + 1
      Kante – 37 + 2
      Pogba – 35 + 3
      Direa – 9 + 1

      Xhaka isn’t a creative force.

      As for his free kick, I put it in the good so I’m not sure how I’m not giving it enough praise. It’s a good thing to score those, however, they are pretty wasteful. I’ve asked Scott what the scoring % is on those because it’s one metric I don’t know!

      1. “Creative force” is taking it too far, but I am encouraged by his progress on set pieces this season and I do think his passing is important to the flow of the team. Perhaps he is improving? He’s certainly not too old to get better. In a coherent, actual PL level midfield unit (unlike whatever that was last year), I think we will see those numbers rise. It felt like you were qualifying the event by how rare it was and therefore treating it as a good outcome of a bad decision, but maybe that was an over-read on my part.

      2. I am NOT a fan of Xhaka, but those that are will say he has made more successful final third passes than any player this season. Or something like that, I forget the exact stat.

         1. Well, he would because he’s had more of the ball than anyone. Actually, this would seem like a damning stat if you consider that he has a ton of the ball in the danger zone and yet almost never creates a shot. Kind of like Aaron Ramsey playing striker: people are like “ooh look at those deep runs” and “he gets a lot of shots” but he finishes like a poor midfielder. So, it’s actually hugely inefficient. Maybe that’s Guendouzi’s problem as well?

      3. 6% chance. all set pieces are scored at a 9%. when we subtract the drag of DFK, regular set pice shots are scored at the same rate as all shots. That means DFK is better than any old crack from outside but not as good as playing it to a teammate. It’s basically a selfish shot.

         1. I’ve wondered for a while whether DFKs are ever worth it, given how they basically never go in. Even Messi or the best free kick takers in history like Beckham or Pirlo rarely scored.

            1. I would ban them if I were manager. Much better to get a ball in where you can get a big chance (45% scoring rate) than a glory-hog freek.

      4. “I don’t think Xhaka’s chances created are special nor very voluminous.”
         Completely agree! As a deep-lying playmaker, Xhaka is weaker than Cazorla in his prime. Also, people forget it was just Newcastle. It’s a different story against the good teams.

4. I thought Xhaka had a really good game overall. Was so-so in the first half (hardly disastrous) but very good in the second.

   I also think Guen will end up being the better of the two players, and a Guen-Torreira partnership could be terrific in the long run. But the lad’s got time on his side. Even this season there will be plenty of games for him to start. We don’t want to burn him out so early in his top level career (a la Jack), or play him constantly until his form inevitably dips, only then benching him, thus hurting his confidence (a la Iwobi, Holding, Chambers, probably others I’m forgetting). So I have no problem starting Xhaka-Torreira for the next few games and seeing how that goes. If Xhaka’s form dips, then he should be benched.

5. “Nationalism week” and “Nationalism football” are my favorite new football expressions. Thanks for coining or normalising them Tim.

   Will be interesting to see how Emery continues to navigate these away games. Especially because teams will clock how easy it is to beat our forwards and midfielders in the air. I mean, Newcastle obliterated us in the air all game. They deserved the goal. Our lack of pride in defending the clean sheet was dire, but it was a caviar of a cross that begged to be headed downwards. Cech did well on the header moments earlier, but no chance on that one.

   Like how Emery is managing Guendouzi-Torreira. MG already gets the confidence boost from starting ahead of better, more experienced players. Don’t think getting hooked will bug him too much and it’s a good test of character for him anyway. Torreira is too valuable to take risks with, and Guendouzi deserves his spot. Think grinding out these wins will help Emery’s cause in the dressing room.

   Ozil’s artful finish reminded me of the Andrei Arshavin winner vs Barcelona. Watch the replay from behind the goal! The way he wrongfoots the lunging defenders and the keeper. More of that please Mesut.

   1. Why is nationalism a pejorative now? And when did this happen?

      1. Why would anyone be proud of the fact that you happened to be born somewhere?

         1. Because everything about you is in some way informed by where you grew up?

            1. Eh? It’s just a humourous phrase that pokes fun at the artifice of international football.

            2. It is and it isn’t. I think it’s impirtant to separate the concept of nationalism, the idea that we are proud of where we are from, from extremism, which is to commit acts of violence in the name of an idea, whether it’s national identity, religion or anything else. If you were to round up KKK members and hang them upside down in public and pelt them with rotten tomatoes, that might seem not only funny but also morally justified because they stand for an idea which is reprihensible. But in that moment you’ve become an extremist because you committed a violent act without any sort of legal jurisdiction. So it should go for nationalism too, shouldn’t it? Once somebody commits a violent act in the name of where they are from, it’s not really about that idea any more, it’s about the extreme will of that person to impose themselves on others. The excessive flag waving and holier than thou patriotism fit into the same kind of bracket. Once you start enforcing your view on others or pressure them to join you, the value of your original idea becomes lost because it becomes a means to an end, to gain influence and power. I think There is room for a quieter, nonviolent kind of nationalism, the kind that doesn’t make the news, the kind of pride that ordinary people feel when they think about their home town, their ancestors, their language, their cuisine, their unique upbringing. I think that is a wonderful part of the human experience. Maybe our language has evolved to the point that nationalism can no longer mean any of those things but it does to me still.

            3. I agree with you Doc. People doing something silly in the name of something should not discredit the idea of the thing itself. But increasingly that seems to be the reaction. It cedes ground to the extremists because you accept that they represent what they claim to.

               Nationalism seems to have gone the same route. But as you say, I think we’d be a poorer species if we didn’t have these ties to the land. I enjoyed my tour around Europe last year because I got to see so many different cultures and learn about their histories (even in the same countries).

               In terms of football, I think it was way more fun when national teams had a certain national character in how they played. But club football’s dominance has largely changed that. At least in the bigger footballing nations. (Or maybe that’s just romanticism and that never existed?)

            4. I’m proud to be Canadian. I think it’s a great country. I believe that growing up there has made me a more tolerant, global, and thoughtful individual. There. I said it!

               Somewhat ironically, part of what I love about my country is that its multiculturalism and commitment to education has made me less prone to believing that my affection for it is somehow connected to the devaluation of any other country.

               Oh, Canada! Je t’aime.

            5. This is why I barely comment on here any more.

               I pay Tim one compliment and suddenly “Why is nationalism now a pejorative” and the bizarre follow-up comment about “you become an extremist if you fight the KKK” I mean… can we not? Jesus.

            6. But can I just say how much I dislike international games these days? I just about like the big tournaments, but the qualifiers and friendlies strike me as a complete waste of a viewing experience and get in the way of club football, which, over the years, has grown to completely dominant my experience and desire for the game. I’m not even sure I would care a great deal if Canada qualified for the World Cup, rare as that event would be.

            7. That was your takeaway from this whole discussion?

            8. *Kaius

      2. Nationalism is an evil unto itself.
         The nation is an artificial boundary intended to exclude. People cannot cross these boundaries without permission or they face consequences. But these are strictly boundaries against the poor. Excluding the (other/outsider) poor from the wealth within these states while at the same time allowing the wealthy to travel freely. If the poor cannot travel to, live and work, in the country of their choosing, then they aren’t free. By definition nations are not free.
         The nation retains power against the power of the individual, The nation builds armies and has police which are there only to retain its power against it’s own people and against the people of other nations. In terms of pure expression, the nation of the United States is the shining example: we are a murderous lot who use our collective identity to create the most fearsome military the world has ever seen. The whole scam here is that the point of the nation is to fight threats to the nation.
         And what, exactly, do we as people of the United States have to be so proud of? What have we done with our supposed freedom? With our nation? With this fearsome military? Murdered the native people of our land? Stolen and enslaved people of Africa? Committed the most heinous war crimes against the people of Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Amassed the wealth of the world at the expense of the poor peoples of the world? Jailed more people than any other nation? Systematically abused and killed it’s own black people? Elected Donald Trump, an actually evil man?
         If I saw anything that my nation has done that I could be proud of, I might consider a different opinion. If it lay down its arms. If it gave actual freedom to people. If it did anything at all to give equality to women and minorities (not the bullshit lies about “all men are created equal” which is objectively not the practice in this country). But it doesn’t. So, fuck the nation. Fuck the nation in both praxis and practise; in the specific and the ideal. Fuck it.

         1. That’s obviously true. And put very eloquently as always, and passionately. But what’s the alternative to the nation state? People need some form of government, and they need something to identify with. A nation fills that need, although no doubt, poorly.

            1. I don’t advocate the destruction of government. I do advocate for more global governance and global accountability. I just despise nationalism.

            2. That doesn’t fulfill the second need. To belong to something. Unfortunately, ‘Earth’ doesn’t cut it for most. Even within nations people still seek other groups. Then there’s the problem of governance. Who forms this global government or enforces global accountability? In theory (and maybe in the future?) it can be the UN. But even there the N stands for nations. Also there’s always the problem of decision makers being too far removed from the people.

               I’m not trying to argue against you. I understand where you’re coming from and I would agree in principle. I’m curious if you have ideas on how it would work.

            3. I belong to the Arsenal. People’s identities aren’t always wrapped up in their nation or culture. Many GLBTQ+ people don’t identify with a nation which treats them like shit and they find their community. Many African Americans don’t identify with a nation that murders them and they find their community. Nationalism is actually just the last gasp of people who have run out of ideas for community.

            4. “Nationalism is the last gasp of people who have run out ideas for community.”

               Brilliantly put. Very interesting ideas to think about in the context of post-colonial nations whose boundaries/borders can be arbitrary or artificial both physically and ideologically.

6. One thing we also need to consider is ‘every player improved after half time’. Torriera is good. No denying that. But if we are not tracking back and leaving it open even he can’t save us.
   Also, I dont like ramsey and ozil together. No reason for ramsey to not have positional discipline and join attack when we already have auba and laca and ozil to score.

   Final take. We leave too many crosses to come into the box. Dont know how we can correct that.

7. Keep in mind Torreira did tweak his hamstring while playing for Uruguay. Maybe Emery was being cautious but I agree with most gooners that he should be starting. I thought Xhaka had a decent game overall but there were a couple of moments where he was found wanting. The free kick was a good moment. It will be a major boost for him and Arsenal if he can find his range on a more regular basis but all I really hope for is that he is able to cut out his boneheaded mistakes.

   Speaking of which, there were a few from Mustafi today. Socrates had best game in an Arsenal shirt and one poor clearance in the first half aside, I don’t remember him making any mistakes. He covered well when Mustafi slipped.

   Something needs to be done on that right side. Even with Torriera playing more centrally than Guendouzi and keeping an eye on proceedings, we were exposed multiple times. We also need to improve in closing down crosses. Team have identified the right hand side as a weak area and are putting in crosses into that space. There was a miss from Joselu just a few minutes prior to the goal and a couple of other chances for Newcastle which were created from similar situations.

   Irregardless, I welcome the three points and our second consecutive win on the road. A first this year if I think. Still a lot of work to be done but with Spurs losing, this is turning out to be a good sports weekend.

   1. Joselu chance was actually a good save by Cech – he tipped it over the bar. But your broader point stands.

8. Tim–
   I see the screen grabs from the perspective of proximity.
   In motion, it’s Mustafi who has the last opportunity not just on the goal by Clark– but on the minute-earlier save by Cech on a near-identical series of actions. Bellerin and Torreira may have been out-of-position– fine. They both deserve scorn. But in my view, both occasions, Mustafi (who is the only one with a decision to make) moved toward the man that had to be left to Sokratis to defend. Leaving not one– but two– attackers free reign behind, far post. And did it twice in 3 minutes.

   jw1

   1. yeah, the picture’s fuzzy and I haven’t gone back to look at the video yet, but I think you’re right.

      expect we’ll be seeing this in slow motion, accompanied by clarifying description of all that went wrong, on Clarke’s Breakdown this week.

   2. Fair enough!

      1. “If I’m a little angry about anything it’s that Bellerin didn’t even bother tracking his man, Torreira didn’t track back, and Granit Xhaka just let the guy run right past him, leaving Mustafi with two players to cover and he’s got enough problems covering one”

         Think what Tim wrote here and what JW1 is saying are the same thing. CMs also had a choice to make, chose not to track their runners (they were good runs to be fair), and left Mustafi exposed at the back post.

         1. Certainly when I watched the highlights my spidey senses said “goal” a couple of seconds before the cross came in, and I’m a very average footballer, so it was frustrating to see Bellerin, Torreira and Xhaka just fail to react to the danger.

            Especially given the way the play had developed, with the opposition players already high up the field and onside when their keeper came out of his area to clear it long.

9. I know it’s early but I can’t help but thinking we’re in for a lot of squad turnover over the next year or so to make things work in Emery’s system. In addition to the obvious need for a not-Mustafi player to take Mustafi’s minutes, there are a lot of players Emery is trying to stuff in that really seem like either/or propositions. Aubameyang or Lacazette, together seems to marginalize Aubameyang. Ozil or Ramsey, basically if Ozil isn’t the primary creative fulcrum, he seems vestigial and Emery seems unwilling to consider Ramsey as one of the two deeper lying midfielders. Xhaka or Guendouzi, for all the reasons Tim stated above. If one of each of those is moved on, you can bring Mhki and Iwobi back into the side.

   The alternative is having Emery change the system. The problem is that because we have a lot of pieces that seem to duplicate one another, every change creates another duplication issue. If you move to a 4-4-2 to accommodate Auba/Laca in a way that doesn’t marginalize Auba, you either run a diamond which let’s you use your best midfielders but really stresses your fullbacks and DM or you run a traditional 4-4-2 where basically Ozil can’t play and right wing is a choice between Ramsey and Mhkitariyan.

   I think 3-5-2 might actually be the best system for this team, but it probably involves Monreal moving back to the back 3 and relying on Kolasinac when he’s healthy and still has the same Ramsey/Ozil issue.

   I really think they probably should have either let Ozil walk or sold Ramsey in the summer, its really hard to see them in the same team with Xhaka. And if Xhaka’s dropped and Ramsey dropped back, there’s a lot of wishing and hoping that Ramsey maintains enough positional discipline to make that work.

   It will be an interesting 18 months or so. Given what the last couple years have been like around the club, I’ll settle for interesting.

   1. I used to see Auba/Laca as an either or proposition but I really don’t think so anymore. The best scorers are seldom deployed in a lone central striker role. The most recent example is Mo Salah, but there are plenty of others. Auba has the luxury of making runs on to Laca’s hold up play or Ozil’s cross/throughball supply line… that’s hardly a marginalized position. I felt like he had outstanding chances to score goals in this game but was a fraction of a second too late, which to me is a sign of a lack of conviction or confidence in himself right now. He is getting into great positions with the freedom to stay high up the pitch in certain situations while he has cover from Ramsey or Xhaka behind him. He has too much pedigree to be kept down for long, but I feel he needs a goal or three to build his confidence up some right now.

   2. Gaspar,
      –if the 4-4-2 is a 4-2-2-2 (or a diamond, obviously), then Ozil can play just fine. that’s kinda what the formation morphed into at times in the last two games, and when it did so, it looked better (basically because it meant Auba was closer to Laca, and Ozil was in positions where he could pull the strings). still, I agree with you that a hybrid 4-2-2-2/lopsided 4-2-3-1 is hardly the ideal formation.

      –Ramsey isn’t a deep lying midfielder in a 2 in elite football in 2018. it’s as simple as that. he can play in a midfield 3, but Emery prefers a double pivot back there instead. it’s not just about positional discipline. it’s that he displays neither desire nor aptitude for dropping in deep to help build play from the back, i.e. the thing that Xhaka, Torreira, and Guendouzi spend about 98% of the time doing when we have the ball. Ramsey’s just not that sort of player. And if we’re going to become press resistant in the golden age of the high press, we’re going to need more than one player back there who’s very good at that.

      –he also can’t play on the right wing (ok, he “can”, but it’s not a great idea), so he’s definitely not a serious alternative to Micky there in a 4-4-2. people will point to the time he spent out there a few years back in a 4-2-3-1, but people forget how unbalanced he often made us when there. He was doing a job for the team as best he could, but with the exception of a few big games when his main contribution came in being very defensively disciplined in that position (a game against Man United comes to mind), most of the time he got pulled into the center looking for the ball, and Bellerin was often as isolated as he was today (actually more so). This wasn’t really Ramsey’s fault: it’s not his position. Indeed, even if he did keep positional discipline as a right sided midfielder, it would be a waste of his strengths, just like it is when we shoehorn, e.g., Auba on the left. We’d then be putting him out there just to ensure he’s kept in the starting lineup, which doesn’t seem to me to be warranted.

      –for me the current solution is simple:
      (a) play a 4-3-3 where you force Ramsey to actually play a little deeper as part of a midfield 3 (a la Man City, Liverpool, and many other teams), and Ozil on the right or left but as part of a fluid front 3 where his tendency to drift where he wants doesn’t punish our shape as much,
      or
      (b) drop Ramsey for Micki/Iwobi, put Ozil back at 10 (Torreira should come in too for one of Guen/Xhaka), and keep playing this thing we’re currently playing (4-2-2-2/lopsided 4-2-3-1). the advantage of those personnel changes is that Mick/Iwobi are more comfortable than either Ramsey or Ozil in providing some width (albeit hardly hugging the touchline), and that compensates for the fact that Auba isn’t a winger and should push up towards Laca at every opportunity. With Micki on the right, Ozil is free to play more centrally, plus drift out to the left when Auba goes inside. This is something Ozil’s done very naturally for us for years (I can think of countless times when he combined with Alexis and the LB to work space on the left side of the area and used his left foot for dangerous draw backs), so it’s weird to me that everyone seems to insist that if he’s going to play wide it needs to be on the right. In my alternative, he gets to play in the center like he wants, but he pulls out wide left a lot to allow Auba to tuck in. And with both Auba and Laca on the pitch, we really shouldn’t miss Ramsey’s presence in the box. Rather, it’s when we’re playing a true one-striker system that his runs from “midfield” (using that term loosely) become a significant contribution.

      1. I don’t know the numbers bear this out, but it always seemed to me that Ramsey played better with Giroud up top, which is exactly what your theory would predict.

10. I know this comment may sound stupid to some, but I think guen may be a replacement for Ramsey if he decides to leave.. he hasn’t been playing in a dm role, but a b2b role.. he covers lots of distance, makes more tackles, makes more recoveries, offers an outlet playing out from the back..all that remains is the attacking side of Ramsey, and I think that’d come., I also noticed he’s become more conservative with his long balls which I don’t like.. i also think AMN will be very useful for emery.. I’m optimistic and I can see lots of improvements in every game..

    1. agree that AMN and Guen can both become very good b2b mids. even if neither is likely to ever have the offensive output that Ramsey (at times) provides, they’re both more suited to actually getting the ball to feet a lot and building play, and they both have very good engines (with AMN also having great speed). not sure either is ready this year to be an ever-present starter in all the big games for us, though. we’ll see.

    2. I’ve been disappointed with Aaron Ramsey thus far subjectively but the underlying numbers say he’s actually been pretty good. Of course, statistically our best player has been Shkodran Mustafi and nobody would agree with that but I tend to trust the numbers more for midfielders because they are based on a larger number of actions and individual mistakes are not quite so obvious/detrimental that they should undermine a player’s statistical profile to the extent that my recent memories of Mustafi’s blunders color his.

       I’m not sure what point I’m making other than that it’s difficult to evaluate how important Ramsey is to this team. He has been a constant in a winning side, which is more important to me than whether he “flashes” or not and makes me emotionally feel like he’s doing a good job, but he’s also not playing on a level of “difference maker” which would be commesurate with the type of role and salary that he seems to want. As with most things at this stage the useful strategy is to wait and see.

11. The EL should be interesting now to assess some of the players who haven’t been playing as much as some would like. I think it’s good to ease some players in rather than just go all change. If Torreira had been available early in pre-season maybe he’d be playing now.

    Leno will hope to push Cech, the senior player, out with the chances he’s given. One of the young CBs can hope to impress enough to push out Mustafi. Torreira will get his chance and likely will be a starter before long. But I’m liking the way we’re going about this and 3 wins on the bounce after a tough start is going to help with the process. (Please no one quote the Philly thing)

12. Off topic. I’ve seen people here talking about some podcasts on topics other than football. I think Bun mentioned true crime podcasts. Not my thing, but I’ve tried Google searches to find good podcasts and haven’t been able to. Any sites where you can scan good podcasts by topic?

    1. The iTunes store podcast page is sorted by (and can be user sorted by) category, new arrivals, and ratings, and once you click on a podcast that interests you, it will show you similar shows. That’s where I got my start. But once I found a category I liked (e.g., true crime), I just did Google searches to find out about other popular podcasts.

       1. Thanks

13. We were garbage in the first half, and quite good in the second. Some of what Emery is doing doesn’t quite make sense to me yet. Eventually, I think it will.

14. Question: why does our playing out the back so often result in speculative long balls hoofed into the opposing half to little or no avail?

    I just got a Cazorla training shirt just because I miss him.. #19 in the old programs, #1 in my heart.

    1. Ad secula seculorum…

15. Superb analysis, Tim. Spot-on about Guendouzi being a better midfield player than Xhaka. Even before we get to the stats that clearly show this to be the case, a fully functional pair of eyes could tell you that. By every metric, except his set-piece ability, the young Frenchman is a better all-round midfielder.

    I agree with Tim that it looks like Emery is caught between 2 chairs. Xhaka, as his world cup goal against Serbia showed, has a sumptuous left foot, and is not a bad player at all. He’s kind of the Podolski of the midfield, though. Limited, but good within his that limited skillset. If he played American football, he’d be a special teams specialist as a kicker. Or, if he had a good a left arm as left leg, a QB — albeit not a very nimble one — with big, beefy guys protecting him.

    Don’t get me wrong, he had a good 2nd half yesterday going forward. He was involved in both goals, and took the corner from which Mustafi scored against West Ham. But defensively, he always seems a beat behind the play. Besides the tracking error that Tim identified, he nearly gave a goal away in the Arsenal box, by dawdling on the ball. His danger antenna seems perpetually set to ‘off.’ He was also culpable (as were others, collectively) for goals we conceded against City and Chelsea. There ought to be two photos next to “switch off” on Google searches… a light switch, and Granit.

    So why, doc asks, do we look better with halftime swtiches. The answer is Torreira. I’ve a theory on this, fwiw. Emery knows that good set piece delivery and the odd howitzer from midfield can get you points. He also knows that Guendouzi does not have that, even if he has the more complete midfield game. He kind of wants to have his cake and to consume it. But he’s going to have to begin starting Torreira, and will have to sacrifice something. Torreira also has set piece skills, and once he’s up to speed on the league, the choice, it’d seen to me, becomes more clear-cut.
    _________________________________
    Ramsey looks lost in Emery’s system. Arsene had a clear role for him; Emery doesnt seem to. I’m for giving Emery time, though. It’s likely that he has no choice in the short term but to shoehorn players into his system.

    As for Auba or Laca, if I had to choose one at this time, it would be Lacazette. Key words, “at this time.”

    A surprise… One player who has looked comfortable and much improved under Emery’s system has been Alex Iwobi. When he plays.

    1. I’m sorry this got caught in the filter.

16. The 7amkickoff spam filter has a very wonky antenna today. Ah well.

17. Forgive a newbie question Tim, but why do you consider playing Guendouzi and Torreira a huge gamble?

    1. Just that they both lack experience playing in the Premier League, playing together, and (for Guendouzi) experience playing at the top level.

18. Because gazidis is leaving!😂😂

19. Torreira is great, but he looks light. Has been shrugged off a few times, even when trying to rugby tackle. Might be why we are slow to see him paired with MG.

    In Ramsey, clearly a good footballer, but needs to be shoehorned into this team. Drop him, use him in cups (maybe build a team around him there) or off the bench in EPL, but he’s not signing for us so he’s an asset whose value (to us) is dropping everyday. Emery needs to do the necessary.

    1. Torreira is exceptionally tiny. He’s smaller than Cazorla.

Comments are closed.