I’ve watched Man City v. Liverpool twice now and all I can take away are impressions. I’ve had a look at the stats, I’ve paused the key moments, rewinded them, played them over, and I’ve been intentional about watching certain player’s movements and still, it’s just water lilies over and over again.
Perhaps this is a limitation of the format. Could Monet paint a masterpiece from a scene he saw on television? But even if I had been at the match there would have been too much to take in, I would have done the thing I do when I’m at a big game and focussed solely on one detail at a time.
Instead of details, the impression I got from this match was that Arsenal have a ton of work to do.
I don’t particularly want either team to win the League. Man City aren’t a football team as much as they are the sporting division of a wealthy country.
According to calculations by The Swiss Ramble, Man City have spent £1.3bn out of their owner’s pocket in the last decade. That reminds me of when Abramovich first formed Chelsea FC and David Dein said that he was parking tanks on people’s lawns and firing £50 notes at them for their players. If that’s the metaphor for Chelsea, whose own has “only” put in £520m of his own money, then what is the metaphor for City? “Man City have set up oil derricks all over the world and are pumping out thousands of barrels full of money for players”?
Liverpool supporters like to pretend that their team is a poverty club too or that they’re underdogs but again, according to the Swiss Ramble, Liverpool’s owners have put £260m of their own money into the club. Mostly on players, where Liverpool’s (net) spend on players is 4th in the League in the last decade.
Meanwhile Arsenal’s owners have literally put £0 into the club. That investment is the second lowest of any club in the League in the last decade, behind Middlesbrough’s £0 investment.
But watching Man City v. Liverpool was more than just two teams fighting it out over transfers. Back when Chelsea came on the scene it was a fact that you could just plunk down £200m and buy the League title. So long as you had a coach who was sufficiently Pulis enough, so long as he got the defense organized, and so long as you got a striker who put away chances.
But with the death of Mourinho (as a manager, the human is still alive) what we see is that formula no longer works. I know that Man U fans are going to have fun with their expensively assembled Island of Misfit toys, managed by Ole Wenger Solskjaer. They might even get a win over Liverpool or Man City this season. And heck, they could even crack top four. For the money they spent, they really ought to.
But the impression I got from this MCLIV match was that you can’t just buy your way to a title these days (unless you get really lucky like Leicester). You also need to develop the players’ technique, teach the players how to press and defend and rapidly counter attack, teach them to play intricate little one-touch passes, and somehow get these multimillionaires excited enough to put their careers on the line for almost every ball.
I’m not saying that teams don’t need to buy. They need to buy AND coach.
That’s the impression I got. Maybe this is just a one-off moment in Premier League history. Maybe I’m reading too much into one game that was played at a crazy high level. Maybe we will never see another match like that again. But I felt like this was the new level for the League. That these were the two teams to beat.
It reminded me of the match that made me fall in love with the Arsenal, winning the League at Old Trafford. That was another battle of epic proportions with two teams at the top of their game, fighting tooth and nail for the honors.
But as much as I love that old Arsenal side, these two teams, Man City and Liverpool are on a different plane of existence to that football I fell in love with 18 years ago. Everything from the investment in players to the coaching, the tactics, the physical preparation, and the player’s technique is at such a high level that it seems an almost impossible peak to climb. I don’t know how close we can get to those two teams with just coaching or “smart” player purchase.
I guess we are going to find out because Arsenal is the only big team with an owner who won’t invest in the club.
Sterling, Sane, Stones and Laporte are massively improved players under Pep, and I’ll bet that Bernardo Silva wasnt that good for his last club. David Silva is one of my favourite non-Arsenal players. Aguero is Aguero. Mahrez is worth every penny. Their goalie is sensational. Their defensive depth is staggering. I thought that Fernandinho was kinda done. Wrong. Did I mention KDB?
City are going to close the points gap and win the league. Heck, they’re a good bet for the CL and the treble.
Liverpool edge them in quality up front because the sum total of Salah, Mane and Firminho are better than what City’s got. I don’t Jesus that highly (I fell terrible typing those words, for reasons that have nothing to with football)
Mate..great work but I have to disagree…if football is about scoring goals we are every bit as good as Liverpool and Man City..We may be just short in quantity but we more than make it up in quality…We have and continue to score the best team goals ..Laca v Fulham was our latest offering of many offerings for goal of the season…but at Arsenal we are spoilt and don’t even talk about goals like this any more and take these things for granted. Remember the sayings:…The grass is always greener…only it is greenest at the Emerites….A prophet is never accepted in his home town. We need just look at our team and see just how exquisite our offensive play is..Just look at the quality and quantity of goals we score. In attack we hold our own against anyone ….
I hate City. I can appreciate and respect the talent and coaching but as you say, it’s a team owned by a family that controls the entire wealth of a nation – a nation with an abysmal record of human rights abuses. I wonder as a thought experiment if Kim Jong Un bought a Premiership team, say Huddersfield, and pumped in a billion dollars of investment, hired a dynamic coach like Lucien Favre (under the auspices of “sponsorship” by North Korea Airways) how people would react? Oh wait, I know. They’d all cheer it. It’s a very simple PR move for despotic regimes and shady oligarchs.
I hope Liverpool sticks it out on top. I don’t want City to win anything, just to give them a feeling of burning money. Keep in mind that City have also pumped tonnes of money into their youth ranks none of whom have a shot of making the first team (even Foden will suffer and leave eventually). The strategy is not development but to keep the most talented players out of rival academies. They’re fine with selling Sancho – so long as it’s out of country.
As far as ownership investment – doesn’t Abramovitch technically “loan” his money to Chelsea? And Liverpool and United are owned by American businessmen (United is even publicly traded)… I doubt that they are dipping into personal pockets to buy players without a business case being made for significant ROI. I feel very uncomfortable defending the Kroenkes, but we should compare apples and apples. City, Everton, Leicester et al have individual owners with different agendas to Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Spurs.
Most of the billionaires loan the money to the club in the form of shares. But it’s just like any other business: rich people put money in in order to get stuff out.
Yeah, that was a pretty entertaining game to watch. Could really have gone either way, and might well have if Liverpool had scored on that crazy first big chance.
City, however, were playing without DeBruyne, one of the best players in the PL. And didn’t even use Mahrez.
So while Liverpool crushed us, and look very good, they don’t have the depth that City has built with that huge spend. So over the remainder of the year, City might be in a better spot to compete in both the PL and CL.
In the greater context of the sport, this game was as cynical a monetary exercise as is possible. From a footballing standpoint however, it was an entertaining two hours of the best the game has to offer.
Sometimes hyperbole can do proper justice to the occasion as Barney Ronay does here;
“Finally one could almost hear the voices from the fringes muttering, as City’s ball-players experimented with the idea of shanking wild-eyed clearances into the crowd, as they punted the poor old beleaguered ball forward, as the back four lined up to head clear of their own six-yard box like a £900m Tony Pulis tribute project, and as Bernardo Silva, a man born to glide and twirl and address the ball with his own feather-quilled left foot, careered about the place like a city-centre nightclub bouncer on New Year’s Eve. Finally they have worked out how to play some proper football.”
The rest is linked below and an example of why those can afford to do so, should pay for quality content:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/jan/04/sergio-aguero-manchester-city-beacon-liverpool
Good game with some below par refereeing. Never understood the concept of why a foul is not a foul when its a big game or when the player is inside the box or when the player is on a yellow?
On the swiss ramble… I am happy at the fact we don’t depend on Owner’s funds. Yes! I know it has its downside but self sustaining model is one of the important reasons for me to love Arsenal. Best is to follow a Dortmund model/similar and work on smart squad building approach. I don’t care we become selling club as long as it’s for good money with adequate replacement to maintain quality. Be in the hunt, get top to top 4 each year and capitalize when the big guns fail.
The comparison with Borussia Dortmund is misleading. There’s only one financial giant in the Bundesliga, that’s Bayern Munich. In the Premier League, there are 3 financial giants with Manchester United, City and Chelsea. That’s a much more difficult situation for Arsenal.
Agree. But their recruiting is good and partly the reason we went after Sven. Guess we had to just wait and see its effects.
Technically Roman spent well over a billion pounds on players for Chelsea… This graph exclude his heady days of 2004-08
I watched this game for the first time today, after knowing the result (not the scoreline) and hearing how great a game it was.
It’s of course only a matter of perception but I certainly wasn’t excited by it as much as I’d been led to believe. Like, it was a good game of football, but one for the ages? I didn’t think so. Loved the drama of the goal line clearance though. Small margins, and there goes the invincible season.
Which just shows how great the Invincibles were in being able to dominate and overcome these moments (It took Mike Riley to put a stop to it)
“Meanwhile Arsenal’s owners have literally put £0 into the club. That investment is the second lowest of any club in the League in the last decade, behind Middlesbrough’s £0 investment.”
Typo, surely Tim? Joint lowest rather than second lowest…
I read that as a joke, because it reinforced the point.
Oh – that makes sense. My bad!
I have always believed that buying the best players only, was never the best source for sustained success. There are many factors that come into play for a side to be able to sustain a title challenge, season after season.
1. The players are an obvious one. Talent and consistency of applying that talent, is what I look at when analyse the quality of a player. Take Granit Xhaka for example, he is an exceptionally talented footballer to me because of his skill set and his ability to apply that skill set at a frighteningly consistent rate. He deals in volumes of passes and orchestrating our play, which he has done so well, people are starting to see how good he really is when he out of the side.
We have Aubameyang, Ozil, Xhaka, Lacazette, Ramsey, Koscielny, Cech and Sokratis as experienced talents.
2. The coaching. Better players will always beat lesser talented players all the time, if all teams had no coaches. Coaching allows teams to become better than the sum of their parts, but coaches could also make teams lesser than the sum of their parts. Now I see coaching a lot differently than others. A lot of people want the players to adapt to the coach, but I don’t think it should be a one way thing. The best coaches to me will firstly look at what they have personnel wise, look at the potential of the team as a whole to play his style, look at how much he has to spend to strengthen areas he deems to be weak, how much improvement he can really make to his current players through purchases and then takes the necessary steps to get the team to reach its objectives from there.
Example, Mourizio Sarri. Sarri has a team of talented players, but the side was not a typical Sarri team. I am not talking about a change in formation because I think a formation is just a structure within which tactics can best be applied, but the tactics themselves. He hasn’t thrown his players out, he hasn’t isolated anyone and most importantly, he has given everyone a chance to stake a claim in his system. The players know what he needs, they know how he wants them to play and they know that if they play well, they will have a place in his side. Chelsea are not the finished article yet, but there is no mistaking what they are trying to do, and like Guardiola, they will try to constantly improve on their system, rather than change it. The formation can change for a good coach, but the style remains the same and remains visible, no matter the side. Even if he finds a side with low quality, his prints must be visible.
3. The fans. A fanbase that is all the way behind the side is very uplifting to the side when they get on the pitch. I was suprised by how well we did at home last season with the lack of support, compared to the top sides, the team received. But I realised that fans need something to get behind. Something solid and clear. When fans have something to clinch onto, they come to define the club by it and stand by it.
For example, project youth. The kind of support that fans had to give, while enduring almost 10 years without a trophy, was truly amazing considering the success that came before, which the fans were used to. But I stood up and proudly proclaimed that we would not buy a title. We don’t buy stars, we make them was my favourite. We also played the best football around in “Wengerball” which at its best (07/08, 10/11 and 13/14) was to me ahead of what City and Liverpool have shown so far.
4. I know people hate this one, but a philosophy/style of play. We all talk about tactical flexibility, but the best sides in the world only adjust parts of their philosophy instead of throwing it out completely. A philosophy means all the age groups play similar football to the first team and allows easier integration of young players into the first team when they are promoted e.g. Ajax Amsterdam. It also allows the recruitment team to assess players who will fit into the football at the club more easily e.g. Atletico Madrid, Juventus and Man City since Pep arrived. A philosophy offers players a default style that maximises their talents when facing smaller sides, leaving the tactical adjustments to games against the top sides e.g. Liverpool, Barcelona, Spurs, Man City, PSG and almost every single top side in Europe.
so that is what I think gets you to the level of City and Liverpool. We currently have the players, as I think we are not getting the most out of them. I had to convince my younger brother that his Man Utd squad was very good, it was just the system in place that made them look bad. I think that is what is happening with us now. I used to say that we dont have a system in place, but now I see that we do have a tactical plan, I just think it’s shit and won’t bring us success, let alone sustainable success. I hope I am dead wrong because I love this club. I guess the project has just not convinced the fans, I am hoping it’s only temporary because we are a good side. Last season was a disappointment, not an expected outcome of the season. We are better than what we showed last season, and somehow we got worse this season.
I like his football philosophy, I like his general outlook on things, but I don’t know why I find Klopp so exasperatingly annoying. He’s either crazy, or he pretends to be and I don’t know which is worse.
I know City’s financial backing basically ruins football, but I don’t want Liverpool to win the title. For one thing, it’s hilarious that they last won it in 1990. For another, their fans are some of the most annoying there are. Plus I don’t like how the Liverpool hierarchy operate. And whatever problem I have with the filthiness of wanting ManCity to win over them, is alleviated by the corruption (or something very much resembling it) which I, by now, accept is inherently entrenched in the PL. So yeah, go on ManCity and win it with your Emirati billions.
I just want to be able to say “Liverpool have not won the league in my lifetime” a little longer. Every team has annoying fans, though – I’ve met some Arsenal fans at my local pub and their every asinine utterance pushes me closer and closer to an NBC Sports Gold subscription.
Haha. True.
Happy new year Tim. I am with Shard on this. It was a good game.. but not one that I will remember for years to come. They are two teams that have been expensively assembled and coached by two of the best managers in the world so you would expect a high quality game but could have easily been an uglier game or less competitive if some of the decisions made by the ref had been different. I do agree that to win the league these days you have to spend money and have a great coach. The league is so rich now, clubs can afford to buy the best talent both in terms of players and managers. Clubs are also a lot more cosmopolitan these days. It’s no longer a taboo not to have an English manager or start at least a few English players just because it’s the English premier league. So yeah, you need to be able to compete on both fronts. Ironically, though we were pioneers in this , we are now years behind and given our owner, I don’t see us competing for the title in the foreseeable future. I think top 4 is a realistic target for the short term though but we would still need to do a heck of a job in the transfer market and coaching because the margin of error we can afford is pretty much close to zero.
Agree with Shard & NYC, but this was the best game of the year so far. What are some of your best all-time Premier League matches?
Here are a couple of mine, in no particular order:
Arsenal 3-3 Leicester, August 27th, 1997.
That we won the league that year was not because of this game but ooh…THAT Bergkamp goal! AND that the Foxes came back after that to steal a point with the equalizer. Classic match.
Arsenal 3-2 Manchester United, September 11, 1997.
A couple of weeks later the same season and another Highbury classic. We went ahead 2-0 with goals by some kid named Anelka and a brilliant sweep from an imperious Vieira. The Mancs fought back with a Sheringham brace before we finally put it away.
Depressing
And how much do we love Santi Cazorla? Two brilliant goals against none other than Real Madrid for Villreal and the win!!!
We will play against him the Europa League? As long as we win, I would love to see him score a goal.
Go to Arseblog who has kindly put up both goals for all Gooners to enjoy.
I hope we use Santi connection to bring in Pablo Fornals in future. Exciting talent.
it was a draw but great goals none the less. why did arsenal release that guy?
Great write up. It was definitely a sporting “classic”, whatever the less savoury financial underpinnings. And getting them to go head to head in that way is a tribute to both the managers and to the players themselves.
I want Liverpool to win the title but I’m not sure their lack of depth won’t count against them when they inevitably hit their sticky patch. They’re the (financial) underdogs here and it’d be good for them to reclaim a bit of their great club legacy. Especially as they now won’t be going the season unbeaten!
A good game from the best two teams in the division at present. But not one that will go down in the annuals of EPL greats for Me. And I’d be shocked if both teams arent knocked out of the Champions League this season by teams from another league let alone planet.
Also can’t agree with the notion Arsenal have literally put zero into the club during this 10 season period. Arsenal had already invested heavily in the club via the Emirates stadium. Besides it’s only recently that Kroenke became the outright owner, although I doubt the club will suddenly change from its self sustaining model.
I happen to agree with the clubs financial method for what it’s worth. Simply splashing the cash is not the answer. Arsenal can’t compete with the state funded Man City in the transfer market. And if you believe it’s a simple equation, spend the money in order to compete, then what should we take from the plight of Sunderland and Stoke ?
Both clubs owners spending vast amounts of money, 6th and 7th placed according to the list produced by Swiss Ramble, and yet both won absolutely zilch during this period whilst failing to avoid the embaresment of relegation.
The quality on display was a stark reminder that not changing coaches after Leicester won the title was a huge strategic error that’s gonna keep costing us season after season as we play catch-up.
That said, City’s games are devoid of drama for me personally. Yes the technical levels were high and both teams played the game positively but it’s not a shock or surprise or a “big result” for City to beat Liverpool at home. They’re still such a plastic club, and Guardiola’s such a plastic Thunderbird toy of a coach with his hypocritical touchline tantrums. You’ve outspent every team in the league, and rotational fouling is your best defender, so stop acting like such a phony little brat.
The difference between us and those two teams is they can sustain high-level offensive and defensive actions, pressing and countering for 70-80 of the 90 mins. Arsenal can execute for maybe 30-45 mins out of 90. Don’t think we’re that far away.
I want City to win the league because I can’t stand the shocking amount of racist language that is used when people discuss the club. Oil money, dirty sheikh, oilfields, money laundering, etc etc. Maybe do an article on that, Tim. Examine the language people use when talking about City and how it’s intent is to put down, to belittle, on national and race grounds. You can argue that City has an unfair financial advantage because they are essentially owned by a country. But the source of that national wealth, the race of the owners, what they call themselves in their language, all irrelevant.
And I love you Tim but you’re guilty of it too. Look at your comment about Derrick’s of oil and barrels of money – look at the language. When people call them sheikhs – what other possible intent is there but to belittle? These people are not us. These people are below us.
That chant about Adebayor washing elephants or whatever is clearly racist. Why? Not becsus there’s anything inherently wrong with washing elephants. It’s about punishing otherness. Lazy references to oil sheikhs and oil money is the same – relying on tired stereotypes to belittle and emphasize otherness.
And so I’m happy whenever City win, because it drives the haters crazy.
What an absurd comment. Tim never belittles them for the color of their skin. Human rights violations and financial doping are wrong no matter who is doing it. Right? Btw, you must have missed his criticism of Abramovich? Or does it only matter to you when M*slims are mentioned, but not J*ws? Pathetic. You can fuss all you want about “otherness,” but your impulse to mask evils with victimhood tells us everything. Yeah, those poor oil billionaires who build their empires on the backs of the poor and oppressed, who think women are second-class citizens, g*y people unlawful, religious freedom deplorable, and hereditary monarchy an assurance of right.
Spare me.
Bunburyist: absurd?
I will concede one point: that read as overly critical of Tim. It’s not meant to be critical of Tim at all – more to point out the unconscious bias that we’re all guilty of. You jumping to the defense of Tim is admirable. Unfortunately, the rest of your post is a problematic mess.
Let’s dissect.
“Tim never belittles them for the color of their skin.”
No, of course not. But racism is more than just skin color – I think that’s obvious, right? Tim calls out people singing racist songs about our Polish keepers. But that’s not a skin color issue. So this is irrelevant. But again, I never meant it as an overt criticism of Tim.
“Human rights violations and financial doping are wrong no matter who is doing it.”
If course. What’s the relevance here? You and I both know the language used to describe aspects of City – and examples are plentiful – are lazy tropes, stereotypes based on nationality and cultural background. They’re not heroic criticisms of human rights abuse and financial doping, unless they are made to specifically address that point.
“Btw, you must have missed his criticism of Abramovich?”
I did not. The language used, for years, troubles me. I don’t know enough about Russia to know if constantly using the word ‘oligarchs’ is offensive enough. It might be, because it’s a lazy trope. On the other hand, there’s some recent history there. But often the language veers into soft racism at the very least.
“Or does it only matter to you when M*slims are mentioned, but not J*ws? Pathetic.”
Wow buddy. Lot’s to unpack here.
1. What makes you assume I’m a M*slim? (not sure why we’re starring it, but I’m playing safe with the censor). Or do you think all Middle Easterners are Muslim? What gives you the confidence to assume that people born into a particular religion all cling to it, rather than moving freely to other religions or none at all? We’re talking about a nationality/race here, not a religion, but perhaps you don’t care to differentiate.
2. Have I ever made a comment suggesting I don’t care about racism and antisemitism towards J*ws? I don’t imagine you’ve been tracking all my comments made here over the years, so let me ask another question: you’ve already assumed me to a M*slim, does your assumption stretch to another harmful stereotype, that I must therefore hate J*ws/care any less about Jews?
What a harmful statement. I mean jeez, take a look in the mirror, man.
“You can fuss all you want about “otherness,” but your impulse to mask evils with victimhood tells us everything.”
I suppose I can ‘fuss’ about otherness, but that sort of dismissive language is very 2016. We heard a lot of that during the election, and sadly that’s not gone away. Also, nobod is masking ‘evils with victimhood’. One can acknowledge the deeply problematic and downright – I don’t like to use religiously-loaded terms like evil despite my assumed M*slimness – but let’s say heinous and immoral nature of certain regimes, including Man City’s owners. The issue isn’t about a handful of individuals, it’s about the use of ugly, dehumanizing imagery to tar a whole class of people with the same brush. That’s what racism is. I despair that I even have to explain this.
“Yeah, those poor oil billionaires who build their empires on the backs of the poor and oppressed, who think women are second-class citizens, g*y people unlawful, religious freedom deplorable, and hereditary monarchy an assurance of right.”
All of those things are true, and entirely beside the point of this. If an article wanted to focus on that, I would applaud it and critique it appropriately. But that’s not the point. A match report doesn’t delve into any of that, it’s about two teams on a football pitch. Using phrases like ‘oil billionaires’ (what does that even mean? Does anyone ever refer to Bezos as a trade billionaire? Well at least you didn’t say oil sheikhs, because certainly nobody’s referred to Bezos as a trade yankee) adds nothing to the conversation, but to remind the reader that they are Other.
Finally: this reads very 2016, like I said. When a black person tells a white perosn why a certain phrase is racist or can be construed that way, the correct response is not for the white person to cry foul about political correctness and blah blah. It’s to listen. I don’t know what your background is – don’t care – but please try to listen. Because you’ve made yourself look a fool.
When you ask “what’s the relevance here” you seem to be oblivious about why you brought this up in the first place. Value judgments are at the heart of your roaring support of City, whose success you cheer because of a perceived anti-M*slim bias, a perception you justify at the expense of valid criticism of the owners (or else, why cheer?). You’re not smart. That’s fine. But please don’t call people fools when you can’t understand the difference between r*cist language and criticism that transcends r*ce. “Very 2016” times two is the saddest part of your rebuttal.
You are smart, btw, Zed. I’m just being a d*ck.
I’d go so far as to say that much of the criticism (sometimes wilfully) excludes the historical, cultural and political aspects of the country, can be hypocritical, and occasionally comes from a place of assumed superiority. But, it is certainly well intentioned and accurate. I don’t think the ruling class are admirable people, and I don’t agree with most of their policies and how they chose to exercise their power. I don’t see why calling them oil sheikhs is racist in any manner. Would calling them oil barons be? Isn’t a sheikh like the same thing? It doesn’t emphasise otherness in any sense except that these guys are filthy rich rulers of a country and as far removed from normal folk as can be.
Tim reserves most of his criticism for his own country. I don’t see any hypocrisy in calling out City and its owner.
Exactly
I didn’t mean Tim.
I don’t think any of that language is aimed at the people of the Gulf sheikdoms, rather the owners of the club. And yeah, some of it is accurate, even if used to put down. Frankly, I don’t like Man City, and I really don’t like Citeh’s owners. Not because of otherness, but because they also happen to be rulers of a country whose values and treatment of people I find deplorable. And they own a club that competes with the club I support, and I believe their model of ownership is unfair. Further, I think club owners are fair game for insults that don’t cross over into racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. If someone came out and said something about Muslims or Arabs in an attempt to disparage Citeh’s owners, then I would take issue with that. I don’t believe you make a great case here for the language used to characterize Sheikh Mansour to be deemed offensive to anyone but yourself.
A few folks here are confusing a game of exceptional technical and tactical quality with an exciting game. There are big overlaps, but they’re not the same thing. Matter of fact, a lot exciting 4-4s and 3-3s and 4-3s are terrible matches from a technical standpoint. Remember our 7-5 win over Reading in a cup game? It very very exciting AND a poor game of football. The City/ Liverpool game was exciting and dramatic. Was the most exciting ever? No. No one claimed as much.
Neutrals dont care technical standpoint’s.
This one does.
That’s a good point. Those things are hard to define. I wasn’t blown away by the technical and tactical aspects of the game but I am willing to admit I might not have the eye necessary to spot them.
I guess once again it’s a matter of perception. Yeah there were good players on the field and a lot of them played well. Maybe I just expected them to and hence it didn’t feel exceptional?
It’s not a biggie. Bit of an esoteric debate anyway.
Fun fact… Ramsey is going to Juve on a free; Licht came here from Juve on a free. The two things are not correlated, but I find their juxtaposition hugely amusing. Arsenal better pull something special out of the hat these next 2 windows/
Agree with Tim and Claude.
These two are on another level and if entertainment is your main motivation for watching football
( nothing wrong with that) than you might’ve missed how good a game this was.
I rarely disagree with Tim on anything but the notion that Ramsey could ever under any circumstances do what Fernandinho does for City is one of the most outlandish statements ever made by him :).
I don’t care who wins the league but if you’re taking pleasure in tha fact Liverpool haven’t in some 30 years or so, you better get ready for Arsenal to duplicate this feat under Kroenke’s leadership.
Yes, Tim, a good game, but not a great game. A game in the level of Chelsea vs Liverpool or the reverse fixture Liverpool vs Man City. I think your feeling about this game is a matter of perception. It depends on what is at stake. The game was a turning point of the season. I’m always disappointed when I watch these kind of match involving Man City and/or Liverpool. Look the players on the pitch. You have an all star team in either way and you don’t see a memorable goal or a great mouvement by any team. I’m waiting for a memorable game in this Man City/Liverpool era. I disagree with you when you say Arsenal is far behind. Our problem is who we have on the bench. When you look Man City, they can play with two differents team in the league and the two teams can be in the top 4 by the end of the season. Liverpool are doing the same in lesser scale. The reason big spenders have better chance to win the league is everyone see you differently. They see you automatically like title contenders. Liverpool have the most expensive goalkeeper and the most expensive defender of the Europe. And look, don’t underestimate the invincibles. They are the greatest team of the premier League era, they played the most beautiful football you will ever see and they achieved something exceptional. Man United and Sir Alex failed to match it, checkbook managers failed – Mourinho twice, Guardiola, Jürgen.
what up, folks? it’s been a while and i’ve tried to keep up but…
first, arsenal had 5 games (4 very winnable games) over the christmas break and only won two of them. that’s simply not good enough for a team with champions league aspirations. they need to be routinely beating teams in the bottom 6. emery’s management has left me unimpressed. while you can blame injuries, arsenal just haven’t been very good.
for arsenal to play well, they need good center forward play. lacazette is arsenal’s best center forward by a mile; he’s got to play, full stop. the decision to take him out while the game is still far from settled is absurd. while it’s worked sometimes, don’t call that good management skill, call it luck. it’s failed quite often.
ozil is a generational talent as a playmaker. to quote jose mourinho, there’s not even a “bad copy” of ozil. to have that resource available and not utilize him is equally absurd.
granit xhaka is the worst center mid that arsenal have. why was he just given a contract extension? does the quality of his play scream “champion” when you watch him? yet, he plays every game. again, absurd.
most of the goals arsenal have conceded this season have happened on the counter attack. is it really that difficult fix that issue?
let’s talk semantics. emery’s duty is to manage arsenal’s playing staff. in high school, i memorized a definition for the word management that i still know: the most efficient and economical use of available resources to reach an objective or goal. it’s not exclusively to implement a rigid system, which seems without direction at the moment, but to utilize available resources to reach the top 4. considering the talent on the arsenal roster, i’m giving emery a low C.
One word. Harsh
as for the liverpool/city match. i absolutely love to see high-quality performance on display so i loved the game but that’s me. i loved watching floyd mayweather and it wasn’t because he was charming but brilliant and unbeatable in the ring. keep in mind, those two sets of players gave it all they had and were pretty smoked at full-time. one guy, switching off and that could have decided the game.
btw, you must have forgotten just how good the invincibles were. that group of men were bloody brilliant. fast, powerful, and technically brilliant playing sumptuous one-touch soccer, showcasing brilliance every time they touched the ball. i’d love to see virgil/lovren vs. bergkamp/henry or watch the brilliant silvas get smacked around by patrick vieira. ashley cole would have hemmed raheem sterling up nice and tight.
Politics, inevitably, is everywhere in every society — I prefer to chat football on an Arsenal blog to escape from it, and from all those who hold strong views and delight in dancing on the head of a pin.
So, the Man Citeh v Pool game was intriguing, and because of the importance of the result for both teams, it was conducted with a caution and respect for the other team that ruled out the hoped for magical moments because of the inherent risk that such magic can fall flat on its face and backfire spectacularly.
Why was I watching? Well to see just how these teams matched up, but, candidly, I was concerned that the ‘wrong’ result, aka a Pool win, may have led to a record equalling undefeated season for the Scallywags.
Football, like most sports at the highest or lowest level between two closely matched opponents, can often be decided by minutiae that has nothing to do with tactical, or technical brilliance.
The almost comical, defensive clearance by Citeh, in which Stones managed to stop a Pool goal by virtue of a toe-poke nutmeg of Pool’s Lovren, owed nothing to tactics, technical skill or individual brilliance, and everything to luck.
I rooted for Citeh during the game, and unlike those who watched the game after the result was known, it left me twisting and turning, especially in extra time, with excitement and nerves simply because as a fan of a third club (Arsenal) I cared that our Invincibles record would stand for yet another season, at least. Yaaay ✌️✌️
Of course if the boots were on the other feet, to mangle an expression, I would have cheered on Pool just as enthusiastically as I had rooted for Citeh, back in the real world.
Now, where were we with all that political jaw, jaw??