Top four baby

78 comments

1. Reminds me of the phrase “optimists are constantly disappointed, a pessimist is sometimes delighted”. Sensible for mental health!

   1. I thought the whole thing with optimism was to see the bright side of things. It’s not necessarily that you expect great things all the time but that when something happens, you’re able to see the positives instead of brooding on the negatives.

      Example: Arsenal sign Denis Suarez.

      Optimist: He fills a need in the squad because we’ll be less reliant on Guendouzi and El-Neny, and if he works out we can buy him, if not, no harm done.

      Pessimist: Arsenal just brought in another mediocre midfielder to complement an entire stable of mediocre midfielders. Is this really the best we can do?

      1. We get it. You don’t like Guendouzi.

         1. That’s not even remotely true. I raved about him after the Chelsea and especially the Cardiff matches. But, he’s 19 and still learning the game, and in big games that can be the difference between winning and not winning. Suarez gives the manager a player with a similar skill set and therefore the option not to rely on a kid still learning the ropes in big games. I always think options are a good thing. Guendouzi is absolutely a top talent but a club like Arsenal shouldn’t be relying on a player so callow for such big minutes unless he’s Cesc Fabregas or something, and he’s clearly not Cesc Fabregas.

            1. Callow and lightweight.

            2. And Xhaka’s heavy-limbed and slow off his first step, but I still like him too. Remember that whole thing you said about nothing being absolute? Do I like him? Is he callow and lightweight? The answer is yes and yes.

2. haha, the one I’ve always heard is ‘the key to a happy life is low expectations’

3. I don’t know about getting angry with you Tim, but I thought it was kinda weird that you, the stats guru, would predict Arsenal finishing on around 47 points last year. Which is what a tenth place club usually gets if recent history is anything to go by.
   Sure, it’s not impossible for a perennial top five or six club to finish on 50 points but the last time that happened, it took Mourinho throwing a concussion grenade into the Chelsea locker and closing the door behind him.

   My prediction before this season’s start was fifth( a glass full type guy that I am) on 72-74 points and I’m sticking with it.

   Arsenal have been a mess of a club starting with a $hitty owner on down with the rest of the front office but some of the fan base reactions to even the most logical and seemingly innocuous moves- like the Suarez loan for example, are over the top and verging on hysterical.

   Taking on loan a Barca player Emery is familiar with , in a notoriously tricky January TW at a cost of about 0.5 % of Arsenal’s wage bill..
   Where’s the controversy in that move I ask?

   1. Nothing wrong with the Suarez move. I mean, all moves are a gamble to some extent, but we’re not tied to anything long-term, and we’ve not paid a huge fee. It’s pretty sensible given what the squad needs right now:

      https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11670/11623780/how-denis-suarez-can-help-remedy-arsenals-creativity-problem

      I guess the hysterics come from the perception that — even if you accept that Suarez is a decent move — the club isn’t doing more to strengthen a depleted and underperforming squad, particularly in defense (including fullback / wingback). The loss of Bellerin until well into next season is especially worrying. One can only hope they have big plans for the summer transfer window.

      It’s why I’m predicting 6th this season. As poor as Chelsea are in form right now, I don’t see it lasting, and they have the quality to turn things around. United are on fire, and should overtake us shortly.

      Really, really not looking forward to this Sunday. Wake me up a week from now.

      1. “It’s why I’m predicting 6th this season. As poor as Chelsea are in form right now, I don’t see it lasting, and they have the quality to turn things around. United are on fire, and should overtake us shortly.”

         You may be right but I have a different theory. First, on Chelsea, they seem like a team playing a system other teams have comprehensively deciphered and figured out how to nullify. They can still thrive occasionally because they have so much talent, but so far Sarri hasn’t had an answer to teams man-marking Jorginho and denying space behind them, letting Kante have the ball, etc. I don’t think Higuain fixes that either. I don’t think they’re nearly as bad as that 4-0 against Bournemouth but nor do I think they will improve much from now until the end of the season because they have made themselves predictable. If Sarri remains wedded to this current iteration of his 4-3-3, they could even slide further. Emery’s tactical flexibility on the other hand is a more adaptable, and perhaps more sustainable model and Arsenal has so far bridged the gap that should probably be between the squads given the presence of Eden Hazard and the massive difference in transfer fees paid by either club in recent years.

         United are more worrisome from my perspective; having come from the desperate depths of Mourinho’s closet, they are enjoying being themselves again and thriving on that freedom. The Burnley game shows they are no juggernaut either though, and when they played us I thought it was a well contested game between two good sides decided by small margins. The exuberance of lifting Mourinho’s shackles doesn’t suddenly transform them into contenders and I do not think they can sustain this form until the end of the season. I do think they will be in the top 4 conversation until the end though, which, for a club of that magnitude, is the bare minimum really, but they have so many new players and now with a new manager perhaps they will find it difficult to solidify a style of play or a best starting XI before the end of the season. In that regard, we have a bit of a head start under them, though they do have the greater talent.

      2. Suarez has failed now at every club except one: Villareal. Even his time under Emery was a mixed bag and he was dropped toward the end of that season and benched for the semi-final and final of the EL. He’s played the equivalent of 35 full matches since Fall 2016, he’s considered a “confidence” player, he’s coming from La Liga to the Premier League and to a team which regularly gets the midfielder’s legs kicked off, so I can completely understand people being underwhelmed.

         My expectations are that he will be very poor. That he will struggle to adapt. That fans will be angry that we got him. So, anything above that and I will be happy, especially since he can be sent back to Barcelona for zero money if he fails.

         Also, please note: expectations and predictions aren’t the same thing.

         1. Keep those expectations low, Tim!

         2. I’m not disagreeing with any of that.
            My point was that if you accept Arsenal’s “ we are piss poor and can’t make any transfers righ now” at face value and not just a negotiating tactic , then anybody on loan from Barca is probably worth a shot no matter their track record.
            Especially when it’s only gonna cost you the equivalent of Elneny orJenko’s half a season’s wages.
            What are the chances Suarez isn’t at least as good as these two?

         3. As long as he is better than Elneny… Now that’s a low expectation…

            1. Sure, but aren’t those key to happiness? 🙂

         4. What does it mean if expectations are not predictions…your estimates are inconsistent? :0

            1. Thank you for saying what I was thinking. If someone says “I expect x will be…” I don’t know how that’s different from a prediction. “I expect it will rain tomorrow” is a prediction that it will rain tomorrow.

            2. Just think of it like head vs heart I suppose. At least that’s how I see it. Your rational brain tells you something (prediction) , and you tell your heart to believe it won’t even be as good (expectation)

            3. So it’s irrational to expect that Suarez will be a failure? Cool. In that case, I think it’s also fine to say that it’s irrational to predict that he will be a failure.

            4. It is irrational to pretend to know that something is bad. You got me there. Suarez has been a failure at every club except Villareal.

            5. I don’t think it’s irrational. It’s just non-rational.

               Predictions are rational.

         5. I hope with playing time/confidence Suarez can make a turn around (like Babayako who was poor at Chelsea and started poorly on his loan at AC Milan but is now a force to be reckoned with).

   2. ” but I thought it was kinda weird that you, the stats guru, would predict Arsenal finishing on around 47 points last year. Which is what a tenth place club usually gets if recent history is anything to go by.”

      I thought I explained this to you then but I’ll do it again: predictions and expectations are not the same. I said that I was adjusting my expectations to “anything above 10th”.

      Also sorry if I confused the two words in my post above. That wasn’t intentional.

      1. Just like climate (as in global warming reflecting a trend) and weather (as in day to day changes) are not the same.

4. There’s an expression that a leftist is angry when government doesn’t work, a conservative is surprised when it does. Where do you place your expectations? This current ownership/management team has not actually demonstrated any success from a league standing or trophy perspective. So I am, personally, happily surprised at our current standing. And once they win something my expectations will climb a notch. It takes a while for that expectation set-point to adjust, hence why you’re seeing so much angst at United and Chelsea over recent circumstances. They’ll learn.

   1. There are no conservatives…

      or contented Gooners.

5. We have a shot at fourth. Yeah, Spurs aren’t cooperating in the bigger scheme of things, but we have a shot. It’s hard, yeah. And United look bettwe equipped that both us and Chelsea. But CL is what we hired Emery to deliver, and he’ll have failed an important objective if he doesn’t. Im not saying it’s fair, doable or straightforward. But them’s the breaks.

   Can we bring in a defender who is (1) high class and (2) hit the ground running mid-season. In your dreams. What’s going to happen when everyone is fit? An auction? We have to be smart now, and ruthless in the summer. I have a level of belief in young Mavropanos, based on what I’ve seen when he’s played.

   Agree on Bellerin, but Lichtsteiner is a sunk investment, and between him, AMN and Jenkinson, we’re going to have to make it work. I agree he needs long term, quality alternative for rotation and competition with Bellerin, but no point doing a patch now. Licht was the patch. You cant have 2 in one season.

   Looking ahead to summer…. we also need to upgrade on Grannt Xhaka, who’s not good enough for Arsenal, given the important role that he has to play for us. Yes, we extended his contract, but that can simply mean that we locked in some value.

   1. Arsenal is probably stuck with Xhaka; he’s on a large salary and none of the teams that could/would pay that salary need/want him. It is strange that for as much as some fans really like him he’s never been linked with a move away from the club. There’s a lot of talk about Ozil being the “luxury” player, but for my money the real luxury player at Arsenal is Xhaka – he plays as much or less defense than Ozil, creates a lot less, and makes far more errors.

      But continuing with the theme here: I’ve come to expect a lot less from Xhaka – I expect him to make a lot of mistakes, to lose his cool, to fail to really drive the team forward, to miss defensive assignments, and to get flustered into making bad passes easily. So, anything above that and I’m ok with Xhaka. Actually, he’s the perfect midfielder for a 6th place-bound team.

      1. In his defense, he doesn’t hide during games and has played at LB and CB when called upon. Saved our bacon one game with a stellar free kick. There are a few passengers on this roster, I wouldn’t lump Xhaka in there with them. He was quite good against Liverpool and Spurs at home and if it were not for Emery constantly tinkering (and trying to shoehorn Guendouzi into the line-up) he was forming a nice top-4ish partnership at the double pivot with Torreira.

         If we had a pair of world class CB’s behind him I bet Xhaka would look Pirlo-esque.

         1. Xhaka’s not part of the problem from this view.

            1. Respectfully dissent.

               Tim (last line, para 1 in this mini-thread, nailed it). I’d add that he does not read gathering danger, and players in his position really need to be able to do that. He’s a biggish bloke, and therefore the coach sees him as defensive option as emergency CB (which he’s bad at), and an aerial defensive option at set pieces. He can hit a dead ball, but his success rate on corners or direct FKs is way low. Im also not a fan of his sly, tuggy, niggly, fouly game. Someone used to call Greg Kite of the great Celtics team of the 80s “Five Fouls in a Uniform”. Granit is his spirit animal.

               We can do better. Tim’s also right in saying that he’s a decent option for a 6th place team, but if we want to get where we need to as a club, we are going to have to upgrade.

               He’s also too conservative in his passing for my tastes. It doesnt always come off for Guendouzi, but he looks nearly all the time to progress the ball, either by ferrying it or passing it.

               All that said, he sometimes plays well, most notably in our home game against Liverpool.

            2. To Jack’s point, which PL team has a similar midfielder who is clearly better? Jorginho is probably his closest analogue, a pass master but also no defensive maven. Matic may resemble him in frame, but not in game. Fernandinho is probably the gold standard of a deep lying passer with defensive upside, but far from perfect himself and not going to last at this level much longer at his age. Dier, as Tim so brightly once put it, is an aptonym.

               To me, perceptions of Granit depend on what you expect him to be. If you expect a defensive stalwart, you will be disappointed more often than not. He’s what I would call a deep lying playmaker whose primary value comes in the offensive phase through ball progression. That value is difficult to quantify, but it’s essential to every team. Arsenal do not really have anyone who can advance the ball on the dribble, so we rely on Xhaka, Torreira and Guendouzi to find the passes forward. I’d say given our goals total so far this season, they’ve done an admirable job of that. We all remember the times he got it wrong doing just that, but, like playing out from the back, you keep doing it even if you mess up once or twice because in the long term it leads to better results than just aimlessly hacking it forward.

               I think he’s also committing fewer errors than in previous seasons based on my very limited eye test. Overall, I find the conundrum around him to be similar to Kolasinac. They both have offensive gifts which you can’t teach, and that’s really valuable despite the fact that they are both nominally holding down “defensive” positions. I back Emery to coach them into passable defenders while retaining their key offensive contributions.

            3. Agree with you on Xhaka.

               Someone also mentioned that he was seemingly building a solid partnership with Torreira. I think the two have potential as a deep lying duo as long as we add a ball carrier. Whether that’s Suarez or not, I don’t know. Emery seemed to insist on calling him a winger so it’s unlikely.

            4. We need to replace Xhaka with Calum Chambers for a fraction of the salary hit next season.

            5. CTPA, this isn’t the NBA. Xhaka is not on a massive salary. Plus, I suspect you’d eat those words 2-3 games into the season after you saw Chambers’ creativity or lack thereof from the same position. Putting a player like Chambers as a defensive midfielder is a desperate move a relegation threatened club might make as a last gasp attempt to stop leaking goals and scrap out a few more 0-0 draws.

         2. Is he better or worse than Jorginho? I see them about the same quality.

            Is he better or worse than Dier, Winks or Wanyama?

            I can’t even tell you who plays in that spot for United. Herrera?

            I’ll grant you Fernandinho is a better pivot. And I’d take Fabinho or Keita over Xhaka.

            But, it’s like the story of the two guys in the woods who encounter a bear. The one guy stops right away to put his running shoes on. The other guy says “What are you doing? Don’t you know you can’t outrun a bear?” To which the first guy replies, “I know that. But I only have to outrun you.”

      2. The one thing Xhaka gives you in comparison with Ozil is that he never gets injured , doesn’t throw hissy fits, and is willing to play different positions regardless how ill equipped he might be to filling these roles.
         Or is that three things then 🙂

6. The teleological method favoured by ancient rationalism to which you allude in your conclusion was superseded by the development of conscience and free will. So, Arsenal can do pretty much whatever they want. Including settling for being a top 4/6/10 team, or deciding to try and compete realistically for the league.

   1. I’ve read the definition of “teleologic” about a hundred times in my life and I’m still no closer to grasping it. Can someone explain as you would to a child? I think that’s what I need at this point.

      1. That the end or purpose of something is strictly determined by its nature. So, a football club must act in a certain way because it is in its nature as a business to do so. Or, in Aristotelian philosophy, that a slave is a living tool because it is in his nature to be this. Thus agents act in accordance with their nature and there is no scope for free will.

         1. Ehh.. that’s not what I’ve learned.

            I thought Aristotle’s teleology was the first to assign agency to moral choices. Telos means “target” and a teleology is equivalent to the US Army slogan “be all that you can be”. It’s a philosophy which encourages people to make virtuous choices so that they can reach their telos (target) or best self. Aristotle argued that our choices to act or not act virtuously or with vice determine our outcomes (other than the occasional chance bad or good thing happening). You achieve happiness when you are reaching your target through virtuous choices.

            What’s fascinating is that teleology is very close to Eastern notions of Karma and Aristotle would have agreed strongly with Buddha’s noble truths about right thinking and right actions (typically) producing right outcomes.

            1. Thanks Tim, I still don’t understand teleology but that’s a beautiful explanation of Aristotle and interesting correlation with Buddhism.

            2. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pages are a really useful tool. Here’s one excerpt that I think is germane (I’m not sure (?) it supports your understanding, Tim…where’s PFO when you need him??? Perhaps Eduardo is our new resident philosopher):

               “Aristotle denies overtly that the causes operative in nature are intention-dependent. He thinks, that is, that organisms have final causes, but that they did not come to have them by dint of the designing activities of some intentional agent or other. He thus denies that a necessary condition of x’s having a final cause is x’s being designed.”

               https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#AriTel

               There are problems with Aristotle’s views, as the writer of this summary makes clear.

            3. Let’s see what the old boy had to say for himself:

               “If then whereas we wish for our end, the means to our end are matters of deliberation and choice, it follows that actions dealing with these means are done by choice, and are voluntary. But the activities in which the virtues are exercised deal with means. Therefore vίrtue also depends on ourselves. And so also does vice. For where we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting, and where we are able to say No we are also able to say Yes; if therefore we are responsible for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also responsible for not doing it when not tο dο it is wrong, and if we are responsible fοr rightly not doing a thing, we are also responsible fοr wrongly doing it. But if it is in our power tο dο and tο refrain from doing right and wrong, and if, as we saw, being good οr bad is doing right οr wrong, it consequently depends οn us whether we are virtuous οr vicious.
               But if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, if we are unable to trace conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us (ἐν ἡμῖν), themselves depend upon us (ἐφ’ ἡμῖν), and are voluntary (ἐκούσια – willed).”

               (Nichomachean Ethics, III.v.6, 1113b19-22)

               Source: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aristotle/

            4. The moral universality you describe was – as far as Europe is concerned – a Christian innovation and entirely alien to ancient rationalism with its belief in natural inequality.

            5. “Michael Frede typifies the prevailing view of recent scholarship, namely that Aristotle did not have a notion of free-will.” Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_antiquity#Aristotle

            6. Oh brother.. I’m not going to get into the weeds of the origins of free will because they aren’t material to the argument at hand.

               Let’s just agree that your definition of teleology was limited just to the physical world. Teleology is not simply that a slave is a slave, that Arsenal is just Arsenal, that a kidney is just a kidney. That is one aspect. The other aspect, the teleology of ethics absolutely argue that there is choice (whether it is the full-blown libertarian free will of modernity or if it’s some protean free-will is basically just something people argue over because they don’t get enough sex) and Aristotle argued in favor of making virtuous choices over choices of vice and that these would lead to a better version of the self, a teleology.

            7. Either Aristotle is inconsistent, we’re confusing ‘nature’ with ‘ethics’, or we aren’t using ‘teleology’ in its proper sense specific to Aristotle’s philosophy. My guess — and it’s only a guess, because I’m not trained as a philosopher — is that it’s not the same thing to say “we make choices to be good in the interest of some goal/end of goodness” and “the ends of nature are teleological.”

            8. Aristotle is confusing and I would wager that anyone who says that they know the truth about what he really thought is the biggest fool in the world. In this specific argument teleology encompasses two very different things: the nature of an object (a leaf is for photosynthesizing) and also the ends achievable by man (which is a composite of many objects, each with their own telos but which is controlled by the actions of the man).

               That’s my understanding, which is not very learned and subject to change.

            9. +1

            10. Perhaps. I’d like an explanation why philosophy Ph.D.’s who contribute to the Stanford Encyclopedia don’t think of ethics when they summarize Aristotle’s views on teleology.

                I get that it’s disingenuous to claim true understanding of anything, but people who spend their careers studying philosophy / Aristotle are worth paying attention to. I would take their attempt to understand over a lay-person’s attempt any day of the week.

            11. I’ve seen you make some pretty bad argument but here you didn’t even bother reading the entire article you shared. Please scroll down.

                “12. Happiness and Political Association
                Aristotle’s basic teleological framework extends to his ethical and political theories, which he regards as complementing one another. He takes it as given that most people wish to lead good lives; the question then becomes what the best life for human beings consists in. Because he believes that the best life for a human being is not a matter of subjective preference, he also believes that people can (and, sadly, often do) choose to lead sub-optimal lives. In order to avoid such unhappy eventualities, Aristotle recommends reflection on the criteria any successful candidate for the best life must satisfy. He proceeds to propose one kind of life as meeting those criteria uniquely and therefore promotes it as the superior form of human life. This is a life lived in accordance with reason.”

                Sorry but that’s a guy who believes in free will, who believes we should use our free will, and who believes we should use it to achieve a “best self”. THAT IS TELEOLOGY.

                You’re not being the best Bunburyist right now.

                BE BEST BUNBURYIST

            12. HE USES TELEION IN THE DAMN ARTICLE

                According to the criteria advanced, the final good for human beings must: (i) be pursued for its own sake (EN 1094a1); (ii) be such that we wish for other things for its sake (EN 1094a19); (iii) be such that we do not wish for it on account of other things (EN 1094a21); (iv) be complete (teleion), in the sense that it is always choiceworthy and always chosen for itself (EN 1097a26–33); and finally (v) be self-sufficient (autarkês), in the sense that its presence suffices to make a life lacking in nothing (EN 1097b6–16). Plainly some candidates for the best life fall down in the face of these criteria. According to Aristotle, neither the life of pleasure nor the life of honour satisfies them all.

            13. Yes, it does sound a lot like Karma.

            14. Bun

                it’s not the same thing to say “we make choices to be good in the interest of some goal/end of goodness” and “the ends of nature are teleological.”

                It’s not, but looking at it as the concept of ‘Karma’ they tend to coexist. Something like everything has a purpose/goal and its nature is to reach that purpose. But as higher beings there is also free will to choose to get closer to that purpose or away from it. I don’t know if that counts as ethics.

                Over the years the concept of rebirth as a cycle of reward and punishment for the exercise of your choices was added to this in Hindu thought, with the end goal being merging with the universe.

                Interestingly, this seems similar to me to the Christian concept of free will and choosing virtue for eternal (after) life. Virtue is defined differently, and the concepts of rebirth and merging with God don’t exist, but the idea seems similar.

            15. Karma only reinforces social inequality. Yeah, you’re in this sh*tty situation because you did something bad in a previous life that you have no recollection of. Too bad for you! But it also lets me — justifiably! — treat you like cr*p!

                I find it bizarre the valorization of Eastern religions in the West as a form of rejecting Christianity, as if it’s somehow liberating. Please.

            16. Dude, that’s Instagram karma. There is a certain element of past life reverberations but karma is much more oriented on current life actions. Yes, the society that birthed Karma also was very strictly class oriented. The society that birthed Judaism was a slave society. Irregardless of those two origin stories both are currently used for violent repression and class warfare.

            17. Hang on. Karma as I view it does no such thing as allow anyone else to treat you poorly, let alone you treat anyone else poorly. There is a component of choice in there.

                Yes, if you believe this is your lot in life and what you are supposed to go through, you will submit. (Which can be liberating in its own way, hence its appeal) But if you believe your lot in life is to better than this, then it gives you the belief and strength to work on that.

                The concept of Karma doesn’t tell you what your purpose in life is. It just says you have one. And isn’t that better than believing you have no purpose? That’s actually the inherent appeal of religion as a whole. That it says you are here for a reason. That it’s misused by people doesn’t change the fact that it seems to be a very human need.

                Btw, I’m not lionizing any religious school here. I think it’s interesting how the West and the East try to understand the same issues in different ways, with some very interesting similarities especially early on. All have some value. Eastern thought tends to be more amorphous though. Allows space for two seemingly conflicting ideas to coexist as part of a larger whole. Western thought, in my limited knowledge of it, tends to struggle with that.

            18. I learned to use “teleological” as a criticism of theories which put the cart before the horse, i.e. they describe a series of events as being determined by, and purposefully working towards, their outcome, rather than determined just by cause-and-effect. Or they describe the components of a natural system as being determined by the outcome of that system.

                So for example, imagining that bees exist in order to pollinate flowers, otherwise the ecosystem would fail. Yes, it would, but that’s not why bees exist.

            19. Which means that all religions are teleological in that they try to answer the “why?” question, usually with a “God (or the Gods) willed it so”, followed either by a narrative explanation for the deity’s motives (anger, jealousy etc). or a firm injunction not to question those motives (mysterious ways etc.).

                Science is not interested in why, only what and how.

            20. eduardo wasn’t exactly wrong but tim’s explanation is a bit more complete. btw, i expected bun to be the resident genius in all things philosophical.

                fyi, i don’t know how i passed philosophy, making an “a” in both semesters. i’m still convinced those guys were all on weed.

7. Looks like Koscielny is back in training. Bruised jaw and all. My prediction for this weekend’s game was a 6 – 1 loss. Now it’s a 5 – 1 loss. I think after this weekend’s games, Arsenal will be in 6th place. I guess the club can’t call Chambers back from his loan deal. He’d be a better option at right back than these other guys. They are going to kill us down that side this weekend.

   1. I wonder if Emery will go with a back three for this game (Mustafi-Kos-Monreal), just to alleviate the pressure on AMN. Oldsteiner is an unmitigated disaster every which way you look at it and should start leading training sessions instead of playing actual games.

      5-1 sounds about right, and I agree that we’ll be in 6th place after the weekend. However, we have a nice little run of fixtures afterwards that should cheer us up: Huddersfield before we master BATE twice, and then two home fixtures against Southampton and Bournemouth. Not being involved in domestic cup competitions means we get a full week of rest between BATE fixtures, so that’s nice as well.

      Overall, a nice run of games for Denis Suarez (who looks like Ramsey, right?) to get used to his teammates before he fails miserably, as Tim PREDICTS.

8. Sticking with the Stoics by Tim

   It’s so weird. I’ve recently had 3 different people in my life – virtual or real -praising stoicism and its relevance in modern life. What’s up? Are modern day events pushing people to look for new (but old) ways of dealing with them?

   I like Stoicism. It sounds a lot like Buddhism to me, even though I’m sure it’s different in many ways. Stoicism definitely has its place. Just, for me, not in sport. The whole point of sports is to be involved and suffer. You don’t have the talent and ability to suffer to become an athlete, but if you suffer in front of the TV for those few hours, you can experience those moments and feel like you did it. Live the stories that you otherwise would never get to be a part of. To reach the end of the hero’s journey by coming through those trials to finally triumph and to bask in glory. At worst you get to bask in glorious failure.

   I prefer to look on the positive side of things. At least with stuff like football. But I’ve been negative recently. And writing this comment I think has just reinforced that it’s not about the results for me. It’s not about the performances. Not even about values as such. It’s about the stories. At the moment Arsenal have no story to tell. There’s no overreaching arc to this. No connectivity. It’s all disjointed at every level of the club. At best the story is ‘Will our heroes make the Top 4?’ but without laying the groundwork for what makes the characters tick, what makes them heroes, what makes the prize so glorious. It’s more a textbook than a storybook right now and for the children we are, that’s just no fun.

   So for me, it’s stories not stoicism.

   1. Perhaps I can attempt to create an Arsenal story for the season up to this point:

      Our first game against the Champions was an omen of doom, from the moment the fixtures list was published. We had a new manager, just learning to speak English, and attempting to replace a living legend, whose ideas had been fading for a while. It was a little too much and we lost, and we visited Stamford Bridge and lost in better circumstances than our first game and we kept trying to get better, and suddenly we achieved a 22-match run of no losses in all competitions, including a thrashing of Tottenham along the way.

      But as Fate would have it, mysterious injuries due to our training regimen and sickphile players crept in unawares and we lost away to Southampton on the first game of their new coach, from the Bundesliga. And we conspired to become so confused that we lost to West Ham again because we were not sure of what tactics we should use or were using from the coach’s encyclopedia.

      We recaliberated against our blue neighbours and won. Then the aftermath of their experience at our home refused to leave them and they experienced a bigger loss to another side, while we scraped a win by the generosity of fate and the tenacity of a striker from Lyon.

      And so we find ourselves at the beginning of the month of February, within the top 4, and with a player from the coach’s past who can understand any of the 2 language’s the coach is likely to swear by. Off the field we have lied about our finances, fought for power, and we still have doubts about the owner’s intentions and the fans trepidation. We are into the business of sports entertainment and we need to justify our salaries.

      So we find ourselves facing the champions once again, this time at their home. Incidentally they have also stumbled along the line, our fans are hoping they don’t repeat what Liverpool did to us at the beginning of the January, we can only be positive and hopeful, our handicaps are obvious, but we have managed to rise after any defeat, so regardless of the outcome of Sunday, we will prepare to win the next game as that is what we are paid to do.

      We are optimistic Fate stopped the red side of Manchester from levelling with us. 14 games remain for everyone to relish, we will do our job without the distraction of the F. A cup, concentrating on how to qualify for the Champions League.

      Our only hope and gift to our fans would be to beat Tottenham and hope we leave them in the same state we left Chelsea, hopeless, aimless and lurching helplessly to the next defeat.

      Fate has helped us big time and in the big picture, we would do better than think it was all about how well we prepared. We were lucky and this season is still open to contest in the title race, maybe we can gain some consistency after visiting Manchester, with the forces of nature and mother luck on our side.

      1. Ok so I like the new coach just learning a new language etc. Sets the groundwork for him being the hero. The problem I have with that is everything he’d said about his vision for our future has been a bit…. not there. A bit like a false prophet and that doesn’t make for an inspiring story. UNLESS.. as you point out there are problems causing this. So injuries. Good. A demon to slay. But most of the problems you list are within the club. Which might make Unai a good guy but makes Arsenal the bad guys. And even there, Unai seems to have left behind the initial vision in favour of the new short term (or lack of) vision.

         At the moment for me, the more romantic story is Ramsey and Ozil representing the real Arsenal, facing the external forces of upheaval represented by Raul and Unai. I have been willing to refocus on these new guys as the heroes of our story going forth but what do I rally behind? What’s the overall narrative arc of our season or beyond. Like I said, all I can see is a do whatever it takes to get top 4 sense to the plot. (Stories like beating Spurs are fun side quests, without a main arc)

         The manager isn’t meeting (yet) the criteria he and the club had listed out, has no clear identity on the field (except for cutbacks maybe) and the club seemingly abandoned its identity over the Ramsey contract. I understand this can (and will?) change. I still support them in every match. It’s just not as involved and exciting as it should be.

         But stoicism is not my answer to this. Picking the story of Aaron and Ozil has been, and that is why I’ve been negative. Something I should try to correct by looking for stories to get behind this new Arsenal.

         (Long winded ‘get your head out of your Arsenal’ message to myself as a fan basically)

9. According to Nick Wright at Sky Sports Suarez’s stats aren’t half bad.

   Only behind Messi and Dembele in chances created for Barca, with 2,2 per 90 minutes in 2017-18 season.

   More chances created ( 1.7) than any other player at Villarreal , with 5 goals and 11 assists in 2015-16.

   3.2 successful dribbles per 90 minutes – 7 th in la liga last season.

   Hell yea, Im pumped,
   Looks like a good piece of business for equivalent of Elneni’s wages.

   1. But according to Tim, he’s been a FAILURE!

      1. How do I decide on what’s TRUE???

         1. That question is at the root of pretty much the root of all philosophy, isn’t it?

      2. If you want to hang your hat on a player who has had one full season of OK stats at a club that finished 10th and followed that up with the equivalent of 35 full matches over the next three years in all competitions, go for it, hat rack.

   2. Gaah. I just remembered we re-upped Elneny at the start of the season too. Was Gazidis not listening to Emery at all, or did Emery not have any idea of who he wanted to play with?

      Can’t agree with the idea of protecting value either when we’re letting Ramsey run his contract down, and when Elneny reportedly rejected a move way last season.

      1. That and the Lichtsteiner deal show the perils of getting your business done early when you don’t know who your new coach is going to be yet.

10. From the content to the discussions, best blog out there.

    1. +1, love the community here

11. as an 18 year old, brand new, bright-eyed paratrooper, newly assigned to fort bragg, nc. i walked into the barracks of the place where i would spend the next four years of my life. on the wall was a quote that read, “you don’t rise to the level of your expectations, you fall to the level of your training”.

    this seemingly corny and innocuous quote has stuck with me throughout my adult life. as a paratrooper, when bullets are flying and people start dying, you don’t have time to think. i’m sure you guys have all heard a guy who’s been in a firefight say that their training kicks in. this is a fact! you have to make decisions, intuitively and immediately. the only way to develop that intuition is in training. same goes for situations in the boxing ring. you don’t have time to think. great fighters win their fights in the gym.

    so…….what is arsenal doing in training?

    1. They are always laughing, joking and showing a lot of camaraderie in training.

12. With Suarez, I did laugh when I read him described as poor in dealing with physicality and defensively. Because it makes no sense to get in an Ozil-lite. But I’m hoping that with the confidence Emery apparently has in him, and his technical level, he can add some much needed zip to our attack.

Comments are closed.