Taking a quick break from the season review because a) I have to go in to work early today and b) news broke this morning that Xhaka has agreed to a five-year deal with Roma and that Arsenal have agreed to a transfer fee somewhere between £15-17m.
I get why some of you might be a bit upset that Arsenal’s most influential midfielder of the last five years is being sold off for £15m. It’s a low fee, however there are mitigating circumstances. First, almost all of his transfer to Arsenal (we paid £40m for him) has amortized out so whatever we get for him is money we can turn around and spend right away. Second, the coronavirus has virtually bankrupted almost every team outside of the Premier League. Roma were saddled with around £250m in debt before their American-led takeover and lest you think that things got all better because they have a new investment source, they lost £100m this season as well.
Roma are hardly unique in European football. Clubs in France are perilously close to being wound up, Italian champions Inter had to pay their players late this season, and so on. The football economy collapsed last season, the only thing that kept it going were hopes and prayers.
Second, he’s 29 and only has 2 years left on his deal. Getting anywhere near £20m for a 29 year old, in the pandemic crushed economy is a lot better deal than people think. Football fans always think their players are worth twice what their team sell them for and that everyone else’s players are worth half what their team buys them for.
Some will suggest that we should just hold on to him for his final two years and let him go on a free. That he’s such a crucial player that we won’t be able to replace him for the fee we are paying. I also understand this position, however I think there’s a sunk cost fallacy there. Let’s say we are getting £15m back, the low end of the estimate. That’s £15m to spend now to replace him. What would we have in two years time? £0 to replace him.
The theory continues that he would be crucial to helping us get into the top four and thus would be worth it. That’s true on paper: if Xhaka were able to help Arsenal get into top four he would be worth £50m at least. The problem is that for his entire tenure at Arsenal he hasn’t been able to lead us to that top four finish. The idea that he would do it now is quite hopeful.
And that’s especially true when you see how much Arteta changed the squad to fit Xhaka. Arteta knows Xhaka’s strengths and limitations and he built the Arsenal midfield around those qualities. It was actually quite brilliant of Arteta and something I give him great credit for.
Xhaka is 4th among MFers in the Premier League in progressive yards passed per 90 and 5th in number of progressive passes per90. He’s also 4th in final third entries and 10th in the league overall in long ball completion % (83%). What’s interesting here is that this is a far cry from where he was last season. Last season, Arteta actually took the ball away from Xhaka, simplified his game and had him play a very basic midfield role. His progressive passing stats last season were average and his defensive stats had evaporated.
It took almost a full year to implement the new plan and it’s the new plan which I think is a bit of the problem. The new plan is for Arsenal to not really press, drop into formation, control space. This suits Xhaka. In this compact system he’s not expected to be a ball-winning MFer, he’s not having to dive into tackles, he’s not being forced to make last-ditch tackles against opposition dribblers, and he’s allowed to pressure in more key areas (higher up the pitch) rather than in midfield and defense. He also has more time on the ball and more space to play into.
What’s happened in this compact system is that his vs. dribbles tackles % went up to a career high 52% and all his other defensive numbers went back to their pre-virus levels. Now, those are still fairly poor numbers for a MFer (the vs. dribbles number is good) but the point is that he’s less exposed, Arsenal are less exposed, and while we aren’t playing great defense it’s at least not crazy town like it was under Wenger’s last few years and Emery’s last season.
Those, I think, are his limitations – what we often hear people refer to as his ceiling. We need to play this way – more compact, more players in midfield – because he’s a low-mobility player with some problems sensing defensive danger. And playing this way maximizes his ability to play the ball forward for us.
So, that’s why I suspect Arsenal want to move him on. The need here is to get in a different, younger, more mobile player who can advance the ball in a variety of ways and also allows us to play a bit higher up the pitch. Someone who is a bit better defensively, reads the game better, and doesn’t require such a tight formation to protect them from 1-v-1 duels.
And for Xhaka’s part, there are a lot of really great reasons to go to Roma. They are offering him a 5-year deal. He’s 29 years old this season, that alone has to be attractive. Throw in the huge tax breaks in Italy and I’m fairly certain he’s getting paid more there than he would get at Arsenal. Plus, a lot of Arsenal fans really don’t like him and any mistake he makes is pounced on. True, he has to go and work under Jose Mourinho but that’s not much different than working under Arteta. And Mou won’t be there more than a year or so before he wears out his welcome. Plus, the league is slower and a bit more tactical. Plus, the plus! So many plusses for him.
In short, this feels like the right move for him and for Arsenal. Though that last bit needs a caveat: it depends on what Arsenal do with the money.
This summer was always going to be about some pretty big squad shaping. And it looks like it’s kicking off right in the middle, where we’ve needed it most.
Best of luck to Xhaka and his family in Rome.
my problem with this is simple. xhaka, at 28, is in his prime. he’s playing the best football of his career and has established a sound understanding with thomas partey. he’s a leader, both on the field and in the dressing room. lastly, arsenal paid £35 million for him but are selling him for a ham sandwich. who gives away players in their prime?
it’s great for xhaka, as rome is a city with a ton of history. the football will suit him. roma are getting an arsenal starter for cheap. this move benefits everyone but arsenal. with that, i wish him well. it will suck watching roma’s new #34 lead them back to europe, which he will do.
rumor has arsenal linked with bissouma and neves. i think neves is a slightly better right-footed version of xhaka but only slightly. wolves certainly won’t be asking for slightly better money. likewise, bissouma might be significantly better but he’s african. i’m not being racist but when the afcon comes around, arsenal would already lose partey and elneny in midfield. they can’t afford to lose another center mid. it’s the reason why i’ve always reckoned wenger stopped buying african players; he hated that tournament. however, chamakh was free, elneny was cheap, and neither were starters.
He’s simply never been at the technical offensive level of Cazorla, Ramsey or Wilshere or the defensive level of even Flamini or Coquelin. I don’t see how we could justify him playing purely on his long passing when Alex Song did that (with more end product) for a season, and we still shipped him off with minimal regrets.
As for the leadership, I’ll admit I’m baffled – him and Luiz as ‘leaders’, oof. God only knows what dressing rooms today are looking for. Seems like a bit of height and strut gets you pegged as the next coming of Patton.
A well-thought-out transfer would be welcome, but I think we could do worse than try AMN, Willock or Azeez alongside Partey. The academy has never struggled to produce technical CMs, we’d be better spending money on a defensive minded midfielder to understudy Partey.
This move will benefit Arsenal greatly if they are able to upgrade on Xhaka. That shouldn’t be too difficult and the transfer fee and wages will help.
Frankly, Xhaka has never been Arsenal quality, by which I have in mind midfielders such as Vieira, Petit, Gilberto, Cesc, Cazorla, or even Flamini, Platt, and Parlour. He lacks technique, speed of both foot and thought, and has been a liability with hopeless red card fouls. He may have put in a decent effort and shown some fire, but he just doesn’t have what it takes to make Arsenal a top team. I just hope the scouts do better this summer.
No worries. This black guy also thinks that, because of AFCON, a Bissouma buy is a bad idea. Add Auba to the 3 midfield absentees.
For all of Granit’s perceived strengths last season? His two Burnley events stand out for me most. The January RC in a 0-0 match Arsenal were at the time dominating, then subsequently lost. Followed by his brilliant assist to Chris Wood in March with Arsenal leading 1-0 and threatening more. Four, possibly six, of the 7 points that could have boosted Arsenal to finish top-4 and a CL berth.
Despite all the teeth-gnashing over an eighth-place finish? The wailing of how horrible the team performed? Just three or 4 capsulized moments separated Arsenal from eking out a miracle.
Sadly, with Xhaka? The Mustafi is strong in this one. I’m fine to see him go.
This is a very well argued and convincing take on how and why Xhaka has been more effective this season. If we have really built our play around him then selling him is a big move and will have a big impact on the way we play next season.
“Arteta knows Xhaka’s strengths and limitations and he built the Arsenal midfield around those qualities. It was actually quite brilliant of Arteta and something I give him great credit for.”
Big L O L … I’m not sure, Tim, if you’re trolling or not but Xhaka has none of the strengths, and a whole bunch of limitations. Personally, I was never fond of him but after the game in which he told the fans to F off (and subsequently stripped of captaincy), I was done with him for good. So I can’t give Arteta credit for anything, and can only blame him for not letting Xhaka go to Hertha Berlin last season. And we probably would’ve gotten more money for him too. So I’m glad that he’s finally leaving but it’s probably a year or two too late. Better late than never, I suppose.
Tim does not troll. Tim understands the complexities of making a system fit an individual and this particular individual has been key to defining Arsenal’s style for the last 5 years through 3 managers. It’s a big deal.
I’m not trolling.
His passing range and accuracy are among the top footballers in the world. It’s not really that controversial to admit.
Mourinho for a long time now, even when he was in England, has been giving Xhaka love and props. He likes him a lot, and had effectively called him Arsenal’s midfield glue and leader. Post game, even north London derbies, the 2 clearly showed a rapport and mutual respect. Xhaka will be perfect for Serie A’s slower game.
Agree with every word of Tim’s super analysis here. This is a good move for everyone. And props to Mikel for deploying him in a way that got the best out of him. LB for one game was needs must… for several games was begging to be exposed, and he was. He was utterly incapable of doing the one important job for Arsenal full backs… overlapping in attack.
This is a good time to part ways. He’s too closely associated with our slide. He’s not a bad player, but never seemed a totally comfortable fit in the EPL. Coaches love him though. He sets a great example in training, and would play in goal if they asked him. As captain of Switzerland, he looks a different player.
I wish imm well, Italy is closer to both of his home countries, and I certainly don’t see him as being defined by the ugly flounce off the pitch, for which he was correctly punished.
You know, there is something that always amuses me about football analysis.
I used to work for a certain old man who used to build houses for people. I would walk with a friend of mine around where we stayed, asking for small jobs like gardening. The old man told us that he had some jobs that we could do. The first few jobs were for us to collect bags of cement and deliver them to building sites. I remember borrowing an old wheelbarrow from my uncle which we then used to deliver those bags. It was tough, but making money as a young boy is exciting. We would deliver about 4 bags at a time, giving each other rest breaks as we collected and delivered.
I remember a lot of guys would laugh at us and tease us about the wheelbarrow. it was funny and it did break down countless times. it was fun at times and frustrating at times too.
Two years later, I was able to give back the wheelbarrow and buy a Nissan 1400, search it online and laugh, it was a real babe magnet though, said no-one ever. but with it, I was now able to make quick deliveries and make much more money (relatively).
Happy ending right? I think so. But an important lesson was learned.
Yes the wheelbarrow had its shortcomings and didn’t always get us to deliver. When it rains there was definitely no work. fixing it was annoying and the fact that delivering with it made us dusty, as teenagers, that was the worst.
But here is the thing, that old wheelbarrow did get us delivering though. It got us delivering at least 12 bags on a good day, 16 for any distance below 3 kilometers. It got us making enough money to go to the movies, football trips, safari, buy football equipment and so much more. There might be far more that others could do and that we wish we could do, but that wheelbarrow got us what we had and we never looked at it as a piece of crap for not getting us more.
Now, in football analysis, people lack that perspective when judging players, even you Tim. most are so fixated with what a player leads the team to, while not realizing or recognizing the players that are keeping us from being worse. Some players are structure players, players that prevent the team from sliding to deeper lows than what they are experiencing. Most only notice when a player is making lung busting runs all over the pitch (ignoring the loss of shape we get from the player), forcing play by driving forward and shooting or playing many through balls (ignoring the loss of possession and counter opportunities given away by the player), and pressing intensely or performing sliding tackles (ignoring the chaos created in the side’s coordinated press and the holes left for the opposition by this player).
I believe that Xhaka was not meant to win us anything or lead us anywhere. I believe that Xhaka is the player that was supposed to provide structure to the team and allow the players that are the difference makers to do exactly that, and be the difference. Players like Ozil, Xhaka, Smith-Rowe and Lacazette are the type that provide the team with a structure, a style of play and most importantly, their best attributes are to serve their teammates by making them better. Yes Arsenal’s chances dropped even with Ozil playing but you take him out and suddenly the numbers become almost nonexistent. Yes Arsenal are not a high scoring team with Laca playing but drop him and suddenly Arsenal cant even get into the final third or even exchange passes there. Yes Arsenal’s play is pedestrian even with Smith-Rowe playing but drop him and suddenly paint dries quicker than an Arsenal attack is able to get going. These things are not one man efforts, but their play allows the team to be better.
Xhaka’s biggest asset for me and I think for most coaches as well is not his passing (he sometimes has bad passes), its his decision making on what passes to make and what passes not to make. technique is important but decision making trumps it. An intelligent five meter pass can do far more damage than an accurate cross field pass, and decision making is what characterizes a team’s philosophy and style of play. He is best placed to get the team playing how the coach wants and that’s why ALL coaches who have worked with him love him so much.
There is a reason that the team struggled or still struggles without these players, the stats even prove it. on my side, it was easy to replace the wheelbarrow with the Nissan because I knew what the wheelbarrow did. That is important because it allowed me to improve on it. In football or even any space that deals with human beings and abilities, its different. If you do not know exactly what a particular player brings to the table (whether you hate them or not) and only know their position, you could end up losing everything that made him valuable and gaining a totally different player who might be better at things that your team does not actually need.
An example would have been me buying a Ford Ka to replace my wheelbarrow. Its statistically better and is a motor vehicle, but….. I mean…….. you get it right?
And on the concept of structure players and difference makers, their is a real law of acknowledgment for structure players in the analysis of such players as I read the comments here.
Yes stats wise, these players might not be leading in their own right and maybe they are technically not amazing, but I believe they are almost as valuable as those who are breaking records stats wise. I have often heard (sarcastically) that “a player gets better when they are not playing”. Most of the time, when a regular leaves and people are crying out for their inclusion, it is because they can see a difference in how the team plays, which is not there when the player plays.
Examples of such players are Sergio Busquets and Fernandinho. We have seen younger players who bring more in terms of the dribbling, press breaking and forward driving of Frankie De Jong at Barcelona, and Rodri’s ball circulation, technique, passing and goals. These are players that bring elite skills to the table, but they are not as much structure players as those they are meant to replace. The skill set does not match, which means that the teams lose the necessary that they should be improving on.
I groan every time I see Aubameyang defending at left back because that is the job that a structure player can solve. A safe passer who can circulate the ball in midfield could reduce the amount of time Auba spends defending by keeping us on the front foot. A technical winger who can drift inwards can make up for Aubameyang’s low touch game and allow us to keep the ball in forward areas, while also tracking back accordingly and leaving Aubameyang as a counter option. A team that can be built on structure players who are proficient at pressing can also keep the opposition panned in their own half or direct them into central areas like Liverpool do in midfield.
Speaking of Liverpool, their midfielders can be described as being just like Xhaka. They are just good enough and do what they do up to a certain level, but Thiago is head and shoulders above them in almost every technical aspect. But they have struggled with him playing, and he is an amazing player. I think Neves is a very good player, better than any central midfielder we have in our side, but he is a difference maker, not a structure player.
A team has to have structure players, but if they are sold, they have to be properly replaced or improved upon. It is nice to have a Santi, but his best came when Coquelin was around. Instead of getting a player who is an improvement of Francis, a player to bring exactly what Coquelin brought, but better at it, we decided to get Granit, who is better technically but didn’t bring any of what made us good with Coquelin playing. If we went for Bissouma or Neves, we would making a huge mistake.
I know some will say if not Bissouma or Neves, then who?
If any of you watched our games about Wolves last season or any Wolves games, you will have noticed that the player dictating their game was Moutinho. Yes Neves plays long passes, shoots and everything else, but if we are trying to replace Xhaka, players like Teun Koopmeiners at AZ Alkamaar or Corretin Tolisso of Bayern Munich. They take responsibility for distribution for their sides when they are on the pitch, they are technically better than Xhaka, they can shoot, they can sit deep and dictate from there and have very good disciplinary records. They are very ball dominant and are not slow at all, can cover quicker than Xhaka and are young or close to their peak. Lots of resale value and can handle themselves physically (Koopmeiners is 6ft and Tolisso is a bulky 5’11).
There are many more other players out there that can give us what Xhaka gives us, but better. Xhaka is not terrible, but comparing him to Carzola, Wilshere, Viera and etc is very unfair and quite misleading as to his job in the team. At most he was supposed to be an Edu type of player for us, but our inability to assess squad dynamics led to him having to take both the roles of Carzola and Coquelin, which shows in how people complain about him.
The same mistakes we did in bringing Xhaka on board, will be done if we bring in Neves or Bissouma. Let’s show respect to Xhaka for holding our midfield in the way he did, and acknowledge what important attributes he brought. Or else, we won’t replace accordingly.
“At most he was supposed to be an Edu type of player for us”…
nah, bruh. arsenal paid £35 million for this guy. he was supposed to be the main man for the arsenal midfield and a long-term replacement for mikel arteta.
i believe xhaka was a vanity signing wenger made. my guess is that he was supposed to make up for wenger’s failure to sigh xabi alonso. xhaka looked like a younger, left-footed alonso clone. the problem was that xhaka was only a physical and technical clone. tactically is where it became very clear that he was no xabi alonso or mikel arteta and why he’s struggled at arsenal.
however, he’s just had his best season. is tim right when he says mikel changed his game? i don’t know. he certainly didn’t take the ball from xhaka. i think it’s safer to say that he’s simply gotten better with experience. i know so many downplay the significance of experience but it matters, especially at cdm.
Josh, I see your points but I am not speaking about should have or could have in terms of the money we paid for him.
In judging a player, I prefer to let the player show us what he is all about. And what has Xhaka shown in the last few years? He has shown that at most he is only capable of being an Edu type figure, which is not bad but is not really what propelled us in 15/16.
The point of what he was supposed to be, an Alonso type, proves my point of not assessing what a player truly brings to the team and how the squad is set up in that moment before acquiring a replacement. I believe in the right setup (like at Switzerland), Xhaka can be exactly what we paid for him to be, but was Arsenal setup to have a player like him? Was Arsenal set up to make him a central figure? Was Arsenal set up to maximise his abilities and offset his weaknesses?
A similar thing seems to be happening with Pepe, to a lesser extent since he caught some form. Yes the money we paid for him demands that he play at his best and drliver, but like Tim’s notes on our first half of the season, Pepe was forced to run almost 60 meters after we won the ball, just to get some chances. We could say he was meant to be our Arjen Robben, but are we really set up to get that out of him?
Is Mikel’s Arsenal set up to have a player like Neves or Bissouma, and get the best out of them? To put it bluntly, Bissouma and Neves play very different roles in teams that play very different football from each other. Does it make sense that we are linked with both?
Xhaka has shown us what he could do for this Arsenal side. Maybe he could have been a Xabi Alonso figure in the Cesc and Van Persie team, but that’s not who signed him. He was signed to replace a player (Arteta) who was already replaced, and not by an individual player, but by a system that did not need a player like that anymore.
Lets stop looking for a Viera, Cesc, Henry, Dennis and whoever else. Lets look at what this team that we currently have needs and address those needs. Neves and Bissouma do not address the needs of this team, they will quickly turn into another version of Granit. Almost in the dame way that people thought Partey was a defensive midfielder, which he isn’t.
Xhaka held our midfield together for years. Lets not disrespect his contributions, but acknowledge that he was not a good signing given the sides needs at that time. If we can analyse the good he brought to our side, we can actually improve in him, instead of making vanity signings like you said.
The main man thing though, nah!!!! I can pay whatever and hope for whatever, but the player is only able to do what he is able to do. Xhaka was and has never been the centre of any team’s system, structure or philosophy. Give Xhaka some more structure players in the side (Ozil, Smith-Rowe, Mertesaker at Arsenal or Schar, Zakaria, Rodriguez at Seitzerland) and he will help create and sustain the system, structure or philosophy.
I’m going to disagree with your extremely long winded parable with a simple statement: the wheelbarrow limited your ability to maximize your time and earnings.
That is only correct if there is a better alternative Doc, for someone who has nothing, my only alternative would be to carry them with my hands or not do anything at all.
Its the concept of opportunity cost. Its only limiting to those that can afford better means. For those that can’t afford more, it presents the means to maximise your time and earnings. In maximising my time and earnings, I was able to start the process of getting to acquiring a car and thus my maximum rose from there.
It applies similarly to management at teams trying to build up and compete. You have to maximise what you have and slowly acquire the pieces that raise the bar.
You can’t complain about what’s not available to you. Understand what you have and find a way to maximize it.
I think that a year from now, we’ll hear a chorus of “oh, look how good Xhaka is and we sold him for only 15m…” because Serie A and Mourinho will suit him to a tee.
He was athletically limited, but I thought as far as a squad player, you could do way worse – he was able to provide Arteta with some tactical flexibility by dropping deep and to the left, even when Tierney was playing, he was popular with teammates, by all accounts a good pro that trained well.
Now we see if the money can be spent well. Neves would seem to me to be a Jorge Mendes suggestion, not what we need.
The slower league thing confuses me. What makes people think that Serie A would be suitable for a player who struggles with pace? Ozil and Xhaka need a pacey game for them to take advantage of the holes that appear, which are far more available than in slower leagues, like Serie A.
Its not that those players can’t play at the pace of the Premier League, its that the football os more tactically based and players are constantly thinking about positioning and shape, than intensity. The Premier League is a bit of a joke around Europe for how much intensity goes into games at the expense of intelligence. Its also the reason why Arsene’s Arsenal struggled in the last few years in Europe where our losses exposed our lack of ability in controlling the tempo of the game. Teams just had to slow the game down when we had the ball and all the spaces would disappear, and then they would raise the tempo to Premier League levels when they countered. Juve even did that to Sp*rs after Sp*rs had done very well in Italy. Real did the same to Liverpool in the Champions League last season and Atletico the season prior.
I am not saying Xhaka would struggle, but I did warn that Ozil would still play well, but it would be harder for him in Turkey. Which isn’t down to a lack of ability, but spaces are much less because players are not as prone to running around and making mistakes by leaving openings in their defensive shape. Xhaka? It will be much easier in possession, but Serie A teams do take advantage of serious weaknesses and pressing him could follow him to Serie A. He will however have to improve on his vision, technique, football inteligence and game management.
I am sure most know that the hardest thing in football is not dealing with being pressured through a press, but by having the ball at your feet, looking at all available options and picking the right one, the effective one. He will tested far more in Serie A than the Premier League, he will have to be constantly thinking, analysing and doing what’s necessary in a much more tactical League.
There is a reason that a sign of experience is in slowing the game down being to able to play at “your” own pace. A slower pace is always harder to thrive in, especially if you are not a player defined by their burning pace (who still have to find a way to be effective with that pace).
In short, slower does not necessarily mean easier. The lower you go in age group football, you will notice the pace gets higher because there is more instinct used than tactical intelligence.
None of this makes sense to me. I feel like you’re arguing yourself into a philosophical pretzel to try to sound like you know better than all of us and it’s annoying. I’m not your keeper but I suggest keeping it short and staying humble. Take it from someone who has struggled with both of those things here and elsewhere but is trying to be better.
Doc what’s your problem dude? Play the ball not the man. If you have a point against mine, air it out. If not, read up or watch something.
Last time I checked, there was no word count limit, or am I wrong Tim?
I have no problems with being wrong or being corrected. In fact, I prefer for people to correct and inform me if I am wrong, and to have a discussion about our points of view. I wouldn’t want to walk around in life misinformed just because I perceive myself to be smarter than everyone.
My posts are not about being better than anyone, and if that’s what you get from my posts, then you need to examine yourself more, because there might be more that you are struggling with.
I am not Josh, I don’t do silly back and forths over non matters. You don’t like my posts, don’t reply.
I thought it was an interesting concept anyway. Why would some leagues be faster/slower than others, other than the fact that the richer ones have more talent (options) at their disposal?
It has more to do with culture than talent. From long ago, a country’s footballing culture was more on show at World Cups and continental tournaments, but now with players playing everywhere, it has become harder to decipher what to attribute with what.
I can tell you this though, which is that there has been times where the Premier League wasn’t the richest league and didn’t have the richest teams in the world.
The Great Santos side of Pele and the Flamengo side of the time was racking in loads of cash. They bought the best talents and played a brand of football that was their own, the football that defined Brazilian football, the Ginga. This style probably reached its peak with the 1982 Brazil side, but you can still see it today in numerous players like Neymar, Neres, Antony, Richarlison, Firmino, Douglas Costa, Luan, Jean Pyerre, Vinicius and many others.
Around the same time, Real Madrid was dominating European football and it wasn’t off of pace/intensity. They played how football is appreciated in Spain, which was highly technical football (for that particular time). Can you say it has changed over time? Not really. Many subtle changes, but the primary focus has and seems to continue being technical football first.
Italy also had its time in the light as the richest league in the world where the top stars played, but even with that, the football was very much Italian. Catenaccio and Zona Mista were all the rage in Serie A’s heyday of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, and continues being so today. Watching Inter and Jive, you can see aspects of bothe, while Atalanta and Leeds provide a more intense version of Zona Mista. The rest of the league is still defined by putting tactics, structure and shape above everything else.
English football, from the time Nobby Stiles man marked Eusebio in the 1966 world cup semi-final. Physicality, pace and intensity has defined English football culture. That is the reason that Tony Adams is proud about preparing Thierry for English football by kicking him on a regular basis in practice. He knew what the reception for talented, technical players was gonna be in his country and took it upon himself to initiate him into it. Even Klopp was surprised by the fact that the English were so excited by his Liverpool team’s press, because pressing was invented in England.
It has nothing to do with money. A single team, or even a top 6, does not define the entire culture of a country’s football.The top sides in England may play slightly different from the rest of the team’s, but the culture is what is prioritised at all levels. English football is intensity-focused from non-league all the way up to probably the 10th placed EPL side.
So money has nothing to do with it. Quality of league also has nothing to do with it. It’s a culture thing, and how a player can function in that culture depends on their skill set.
Sorry Feng, not Leeds, but Lazio and also Napoli.
while xhaka had the bad games against burnley, he’s certainly not the reason arsenal finished 8th.
Great post Tim. I agree with your overall assessment that the team needs to move on from Xhaka. The deepest midfielder is an important position in terms of the teams defense especially with regard to preventing counter attacks. Xhaka has some positive traits but his lack of mobility and somewhat limited defensive nous as our deepest midfielder means the whole team has to be set up in a way to compensate for him and to make sure he is not overly exposed. That need to compensate significantly limits the options a manager has when setting up his team.
Obviously its not all Xhaka’s fault but his arrival seems to correlate with the downward spiral of our team defense. In Arsene’s last season we conceded 51 and the we conceded the same number in Emery’s first season and we were well on our way to a 3rd straight season of conceding >50 goals when Arteta took over. Obviously there is no way we have any chance of a top 4 finish when we concede >50 goals and I think the need to find a way to compensate for Xhaka’s and the whole teams limitations had to be by far the highest priority when Arteta took over
Completely agree with this analysis, Tim. I really don’t have anything to add to what you said.
Folks have a really hard time with the concept that a footballer can be good at certain times and in certain ways and bad at other times in other ways. Maybe this is because it’s too complicated to think like that or because football is such an emotional sport that a take like that threatens to supersede someone’s favorite narrative about said player. Xhaka is unique because there’s hardly anyone who doesn’t have a take on him and it’s usually either “this guy is great” or “this guy is awful.” Neither are true and both are true. Just as you say, Arsenal needs to replace him with a player who everyone can agree is just great. The Bukayo Saka of Arsenal midfielders, if you will. Younger, more mobile, less volitile, just as skilled, just as fit, just as willing.
I’ll also point out that the player registration (transfer) fee is one thing but his wages are also considerable.
if you rewind the tape, you can see that i’ve certainly changed my mind about xhaka. i don’t think anyone was more brutal in their assessment than i. however, i also respect the fact that he’s clearly improved this season. i chalk up his improvement to experience. it sucks that we’ve endured so much bad xhaka over the years and now that he’s improved, arsenal are going to sell him for half of what they paid. nuts!
are you certain his wages are considerable? i always thought xhaka to be not cheap but on modest wages. £85k-ish…i don’t know where to look that up.
The other thing to realize is we desperately need more goal scoring from the midfield. Last season Xhaka scored 1 league goal, Elneny scored 1, Partey scored 0, Smith-Rowe scored 2 Odegaard scored 1 and Ceballos scored 0. That is a grand total of 5 goals from the 6 players who had almost all of our minutes in central midfield. That is obviously not adequate. Hopefully we can move Partey back into the deepest midfield position and replace Xhaka with someone who is more of a box to box type midfielder who at least gives us a bit of a threat to score an occasional goal.
As a lefty capitalist, can I say Josh that the market doesnt lie 🙂 We are getting for Xhaka what he’s worth in the current market. Of course, other factors inflate or deflate transfer value and wages. Timing is one. We almost smashed our transfer record for Thomas Lemar, because we went all in in the last hours of the transfer window. Atletico got him for much less the following summer. We might have paid more for Mesut had we done the deal earlier in that window.
Negotiating prowess has a lot to do with it. Unaccountably, in the case of Pepe, we got out-negotiated with seemingly little pressure. That may have cost Raul his job.
Xhaka’s is an early window transfer, with no time pressure and 3 willing parties. Yes, we can haggle… Mourinho is an open admirer of the player, whom he sees as being important to his project as a new manager looking to impress. We have more leverage than he does. But can we really say that the player, 29 in September, held onto or enhanced his value of 5 years ago in this current market? I don’t know that you can be as categorical about that as you’re being.
I dont know this for sure, but I believe that it could have happened this way. Xhaka told Edu and Mikel he wanted to go. And as a player they liked, they decided that they’d quickly accept a fair offer. Im seeing figures of 17 -20 million GBP/Euro (fig would be lower in GBP). His wage off our books is also important. From what Im reading, he’ll be earning significantly less in Italy.
If we buy young and on almost immediately realisable potential, we should not have to pay at Xhaka’s level. We ended up paying Partey a lot to play Europa instead of Champions League football (for the eventual champions of Spain), and because the signing occurred really late in the window (his transfer fee was also quite high)
I believe that (although their games are vastly different from Granit’s), we already have two exciting midfield solutions that won’t cost us a transfer fee, and who are on comparatively low wages… Guendouzi and Willock. Thomas hopefully would have been groomed for the Xhaka role. He has already shown that he can pass the football. But I have reservations about the inflexible dictator in Mikel being able to coach an all-round game into Willock, or handle a talented maverick like Guendouzi. Hopefully he doesn’t pull another Willian out of the hat with the Xhaka money.
Be careful with wage reports from Italy, they are almost always Net pay to the player. Wage reports in England are always reported as gross pay by the club. Xhaka’s net in England is about half his gross pay. What I saw was a salary of 2.5m in Italy (plus bonuses) and he’s currently on 5.2m at Arsenal. So I think he’s going to be earning same or more in Italy.
But it’s even more damning if he wants out and is willing to take a pay cut.
Guendouzi will not be playing for Arsenal next season.