Who was REALLY to blame? (And Arsenal’s new DM)

While I agree with some of your points I fear you’ve also not addressed other points. I’ll say that I agree with your analysis of why we conceded but I fear you’ve been a bit naive in the assumption that football matches are only won or lost in the key moments of the game. Bare in mind I will wholeheartedly agree, we lost that game due to Cech’s mistakes above and beyond anything else, but your article ignores 3 key areas that WERE down to the manager during the game and another 2 areas down to players.

The manager was responsible for:

1. Lack of left wing
We played with 1 winger and had NO width on the left whatsoever. It is a common error Arsenal make and it greatly hinders us. Most of West Ham’s attacks also came down our left – this was due to Monreal being in an elevated position and the LW midfielder (whoever had rotated there) was leaving too much space. Whether you say this is poor management on the day or poor transfer market dealings, the fact was we were weaker as a team due to the absence of this position.

2. A DM against a team who play long ball
This may sound controversial to some people but the least important position if the opposition plays long ball football is a DM. A DM is utilised to keep the ball in front of the defence so they always have time to shape up but this is completely nullified by a long ball game where the ball is played into space behind or to the side of the defence. This is exactly what we saw against West Ham. This is why Wenger changed it and employed a more standard 4-4-2 by the end of the game – Coq was totally bypassed and we couldn’t do anything to stop that. A more aggressively placed midfielder was needed – which is why you saw most of the balls Coq won actually being quite high up the pitch.

3. Playing Mertesacker in a high line
Ok, now I’ll pre-empt the comments about me bashing Mert but this is once again more about tactics then bashing a player. West Ham want to play the ball in behind you and into the channels for Sakho to run into. Granted, the best option then is Bellerin and Gibbs to compete with Pace on the wings and then Kos can deal with the centre. BUT Monreal has been in form and bellerin was injured. So you HAVE to adjust accordingly and the answer was Gabby or Chambers in the middle to partner Kos. Every time Kos was chasing down a man, he did so alone because Mert was nowhere to be seen. This allowed West Ham to get up the pitch by simply hitting channels and not needing to play football. Mert is also abysmally slow in the defence at shifting the ball – the antithesis to breaking a team down when you need to move the defence fast! In short – Mert should not play in a high line defence which we were always going to need today.

Conversely the players have to also take a look at themselves for these reasons:

1. Quality of end product
This was the big one for me because believe it or not we opened up the West Ham defence ALOT. They weren’t great. BUT the end product was diabolical. Not just shooting, but crossing and final ball too. Set pieces were diabolical throughout and Debuchy had about 10 uncontested crosses which he put into the first man or into space where our attackers were not. These are individual errors a manager cannot account for – players just not delivering in the moment. Yes – he can motivate them – but sometimes a player just does not perform and it makes no sense. This is the biggest reason we did not score – not our formation or the team selection but PURELY the fact when the moment counted nobody could shoot, cross or pass. Nerves? Maybe. Rustiness? Maybe. I’d put it down to the fact we weren’t in full flight and got sucker punched and panicked. The quality changed from slightly off mishits in the first half to diabolical rushed or overly thought about dung in the second half. VERY frustrating for poor Ox who was the only player showing any real quality.

2. Lack of concentration
Now, you kind of addressed this, but it was why Cech conceded 2 goals. It was why Koscielny lost his man a few times. It was why Ox lost the ball on the second goal. It was why we made crosses to an empty box. This game showed players not completely match sharp. YES we beat Chelsea last week but we had alot to prove – the players WANTED that game. This week is a routine match and has a smaller individual importance to the player. They can say they’re preparing just as much, Wenger can say all the right things, but at the end of the day they weren’t at the races yet. The 10% extra caused by REALLY wanting that win last week was not present and the start of season rustiness where you miss a run or don’t anticipate a ball was just not there. This is one of those things that happens just down to the human psychy. Doesn’t matter how good a motivator someone is – at the end of the day some games just aren’t going to feel as big and it showed.

Now there are other reasons we lost. West Ham WERE sharper having played several competitive games and gotten used to the pace of the challenge again. It wasn’t fitness so much as just anticipation of certain moments. Ultimately we were off the boil and out of luck with our keeper making two flops.

SO your reaction is to buy a DM. This is what I most disagree with about your post. You said 2 things that don’t make sense. 1 – You say that buying a DM will give us more fight on the pitch…but then say that he won’t stop Coq playing. That’s directly contradictory because especially in games like yesterday you wouldn’t use 2 DMs. SO which is it? 2 – You’re literally trying to suggest we buy some of the least purchasable players on the market. These are all club captains who are invested in the team and won’t be easy to buy. Will they come into a flooded midfield and play second fiddle to Coq or take his place but always be worried about him displacing them? There is absolutely no reason for any of these players to come to us and for the most part, they are players who would not necessarily add a great deal of quality to the team. I agree, we are thin on the ground with DM but I am adamant that Coquelin is a good quality player when used in the right way. Yesterday was not the time to play with a DM and SOME of these players could have been useful, but we already have other CMs which is what we’re really talking about playing there!

A player with leadership WOULD be good but there are a couple of elements you have to bare in mind too. Firstly – they have to speak the language or be a leader by example (like Alexis). Secondly – they have to actually go into the first team and NOT be getting pushed out or they are just being wasted as leaders. Our biggest problem yesterday was not lack of leadership or desire though – it was just bad play. Grabbing the game by the scruff of the neck can be done in MANY ways – and an exciting CF or LW could be just as able to do that as a fighting DM. I’ll posit sometimes the moment a game turns is when a player beats an opposition player and creates something from nothing. Big tackles do it too, but you feel the team lift when you suddenly realise “They can be beaten!”.

This is all just musings anyway. I liked your article, I just think you’ve got the wrong priority if you think removing a bright young star like Coquelin is the most vital position to switch in our starting 11. Got lots of other positions that can be boosted. A second DM IS a good signing – but I’d prefer someone who can act as cover as opposed to actually displacing coq – someone with a bit more passing scope would be nice but honestly in the games we NEED a DM, we probably don’t need our deep lying player making inch perfect passes either.