Arsenal 2023/24 - Born to be runner up

Bilbo said:
Arsenal were that bad on Sunday that it could have been a trouncing if City hadn't had an awful day at the office. Same goes the other way. You were missing arguably your two most influential players, and so were City, and all we learned was how important those players are to either team.

It's like @WeePat Said above. People need to try to find conclusions to everything, and that turns a piss poor borefest into a tactical tour de force when it just wasn't. Honestly for me it solidified my feeling that Arsenal aren't as good as they were last year, and hopefully City aren't either - although I fully expect a gazillion game winning run from them at some point and another comfortable title.
Click to expand...
It was a close, tight game where defences came out on top. As you say both teams were missing key players so needed to make adjustments that meant they couldn't play in their normal manner. I think both teams would have been satisfied with a draw. It became about trying to contain the opposition and being more measured, which, admittedly, makes for some dull viewing.
But to say either team were "bad" I think would be inaccurate - this was the kind of mature performance we needed to show against them. Last season when we got outclassed as usual people here called us naive and silly to try to go toe to toe with City. They just picked us off. Now that we contained them in a way few teams have been able to do, we were somehow "bad". Personally I'd gladly take this "bad" version of Arsenal if it means we keep City to 1 shot on target. I will say though I'm a bit surprised at how influential Rodri is for them - it's no coincidence they've lost the 3 games he's missed. I never would have thought City could be described as a one-man team, but there you go. I'm sure Pep will work it out eventually though, and Rodri's back anyway so it's a moot point.

I do agree that we're not as good as last season so far. At least not going forward. Defensively, I think we are much tougher to break down, which is significant because we were shipping goals at the end of last season which cost us the title. We haven't clicked going forward, but I think it's worth noting we haven't yet played what's undoubtedly our best forward line - Martinelli/Jesus/Saka - as all 3 have been injured at one time or another. We also hopefully should see our best midfield soon (Rice-Partey-Odegaard), unless Arteta is going to persist with his Havertz project (please no).
 
GoonerBear said:
Is that the same way we were subjected to lots of Mourinho Masterclasses over the years?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what your point is, of course Mourinho served up some utterly dull games. That’s not the gotcha you think it is. Some 0-0s or low scoring games can be intriguing chess match tactical battles but to me this Arsenal/City was not that. It was just two teams playing bad football.
 
WeePat said:
People always say it’s ‘tactical battle’ ‘masterclass of elite coaching’ when two big teams play out a dour dull piss poor game of football. No one would call Palace v Forest 0-0 an excellent, utterly engrossing tactical battle, so why do we do this when two big clubs serve up a low quality sleep inducing shit fest of a game?
Click to expand...
It's absurd. There can be some excellent 0-0 and some genuinely interesting games that end in goalless draws (I know Arsenal edged it in the end but the game had that feel), but this isn't one of them and Arsenal fans are just trying to pump up their win because it fits their narrative of progress and Arteta being super clever.

It was, in reality, an incredibly boring game with very little complexity from a tactical perspective (2 disciplined teams with players who knew what to do and executed well) and very little variety over 90mn. There was a very high level of technical errors for 2 teams of supposedly elite level, and there was a reluctance to take any risks which meant that the tactical structure was in fact very easy to maintain, as there were very few transitional moments. It was like the most boring game of chess you can imagine.

Arsenal fans are some of the most tedious to chat with as they see whatever they want to see and have very little perspective - and get very defensive about this. From this game, the overall team effort, Rice's performance, and Havertz's cameo have all been praised, to crazy levels by some, when they were in fact really not very special.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
It's absurd. There can be some excellent 0-0 and some genuinely interesting games that end in goalless draws (I know Arsenal edged it in the end but the game had that feel), but this isn't one of them and Arsenal fans are just trying to pump up their win because it fits their narrative of progress and Arteta being super clever.

It was, in reality, an incredibly boring game with very little complexity from a tactical perspective (2 disciplined teams with players who knew what to do and executed well) and very little variety over 90mn. There was a very high level of technical errors for 2 teams of supposedly elite level, and there was a reluctance to take any risks which meant that the tactical structure was in fact very easy to maintain, as there were very few transitional moments. It was like the most boring game of chess you can imagine.

Arsenal fans are some of the most tedious to chat with as they see whatever they want to see and have very little perspective - and get very defensive about this. From this game, the overall team effort, Rice's performance, and Havertz's cameo have all been praised, to crazy levels by some, when they were in fact really not very special.
Click to expand...

Was the same after they beat us 1-0. For some bizarre reason it's impossible for them to just have an okay win or decent performance.
 
SilentWitness said:
Was the same after they beat us 1-0. For some bizarre reason it's impossible for them to just have an okay win or decent performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly - it's ok to win a game and not be amazing, or win a game that was a bit of a shit game. It doesn't really matter.

But it seems to matter to them in this effort to try to build a narrative around this team.
 
GoonerGirly said:
It was a close, tight game where defences came out on top. As you say both teams were missing key players so needed to make adjustments that meant they couldn't play in their normal manner. I think both teams would have been satisfied with a draw. It became about trying to contain the opposition and being more measured, which, admittedly, makes for some dull viewing.
But to say either team were "bad" I think would be inaccurate - this was the kind of mature performance we needed to show against them. Last season when we got outclassed as usual people here called us naive and silly to try to go toe to toe with City. They just picked us off. Now that we contained them in a way few teams have been able to do, we were somehow "bad". Personally I'd gladly take this "bad" version of Arsenal if it means we keep City to 1 shot on target. I will say though I'm a bit surprised at how influential Rodri is for them - it's no coincidence they've lost the 3 games he's missed. I never would have thought City could be described as a one-man team, but there you go. I'm sure Pep will work it out eventually though, and Rodri's back anyway so it's a moot point.

I do agree that we're not as good as last season so far. At least not going forward. Defensively, I think we are much tougher to break down, which is significant because we were shipping goals at the end of last season which cost us the title. We haven't clicked going forward, but I think it's worth noting we haven't yet played what's undoubtedly our best forward line - Martinelli/Jesus/Saka - as all 3 have been injured at one time or another. We also hopefully should see our best midfield soon (Rice-Partey-Odegaard), unless Arteta is going to persist with his Havertz project (please no).
Click to expand...

I largely agree with you here, and this is a good post.

You are right, in that we aren’t as fluid in attack as last season, but better from a rest defense point of view. This is because we are faced and are still adapting to deeper lying blocks and we've largely responded to this with an “out to in” style of build up which I’ve also seen described as playing around blocks, and re-entering central zones in the final third.

With Partey's return, and possibly Timber soon thereafter (talk of him back in training by late January), I want to see us incorporate central access and progression yet again into our play. If we can achieve being able to build and access the middle more, along with the control we've shown so far then we would have gone up a level again. Im hoping Arteta is working on bringing back our incisiveness there, in the coming weeks and months.

As for the "Havertz project", I dont see it that way. What we are doing with Kai, is increasing our options in the attacking third. From the direct play that Havertz contribute in as a dropping CF (think Dominic Calvert Lewin type profile), to Havertz becoming more accustomed to playing as an #8 in our system. The big issue with Havertz is his combination play between the lines, and its more evident because we dont play fast, end to end football. We'll see Havertz add more value at CF for starters, and then will start to combine better between the lines, both with him understanding how we combine, and players understanding how he finds pockets of space in the box.

From an attacking sense, Arsenal are a top CF away from having an elite attack (Osimhen/Toney/Isak/Leao). In midfield its a clear replacement for Partey (Tchouameni/Zubimendi/Fofana/Guimaraes), and in defence its clear competition for Saliba (Diomande).
 
Last edited:
WeePat said:
I’m not sure what your point is, of course Mourinho served up some utterly dull games. That’s not the gotcha you think it is. Some 0-0s or low scoring games can be intriguing chess match tactical battles but to me this Arsenal/City was not that. It was just two teams playing bad football.
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant as a gotcha. It's just helping to highlight everyone has different opinions. A lot of people were watching those games back then and praising the tactical aspect of those games, and some people thought it was boring as there was little risk taking or goal mouth action. And people were entitled to both those opinions as people can look for or see different things in football games.

That's all most are saying here. Obviously we are looking at it from an Arsenal perspective so our views will be biased, but all eyes were on Arteta from our point of view, to see if he could set up differently to nullify Man City's threat, to see if we could learn from the lessons from last season (& the past 8 years or so to be fair), and we were fascinated to see how he did that, bringing in Jorginho, having both wide men play narrow, condensing the middle of the pitch so they struggled to play though us, forcing City wide where they didn't have the threat of previous years.
Then how he adjusted that when Doku came on, bringing on Tomiyasu, eventually forcing Pep to switch Doku to the other side where he got little joy etc.

Now, if that doesn't interest you or others, i don't blame you in the slightest. But when we are all saying Arteta was naive when playing Pep and playing City, who have delivered skelping after skelping to us, and are all saying he needed to to something different to counteract that, and he has successfully did that over the last couple of games, you need to forgive us for being intrigued by what he did and trying to analyse it a bit.

And yeah, we can go over the top. But finally beating a team after 8 years or so of basically being their bitch can do that to you.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Yeah exactly - it's ok to win a game and not be amazing, or win a game that was a bit of a shit game. It doesn't really matter.

But it seems to matter to them in this effort to try to build a narrative around this team.
Click to expand...
"Arsenal fans" aren't saying we were amazing. We had a nice little tactical wankoff with an obviously bored Pep and turned a nailed on draw or late City goal into a win, that's it.
 
Rice, though, was excellent. You're just jealous we have the most promising young 100m+ midfielder in the league, RiP.
 
Donaldo said:
"Arsenal fans" aren't saying we were amazing. We had a nice little tactical wankoff with an obviously bored Pep and turned a nailed on draw or late City goal into a win, that's it.
Click to expand...
You haven't been reading the past few pages then :) Good if you see it that way!
Donaldo said:
Rice, though, was excellent. You're just jealous we have the most promising young 100m+ midfielder in the league, RiP.
Click to expand...
Sure! That must be it. So promising.
 
The game wasn’t "entertaining". It was 90 minutes of the respective defences of both teams coming out on top. Tactically I found it interesting, however.

There wasn’t any width until Doku and Martinelli came on. For Arsenal, you had Jesus and Trossard who both wanted to invert and come infield, with Zinchenko behind them who plays in that auxiliary midfield role. City then have their four centrebacks spread across the back line, with Alvarez and Foden who play off Haaland rather than as conventional wingers.

This made for an extremely condensed game, very narrow with little opportunity to break the lines with the personnel on the pitch.

This meant Jorginho wasn’t overly exposed however as he had support always close to hand, allowing him to play out what I felt was a very professional performance. Unremarkable. Businesslike. Rice, who isn’t getting his flowers on this board, has been such a revelation for us however, he’s always in the right place, always has another gear for recovery runs, I don’t think you’ll find a single Arsenal fan feel shortchanged so far. Behind them, it’s been so long since we’ve had such confidence in a centre back pairing as with Saliba and Gabriel. The latter doesn’t get the plaudits, but they’ve developed such a strong partnership together. It felt very solid. Secured. There's a great sequence where Haaland had a through ball to chase and he's running stride for stride with Saliba who just outmuscles him and sends him to the floor. Chef kiss.

Going forward was a different matter. I thought we’d struggle when the team was announced without any pace to concern the City backline. Everything could be played in front of them and they didn’t really have any peril in behind. Jesus loves a mazy run, but he isn’t going anywhere fast on the wing. Trossard is never going to work his way past Walker and the less said about Nketiah the better.

Martinelli coming on gave us pace and width, a different dynamic we tried to unlock to little success throughout much of the second half. The interest for me, however, was when Doku, Stone and Nunes came on and Arteta responded with Tomiyasu, Partey and Havertz.

Doku started on the right against Zinchenko, looking to exploit our obvious fragility in defence there. When Tomiyasu came on to replace the Ukrainian Doku switched wings to work on Ben White (unsuccessfully). This gave Tomiyasu freedom to go forward and Foden often let him go, not feeling he could really hurt City and on the flipside he could steal a march on him for when City invariable win back possession and break.

Safe bet most the time. Tomiyasu isn’t gifted on the ball. But the goal comes from Partey – who was on the ball more than anyone after coming on, picked up Tomiyasus run having left Foden behind. The one thing Tomiyasu does offer is some physical presence, he’s a big enough boy to compete. Tomiyasu wins the header down to Havertz – a header which draws Walker in from the wing to try and snuff out. Havertz receives and lays off to Martinelli – in acres of room because Walker has vacated the space – and we get a massive stroke of luck with the shot.

The luck from the goal was undeniable, but we were well on top because of the substitutes. That sequence above was on because Arteta recognised mismatches and counters that we could exploit. The fact it wasn’t conventionally entertaining is fair enough, but from a tactical standpoint I found it really interesting.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
It was, in reality, an incredibly boring game with very little complexity from a tactical perspective (2 disciplined teams with players who knew what to do and executed well) and very little variety over 90mn. There was a very high level of technical errors for 2 teams of supposedly elite level, and there was a reluctance to take any risks which meant that the tactical structure was in fact very easy to maintain, as there were very few transitional moments. It was like the most boring game of chess you can imagine.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen that for a long time in any of our teams, so it's a bit strange to look down on something like that and claim that it has very little complexity tactically.

Arsenal finally broke the chokehold City had over them. And it wasn't even a fluke win. With the Kovacic situation turning out the way it did, the win was absolutely earned.

If we'd pulled off exactly this performance in this season and beat City, the caf would implode and people would be asking that the manager, Casemiro (instead of Rice) and Mount (instead of Havertz) get new contracts or statues or something. I mean, look at the euphoria here after beating Palace B in the cup.


Rooney in Paris said:
It was like the most boring game of chess you can imagine.
Click to expand...

That depends very much on each person's level of understanding of Chess.
 
I think what is getting missed in this OTT tactical analysis is that City were genuinely terrible by their own standards. Now some might say that's down to what the opposition did, but no amount of tactical wizardry forces a team that good to make so many unforced errors.

I'd also expect an inferior United team to be beating City if we come up against that level of performance, but it probbaly wouldn't represent an evolutionary leap forwards for United any more than it did for Wolves or Arsenal.
 
erikcred said:
We haven't seen that for a long time in any of our teams, so it's a bit strange to look down on something like that and claim that it has very little complexity tactically.
Click to expand...
What has our situation got to do with the tactical analysis of a game between 2 different teams!? :lol:
 
Bilbo said:
I think what is getting missed in this OTT tactical analysis is that City were genuinely terrible by their own standards. Now some might say that's down to what the opposition did, but no amount of tactical wizardry forces a team that good to make so many unforced errors.
Click to expand...
This is one of my points - it was a technically quite poor game, on top of being tactically boring (the former having a direct relation to the latter).
 
Rooney in Paris said:
What has our situation got to do with the tactical analysis of a game between 2 different teams!? :lol:
Click to expand...

I literally explained it in my post.

If it's tactically not very complex to do what Arsenal did, we wouldn't have struggled to do it for so long.

We're just begrudging Arsenal well-deserved plaudits for a solid performance with all the usual stuff like City were poor, the league is poor, pitches suit Arsenal more in October, and so on.
 
erikcred said:
I literally explained it in my post.

If it's tactically not very complex to do what Arsenal did, we wouldn't have struggled to do it for so long.

We're just begrudging Arsenal well-deserved plaudits for a solid performance with all the usual stuff like City were poor, the league is poor, pitches suit Arsenal more in October, and so on.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's not difficult to execute - I alluded to that with the disciplined element.

I said it was tactically boring, as it was straightforward, with very little variation, no risks taken overall, and technically poor on the whole.

That has nothing to do with Utd's shortcomings at the moment.
 
erikcred said:
I literally explained it in my post.

If it's tactically not very complex to do what Arsenal did, we wouldn't have struggled to do it for so long.

We're just begrudging Arsenal well-deserved plaudits for a solid performance with all the usual stuff like City were poor, the league is poor, pitches suit Arsenal more in October, and so on.
Click to expand...

We've been City plenty of times, and were usually criticised for our tactics - especially under Ole
 
erikcred said:
I literally explained it in my post.

If it's tactically not very complex to do what Arsenal did, we wouldn't have struggled to do it for so long.

We're just begrudging Arsenal well-deserved plaudits for a solid performance with all the usual stuff like City were poor, the league is poor, pitches suit Arsenal more in October, and so on.
Click to expand...
This is Man Utd forum, and Arsenal fans are guests here. The reaction is understandable and whatever makes Utd fans happy go for it. Arteta only needs approval from Arsenal management, and its own fans. There are tons of YouTube video explained the tactics used by both Arsenal and City already.

Arsenal's attack and chance created in the game is weaker than last season. Arteta setup the team more defensive this season.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
Arsenal's attack and chance created in the game is weaker than last season. Arteta setup the team more defensive this season.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is it in a nutshell. There's been a lot of talk that we're poorer going forward (and we are), but it's largely by design. Arteta knows that had our defence held up towards the end of last season, we would probably be champions. But we leaked far too many goals. I think he's really trying to rectify that, it's the main reason he went so big on Rice IMO. Gary Neville said that if we can keep Gabriel, Saliba and Rice fit for the season, we would probably win the title. I don't always agree with the stuff he says, but here's hoping.
 
In the end you cannot win the league by leaking too many easy goals. We were letting in almost 3 a game at the end of last season and you cannot do that and expect to win many games during a tough stretch. If we are to bore a few neutrals along the way, so be it. I prefer us cutting down on errors and strangling the game than opening up and having four drilled past us. We made a bunch of errors in the Spurs game. We have one of the best defenses, and we should rely on that strength.

Having said that, we do need to improve our attack this season from what we have seen if we want to challenge.
 
Changeisgood said:
In the end you cannot win the league by leaking too many easy goals. We were letting in almost 3 a game at the end of last season and you cannot do that and expect to win many games during a tough stretch. If we are to bore a few neutrals along the way, so be it. I prefer us cutting down on errors and strangling the game than opening up and having four drilled past us. We made a bunch of errors in the Spurs game. We have one of the best defenses, and we should rely on that strength.

Having said that, we do need to improve our attack this season from what we have seen if we want to challenge.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I still remain very sceptical we are good enough yet to overhaul City. I don’t think we’ve went backwards in our overall level compared to last season, but I remain to be convinced that we’ve really took a forward. Think where we might have improved in some areas both in personnel and depth wise, I think we still have some issues that need addressed, such as the Havertz situation, quality cover for Saka, and Nketiah for me just isn’t good enough.

One thing that’a now a bonus for us this season compared to others, is that at least City won’t have a 6 points head start on us like they get every season by spanking us in both games. Always felt like an easy 6 points for them while it was a guaranteed none for us.

I think we got to play City at a good time. I believe playing City at home in the earlier part of the season is the best chance of getting 3 points, before they hit their post January beast mode. It feeds into my reasoning why I’d have much preferred to have played them when the game was originally meant to have been scheduled last season than when it did. I get the argument that people were making that not playing them allowed us to build confidence and momentum to challenge, but I don’t necessarily subscribe to that. All if’s and but’s now anyway.
 
N'ketiah certainly is not good enough to win the league and we are reliant on him too much at this point. I do think he is useful to have in the squad like a Reiss Nelson and ESR but they never should be regulars in the lineup.

City is still heavily favorite to win. I was hoping to have the center of the park cleared up further than we have it right now. I do however think City might have taken a small step backwards. KdB is a year older (32) and he has had some injuries in the past. Judging from our game with them, they are still very reliant on him. They somewhat surprisingly for me anyway let go of Mahrez and Gundogan at the same time and those two could always be counted on to create if KdB was either not there or having an off day. That might be a hope down the line, but as it is...yes we are not quite on level footing.
 
Jesus is the starter for the striker position, and N'ketiah is a good squad option to provide cover and competition, given the resource Arsenal has. Arsenal definitely needs cover and competition for Saka. Too bad we are never interested in Cole Palmer's service in summer.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
Jesus is the starter for the striker position, and N'ketiah is a good squad option to provide cover and competition, given the resource Arsenal has. Arsenal definitely needs cover and competition for Saka. Too bad we are never interested in Cole Palmer's service in summer.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m actually quite happy with Nketiah as a rotation player. If we bring in a striker I want it to be Osimhen-type level raiser. Otherwise, RW and defensive cover is a far more urgent need.
 
I'd get in a striker and use Jesus as cover for the forward areas. I agree with Neville and co on the overlap podcast that you need a striker with killer instinct and neither he or Nketiah have it enough in order to be a starter.
 
They look stronger this year. I mean they didn’t get smashed of city like they usually do. Kept them quiet.
 
SilentWitness said:
I'd get in a striker and use Jesus as cover for the forward areas. I agree with Neville and co on the overlap podcast that you need a striker with killer instinct and neither he or Nketiah have it enough in order to be a starter.
Click to expand...
Ye I think they lack a top goalscoring ST. However if they can keep their wide players fit then they’ve got plenty of goals in Saka and Martinelli.
 
On the other hand Balogun is doing great at Monaco, scoring 3 goals and 1 assist in 5 games, with Monaco top of the table. It is important for young players to play regularly to further develop. I don't think Arsenal has buy back clause for him though.
 
To me it feels like we should have given Balogun a chance before sending him off. We gave and have been giving Nketiah chances which is fair but I am not sure why we didn't try out Balogun. Were we scared of him failing completely and losing some of that transfer fee?

I have the feeling he will be back fairly soon with a top 6 PL club, just not us.
 
Changeisgood said:
To me it feels like we should have given Balogun a chance before sending him off. We gave and have been giving Nketiah chances which is fair but I am not sure why we didn't try out Balogun. Were we scared of him failing completely and losing some of that transfer fee?

I have the feeling he will be back fairly soon with a top 6 PL club, just not us.
Click to expand...


One of Nketieh/Balogun had to be sold. Both have the same agent so that makes things complicated. Both wanted playing time. So one had to leave. Balogun was never integrated to the squad and club would have felt Nketieh deserves some chances having just signed a contract a year ago and to some extent helping the team last year.

I don't agree with it and we should have ideally sold Nketieh but probably Balogun was a more salable asset aswell as he was on low wages. Nketieh on 100k/week can only go to PL clubs of which there were no takers probably.
 
Changeisgood said:
In the end you cannot win the league by leaking too many easy goals. We were letting in almost 3 a game at the end of last season and you cannot do that and expect to win many games during a tough stretch. If we are to bore a few neutrals along the way, so be it. I prefer us cutting down on errors and strangling the game than opening up and having four drilled past us. We made a bunch of errors in the Spurs game. We have one of the best defenses, and we should rely on that strength.

Having said that, we do need to improve our attack this season from what we have seen if we want to challenge.
Click to expand...

A strong defence is a needed foundation for a title challenge.

The next step is for Arsenal to step up in the offensive department, and I think that improves by looking at two areas next. The first is the return of Partey, and him allowing us to once again build through the middle with our 8s pushed up into high zones on the pitch, being able to get into the congested middle and behind opposition mid blocks with players in behind will bring us back to 22/23 offensive levels.

The second is reactivating our high press. If you think to that first half against Spurs at the Emirates, you can see how effective the 22/23 style press still is. Arsenal could and should have been 3-0 up by half time looking at how we blocked off Ange's men and pushed them back completely, also forcing them into mistakes in their build up.

The other key question to consider is how we manage that verticality, in relation to our desire to be more resolute defensively. You hear Arteta speaking about basketball matches a lot, and trying to minimise that. Well you lose defensive solidity by attacking more.

The next few weeks should show us where we are in terms of reigniting our offensive game again and telling us more about our title credentials.
 
Zagoon said:
A strong defence is a needed foundation for a title challenge.

The next step is for Arsenal to step up in the offensive department, and I think that improves by looking at two areas next. The first is the return of Partey, and him allowing us to once again build through the middle with our 8s pushed up into high zones on the pitch, being able to get into the congested middle and behind opposition mid blocks with players in behind will bring us back to 22/23 offensive levels.

The second is reactivating our high press. If you think to that first half against Spurs at the Emirates, you can see how effective the 22/23 style press still is. Arsenal could and should have been 3-0 up by half time looking at how we blocked off Ange's men and pushed them back completely, also forcing them into mistakes in their build up.

The other key question to consider is how we manage that verticality, in relation to our desire to be more resolute defensively. You hear Arteta speaking about basketball matches a lot, and trying to minimise that. Well you lose defensive solidity by attacking more.

The next few weeks should show us where we are in terms of reigniting our offensive game again and telling us more about our title credentials.
Click to expand...

I think Arteta has two different ways he is going to tackle a given game, maybe three when Timber gets back in there. For the Citys and Pools out there I suspect we will see that pivot in Partey coming back in, but the idea is still to balance out the left side by putting in a Havertz or Vieira for most of the games. I am not sure we have that player yet.

Last year we could all see how good our CBs are individually, because they were left exposed over and over. We have certainly matured here based on the play this season, as we have some better decision making in terms of how much to invest going forward. We also have Rice covering more lanes than Partey and we are less stretched in transition when we lose the ball.

There is a fine line there between sacrificing too much in attack but if you look at some of the counters from last season on us it is clear we needed a change in mentality there or we would always look suspect at the back. Our players are more experienced now as well and that helps in making the right decisions.

I see us moving more and more towards a Pep City type team in the long term and we were already heavily influenced by Arteta having been Pep's understudy. We will likely have many more games like the City game in the future.
 
Those are the results you look back on if you do win the title. 2-0 down away and coming out with a point.
 
Worst I’ve seen us play in ages. For those that say I don’t like criticising performances, well there’s 1 I could lay into gladly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.