I’m assuming no one here is going to blame me for not breaking down the tactics or looking up appropriate Lorca quotes. Maybe history would usually shiver if the world’s second-most-idealistic team played the world’s second-most-pragmatic team in a Champions League semifinal, but history was busy reading Chelsea-Barcelona previews and passed this game right by.
At the moment, I’m struggling even to care about the end of the Premier League season, and this was every reason why, right down to the way Ronaldo increasingly looks like he’s doing the Church Lady’s Superiority Dance when he buds out his lips after a goal. For the first few minutes, I was trying to nourish hope and convince myself that anything could happen, but fifteen minutes in, it was clear that Manchester United are still just a lot more grown-up than Arsenal, and that this was going to be less about opposed philosophies or poised forces than a heavy weight leaning on a light one. Which just isn’t that interesting, even if Ronaldo’s free kick was stunning. Which, of course, it was.
One serious question. We all know what Arsenal “means,” or what they’re supposed to mean. But how much has that meaning changed over the last few seasons? The background question here is whether the commitment to their style of football, or any style of football, can sustain itself indefinitely as a positive idea in the absence of the ability to win. Or is there an underlying sense of tragedy in that case that eventually blots it out.
Read More: Arsenal, Champions League, Manchester United
by Brian Phillips · May 5, 2009
The Simplest Game Community
If football is sex then Manchester United is a porn star.
Arsenal’s problems are not new.
It’s the same problem that became the undoing of Ponce de Leon. The search for the fountain of youth is a worthwhile endeavor. Immortality ensues. But chasing dreams is not what builds reality.
Arsenal, in their search of youth, have become entangled in the “Paradox of Achilles and the tortoise”. They simply cannot catch up…
And Manchester United get paid for having football.
People are overreacting, as usual. There are no grand themes manifesting themselves in this result, as shocking as the result might have been in light of prematch prognostication.
Arsenal fell victim to one young man’s slip at the wrong moment, which completely changed the complexion of the tie. All that happened after can be attributed to the circumstances that error placed Arsenal in, and any team at this level can take advantage of a team too stretched at the back.
Arsenal was one the best four teams in Europe this year – hardly something to moan about. The consistency lacking in the early part of the domestic campaign has been found; and Arshavin looks to be a player that a trophy-contending team can be built around. Next year is one worth looking forward to. As always, Arsenal have gone about things the right way – in that they run a wel-grounded fiscal model on top of playing on the floor – and that, as corny as it may sound, is worth something in its own right.
Manchester United, though I am far from their biggest fan tonight, play attractive football by and large. The difference between them and Arsenal is mainly in players 12-18, not 1-11. We saw tonight that the loss of Clichy and Gallas were too much to overcome, whereas O’Shea, Anderson, and Fletcher stepped in quite well for Wes Brown, Hargreaves, et al.
In summary, Arsenal fans like myself should not lose faith either in the team or more especially the manager and his vision. Manchester United were just the better team over the two legs, for many reasons, none of them systemic or unsolvable. One thing that I think should be reviewed, however, is the Away-Goals rule – Gabriele Marcotti mentioned it in a column recently and I have to agree that it is becoming too determinative.
Well…I agree about the away goals rule, and that reactions like this are hugely exaggerated. (Does anyone really see this Man Utd team as being “at the height of their powers”? Surely the fact that they aren’t at the height of their powers, or anywhere near it, is one of the reasons this is all so dismal.) And I agree that Arsenal’s lack of depth is a problem.
But I’m not sure I follow you in concluding that (1) Arsenal have failed to win a tournament or surpass their rivals because of their youth and mental inconsistency and yet (2) this represents no overarching theme of any kind and is completely confined to the single moment of Gibbs’ slip.
Not everyone will agree with me, but Arsenal’s success during the invincibles era was largely attributed to Patrick Vieira, an ogre with the grace of a ballerina and the force of a semi-truck.
Henry, Bergkamp, Ljunberg – they could all run wild amidst a hurricane of attacking talent while Patrick sat back and batted down the loose shingles. Ever since then, ahem, Flamini, ahem, things have not been the same
The away-goal rule should be scrapped. It is an injustice and hardly ever is the catalyst for what it is designed to do, i.e. make the away team park the bus further up the field, case in point, Chelsea at Camp Nou.
I don’t see why a team should be punished for having parity on the scoreline. Plus, this is modern football. Playing away from home is not as daunting as it once was.
Gibbs’ slip was a harbinger of what seemed inevitable. The tie was decided at Old Trafford. Nothing in the Arsenal performance there suggested they could match Man Utd. Adebayor was useless, Fabregas toothless and not much had changed by the time the second leg came up.
As always, alot of good thoughts and opinions. As a delighted Man Utd fan, I think that Arsenal’s one major flaw had been their inability/refusal to add that one star player that will fill a need. I think that they have finally overcome that by signing Arshavin and if they find an enforcer for the midfield, then they will be very dangerous next year.
That said, I never felt nervous during Arsenal’s opening run. While they knocked the ball around, they lacked the ability/strength to gain position in the center of the field. And after the two goals went in, it seemed that they went exclusively down the flanks. I was also surprised that Wenger didn’t go to a more offensive lineup at the start of the 2nd. Even when he did make his substitutions, it didn’t change the shape. I compare this to what Man Utd did against the Spurs. Down 2-0, he emptied the bench of his offensive stars and overwhelmed them. I expected something similar from Wenger, but it never materialized. I don’t know if that is because of depth, style, or something else, but it definately showed a lack of flexibility. And when you compare Arsenal (or Barca) to Man Utd, that is the difference; the ability to adapt and change styles when necessary.
You have to have style in the first place in order to be able to change it. I mean that seriously. Man Utd don’t have style. They are workman-like and athletic, similar to Chelsea, similar to Inter.
It seems like an eternity since Park carved up Cafu in the CL semifinals and make PSV look capable of beating Milan -
since then, I think its fair to say he is workmanlike, along with O’Shea and Fletcher. None of them are going to make your mouth water, but each has scored key goals even if the closest they come to a stepover is a trip over their own heel
Elliot said:
“Not everyone will agree with me, but Arsenal’s success during the invincibles era was largely attributed to Patrick Vieira, an ogre with the grace of a ballerina and the force of a semi-truck.
Henry, Bergkamp, Ljunberg – they could all run wild amidst a hurricane of attacking talent while Patrick sat back and batted down the loose shingles. Ever since then, ahem, Flamini, ahem, things have not been the same”
I think letting Flamini go will rank right up there with Wenger’s worst transfer decisions (note, I’m not an Arsenal fan). He could have filled that nail-hammerer role. Plus, he actually fit in the setup.
Exactly my thoughts. ‘Style’ comes from the midfield and who plays there for Man Utd? Park, Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson and a backtracking Rooney on the left, who’s stylish out of that lot?
it could be argued that if any style of football were to maintain legitimacy despite an empty trophy cabinet, it’s Monsieur Wenger’s; striving for the eye’s and libido’s affections as opposed to the heart’s and passions’. ask a non-Gooner their 2nd favorite team; i bet you the damn farm they say Arsenal. i also don’t know what situation it would take to actually force Wenger from his post; certainly no one of the Arsenal boardroom would push the button, leaving only the manager himself to decide when enough has been enough. I’d guess maybe if Gooner Nation’s voice rises loud enough, then maybe he vacates, otherwise? i dunno.
and Anderson absolutely has style.
Anderson probably has to change his bedding in the night because of the excess style venting from his pores. It seems odd/ridiculous that anyone might perceive him as some sort of workmanlike player.
Rooney has style too – a sort of bold brash cubism perhaps – but it’s there alright. And Carrick has a certain elegance.
I certainly see parallels between Wenger and Ferguson in a sense that they’re both idealists. Well, at least Fergie was. I think we all remember the gung ho, all-action United of the past, keeping true to the United philosophy of entertaining football. But soon he realized you couldn’t win this way in Europe. So he scrapped that style and went the pragmatic route and now, they’re going to their 2nd consecutive final.
I think Wenger is in a similar situation in his career. Granted, he’s found success with his philosophy albeit not with children. But the point is Fergie was able to make this change for the greater good: winning. And I feel that Wenger’s pride and insistence that his way is the right way is what will keep Arsenal from winning any time soon.
Anderson may try to be Davids but he ends up being Mazinho.
Very true