Economics is high on the agenda but what about defence?

For those of us with a vested interest in the Premiership, the international hiatus is, more often than not, an unwanted distraction.

Teams in form are unlikely to welcome anything that risks upsetting the stride pattern, whilst those with something to prove are usually keen to get back in the saddle as soon as possible.

The international break also creates a headache for columnists concerned primarily with club football. It has been over a week since the 1-1 draw away to Sunderland and most of the salient issues regarding the team’s current form have been discussed ad nauseum.

What is clear about Arsenal this season is that they are the most unpredictable team in the league. The condition borders on schizophrenia. Two laudable victories in the traditionally hostile north-west were followed by that unbelievable home defeat to Hull City.

I’m sure that result had many people questioning their hearing: “sorry, did you just say ‘Arsenal 1 Hull 2’?” Credit to Hull, they deserved it. They wanted it more, as the gaffer had to admit.

The admission was worrying. Did the lads not learn anything about hunger and application from last season’s late collapse?

We have to accept a certain number of unstoppable, Geovanni-esque wonder-strikes, and the odd freak result, but there should be no excuse for not giving 100 percent in a home tie against Hull City – or anyone else.

Against Sunderland a week later, after a solid Champions League victory mid-week, the team had the opportunity to bounce back from their humbling and nip any negative murmurings in the bud. They signally failed to do this.

We might say we were unlucky to have a goal erroneously chalked-off, and it is true that Grant Leadbitter’s thunderbolt was another Geovanni moment. Yet the truth is that we should not be putting ourselves in situations where a flash of brilliance could cost us vital points.

Too often we squander opportunities and fail to make the most of our customary monopoly of possession. This is asking for trouble – especially when the only predictable thing about our performances has been our defensive ineptitude. Even in games where the final result has been convincing, our defending has been anything but.

Having spoken with friends and having seen the comments on numerous forums, I know I’m not alone in thinking our defence is in urgent need of reinforcements. The established partnership of Gallas and Toure not only lacks height, it also appears to lack the mutual understanding on which a successful defence is based.

What is required – as soon as possible (i.e. January) – is a new battering-ram of a centre-back. Given Arsene’s famed powers of acquisition this should not be too hard to accomplish.

He should also have no trouble – assuming the new managing director is finally in place to assist him in the transfer market – acquiring replacements for the perpetually infirmed Rosicky and the long since departed Flamini. Without investment in these key areas I expect our erratic form to continue.

Of course, we must take into account the potential effects of the prevailing economic conditions on the football transfer market. Football’s cash bubble seemed unaffected by the early stages of the economic downturn during the last transfer window, but it is unclear what effect the subsequent deepening of the crisis will have.

In a depressed market, clubs should be less quick to spend; yet it is also likely that the valuations of players will fall back to more sensible and sustainable levels. This may appeal to Arsenal’s thrifty manager, who is notoriously reluctant to pay over the odds. Indeed it may be the time when the club finally reaps the benefits of its commitment to a sustainable business model.

To buy or not to buy? Will Wenger’s faith prove his undoing?

It may have passed you by, but on transfer deadline day Arsenal secured two signings: teenagers Kieran Gibbs and Mark Randall both put pen to paper on improved contracts with the Club.

Of course, these were not the signings that many of us imagined or indeed hoped for when, just weeks ago, Wenger made it clear he would be attempting to enlist the services of a top-class defensive midfielder to fill the void left by the departures of Flamini, Gilberto and Diarra in quick succession.

Since those assurances were made, however, there have been statements designed to prepare us for the eventuality of no new additions, the most recent coming in the wake of the Fulham defeat when Wenger said: “What I hate the most is when you have a bad game, the only resource is to buy.”

I have to say, I couldn’t agree more – it sickens me the way that certain teams behave. Rafa Benitez should be made aware that sometimes the onus is on the manager to get the best out of the players he has brought in. After all, no one forced him to buy Aurelio, Pennant, Bellamy, Crouch, Josemi, Voronin…

That said, I do think our squad is too thin. I believe Wenger when he says “we have the quality” and I’m not demanding that we go out and spend £30m on a single player, but the reality is that we only have one fit defensive foil for Cesc: the young, talented, but rather inconsistent, Denilson.

There was a rousing piece by James Lawton in The Independent a few days ago in which he exulted in the idealism of Arsène Wenger:

“You can say that Wenger is on some fantasy trip of his own. Or you can assert, as the belief is here, that what he promises is something that makes supporting a football club truly worthwhile. It is because Wenger’s club is not about seeing who can spend the most, and stockpiling all available talent, but developing a group of players who he believes will grow up before our fascinated eyes, and into something quite splendid and bold.”

I agree with Lawton, and I’m immensely proud and happy to be a fan of Arsenal and of our brilliant, quixotic manager. But does that make it wrong for me to think that we ought to have strengthened when we had the opportunity?

Back in January I supported the manager’s decision not to buy, believing that our superior teamwork and togetherness would see us through. That fantasy perished on the cold rocks of realism. It is a beautiful thing to be idealistic and stick to one’s principles, but there must surely be room for pragmatism and compromise.

The brilliant performance against Newcastle does not obliterate from the memory the shambolic display against Fulham. Against Newcastle we were reminded of the highs this team are capable of, but the Fulham game should stand as a stark reminder of its continued frailties.

Despite his consistent declarations of faith, recent comments suggest Wenger is keen to strengthen:

“Last year it was at midnight – and we are ready to stay up all night this time if it is needed… If we find the right players we will do it – one or two.”

The fact that the last few hours of the transfer window proved fruitless suggests Wenger was unable to find the players he wanted or – as is more likely – find them at the right price.

Reports indicate we were in for Alonso, Inler or Veloso, as well as a season-long loan deal for Real’s German centre-half Christoph Metzelder. The combative defender and any one of the midfielders would have been ideal acquisitions, yet we ended up with nothing. It annoys me to think that we may have missed out because of a dispute over a few million.

Perhaps I simply do not have the courage of my convictions – an accusation that cannot be levelled at Arsène Wenger. I just hope his unswerving faith is vindicated come the end of the season.

Buying is not always the answer – but sometimes it is

After the pitiful 1-0 reverse against Fulham on Saturday, Arsène Wenger offered a response that will be infuriatingly familiar to Arsenal fans: “When you lose a game the solution is not always to buy.”

The great man is right, of course. It would be ridiculous to wade into the transfer market every time you suffered a defeat. Not only would it pull the carpet of confidence from under your current players, it would also display a complete lack of understanding that all teams occasionally have an off-day.

The worrying thing about Wenger’s statement is that it seems to be preparing us all for yet another underproductive transfer window. It wasn’t long ago that Wenger gave assurances that he would definitely be bringing in a quality, preferably experienced midfielder to replace the departed Mathieu Flamini and share the burden of expectation with the over-relied upon Cesc Fabregas. Now it looks as if he is attempting to backtrack on this promise.

It is not clear whether the change in stance represents a change of opinion about the need for a new player, a change in the Club’s financial position, or a strategy designed to disguise the lack of suitable and available players. My instinct tells me it is the last of the three. There is no reason to suppose any change to the Club’s finances and there has been little on the pitch to convince the manager that the team can cope without a new addition. The likelihood is, therefore, that Wenger has been unable to find “the right player at the right price” – a rule he rarely, if ever, considers breaking.

For Wenger, it is better to buy no-one than to buy the wrong one. This is undoubtedly a wise approach, but it becomes a problem when your criteria for what makes someone right are too exacting. Wenger feels he has to study every aspect of a player’s game before he parts with significant sums. This explains his success rate with respect to new signings, but it also explains the relative inactivity of Arsenal FC compared to her main rivals.

Wenger hates to “panic buy”, but the reality is that when time begins to run out in the transfer window, there is little option but to act quickly. Scouring for the very best deal money can buy invariably leaves one empty-handed, and it is for this reason that Arsenal are likely to begin September with the very same squad they have at present.

This will worry and annoy Arsenal fans because it has been all too predictable – and avoidable. It has been apparent since the departures of Flamini, Gilberto and Hleb that the squad needed quality replacements, but those have not materialised. The players that have come in have huge potential but they are unlikely to step up to the plate this season.

Sometimes, Arsène, the answer is not to buy. However, sometimes it is.

Wimbledon Final: Federer-Nadal

Wimbledon’s Men’s Singles final between World Number 1 Roger Federer and World Number 2 Rafael Nadal was one of the all time great matches. Was it the best ever? It is arguable. It is difficult, certainly, to recall another match with tension, drama, desire and finesse in such spectacular abundance.

Two points summed up the match quite beautifully: Nadal’s running forehand pass down the line to bring up his second championship point from 6 all in the fourth set tiebreak and Federer’s equally astonishing backhand pass down the line to restore parity.

Federer went on to clinch the tiebreak 10-8 to complete a remarkable comeback. He had been 2 sets to love down after Nadal had started the game in typically barnstorming fashion. At three games all in the third, with Fed 0-40 down on serve, it looked for all the world as though his astonishing Wimbledon run would finally come to an end.

Of course, top-class sport is rarely that straightforward, and Federer wouldn’t be Federer if he wasn’t capable of the extraordinary. He drew on all his experience to battle back from the brink and then, at 4-4 in the third, with Fed serving at deuce, the rain came. It was a welcome break for Federer, who could now take a timeout to plot his comeback. With Nadal’s serve looking virtually impenetrable, Fed knew his best option was to hang on in there and hope he could nick the set on the tiebreak. This he did, and it was feat he repeated magnificently in the fourth.

I have described the two points that illustrated so perfectly the calibre of the two men on view. What I haven’t touched on, however, is that Nadal had being serving at 5-2. Two points for victory with two serves to come. Again, Fed was staring down the barrel – again, he refused to buckle. Any doubts about the strength of will of the defending champion evaporated at that moment. Questions over whether after 5 straight titles he still had the hunger were firmly dispelled.

The most miraculous thing of the entire match, however, was Nadal’s relentless pursuit of victory. Many a player would have been mentally broken by the concession of a 2 set lead, especially to the 5 times defending champion. Despite acknowledging that Nadal had remained the better player throughout, I was concerned that Fed would have the psychological in the final set given his miraculous recovery.

None of it. Nadal always looked the more likely to break and at 7 games all he deservedly achieved it. He would have been under enormous pressure having to serve out the match, but he managed to do so with minimal fuss.

Boris Becker described the moment as a “changing of the guard.” Certainly it is surely only a matter of time before the computer recognises a new World Number 1 for the first time since February 2^nd 2004, but does this represent something more? Is this the end of the Fed era? Will he win another slam? I suspect he will be back. He is too good not to be.

Dwain Chambers and the drugs-in-sport debate

The BBC recently published a news item online about British athlete and former drug cheat Dwain Chambers and his continued effort to overturn a BOA bylaw and represent Team GB at the Beijing Olympics. The full text of the article can be accessed using the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7482544.stm

Within the article there is a link to a comment page where users can post their thoughts about Dwain Chambers and the whole ‘drugs-in-sport’ issue. Unsurprisingly the issue is a highly contentious one. Among the large number of nuanced perspectives one can identify two distinct factions: the group who feel Chambers should never be allowed to race again and the group who feel – despite varying degrees of disapproval over drug taking – that once someone has served the punishment for their crime they are entitled to a second chance.

The first group, led by a posse of former athletes which includes the shamelessly self-promoting duo of Dame Kelly Homes and Sir Steve ‘I’ve won 5 Olympic Gold Medals’ Redgrave, are a rather witless band of kneedjerkers. They exhibit no signs of having engaged with the issue on any deeper level than, ‘He took drugs. Drugs is bad.’ I have no time for people who display this level of sophistication.

To be fair to the athletes, I have some sympathy with their position. If you had worked unimaginably hard to achieve success, you would understandably hold in contempt those who you felt had taken a short cut. Not only is it unfair, it also undermines the credibility of the profession.

The problem I have is that whilst the sentiments of clean athletes are perfectly valid, maintaining a blanket rejection to the idea of drugs in sport is incredibly naïve and, in the long-term, totally inviable.

On the immediate level, Chambers has served his punishment in accordance with the rules currently laid down and thus should be free to carry on as before. In any other field this would be the case. It is unethical to attempt to move the goalposts in an effort to appease the self-righteous protestations of a small and disproportionately vocal group.

In the longer term we need to change the whole focus of the debate. Instead of asking how we police drugs in sport and what the punishments should be, we need to look at the pressures that have encouraged proliferation. We also need to ask whether there remain genuine arguments against taking PEDs. Perhaps the answer is just to allow use of performance enhancers in sport – after all, human beings have always sought – via the use of technology – to push the boundaries of what is possible.

If synthetic PEDs can be developed that carry only the same risk of conventional forms of performance enhancement (i.e. intensive training, high altitude training, etc.) then why should there continue to be resistance to their use?

If, as is likely, some athletes continue to benefit from undetectable drugs, isn’t it in fact better to level the playing field?

Wimbledon Week 1 Roundup

Wimbledon Week 1 Roundup

With the second Monday of this year’s Wimbledon now well underway, it seems an appropriate time to look back at the past week and assess the shocks and success stories thus far.

There were some big early shocks as third seed Novak Djokovic and twice beaten Wimbledon finalist Andy Roddick both bowed out in the second round. This will have been a major disappointment to both players but especially the young Serb, who was so impressive in his narrow defeat to Rafa Nadal in the Queen’s Club final just a week previous. Djokovic’s exit means Nadal looks like the only realistic challenger to the reigning champ Roger Federer, looking for his 6^th successive title.

The two big upsets in the women’s draw were the second round exit of Maria Sharapova, the champion of 2004, and the third round loss of world number 1 and winner of last month’s French Open title, Ana Ivanovic. Both women looked devoid of ideas and threw in a succession of unforced errors in defeat to Alla Kudryavtseva and Jie Zheng respectively.

Among the success we can of course count the usual suspects of Federer, Nadal and, in the women’s draw, the Williams sisters. All have displayed their characteristic strength of mind and no little amount of skill in their passage through the rounds. Indeed, as I write, Federer has just performed a demolition job on the only other player on the men’s circuit to have won a Wimbledon Singles title, Leyton Hewitt.

Nadal is the obvious challenger to Federer but there have been a few other players in the men’s draw who have impressed enough to be worth a mention. Former world number 1 Marat Safin has looked in really good touch, especially in his defeat of Djokovic. He has always had the shots but he now looks to have regained some of the mental toughness that has brought two previous Grand Slam titles. If he keeps this belief he could be a danger to anyone – and he’s on Fed’s side of the draw!

Also on Fed’s side of the draw – indeed playing him in the quarter finals – is Mario Ancic. Ancic remains the last person to beat Fed on grass and has looked like a man in form so far this tournament. However, he is already carrying a couple of minor injuries and is likely to be tired following a gruelling five set win over Fernando Verdasco.

Marcos Baghdatis, Janko Tipsarevic and Marin Cilic have all come through with relative ease, but the player that I’ve been really been impressed with is home favourite Andy Murray. I keep expecting the weight of pressure to tell but with every passing round Murray has looked more and more confident and, crucially, resilient. He will have his work cut out in the next round, however, as he is due to play the exceptionally gifted, if erratic, young Frenchman Richard Gasquet.

The tie is likely to be one to savour as both will see it as opportunity to advance against a relatively inexperienced opponent. We wait to see whether Murray will have the answers to Gasquet’s staggering array of shots.

Well done Cesc. Bye-bye Ade?

First of all I want to say congratulations to Spain for reaching the final of Euro 2008. Whilst they may not have excited as much as the plucky Turks, they have certainly been the most consistent team of the tournament. I was especially happy to see Fabregas turn in another impressive display after he came on to replace the injured David Villa. To be honest, his ability to influence the game has been so obvious during his several substitute appearances and his one start against Greece that I’m surprised he didn’t start against the Russians. I suppose this is a mark of just how blessed the Spanish manager Luis Aragonés is.

The good news for Cesc is that Villa’s injury looks like keeping him out of the final, which is likely to mean a starting birth for the Arsenal player. This of course I am happy about, and I truly hope Cesc can inspire his team to victory against the insufferably lucky Germans. I do have, however, a speck of caution. If, as is hoped, Spain do triumph, and if, as expected, Cesc plays a central role, it is likely to attract yet more unwelcome attention to Arsenal’s best and brightest.

It would be naïve of me to think that Cesc’s star has not already risen high enough to be seen by the keen-eyes of Europe’s hawks. But further evidence of the youngster’s exceptional ability may provoke the same unscrupulous tactics as have been witnessed during Real Madrid’s ongoing dalliances with Cristiano Ronaldo. A similar thing is already afoot in the form Milan and Barcelona’s pursuit of Emmanuel Adebayor. Contrary to the player’s claims that he wants to stay, his Italian agent Vincenzo Morabito is now claiming there is an “80% chance” the striker will leave for Milan.

Apparently, the only hope Arsenal have of keeping hold of Adebayor is if they treble his wages to £120,000 per week! Given Arsenal’s strict wage structure it is unlikely they will be prepared to offer such a deal, which I suppose means bye-bye Ade. Well, perhaps not. I don’t doubt Milan and Barcelona’s interest in the player – and there would be quite so much smoke without at least a small fire – but much of this hype is media and agent-generated – it’s about shifting newspapers and about establishing a strong negotiating position.

I would be very surprised to see Adebayor go this summer. Certainly it would be a mistake for him to go. Although he was one of the standout players of last term it would be foolish of him to forget the circumstances of his ascent. He was allowed to flourish at Arsenal because he was given time and because the manager repeatedly showed faith. At Arsenal, Adebayor is a key piece of an elaborate jigsaw. He should be aware that if he moves to either Milan or Barcelona his particular talents are unlikely to be indulged so fastidiously – witness Thierry Henry.