Yes, Arsenal WON...but Same PASSING Obsession Persists in Newcastle Victory

This was not a great Arsenal performance. I never really saw Newcastle even though they were at home, because they are a team that still need to find themselves under Mclaren. So get back to me with that in about two months, then I can properly assess what Newcastle are about. For Arsenal, it was the same old story. They played the same when all players were even, and after the sending off...yep...you guessed right....THEY CONTINUED TO PLAY THE SAME WAY.




They won the game. This is the winning business, and that has to be the one real positive aspect that was taken from this match. Apart from that, I think it's best to start off with the inclusion of Walcott as a striker. I give Wenger SOME kudos for going with something different because Giroud has been...Giroud. The only problem is, which is what Ian Wright mentioned, you can't just dip and dab Theo in and out of this role. If he is to play it, you need to give him the best part of a season. Then if it's not working, scrap it. Only those are effective strikers should play that position. Also, Walcott CANNOT play as a lone goal-getter. He does not have the skill, strength, or craftiness to do so. That is where Wenger should really have his tactical hat on and partner Walcott with either Giroud or Welbrick...I mean, Welbeck.

Before the sending off, Arsenal were finding space and passing the ball well, but there was just no real effect when it was put in for Walcott. He just lacked that consistent threat that you would expect from someone who understands that striking position very well. And what makes any great finisher, is those who hardly get a sniff or hint of a chance, but when that ONE opportunity comes, they take it. I'm not going to hate on Walcott and label him a failure. But that chance he had when the ball ricocheted off Krul, he HAD TO SCORE. There was a zero excuse for him not to make that fishnet bulge.








Newcastle have to thank the Krul one. I have no idea how Newcastle are still able to keep a hold of him because he is one of the most underrated keepers out there now. If not for his saves and quick thinking, it could have been two or three. On the other hand, Arsenal should have been a lot more clinical. This is how you win or lose leagues. It's about finding ways to win and making EVERY chance count. I just don't see that killer instinct in Arsenal in the same way that City and Chelsea have it in them, hence why they have been more successful than the Gunners.


A fear of shooting is something that will hold Arsenal back. The actual goal came from Ox saying "screw it" and firing that ball at goal, which lead to the G. The normal Arsenal way would have been for him to try and play a neat pass into the box or look for a one-two. When you are playing against ten men, at their cribb and a team who just held United to a draw at Old Trafford, surely you must know that you have to play with a bit more risk and try and make space for shots. Passing and passing just isn't going to cut it. You have to just stick your chest out, try and beat your man and fire in a ball, or play a clever looping ball into the box that forces Coloccini and the other defenders to really have to work for that paycheck.


Well, Arsenal walked away with the win and that is the bottom line. But they have to always look beyond this and at the grander scheme of things. It's about the title, and any responsible manager works out the negatives in BOTH losses and wins. Arsenal need to have a gameplan when they have an extra man up, which has to be of less passing and more incisive play that creates chances. There also needs to be some sort of a solution for their striking issue. Giroud has to be a sideshow and cannot be the main event. So either a strike partnership of him and Theo, which gives Walcott less pressure playing on his own, or heading into that market and finding a striker who can receive the ball at his feet and can CREATE his own goals.




HH