One of my mottos is: Never look forward to things. To do so is to tempt fate and raise expectations too high that are either not fulfilled or, even if they are, diminishes the thrill. So my looking forward to Tuesday night's game was rather stupid.

When I saw the headline yesterday: "Shocking in Pink", I knew the subject matter. As Arsene said, six one-on-one's, all missed, and Bendtner's boots fluffed numbers 1, 2 and 6, with a couple of rebounds off the Great Dane going wide for good measure. If only he was as good as he thinks. One day, perhaps; we should not forget how young some of our first team players are, let alone the Carling Cup squad.

Looking at the Chelski programme - before I send it to our young Chelsea friend in Australia with his family's Christmas card - no Chelsea player under 21 has started a game this season in any competition; most are 27-plus. And if there really is no more (net) money due to the credit crunch and the resulting dwindling of Roman's billions - every cloud... - then Chelsea may be in some trouble in a season or two. And then the Neanderthals will quickly turn.

Burnley played / passed well, I thought, so credit to them. Fabianski looks very nervous, obviously culpable for the all-important early opener that changed the game. But another first-half incident was even worse. A weak shot came in to his near post, which should have been swallowed. But it was like watching a kitten pounce on a ball of wool, knocking it out; and he only just got to the rebound before the attacker. For all his mistakes, Almunia's job is safe until the other Pole develops. But we made plenty of chances away from the comforts of E******s, which is a positive.

I had not realised that Tuesday night was Arsene's first loss to a non-Premiership side until visiting the club website just now. That's a problem with pub football, one cannot hear the game properly. But I'm glad I don't have Sky at home as the coverage is of ITV quality. We missed the build-up to Jay Simpson's 1 v 1 as they were still showing the replay to the recent Fabianski save - credit to him this time - at the other end. Too much use and abuse of technology. Less is more.

A friend made an interesting point about our egotistical Dane. He feels that Nicklas regards himself as a first team player who did not belong / want to be at Turf Moor and, perhaps as a result, did not give his all; although he did produce many deft flicks etc. This could be a very valid point, and has me thinking back to last season's 5-1 fiasco at The Lane. That night was a mish mash of first teamers and Carling Cup regulars, and possibly mixing the two does not work.

The outfits that beat comprehensively Sheffield United and Wigan really were teams, playing as a unit. On Tuesday it felt odd - to me at least - not to see Jay Simpson partnering Vela after his brace in the previous round. I wonder what last season's Division 1 player of the season made of being benched? Sure, one or two CC squaddies can be introduced over time into the first team squad fold, but putting 5 or 6 in all at once is, I think, less likely to be successful; neither fish nor fowl, to use a favourite expression of my Gooner buddie.

To other matters. The "Chelsea offside" linesman has been put out to grass - or, rather, not - this coming weekend as punishment for not raising his flag at The Bridge. Two thoughts come to mind. First, this is a retrograde step as we all want to see fewer stoppages (except when enabling errors to be overturned with the use of technology) and for positive play to be rewarded, which was the reason why the offside rule was amended in the first place. The default should be to give the benefit of the doubt to any attacker. This ruling will do the opposite unless the opposite error - giving as offside an attacker who is blatantly onside - is treated with the same punishment. Unfortunately this, second, scenario is illogically seen as the lesser of two evils. It also reflects our litigious society. One cannot get a straight answer from many people these days as they fear the repercussions of making an honest mistake. So linos will raise their flags as the default, knowing that a goal resulting from their error will be analysed to death.

But the second thought is more worrying for us Arsenal fans, or at least for ones like me with a persecution complex. This week's decision could be read thus: do not mess with the might of Chelsea (and ManU and possibly Liverpool). Rob Styles gave a ridiculous penalty at OT for ManU against Bolton recently. ManU were struggling to break down Bolton and just 30 minutes remained. Doubtless Rob was feeling a little anxious at United's impotency. Yes, he apologised to Bolton after the game, but he succumbed to whatever pressures he was feeling and gave ManU their customary penalty in such situations. He had an excellent view - angle and distance - and no excuse.

His error was far worse than the "Chelsea offside" yet he was not similarly rested the following weekend. Why? And was the lino who allowed Drogba's offside equaliser in last season's corresponding match demoted for a week? I don't think so but would appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong. And how about the referee at the infamous Birmingham gane last season who almost single-handedly derailed our Premiership bid? Perhaps it's just a series of coincidences, but I tend not to believe in such a fantastic notion.