Whether or not the die-hard London-based Arsenal supporters choose to acknowledge it (not to mention accept it), Arsenal Football Club is an internationally supported club and has fans that love the team throughout the world. I can, of course, only speak for myself, yet I know that I am not alone when I say that despite living in the United States, I am able to watch virtually every Arsenal match on TV (or internet, via Setanta) and have made trips to watch the club at the Grove on more than one occasion. Arsenal is sometimes referred to as "the cult" amongst U.S. football fans because even though Man Ure and Chelski are more popular (johnny-come-latelys exist in every country), Arsenal fans are by far the most devoted to their club.

In issue 191 of The Gooner (which can be bought here), James Smither wrote an opinion piece where he criticized the "Americanisation of Arsenal." I read this article with a certain amount of resignation - Americans who have spent any amount of time in the UK are used to the ignorant assumptions that we know nothing about football, used to the giggles that emanate when we utter the obscenity "soccer" (never mind that it's called soccer in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and called calcio in Italian, which literally translates as "I kick"), and used to hearing how our influence is ruining football.

Mr. Smither writes that the American influence on Arsenal is responsible for the lack of atmosphere at the stadium and, I suppose, in the Premier League in general. This, of course, ignores the requirements of the Taylor Report, and the impact that stewards telling people to sit down has on a crowd. It is not "the Americanisation of Arsenal" that has created all-seater stadiums, nor is it Stan Kroenke mandating that people remain seated during play.

Perhaps the desire to create a family atmosphere at the footy has less to do with a desire to emulate U.S. sports and more to do with ensuring spectator safety. I also found it funny that Mr. Smither was able to label the "General Manager-Head Coach" (or Director of Football-Manager) system as an American invention, given that up to that point I had always heard it referred to as the Continental/European System.

Mr. Smither's article is, however, symptomatic of a greater problem (as it were) within the Gooner - a determination to consistently take the negative point of view about circumstances. This is, perhaps, a cultural thing - even the English themselves will admit that they tend (in a broad generalization) to be more negative than their trans-atlantic neighbors.

That being said, however, I fail to understand how anyone can truly criticize Arsène Wenger, given his history and, more importantly for the club, his future vision. Yes, this was an extremely frustrating season: two semi-finals show how much we are capable of, yet a trophy-less season shows how far we have still to go. And yes, it was frustrating that Arsène seemed dead-set on refusing to acknowledge that we needed help in defence. However, the relative lack of success this season seems to have convinced him of what every one else already knew, and I cannot help but think that next year we will be sincerely challenging on every front.

And, as frustrating as this season was, who do we really think would be a proper replacement for the manager? Ian Dowie is available, as are Aidy Boothroyd, Alan Curbishley, and Alan Pardew... personally, I'd prefer Mr. Wenger, for next season and the next decade, if he wants.

Thanks for producing a great publication - negative though it seems to have become, it's still required reading for any Gooner.