Arsenal finally stopped Didier Drogba scoring against them and beat Chelsea on Monday night for the first time since 2007. A win that put them back in this topsy-turvy title race again after their defeat at Old Trafford last time out. A win that once again brought suggestions that Wenger's kids were now men, that they had matured, were psychologically stronger. Of course, Chelsea were poor as their awful run of form continued, but credit still goes to Arsenal, who did a lot of things right.

Firstly, Arsene Wenger's team selection. He finally opted to start with Fabregas, Van Persie and Walcott. Something he had yet to do following their returns to fitness. He also brought in Johan Djourou, who was outstanding up against Drogba. Tactically, they pressed the ball high up the field, and this resulted in two of the goals. Chelsea were pressured in their own half and were forced into a mistake. Barcelona did it to great effect in the 2-2 draw at the E******s Stadium last season where they absolutely dominated Arsenal for 70 minutes.

Finally, Arsenal did seem a lot stronger in the tackle. This notion that they are a soft bunch has always been exaggerated and it was dispelled here as the likes of Song, Wilshere and even Van Persie were flying into tackles. A good performance and a great result.

Surely, Arsenal would look to take full advantage against struggling Wigan two days later. Apparently not. Arsene Wenger made eight changes to his team, all in the name, it seems, of squad rotation. A very recent phenomenon in football, and one I don't fully understand. I can understand, with the big squads, that you want people to play and you don't want someone on multiple thousands of pounds a week sitting on a bench all year. It's almost like benefit fraud. (They're coming for you Winston Bogarde.) Some people say that there is an increased workload with all these added fixtures, so players need a rest.

However, surely the increased fitness levels of players these days counteracts this? Using the Wigan game as a 'case study', so to speak, it would appear that Wenger sacrificed momentum with this rotation, and it backfired on the night. I'd imagine Arsene would retort with his belief in the players he selected, that they were good enough to continue the momentum from the win over Chelsea. It's like the Ian Holloway incident where he made 10 changes and was castigated by the Premier League for doing so, people's arguments were that he has a squad of 25 players to use as he pleases, and if he has the faith in the player enough to include him in the squad he should be able to play. They both have a point, however, the question with Wenger is whether that faith was justified.

In this case, almost. For the record, Arsenal were unlucky to lose, they didn't play well but a comical own goal and a comical awarding of a penalty along with a comical 'non'awarding of a penalty cost them two points. If Arsenal had held on for a 2-1 win, Wenger probably wouldn't be facing all this questioning of his team selection. Looking at his actual selection, Fabregas and Van Persie couldn't play. Still, he dropped Nasri, Walcott, Clichy, Djourou, Wilshere and Song.

Clichy aside these players were brilliant against Chelsea. Clichy, meanwhile, was replaced with Eboue, a right back playing out of position. It must be incredibly frustrating for the fans who want to see their team win and want to see their manager select the best possible side. It must be even more frustrating for the likes of Walcott and Djourou, who come into the team, have an outstanding game just to find themselves sat on the bench again. The song 'You spin me right round' must be going round their heads as they find themselves rotating every couple of games.

Of course, like many things in football, there is a middle ground. This is the case with squad rotation. This middle ground is where you have a squad that isn't threadbare, such as Chelsea whose bench every week consists of inexperienced young players, or a squad that isn't overloaded, such as Man. City, who seem to hoard players by buying every mildly talented but overrated and overpriced player in sight. It can work, it can give people game time, it can help players returning from injury get back into the swing of things. It should be used in moderation though.

Managers must have an idea of who their star players are. The team should be built around them almost every week. This allows a team to have that momentum and get a good run of results going. Then there are the back-up players who can come into the team every couple of games or so. Either because they're good enough to damage their opponents, to cover injury and suspension or to give someone a rest. These changes could be made two or three at a time, to keep the continuity and not cause utter disruption to the squad dynamic that eight changes does.

The other thing to do is of course, use your starting team to get the team in a good position, then introduce these back-ups with half an hour to go. Perhaps using an approach similar to an NFL Depth Chart would work. Managers could use this as a guideline plus it gives a good balance between continuity and momentum whilst letting the whole squad get game time under their belts and contribute to the squad's efforts.