Robert Exley
Meet Bob, he’s a moron and he’s typical of the ‘Tea Party’ strand of right of centre of politics in the USA. He can’t express himself without shouting, which must mean he’s really passionate right? (Well, either that or someone incapable of conducting himself in a rational manner). He shouts an annoying catchphrase at every turn, which on this side of the Atlantic makes you about as politically credible as a character from the Fast Show or Little Britain (What’s next? What’s next? What’s next? – at a guess I’d say most probably more angry right wing guff). He has a tendency of demonising those whose opinions differ from his own - classics include his view that Obama’s plan for nationalised health care is the road to Communism in the USA, an obsession with Obama being a Muslim ‘that hates America’ and an assertion that the NAACP is a racist organisation – largely because he’s incapable seeing things in anything other than black and white with no grey area whatsoever. He has a tendency for gross misinformation, as according to Bob the UK education system doesn’t teach about the holocaust through fear of upsetting Muslims. He has a thinly veiled white Anglo-Saxon American Christian chauvinism and a tendency for portraying himself as Joe Public personified with a viewpoint drenched in ‘common sense’ as opposed to educated idiots who tell you otherwise – in essence the kind of common sense which tells you the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. In short, like the Tea Party movement across the USA, his opinions are nothing other than vitriolic rhetoric.
For a moderate member of the Republican Party of the USA today it must be hell to see the discourse of the right of centre dominated by such idiots, particularly as this strand will probably put most Americans off of voting Republican come the next election, despite the fact that President Obama has been largely been seen as a very underwhelming US president in comparison to the hope he embodied in late 2008. From a personal point of view though I’m more than happy; in my opinion the world seems a much safer place when a Republican isn’t sitting in the Oval office. What particularly annoys me though is seeing such tea party-style black and white vitriol traded by people who in a footballing sense at least I’m roughly in agreement with. The last few years has seen sharp divisions within the ranks of Arsenal fans, between the pro and anti-Wenger camps – what seem to have been termed as ‘rose-tinters’ and ‘realists’ through this site’s articles and forum. My own personal point of view lies with the camp that believes Wenger isn’t the man to take Arsenal forward - rather than running through the reasons why again, I simply refer to my article after the Liverpool game back in April because my opinion now is pretty much the same as then. Within the anti-Wenger camp though, two further sub-divisions should be recognised – that of a rational faction who actually try to prove their point with facts and that of a Tea Party-esque group that seem to be prone to such traits as historical revisionism, jingoism, ridiculous demonising of their perceived enemy and overall one dimensional discourse.
For those who regularly read these pages, they may well recognise my name as the author of the ‘After Wenger’ series – which was devised immediately after Arsenal’s FA Cup exit through despair at seeing Arsenal’s endless passing and zero cutting edge lose a third trophy in under a month. I’d submitted the first article within 24 hours of that defeat, though later requested the Gooner editor hold the series back until the end of the season to see what, if anything, Wenger could salvage from the season which still had another two months left to run. I’d expected stick from the pro-Wenger camp and wasn’t disappointed. From where most of their replies to Anti-Wenger articles had previous been who could possibly replace Wenger, a series aimed at answering that question seemed to see their replies changed to telling me to stop being so childish and requesting the editor to put a stop to any further ‘After Wenger’ articles. What wasn’t anticipated though was a wave of vitriol and general idiocy from some among the Anti-Wenger camp.
The most boringly repetitive reply among the comments section of these articles had been the phrase ‘Anyone but Wenger please!’ What, really? Of the world’s six billion inhabitants all are a viable choice as long as they’re not Arsene Wenger? Maybe we should bring back Bruce Rioch and perhaps he can show us all what might have been had we kept him on a decade and a half ago? The other repetitive and ill thought out phrase had been along the lines of ‘Stop trying to portray replacing Wenger as difficult when it isn’t’. Sorry folks, history tells you differently. Any English club replacing a manager who has had over or around a decade’s worth of relative success at a club generally sees a decline of sorts. The only real exceptions to this rule are Liverpool after Shankly left in 1974 and Arsenal after George Graham who both went on to better things, though in both cases there was a large degree of continuation with regard to personnel. Most examples though, tend not to be so fortunate. Man Utd after Busby, Spurs after Bill Nicholson, Charlton after Alan Curbishley, Forest after Clough, Leeds after Revie, Wolves after Stan Cullis and Ipswich after both Alf Ramsey and Bobby Robson all experienced a decline that either led to a relegation or a long period beneath the level accustomed to under a manager who - after a decade or so - had literally moulded the club in their own image.
In reply to this point I can imagine a wave of vitriol from the Tea Party wing of the Anti-Wenger brigade accusing me of believing Arsenal will be relegated without Wenger – no they won’t, but they do risk falling to a level where qualifying for the Europa Cup seems like an achievement. Yes, Arsenal could buck the trend and see an upward curve after replacing Wenger, however to achieve this they have to make the right choice in who they appoint as Arsene’s successor, therefore ‘anyone but Wenger’ is a phrase which really is as brain-dead as it gets – as is suggesting Mark Hughes as Wenger’s successor as one article did over the summer. Though I’m convinced change at the helm is looking increasingly necessary, I’m not convinced at all it’s going to be easy. Another point I’d envisage the Tea party wing of the Anti-Wenger brigade pointing to is the idea of ‘relative success’ and surely this can’t include six trophy-less seasons. Well, yes I’m afraid it does actually. One absurd comment someone made on one of my After Wenger articles was that three titles in fifteen years was mediocre by Arsenal’s standards. Is it really? Yes, there was an Arsenal FC before Arsene Wenger and yes, it was the third most successful side in English Football history even in 1996, but there’s also a few other points about Arsenal’s history the Anti-Wenger brigade seem too quick to overlook.
In the forty years between the end of the Second World War and the appointment of George Graham as Arsenal’s manager, the club had won seven trophies. Three of those were won before rationing had officially ended and another three were won in a 13 month period between April 1970 and May 1971, therefore there were great swathes of the post war era where Arsenal won nothing at all. Also, you may wish to compare Arsenal’s post war tally with other clubs come May 1986 – Liverpool reaped 25 trophies, Man Utd reaped 11 trophies, even Tottenham Hotspur reaped 12 trophies between 1946 and 1986. With regard to Wenger’s record being mediocre in comparison to Arsenal’s standards, this too has no basis in fact – for one, he’s the most successful Arsenal manager in terms of trophies won and finishing positions in the league. Also, no other Arsenal manager has won three league titles – Wenger has. If anything people view Arsenal’s standards today through the prism of the 19 year period of success between Graham’s appointment and Wenger’s last trophy, this period was down to two great appointments that were the right men at the right time ten years apart. Arsenal therefore can’t be flippant with who they bring in to replace Wenger when the time comes, if anything it will be the biggest choice in relation to on-field affairs that the board will make in a generation.
There also seems to be an absurd attempt by many among the anti-Wenger camp to diminish Wenger’s past achievements during the nine years in which he actually won trophies, which is equally as ludicrous and – what many among the ‘tea party’ wing of the anti-Wenger movement seem to be in blissful ignorance of – immediately discredits any argument for bringing about a change of manager. Although no Champions League or back to back titles were forthcoming for Wenger, even in his fruitful period, some of Wenger’s achievements - particularly between 2001 and 2004 - were once in lifetime accolades that will possibly never be equalled. The invincibles and the 49 match unbeaten run are the obvious ones that many within the pro-Wenger camp will point to, even though some clown in one article on the Online Gooner actually questioned whether the ‘Invincibles’ ‘really were that great?’ on the basis of the fact they drew 12 games and didn’t win all four trophies. Well, as far as English football is concerned the only other side in England to have finished a top flight season unbeaten did it over 22 games, in the earliest days of professional football, with a league that consisted of no sides south of Birmingham. Neither did Arsenal do this with a side that was particularly defensive in its outlook; the Invincibles won plaudits from all comers for their style of play, unlike Jose Mourinho’s near-Invincibles of a year later.
Secondly, not only is it rare in English football, it’s pretty much a rarity in any major European league. AC Milan of course achieved it in 1991/92, Perugia did the same in 1978/79 though only won 11 out of 30 games and failed to win the title. The only other instances are Benfica in 1972/73 and 1977/78 and Andre Villas Boas’ FC Porto last season, in a Portuguese League that is so uncompetitive it has only ever had five teams win its League title as well as Dresdner SC in the German League in 1942/43 with 23 wins out of 23 – in the middle of WW2 when most German players were probably conscripted to fight for the Fuhrer. So it’s pretty conclusive proof that the achievements of Wenger’s Arsenal in 2003/04 are difficult to downplay or diminish and yet some of the numpties among the Wenger revisionists have still attempted to do so. Aside from the achievements of the ‘Invincibles’ is the fact that Arsenal’s title winning side of 2002 went an entire season unbeaten away from home, not just a first in English football but overturning a convention of home advantage that is pretty much present in all team sports. If this wasn’t enough, Wenger’s Arsenal repeated the feat two years later. Arsenal also scored in every game of the 2001/02 season and took the overall record of scoring in 55 consecutive matches – eleven more than the previous record holder Man City in 1936-37, when defences were much less miserly and goals were easier to come by.
There’s also the point that many have made that his early successes were built on players he inherited, which include the defensive ‘big six’, plus Ray Parlour and Dennis Bergkamp. That point however means about as much as the fact that George Graham won his first trophy with a first XI that was entirely inherited from Don Howe, as well as three seasons later winning his first title at Anfield with a squad that was over half inherited from his predecessor. In essence, it’s a point that doesn’t mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things. Whoever a manager inherits he still has to work with them effectively, which is something many of the old guard claimed Bruce Rioch, with his tendency for eyeballing senior players, was incapable of doing. Also regardless of whom he inherited, George Graham and Bruce Rioch never left him much in the way of a midfield. By 1998 however, as the front page of the Daily Mirror pointed out, his previously unknown central midfield pairing would win the World Cup.
People also seem to forget that the five defenders he inherited were all over the age of 30 and back in 1996 this usually meant you were winding your career down. Most people back then actually pretty much assumed that any incoming manager would have broken up the symbol of the Graham era and though their goals against column still looked impressive, there were undoubtedly chinks in their armour with regard to their pace - if you don’t believe me then peruse the footage of the home cup defeats to lower league opposition against Bolton in 1994 and Millwall a year later.
Put simply, if anyone tells you that back in 1996 they would have expected three quarters of the famous back four to still be turning out regularly for the Arsenal six years later they are an out and out liar. Also, in an era where we were buying the likes of Bergkamp and Overmars, very few ever thought that Ray Parlour was worth keeping hold of either. It was Wenger’s training methods, dietary requirements and man management that changed all that.
One of the stupidest pieces of commentary I’ve seen on any article on this site came from John Evans’ piece back in June questioning the impact of the training methods Wenger brought to England in 1996, stating ‘a lot of the ideas that AW arrived with at the time were considered revolutionary, nowadays they are all common place at most clubs’. The fact that somebody had an idea people once considered leftfield and then later considered it to be conventional wisdom actually bolsters their standing John, it doesn’t lower it. He continues ‘Should it come as a surprise to find out you can’t play at the top of your game if you spend most of your spare time in pubs, clubs and hanging around kebab houses at 3am?’ Well in an era when the leading lights of English football such as Paul Gascoigne, Tony Adams and Paul Merson among others were habitually doing so, yes it did. His summary is ’Were AW’s ideas at the time really that revolutionary or were the then current day training regimes just so damn ridiculous that a four year old could have improved on things?’ Well John, it’s easy to downplay the effect of any major change or innovation with hindsight.
After all, Arsenal got by winning trophies domestically and in Europe with a side of players who habitually downed pints and ate kebabs, much in the same way the Victorians – who saw themselves as the most advanced civilization the world had ever seen - got by in their work lives and spare time without such luxuries as a record collection or computers. If Thomas Edison was brought by a time machine to the twenty first century he’d probably have no clue of how to build or make improvements to an iPod; however that doesn’t mean that any four year old back in 1877 could have invented the Gramophone. No doubt plenty of people in 1877 probably thought they could lead full and productive lives quite easily without any need for recorded sound, or the further technologies that such ideas were built on – like magnetic tape which resulted in the kind of data storage your computer still uses today. Pretty much like how most English sides thought they could drink beer and stuff kebabs in their faces and still win titles without ever thinking that the march of progress would make them look like dinosaurs within a few years.
It’s also funny to see how even though the likes of John Evans recognise how retarded the English way was pre-1996 they still pepper their articles with phrases such as ‘English Grit’. This is a phrase that has often been repeated ad nauseam through the comments section also. There seems to be a strand of Arsenal support that rather than laughed at the xenophobic bollocks which opposition fans aimed at us over the last 15 years as any sensible fan would, actually took it to heart and resented the foreignness of the Wenger years in their entirety – regardless of its successes or failures. A stance which if anything is the height of stupidity considering that this week is the 45th anniversary since ‘English Grit’ actually won anything at international level (unless you’re desperate enough to include Le Tournoi in 1997 or the Rous Cup), compared to Wenger and his ‘cheese eating surrender monkey’ compatriots who have won three in the years since. Maybe these people have romantic notions of a parallel universe where Jermaine Pennant, Francis Jeffers and David Bentley had their chance to parade their ‘grit’ in the red and white without Wenger spoiling it by draining them of their natural ‘Englishness’. There’s also nothing more cringingly embarrassing than seeing fellow Englishmen heap self-praise on a clapped out bankrupt nation by talking about ‘English Grit’. This country is so devoid of the substance you don’t even see it on the path when it snows!
You see, the essence of the problem with this Tea-Party wing of the anti-Wenger camp are that they are quite obviously intellectually wrong-footed by the need to argue how someone who was once so prolific and a force for good for Arsenal Football club should now be seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This task seems to be beyond them and instead they resort to vitriol, revisionism, jingoism and outright falsehood - even though it’s not actually that difficult an argument to put across if you think about it with a rational head. If you want a suitable analogy think ‘Ebony and Ivory’ by Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney back in 1982 - a condescending and cringingly embarrassing tune that over-simplifies an extremely complex social phenomena that has blighted modern civilisation for over 400 years. Nor, was it a career blip by these two – it got worse. By 1984 Stevie Wonder turned out ‘I Just Called to Say I Love You’ – and though he said he meant it from the bottom of his heart, it sounded more like it emanated from the heart of his bottom. For Macca it was even worse, he ended up making songs about frogs! So how then do you explain to those with the untrained ear that these are two of the greatest songwriters the world of popular music has ever seen?
Do you argue that on the basis of this early to mid-80s career detritus, maybe the impression we built of these two powerhouses of pop back in the 1960s was based on nothing but falsehoods? Maybe the songs you thought were written by Paul were actually John’s work? Maybe the people at Motown had more of a hand in Stevie’s success than he actually did? Well the truth is not that black and white – the likes of ‘Uptight’ and ‘Yesterday’ really were down to the individual geniuses of Stevie and Macca. How then did it come to this? Well, success and endless praise builds arrogance and complacency. It builds a mentality where you think success comes easy without little effort – where you’ve lost the ability to tell simplistic genius from simple-minded rubbish. It builds an environment where turning out a substandard product in comparison to a few years previous still gets a few apologetic sycophants making excuses for the tosh you are serving up and a belief that the critics are just bitter and know little in comparison to you and hence their view has no merit. It builds an environment where, despite once being on the very cutting edge of new developments, new ideas not only pass you by but make you look antiquated and irrelevant by comparison. In short, to paraphrase Ebony & Ivory: ‘there is good and bad in everyone’. It’s just that in Arsene Wenger’s case the fault line between the good and the bad came sometime around 2005 and ever since our defence – much like our fans - has done anything but live together in perfect harmony!
