Theo Jensen
In an attempt to defend the club's current policy and position, by far the most frequently posited and well-founded argument is to cite the financial constraints placed upon the manager. This is a very powerful line of reasoning and gives me great sympathy for Wenger in terms of his footballing options. What interests me currently, however, is the degree to which he really is 'stuck' when it comes to transfers.
For this piece then, I want to try to assess our position accurately, and follow this up by seeing if the transfer policy followed in the summer was, as one would expect, mainly a course of necessity with almost completely limited options.
The weaknesses of the squad seems to be agreed upon almost unanimously. I won't spend too much time on this, but it is important to point out that the situation may actually be worse than some have suggested: the goalkeeping situation has been the cause of much concern. Not unfairly, many have called for an experienced keeper for Szczesny to 'understudy', while in defence each position has reasonable depth apart from at left-back.
Surprisingly for a Wenger team, it's when you move forward that you start to see more cracks. We have many central midfielders, but on closer inspection the quality is spread quite thinly. Oxlade-Chamberlain, Coquelin, Wilshere and Frimpong have the potential to be stars in a few years’ time, but they are some way off the 'peaking' ages of 25-28; it's obviously difficult for them to produce football of that quality so early on in their careers. Additionally, the last two mentioned are recovering from serious injury problems. Ramsey too falls into this latter category. Then we have two massively injury-prone (and current absentees) in Rosicky and Diaby, leaving just (the very talented) Cazorla and Arteta as viable long-term central midfielders. But, once again, there's a problem: Cazorla is, surely, accustomed to a winter break which he won't receive this season, and when you look at how the classy David Silva and Juan Mata's form dropped after January for the last campaign, the same thing couldn't be completely ruled out for our new playmaker.
Podolski has already shown glimpses of being a proficient left-winger and I believe he will grow into the role more as he settles. When you get to Gervinho, however, you start to see part of a larger pattern in recent years. He was signed shortly after Wenger had stated that we would retain both Nasri and Fabregas, and appeared to be signed to give us another dimension tactically - as he could take on players. Now, he is being used on either the left or right wing as a starter, if not in the role of a striker.
And why is that? Well, we don't have a single recognised right-winger in the team. Walcott has stated publicly his desire to play as a striker while Oxlade-Chamberlain considers himself a central midfielder. After Chamakh's collapse in confidence, we have the still-adapting Giroud as the focal point of our attack.
I presume most would not think that too unreasonable an assessment. Given these team and squad-deficiencies, would it not have been better to see as many as possible addressed during the summer transfer window?
If one ever criticises any policy of any kind, it is far more legitimate if an alternative can be proposed. The problem in this context is that such attempts usually lead to things being slung at you like 'leave it to the professionals!' or 'stop playing Football Manager!'. The problem with the people who do this is that, firstly, they often bring their own arguments in defence of the club or the manager. This is dishonest and unfounded, since they themselves are amateurs and, although showcasing themselves as 'representatives', could not themselves, from the logic by which they criticise, accurately convey the thoughts of 'the professionals'. Alternatively, if they merely assert it, they are simply making a statement of blind faith. That would be akin to claiming that those who trust in their governments blindly are 'better citizens' than the ones who question them.
Obviously 'credentialism' is often important. We'd all prefer trained psychologists and surgeons over untrained ones of course. However, I'm currently studying history at King's College London, and never in my study of the subject have I encountered criticism based solely or even mainly on an ad hominem attack. Why? Because the real issue is the data, and that's what we should concern ourselves with.
Anyone who follows the excellent work of The Swiss Ramble or who has taken an interest in the financial running of the club will know that in a couple of years’ time we will become exponentially stronger with the additional revenue generated by the new TV and sponsorships deals. Player sales are currently papering over the cracks of the 'self-sustaining' model, and so I will presuppose that all purchases would have to be covered by the selling of current Arsenal players.
Tomas Rosicky produced some excellent performances from the second half of last season. This helped him to procure a new two-year contract with the club. It has been alleged that this pays him an astounding £70,000 per week. Looking at some of his quotes regarding the wages he was offered elsewhere, this might not be too far off the mark. It seems extreme for a highly injury-prone squad player. I wonder if anyone would have objected to that contract being given to, say, Jussi Jääskeläinen instead? He seems to fit the bill for the kind of goalkeeper we need right now, with Mannone clearly out of his depth filling in for Szczesny.
I find the decision not to have sold Walcott bizarre. To have offered £75,000 per week to such an inconsistent performer in the first place is baffling. Manchester City, Chelsea and Liverpool were all said to be interested. Were they? City bought Scott Sinclair while Chelsea bought Victor Moses at the very end of the window, two players with very similar attributes to Walcott. Liverpool (of whom Walcott openly acknowledges his admiration as a fan) were in search of a striker given their lack of depth in this area. Surely, had he been sold, we would have picked up a fee at least matching the £12.5 million initially paid for him. That could have been used to buy a proper winger - Adam Johnson perhaps? It's all the more startling when you consider that part of his contract negotiations will revolve around his desire to play as a striker, after we spent £13m on Olivier Giroud.
I generally think it's fairer to judge players from foreign leagues after a year at the club. However, this may not be so appropriate in the case of Olivier Giroud. Our dependence on RvP last season, and his subsequent sale, left a massive void in the lone-striker position. It might have been better to purchase replacements who, in theory at least, stood a better chance of hitting the ground running. For £1m more than was paid for Giroud, we could have bought Demba Ba and Clint Dempsey (who can also play on the right wing). Given that they have already proven themselves in the Premier League, and that acquiring two players instead of one would be some kind of damage-limitation, that might have been a more prudent option.
Finally, would it not have been better to try and sell Aaron Ramsey (if he'd accept leaving) who, although another young potential success, is in the same category as, and overshadowed by, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Wilshere, Frimpong and Coquelin. It would almost certainly have been better not giving Johann Djourou a three-year contract at £50,000 per week (an outlay of £7.8m!). I also fail to see why Arshavin, Bendtner and Denilson were not sold when all had clubs interested in them, and surely it would be better to see them off the wage bill, whatever the fee? All of that might have generated enough to buy, say, Moussa Dembele.
You need not get 'weighed down' by the replacements I have suggested. I'm sure you'd all have your own lists and all the ones I mentioned certainly have their shortcomings. I do not think there is any 'simple solution' as it were, or guarantee of success. The real issue is that even when we presuppose that Wenger must sell to buy, there appears to be scope to try and address the deficiencies in the team, without even speculating to accumulate.
There are other issues too which have been addressed more adequately than I shall attempt: where's the strategic plan B? Where is the defensive organisation? Where is the passion and motivation from the players? Clearly these cannot be bought with money (although City give it a good go!) and financial constraints do not affect these areas.
I still have a great deal of sympathy for the manager's position, and certainly don't consider myself anywhere near the 'AMG' bracket. I do, however, think that questions need to be asked even after the argument of financial constraints is put forward. That certainly is the main hurdle in all this, but to what extent are there elements in our shortcomings of self-fulfilling prophecy?
