TFG
“Too many times we have been assured of a reaction following an abject surrender, and too many times there has been more of the same.” (“Thierry Henry: perspective and retrospective” 23 February 2012)
Due largely to work commitments and also a reluctance to repeat myself, I have not written here for some considerable time. Simon Rose finally persuaded me to join the Twitter universe and I have to thank him for his persistence. There is a cathartic serenity to be had from offloading post-match angst, before moving on and looking forward. Unfortunately, efforts to move on and look forward are intermittently punctuated by this squad’s propensity to self–destruct. In truth, this continual trait has not been addressed. Although Steve Bould’s promotion to coach appeared to buck this trend, in the event it has represented nothing more than a welcome interlude in the paucity of defending.
Heresy it may be, but, in my view, Gary Neville is a fine pundit. Hated as a stalwart of Manchester United’s successes for a decade, he is unbiased, succinct and adds value with his insight and directness. Like Bould, he was integral to a balanced, well-drilled defence, within a team that defended from front to back. M. Wenger seems not only to have neglected the importance of such organisation, but, far worse, is rumoured to have taken severe umbrage to the praise heaped on Bould for his contribution to a temporary improvement. Martin Keown was credited with our defensive solidity during the Champions League run of 2006, but was ultimately marginalised. History appears to be repeating itself.
Neville was quick to dismiss Arsenal in our current guise. Only the most myopic could argue with the opinion that the 2–1 scoreline represented a huge flattery of the visitors. He said that this was the best he had seen United play all season. I cannot comment, but I fear that this is not the worst that we will play this season. Individually, we have some excellent players, but these are supplemented by a majority who are inconsistent, incapable or apparently indifferent. Quite rightly, Wenger has faced increasingly forthright criticism. However, the buck – quite literally – stops with Stanley Enos Kroenke.
At the recent AGM, Ivan Gazidis once again appealed for patience. In truth, football fans, despite the spectrum of views, generally know when they are being had… and seven years without a trophy suggests that the figures don’t add up. There is some hope in the League Cup again this year, with a favourable quarter-final draw, but the perception remains that we will crumble the moment the going gets tough.
Let us disabuse ourselves of the romantic notion that this Board represents our vision. They are custodians of Silent Stan’s investment. I have no doubt that it rankles with him that there is a large space within the stadium which cannot be utilised for the maximisation of merchandising opportunities. Regrettably, his only interest in everything beyond the white line amounts to trading surpluses. George Graham was rumoured to be on a commission of trading profits during his reign. Having inherited the best of Graham’s recruits, Wenger’s behaviour suggests that he may be enjoying similar benefits. A decline in quality has coincided with an inverse proportion of financial gains.
The Arsenal internet-forums are awash with vitriol and the outpouring of anger. Booing at games has become commonplace, with some choosing to affront players in unacceptable ways. Ultimately, Stan Kroenke is indifferent. Gazidis is well paid to act as a buffer for his taskmasters – an American with a penchant for average sports franchises and a French autocrat governed by extreme megalomania. The other focus of Gazidis’ remit is to maximise the available potential from the imminent renewal of the shirt-sponsorship and stadium-naming rights. That is the crux of his accountability, the inconvenience of occasionally having to meet fans and appease the raging mob being just that.
The increasing number of empty seats at home games is not a management priority. They have, after all, been paid for in advance and so falling attendances can be ignored in the short term. Emphasis is placed on corporate hospitality and its attendant riches. The majority of these “guests” are the demographic with whom the Board wish to relate. Football is a sideshow, a necessary distraction but certainly not the raison d'être. The players are disproportionately rewarded without sufficient responsibility, whilst the fans and other visitors to the “Citadel of Cash” are trusted to continue their blind devotion and/or desire to experience the match-day vacuum of atmosphere.
Defeat against Manchester United used to hurt. Hurt like hell. Now, our inability to compete (despite platitudes to the contrary) has resulted in an expectation that we are likely to lose against the bigger teams. I find it hard to demonise Robin van Persie, much as I regret the basis of his long-since-taken decision to move on to bigger things. Adebayor is no parameter of class, but compare his reaction to scoring against us following his move to Manchester City; the Dutch striker was reasonably demure in his celebrations. It may be unpalatable, but this was a career move based upon football ambition, evidenced by his rebuttal of Manchester City’s advances. It took no more than three minutes for him to be vindicated on Saturday.
The question is, who will be next to escape? Theo Walcott looks a good bet, but I wonder whether Jack Wilshere will enjoy a long term future at Arsenal. We are a selling club by design and, whilst following in Chelsea’s repugnant footsteps courtesy of Alisher Usmanov feels morally indefensible, the current model is far removed from the sporting ambitions of our recent former glories.
Prior to the sponsorship deals becoming reality, the Board will retain the policy of chancing their luck with Champions League qualification. That their luck has so far held is remarkable, but no guarantee of future entry into Europe’s premier club competition. Inevitably, given the fickle nature of Lady Luck, sooner rather than later, this gamble is likely to backfire. Rather than insure against it by spending commensurate with income, the Board reserve the money which would be forfeit in the event of not qualifying.
In light of all this, the only remedy against repeated disappointment may be total indifference. I have done my best to insulate myself from the pain of mediocrity, by significantly lowering my expectations. Whilst I cannot be indifferent, I occasionally envy the corporate brigade, most of whom do not pretend to care beyond the availability of their next overpriced drink. What I can do I have done, learning the hard way to ignore feckless promises and form my own views of what I see.
Gary Neville has worked it out and so, for some time, have most of our supposed rivals. They know, but have no vested interest in a change of approach or direction for Arsenal. Unforgivably, the Board must be as aware, but stubbornly maintain a short-sighted vision, despite the possibility of brand enhancement which accompanies success. With no incentive to remedy the shortcomings, we as fans are forced to like it or lump it. Frustrated at the dearth of meaningful alternatives, fans are having to face up to deciding where between those polarities they stand.
