Kevin Whitcher (in discussion with Graham Perry)
Over the summer, between June 10th and August 2nd, Graham Perry of Arsenal Circular and myself had an email exchange on the subject of whether Arsène Wenger was the best man to take Arsenal forward, after it was announced he would be managing the club for a further two seasons. The first part of the discussion was posted yesterday, along with the reasons I initiated it, and here’s the remainder…
Kevin Whitcher: Moving on, in China, on the pre-season tour, Arsène has said, 'For me this season will be a change because [speculation over my future] was a bit eternal, a repetition of the press conferences about that.' Maybe I made a mistake and allowed that to happen because I didn't commit early enough. I think at some stage I did not think it would be a handicap for my commitment and it was not. But it was a bit of a handicap because it created a climate of insecurity and a lack of clarity about my person that maybe did not help at some stage.'
During the period from February to April when Arsenal collapsed in the Premier League and in Europe, beating only non-league teams in the FA Cup, the manager consistently claimed that the uncertainty over his future was not having any effect on his players. So during season the message was it’s not affecting my players – it is not a reason for any poor performances, and then after the fact – suddenly it created a climate of insecurity. Surely, you would agree he is having his cake and eating it here, using the uncertainty as an excuse for a poor showing in the two main competitions. Can you understand why some supporters get angry when they hear these kind of contradictions emanating from the manager?
Graham Perry: You make a fair point about the media speculation about his future. The speculation was allowed to gather pace as results went against us. It did damage us on the pitch and in my view did affect the morale of the players. So why did it happen? My guess all along has been that there were differences within the Board about Wenger’s long term future. I am sure he wanted another two years or maybe even three. He did not get it and as the results went against us the Board remained divided. I sense Kroenke was steadfast behind Wenger – partly because he continued to believe in him and partly because he came under attack as well. At the same time I remember how Keswick engaged in a much publicised walk out before the end of the Palace defeat. Two matters changed the outlook – Wenger went for 3 at the Back and results picked up. Wenger’s position strengthened and there were no Board resignations.
You blame Wenger for saying the uncertainty about his future was not affecting performance and then later accepting that the uncertainty did affect performance. I understand your frustration but Wenger was not in control of events. He had to say performance was not affected while the season was ongoing – to do the opposite would have lit the blue touch paper and there would have been an explosion. As it happened performances improved culminating in an FA Cup win that was a joy to watch. So I agree with you that there were contradictions in Wenger’s comments during and after the season but for me it was events more than deception that were the cause.
KW: Given that you are not counting the seasons between the stadium move and 2013 as valid for criticism due to your belief that Arsenal could not financially compete, how do you account for Leicester's triumph of 2015-16? Surely Arsenal had more chance of delivering a title, given the relative disparities in income, between 2006 and 2013. And given that this Leicester's title happened in a period when Arsenal could compete, can you understand why some believe that Arsène no longer has what it takes to deliver a Premier League title? Either during or at the end of that season, Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United all changed their managers as a consequence of their being unable to take part in a title race with Leicester and Spurs. Arsenal persisted with their manager and dropped out of the top four the following year.
The argument for change seems, to me, incontrovertible.
GP: Leicester’s success surprised us all – amazed might be a better word. It was the exception not the norm. Arsenal were well placed to win the title and were at Christmas 2015 the widely tipped favourites. We fell apart – in part because Wenger limited himself to the purchase of Cech and believed – wrongly it turned out – that Areta/Flamini/Rosicky were capable of supporting a challenge. No question Wenger has to carry the can. I agree with you. So why do I not agree with you that changing the manager should have been the consequence? For you it was probably the final straw – make the change – now. For me it was time to stand by the manager. In modern football terms there is more support for you than for me. Football is results driven and if the results are not there then change the manager. For me there is more than that:
There is the Club, its traditions, its standards, its norms – it was right to part company with Bruce Rioch after one season. He was at odds with almost all the players. It was not right to part company with Wenger who – undeniably going through an uncertain period – was entitled to expect support from the Club. I, more than most I accept, stand by Wenger because he stood by us when during the stadium building days he could have taken any job in Europe but chose to stay at risk to his standing and reputation and pull us through a financially strapped period. There is another reason – believing in people when things are at a low ebb. Mindful of frustrations with Wenger I continued to believe that he can achieve – that he can do it. I felt that when Leicester won and I felt that after the Palace defeat. In that sense the end of season run – THFC defeat apart – and the confidence that flowed through the team at Wembley makes me optimistic about the coming season. We will see – maybe I will be proved right and we will be able to sustain a title challenge – maybe I will be proved wrong and have egg on my face.
KW: During the 'lean years' of 2006 to 2013 the club's cash balance rose every year, from £53m in 2006 to £153m in 2013. There was money to spend, but Arsène chose, often, to develop from within rather than to add (what this observer felt was) much-needed experience. Wisened heads who could help the team. So for example, in the summer of 2009, he decided against paying the extra £2 million that would have secured Xabi Alonso (who went on to win titles in Spain and Germany and at international level). He justified not making such a purchase because he felt it would hinder the development of players such as Abou Diaby, Alex Song and Denilson. My view is that Alonso at the club would have actually aided the development of these players - all should be at their peak now, but have fallen into obscurity. How do you reflect on the policy of what became known as 'project youth', knowing that the club had cash in the bank that could have funded at least three experienced heads in that period? To these eyes it was an unnecessary experiment, a self-indulgence for the manager, that failed. The cost counted in the lack of trophies from 2006 until 2014.
GP: You have a point – if your analysis is right. Did AW with funds to spend decide not to spend only because he preferred a youth policy?
So the questions are -
1. Did he have funds to spend?
2. Was he too tight with the purse strings?
3. Did he lose key players because he was inflexible?
You say he had the funds to spend and refer to a rising cash balance up to 2013? It sounds as if he was sitting on a pile – was he? – Wasn’t he still selling the crown jewels at this time? Was he too tight – maybe – I do not know the answer – maybe you do and you have inside information and for a small extra we could have acquired a great talent. If you are right I would be unhappy but as with most things in life I do want to hear his explanation before going public in criticism of him. He might say the present stable state of AFC finances is a reflection of the cautious policy he had to transfers – that said there are times when you do want your manager to gamble and to live dangerously but our talk is cheap – not our money.
KW: I would conclude that you are too forgiving of a manager who - in my view - should have performed better, both between 2006 and 2013 (when you consider he was too greatly handicapped financially, which I disagree with) and since 2013. This is based on his prior achievements. Yet even in his best years, there were weaknesses which exposed him as not the top manager some would have you believe - the title should have been won in 1999 and 2003 without question. And the players he had should have been more successful in Europe. For me, it would have been fair enough to give him until the end of the 2008-09 season, but by then it was clear he no longer had what it took to bring the club the success of the first decade of his tenure. He's been around too long and things have gone stale. So much so that the best players do not want to remain beyond their current contracts. They know. Van Persie did not leave because the club were not able to compete financially, it was because he knew that the manager was not good enough - I will always recall his reaction when Oxlade-Chamberlain was removed during a home match v Man Utd when he had been tearing the United defence apart. Now, Alexis Sanchez, an ambitious footballer who likes to win, has had enough and knows he will be more successful elsewhere. Oxlade-Chamberlain will become a much better player under Conte at Chelsea. I know you are very polite, but such tolerance of under-achievement will only bring more of the same. To an extent, I think you are in denial. Change is a part of life, and necessary for progress. Sure, there may be failures, but there will also be successes. At least there would be an element of excitement and unpredictability, something that cannot be said about Arsenal's title challenges since the stadium move.
Thanks for the exchange - it has been civil and reasoned - as all such football debates should be.
One final question - in which position do you predict the club will finish the 2017/18 Premier League season? For what it's worth, I believe it will be anywhere from fourth to sixth, but no higher.
GP: I am torn between agreeing that you have the final word on the one hand and me requesting the right of response. I think you have come to a conclusion about Arsène like you say I have and are fitting events to confirm. You refer to 1999 and 2003 and yet do not mention the unbeaten season – just as I have said that the three years without a trophy after the Giggs goal was a blot on Wenger’s titles so I think you should have been more willing to embrace things like 2004 and the Invincibles – it will never be done again. It was that big. Overlook it and you become one-sided.
You say RVP left because he had lost faith in AW – it’s like Mandy Rice-Davies – he would say that wouldn’t he? He could not admit he was going for the money after we have stuck with him though all his injuries. Also – and this gets me about RVP – how David Dein saved him from a rape charge in Amsterdam.
I am polite. I was always taught to be respectful and I am respectful of you enormously but I do think there are some holes along the way. Results matter – 5 o’clock on a Saturday will tell us all – metaphorically.
KW: Thanks Graham. You will have the final word. The question I left you with was as follows - In which position do you predict the club will finish the 2017/18 Premier League season?
And that will conclude our very civilised discussion. On a side note, I recognise the triumph of 2004, but the reality is that the club have come nowhere near the title since. Time, and the game, have moved on, apart from in the Arsenal dugout. Interesting to note that Ray Parlour said a couple of seasons ago that training had not changed under Arsène since he was a player. Time for fresh ideas perhaps?
GP: It’s a poisoned chalice. No one can say – what position? The test is this - we have to contest for the top spot all the way to the end of the season.
KW: It is good to end on something we can both agree on. Yes, we have to contest for the top spot all the way to the end of the season. That Arsenal have failed to do this ever since the stadium move is at the root of the current divide amongst the fanbase. Let us hope a successful challenge gives us something to get excited about and brings everyone together. I would love it if Arsène could prove my lack of faith in him wrong. Thanks you for your time and explanation of your views.
GP: Thanks Kevin. It has been a pleasure to engage with you. All the best.
