Robert Exley
In seven years of writing pieces for The Gooner calling for Wenger's exit, in a bid to understand the opposing view point, I'd often wondered if there was such a thing as a 'realpolitik' #WengerIn position. One that fully understood Wenger was on the decline, that knew there would be better candidates out there for the role, but one which ultimately knew deep down the incumbent Arsenal board would never make the right choice of successor. That maybe the 'be careful what you wish for' warnings were not quite what you took them to be on face value.
It's undoubted (in my mind at least) that after twenty-two years Arsenal FC needs a fresh direction, but have any of the candidates mooted so far been the 'Wexit' solution anybody actually envisaged? At the start of this calendar year, the like of Ancelotti, Allegri, Luis Enrique and Joachim Loew were first choice on most people's lips. The noises emanating through the press in recent days however seem to be centring on candidates much less experienced or successful such as Rui Faria, Patrick Vieira and particularly on a player who up until two years ago had been Arsenal's club captain and is now being reported by many sources as 90% certain to succeed Wenger - Mikel Arteta.
The current reaction on social media to the potential appointment of Arteta predominantly seems to centre around banal sentiments, such as 'giving 100% support' and 'getting behind the team' and 'give the man a chance', as if several Twitter accounts were competitively auditioning for a role of a crowd member in a 'Roy of the Rovers' comic. Unfortunately, for those of us born with a bit more of an inquisitive mind, there's more than a few questions that need to be raised before we welcome the idea of 'Arteta Knows Best':
Firstly, can anybody point out an instance in English post-war football where an incoming manager followed a reign that lasted in excess of fifteen relatively successful years and it actually turned out to be a success? The most recent example being David Moyes following Ferguson at Man United, which resulted in the former's solitary season ending in him taking a side that finished the season before as Champions and brought them a seventh place finish - lower than the supposedly smaller club (the one with nine titles and most seasons in top flight football than any other side) which he left for richer pickings. The ballad of David Moyes however is nothing compared to the two highest profile top flight relegations of the 1970s.
One of Fergie's predecessors - Matt Busby – after twenty-four years in charge and conquering Europe, saw a series of underwhelming successors in the shape of Wilf McGuinness (which could potentially be eerily similar to Mikel Arteta, even if the over bearing force on the board is Ivan or Stan rather than a former boss like Busby) and Frank O'Farrell, before relegation under Tommy Docherty in 1974. The other relegation example had been that of Spurs who after Bill Nicholson's exit faced the drop three seasons on under Keith Burkinshaw, via a two-year stint with Terry Neill at the helm.
The only example that springs to mind of a successful appointment in a situation similar to the one which Arsenal currently find themselves in is Bob Paisley following Bill Shankly at Liverpool in 1974. In this instance, Paisley was promoted from within and had been present within the coaching staff throughout his predecessor's successful reign. It's fair to say therefore that history is already pretty much against the Arsenal board when it comes to this appointment. You'd think therefore the last thing the board would consider is a manager without a proven track record of success, but that seems to be exactly what they're doing.
People have been quick to point out in defence that Arsenal have a track record of left field appointments that had served the club well in the past. People were after all asking 'Arsene Who?' twenty-two years ago. There is however one glaring hole in this argument. 'Arsene Who?' said more of the English game's insularity before 1996 than an actual comment on Arsene Wenger's standing at the time. Wenger's coaching experience actually goes back as far as 1981. He'd already had twelve years' experience of management before arriving at Highbury. This experience included a French League title in 1988, as well as managing big name players such as Mark Hateley, Glenn Hoddle, Manuel Amaros, Patrick Battison, George Weah, Jurgen Klinsmann, Dragan Stojkovic, Enzo Scifo, Lilian Thuram and Youri Djorkaeff.
Compare this to Mikel Arteta, whose had just two years as assistant to Pep Guardiola at Man City. This season he's assisted his boss in winning the Premiership at a canter, but just how instrumental was Arteta to this achievement? If he's that important at the Etihad, why would Pep and City be so agreeable to his leaving to manage a potential rival. And of course, what did Pep win in football before he teamed up with Mikel Arteta? – quite a bit from what I can recall. In Mikel Arteta, we might be signing up the next big thing in coaching. Equally, there's just as much evidence to suggest we're signing up Pep's 'coneman' to oversee an enormous job of getting London's biggest fish back into the Champions League fold (the club just simply cannot tolerate another finish outside of the Champions League for the sake of its own standing in the game).
There's also the matter that Mikel has been party to Arsenal's on pitch relative decline over the last decade or so and a Captain at a time when Arsenal self-evidently lacked on pitch leaders. Again, people would point to Arsenal's past and the night and day difference between George Graham the player and GG the boss. 'Stroller' had been the one player both Bertie Mee and Don Howe openly admitted they never would have considered as future management material - certainly not the 'Ayatollah' like disciplinarian which returned to the club in the mid to late 80s. Again, this point fails acknowledge that this was not a 'road to Damascus' like change for George Graham. The gap between GG's Highbury exit as a player and his returning as manager had been fourteen years, he'd started out in coaching around eight years prior and spent three seasons managing Millwall.
George took over a batch of players, none of whom (with the exception of Kenny Sansom at Crystal Palace nearly a decade prior) he ever had played alongside. In Arteta's instance, it's only two short years since he left Arsenal as a player. Practically every single player he'll be inheriting will be former team mates from a mostly underachieving set of players. The difference between coaching alongside Pep Guardiola with the best side that money can buy in world football is a world away from whipping into shape a squad that is more 'messy' than it is 'Messi'. It's true, Mikel Arteta might turn out to be a good manager. Like with George Graham however, I'd rather assess his merits after he's managed a club like Millwall, rather than let him loose on Arsenal, thanks all the same.
Personally, if it is Arteta who gets the job, I'd love him to prove me wrong and in future years this piece of writing be held up as an example of someone too quick to cast judgement. Unfortunately, basing an opinion solely on evidence, I've seen nothing to convince me this would be a remotely adequate appointment. To be frank, I see very little evidence (declining attendances aside) that this appointment would even be an improvement on sticking another season out with Wenger. And frankly, to believe that Stan Kroenke and Ivan Gazidis could appoint an inexperienced manager, replacing the most experienced manager in the Premiership, who then in the face historical precedent turns out to be a rip-roaring success - that would mean believing the pair were capable of genius-like football insight. Quite frankly, I've seen startlingly little evidence of that over the last few years.
What's said to have been influencing the club's thinking in choosing Wenger's successor comes from another example within the Kroenke Sports Enterprises stable. That of LA Rams Head coach Sean McVay, who at the age of just thirty became the youngest ever Head Coach in NFL history on his appointment in January 2017. In his first season he was named Coach of the year by the American Association of Pro Football Writers, as the Rams won their first Divisional title in over a decade and a half, to reach the play offs (effectively like reaching the knock out stage of the Champions League). Clearly, Kroenke is hoping to repeat the trick at Arsenal. There are however obvious differences between McVey's situation at the Rams and what Arteta would undertake should he come back to Arsenal.
I will openly admit to not being remotely knowledgeable about the Gridiron game, but the first point is obvious in that American Football is a game which despite the similarity of name is absolutely nothing like Association Football. The NFL is not akin to the Premiership in that with its salary caps, it does not have the competitive imbalances which the English game has. It doesn't have the draft system that the NFL has, which allows the rubbish teams from the season before to have first pick on the best 'rookie' players. American Football is also not a World game and importantly, has no promotion or relegation.
Most importantly of all however, the LA Rams' historical standing in the NFL is by no means akin to Arsenal's. In their entire history, the Rams have only played in three Superbowl Finals, winning it just the once back in 2000 (as well as two pre-Superbowl NFL Championships in 1945 and 1951). Arsenal in contrast, with their thirteen League titles and thirteen FA Cups, are the third most successful domestic club in English football history. McVay's recent success is relative to the fact that the Rams have been mostly underwhelming since Kroenke's introduction in 1995 (particularly over the last dozen years). Lest we forget, Kroenke Sports Enterprises generally has an underwhelming sporting record in pretty much every sports market it has tried its luck in. In the eleven years in which Kroenke has had an interest at Arsenal, the club's record of success contrasts sharply with the eleven years which proceeded them between 1996 and 2007.
Historically, Arsenal never go more than eighteen years without a title and from the thirties onward have picked one up in every decade with the exception of the 1960s. Arsenal have now gone fourteen years without a title win and should Wenger's successor not win the title in his first season, the 2010s will be a sixties revival on the title front. By its own admission however, sporting success is not the yardstick which Kroenke Sports Enterprises measures itself by. Why this is not good news for Arsenal fans is explained by the title of Chapter Three of Kuper and Szymanski 'Soccernomics' - 'Why Soccer Clubs Don't (and Shouldn't) Make Money'. Arsenal are specifically cited within the chapter in that the club: 'hasn't been a great Soccer club lately, but has been a good business. This is what a Soccer club run as a business looks like'.
When you view the possibility of Arteta being appointed as Arsenal boss through this prism, it doesn't look 'leftfield', or 'innovative', but has 'cynical' running through it like a stick of rock. His appeal is that he comes cheaper than an established candidate and makes less demands of the board (part of me is surprised Kroenke hasn't advertised the role to recently retired footballers as some sort of unpaid internship). And, of course, it leaves Arsenal fans with something of a continuing problem if the appointment goes ahead. Give Arteta our full backing, or mount a repeat of the campaign which removed his predecessor.
Frankly, it's about time the guns were turned on Kroenke and the Arsenal board rather than the team and whoever comes in as manager, because as long as their parasitic presence remains, being an Arsenal fan will continue to be a sporting existence akin to living with an incurable wasting disease. Obviously, an attendance boycott like the one seen last season is self-harming and you get the feeling that even if Kroenke's business plan fails at Arsenal, he'll probably end up asset stripping the club to seek the buck he's after from his involvement in English football. You get the feeling the answer probably lies in a co-ordinated boycott by Arsenal fans aimed at the business interests of Kroenke and the board outside of Arsenal FC.
In particular, Kroenke's wife's family business - Walmart - in which Stan's fortune is not wholly unlinked to could be a target (such a boycott might well expose who actually wears the trousers in Kroenke's household). If efforts were put into researching and targeting where the incumbent board members earn their wealth outside of Arsenal, it might just reap more effective results than ranting on YouTube or flying planes over football grounds to highlight an argument which anyone with a Twitter account clearly knew was going on already. Just a thought.
Robert Exley can be found on Twitter@robert_exley
