The Arsenal Axiom to the Ewing Theory

How many times have you wondered how a team that loses its star player manages to defy expectations and perform at a level no one expected it too? Think of 2009 Major League Baseball when the Seattle Mariners recorded the best record in baseball despite losing Randy Johnson (baseball’s best pitcher), Ken Griffey Jr, and Alex Rodriguez (baseball’s best hitters at the time).

For the baseball challenged think to Manchester United post Cristiano Ronaldo. In each case where this happens, where the teams superstar player has gone there is disbelief and scratching heads as to how this all can be.

There is an explanation however, it’s called the ‘Ewing Theory.’

What is the Ewing Theory you ask?

The Ewing theory was coined in the 90’s by David Cirilli who argued that any team that former NBA great Patrick Ewing was on (The New York Knicks & Georgetown Hoyas) played better when Ewing was missing from the squad either by injury or suspension.

Cirilli looked at other teams and found that there were ample enough examples of the Ewing Theory in action; he had to look no further than his own Connecticut Huskies.

In ’94-’95 the Huskies had been pegged to have a .500 season because “superstar” Donyell Marshall had departed for the NBA. The prevailing thought was that the Huskies relied too much on Marshall the previous season and couldn’t survive without him. But Cirilli told hid friends that the Huskies would thrive in Marshall’s absence — and that’s exactly what happened. By midseason, UConn was ranked No. 1 in the country for the first time in school history; the Ewing theory was born.
Cirilli wrote the Ewing theory as this:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) — and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.

When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.

So why is this basketball derived theory applicable to Arsenal? First let’s alter the theory so that it applies to football

A star football receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his team never win anything substantial while he plays for them (other than maybe some enjoying cup runs into the quarter or semi-finals with a few cup finals thrown in).

That same football player leaves the team (either by injury, transfer, or retirement) — and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.

Not much different than the original but now maybe a little more understandable for those that don’t understand basketball or US focused sports.

So for Arsenal the most immediate cases would be the 07-08 Arsenal post-Henry transfer and this version of Arsenal after the sales of both Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri.

In the summer of 2007 amid concerns about the departure of David Dein, Wenger’s long-term future with the club, Thierry Henry acecepted a transfer to Barcelona for the fee of 24 million Euros. Immediately pundits had written off Arsenal.

Even before the actual transfer speculation was rife as early as March of 2007 that Henry would be off and that Arsenal would be silly to sell him. How could the compete without the fulcrum of their team. The man was the centre-piece of everything that went on at Arsenal, how would they be able to survive.
But they did and in that season with the additions of Eduardo, Sagna, and Diarra to name a few and a starting XI that regularly looked like this – Almunia, Sagna, Toure, Gallas, Clichy, Eboue, Flamini, Fabregas, Hleb, Eduardo & Adebayor. The team nearly ran away with the league. Until that February in Brimingham when Eduardo’s horrific injury took the team’s eye off the prize for a few games. The resulting draws and losses to Chelsea & United would eventually cost the team the title. But overall the club had VASTLY improved over the last season with Henry. It went from a total points tally of 68 in 06—07 to a tally of 83 in 07-08 with a more balanced team and less dependence on one player.

This season was difficult but there was areas of improved that the team did not have while Fabregas and Nasri were in it. Namely this was a team. And while some results would hold any argument of improvement to the fire, the fact is the team improved. You can’t exclude the start to the season but as the season wore on there was something about the 2011-2012 squad that made people like it more than any other squad since 2005.

This was a team. A group of players that seemed to enjoy playing together and for each other. They fought and for each other. Other traditions that had disappeared while Cesc was the leader of the group began to pop up again, like the honored tradition of saluting the home fans from the centre of the pitch. Additionally, the team managed to show that as a team they played better and could stand up to teams marked as ‘better’ than Arsenal. There were still some issues – namely in depth and defencive issues. But overall this team grew on people because for the first time it was recognizable as a team and not a group of individuals it seemed to be since the Invincibles were dismantled.

As good as Cesc and Nasri were, I have serious questions about whether or not a team with them in it would’ve actually been able to sustain a charge from 17th all the way to 3rd. The evidence suggests that the leadership just wasn’t there.

So what does this 980 word set up get us to?

Well, what is Arsenal going to be like without Robin Van Persie should he force his way out this summer. You could argue that the growth to a team happened under Van Persie’s role as Captain. You’d be right. But you could also argue that this team over relied on him and his 30+ goals.

The concern is already there, the press and opposing fans are already saying it, without Robin Van Persie Arsenal will not finish in the top 4. Sound familiar? It’s what they pretty much say whenever Arsenal lose a big player.

But as the Ewing theory contends and as Arsenal have shown, the club are bigger than any one player and can do fine without him. Players will be added. Withoutthe crutch that Robin Van Persie presents to the team players will be forced to step up. Plus I contend we didn’t seem to do so bad when Van Persie stopped scoring. Where we suffered was when Mikel Arteta was out of the squad winning only one game with him out of the lineup.

Of course, Arsenal want to keep Robin Van Persie. He was just great for this team for so many reasons. But to sit here and suddenly think that Arsenal will cease to exist because Robin will have moved on is ridiculous and the doom and gloom being spilled from fan girls and boys, pundits and opposing supporters is unfounded and frankly over the top already.

If Robin doesn’t want to be here I say let him go. Arsenal were here before him and did quite well and will be here long after him (and likely will do well).
Arsenal are only as strong as the team ethos that fills the squad. Wenger has moved away from his over reliance on youth players and brought in some strong experienced players into the team. They have helped form this squad into a team. The additions Arsenal have already made this off-season and look to add are only going to build upon that. Robin van Persie MAY go. No one knows except Robin and the club know what will happen. But we will go on. I suspect if the Ewing theory is right we may actually do better.