The Case for Arsene Wenger

In Arsene We Trust

The critique most often advanced against Arsenal is that the team lacks a “plan B“. This trope has become so ingrained in the conventional wisdom that it has practically become a catch-all talking point whenever Arsenal lose, regardless the reason. What the argument basically consists in is that Arsenal have only one gear: a one-touch style, with flowing movement, an abundance of passing options, and a willingness to pass sideways or even backwards if it means retaining possession. When this approach fails to yield winning football, the argument continues, Arsenal don’t have a recourse, or plan B.

In addition to the argument that Arsenal lack a plan B, it is often advanced that the team’s “plan A” as it were is not a winning philosophy. According to this line of argument, the Arsenal way, though aesthetically pleasing, isn’t tough or direct enough for English football and is ultimately destined to fail. To win in English football, you have to be more pragmatic and physical than Arsenal’s style on the pitch permits. Arsenal must embrace winning “ugly” and “pragmatically” or risk extending their trophy-less drought.

These arguments presume, on the face of it, that something has changed, either in Wenger’s on-the-pitch philosophy or in English football, since Arsenal last lifted a trophy in 2005. After all, the Arsenal way can’t be inherently flawed if it’s yielded trophies in the past. It seems to me that notwithstanding significant personnel changes (more on that later), Wenger’s footballing philosophy has remained much the same since he came to England. Whereas he was celebrated for his idealism when Arsenal won trophies, he faces criticism for it now that they don’t. What this suggests is that the critique of Wenger’s philosophy is reactionary: if the Arsenal way is problematic, it ought to be criticized regardless of the results it produces.

It might be argued that the arrival of Jose Mourinho in England heralded a shoring up of Premier League defences that Wenger has failed to take into account. In his maiden season in the Premier League, Mourinho’s Chelsea conceded a record-low of only 15 goals — less than half the number allowed by Wenger’s ’98 and ’02 champions. In their second of three successive title-winning campaigns, Manchester United went a record 14 consecutive matches without conceding a single goal. This argument doesn’t pass muster, however. The record-setting Chelsea and United defences are likely to have been an exception, not the new normal; and for their part, Arsenal’s recent successes came on the back of strong defences, not despite leaky ones. In their Invincibles season, Arsenal conceded 26 goals, an amount comparable to United’s 27 in ’07 and 24 in ’09. In their run to the ’06 Champions League Final, despite a shoestring team selection, Arsenal went a record ten consecutive matches without giving up a goal, shutting out Real Madrid, Juventus, and Villareal along the way. It is debatable that English football has fundamentally changed to become more defensively sound, but even if it has, Wenger has shown that his philosophy is compatible with defensive success.

It is often said that at the outset of his Arsenal career Wenger could afford a blindspot for defence, given the legendary back five he inherited in 1996. To make this argument is to ignore the manager’s extraordinary effect on extending his veterans’ careers (an effect they testify to themselves), and his judgement in keeping their defensive arrangement intact while he went about overhauling the midfield and attack. Furthermore, it denies Wenger credit for assembling the Invincibles’ title-winning defence, which included none of the famed Adams, Bould, Winterburn, Dixon, or Seaman.

Arsenal’s recent shortcomings have not come as a result of some deep flaw in Wenger’s on-the-pitch football philosophy, be it lack of a plan B or defensive naivety.

This brings me to the off-the-pitch critiques of Wenger. Any discussion of the Arsenal way since their last trophy in 2005 would be incomplete without an assessment of the youth-movement Wenger has introduced as the team has moved into its new stadium. The chief argument levelled against Wenger on this front is that the kids he has blooded into the team haven’t been ready or haven’t properly learnt the winning mentality necessary for success in England. Moreover, the argument goes, Wenger hasn’t stocked the squad with enough veteran players, mature physically and mentally, from whom the youth could learn how to win without the pressure of having to do it all themselves. Lately, when Arsenal face the best, it is “men against boys“.

It pains me to admit it, but Arsenal’s performances on the pitch in the last couple years bear witness to the strength of this argument. In particular, in this season and last, they’ve been smashed in their biggest games against their two biggest rivals: ’08 FA Cup 5th rd vs United; ’09 FA Cup Semi-Final vs Chelsea; ’09 Champions League Semi-Final vs United; 4 League meetings vs Chelsea and United in ’09 and ’10. The results speak for themselves.

In my opinion Arsenal’s recent shortcomings are down to the quality of the players. Hleb was not the peer of Ljumberg, Diaby not up to Vieira’s standard, Almunia an embarrassment next to Lehmann at his best. Critics charge that the youth-movement is motivated by Wenger’s footballing idealism, but that fails to account for they way Arsenal leaned on their veterans in their trophy-winning years. The youth-movement, I believe, is not so much a feature of Wenger’s distinctive view of football as it is mandated by the club’s finances. Now that they are beholden to the same financial reality as Arsenal, United have declared themselves a club whose transfer policy is structured around acquiring and developing young, affordable talent as well. The responsibility for the squad’s quality rests with the manager, of course, but it’s important, I think, to bear in mind not only the club’s austere budget since moving stadiums, but also a long view of the club’s performance.

Looking back, the first campaign at the new stadium, ’07, was the only year Arsenal failed to be competitive at the business end of the season. ’06 was the Champions League Final. In ’08, the team led the League till February, and on that display were a serious contender in Europe. In ’09, despite the midseason lull, Arsenal had beaten Chelsea and United in the League, making them a genuine big-game threat in both cup competitions, in each of which they made the Semi-Final. Wenger has kept Arsenal in the mix for trophies throughout a phase when he has had to tighten the belt financially while the rest of the League beefed up in unprecedented proportions on the back of sketchy borrowing practices or billionaire benefactors.

Meanwhile, the club has become a preeminent destination for talented youth the world wide, and has established a footballing ethos the envy of every team in Europe but Barcelona. Arsenal is a club unique in their philosophy of bringing along a cadre of players who grow up together and want to win for each other, prizing an attacking style, while competing at such a high level. It’s an almost unprecedented venture in modern football. In terms of finances and talent, Arsenal is better positioned for the future than any other club in the League, and perhaps Europe.

Since that first season in the new stadium, Liverpool haven’t won a trophy either, though their trophy-less drought goes largely unnoticed by the media. Chelsea have won but one FA Cup since the departure of Mourinho, and two FA Cups constitute their entire trophy haul since ’06. During this period only United, enjoying the service of the best player in the world, have thrived. Going back to ’95, only three managers have won Premier League titles: Wenger, Mourinho, and Alex Ferguson. Who better than Wenger, a manager who’s won the League before and has an unparalleled history of developing talent, to foster the youth upon whom the club will be dependent long after he’s moved on. And who better than the professor to see through the unique vision he set out upon.

The only way to make an honest case for Wenger is to face the arguments against him head-on. His squad haven’t been up to his ambitions for some years now, but they are finally turning the corner, the third best team in the League, as much superior to than the rest as they are worse than Chelsea and United. They are the club best positioned for the future in the League. His footballing philosophy has won before and it can win again.

This exercise has reaffirmed my faith in the man and his project, and I hope it has for readers of this blog as well.