Sublime Arsenal and High Horses

After last weekends shambolic display against Fulham, Arsenal needed to show some kind of response (beating a side managed by Shteve McLaren didn't count). They certainly did that yesterday, and then some. First things first though - Newcastle, even at full strength, are not a particularly good team, despite what Newcastle fans might think. I may be wrong about this, but as far as I'm aware they haven't beaten a side that finished in the top 10 last season since Keegan's second coming. If you can find a result to disprove that statement then please inform me, because much like the theists of this world, the burden of proof lies on you.

Unfortunately for Newcastle fans however, the team that faced Arsenal was by no means a full strength Newcastle team (whatever that looks like) - proof of which was Ameobi's inclusion in the starting 11 (the extent of his contribution being to block a goal-bound effort from Michael Owen - an effort which was pretty much the extent of Owen's contribution also). Newcastle were missing players like Duff, Martins and Viduka - none of which are world beaters, but all of which are better than Ameobi (he was so bad I've even seen it fit to make fun of him twice in one paragraph).

With the context of this game out of the way, allow me to praise by far and away the best team performance I've seen this season. Though Chelsea's demolition of Portsmouth was ruthless, efficient, and at times very pleasing to the eye, this Arsenal performance had beauty stamped all over it.

I find it hard to believe that this can be the result of the mere introduction of one player - Cesc Fabregas. Does he really make that much of a difference to Arsenal? Surely no one man can transform a team to such a large degree. However, if such men exist, then Cesc Fabregas is surely one of them. He was magnificent yesterday. So magnificent, that he even covered up for another shaky display from Denilson. His passing was crisp and incisive, his tackling was hard, his work rate was exemplary - he was just superb in all aspects of the game. And this, remember, was his first Premier League game of the season. No matter what club you swear by, you really can't help but appreciate the kind of football he plays. To say anything to the contrary would make you a bitter, blinded person in my opinion, and one who doesn't truly love the beautiful game.

There were other star performers of course. Robin van Persie looked sharper in both his passing and his shooting. He really is a class act, and I hope he gets a run of injury-free life to prove as much (mind you, he did his obligatory hobble off the pitch with about 30 minutes to go, though news emenating from the Arsenal camp is that he's okay, which means we've most likely seen the last of Robin van Persie this season). Adebayor was a constant threat also, though I still question his work rate and, um, clinicalness [?]. Eboue was a menace, and surprisingly for a player of his standards, he didn't give the ball away very often. In fact it was proposed to me by a friend that Eboue has been Arsenal's most consistent performer so far this season. Given how bad Arsenal had played before yesterday, it was hard to argue with such a seemingly propostrous statement. For me, I think Nasri has pipped him, but if someone somewhere gave Eboue an 'Arsenal Player of the Month' trophy, I would have few complaints.

Speaking of Nasri, he was once again impressive, without being exhilarating. He kept the ball well, and made some nice cutting passes, but the majority of Arsenal's play came from the other side of the pitch where Cesc Fabregas tends to hover so that left him a little starved of good possession. Nasri did however do one sublime maneuver, when he picked the ball up just outside his own box, fended off a few Newcastle challenges, and advanced with the ball right through the heart of the midfield before laying it off to someone else. A lesser player would have either been dispossessed or just hoofed the ball clear, but Nasri showed great skill and composure, and started an attack from nothing. This bodes very well for the future.

There was a little incident involving Nasri at the very end of the game, which showed that the Zidane comparisons aren't just restricted to purely footballing ability. Having been on the end of a legal but overly physical challenge (in my opinion) from one Joey Barton, Nasri responded by later tripping up Barton as he ran towards goal. It was harmless enough, but deserving of a yellow card nonetheless. However, Keegan gave Nasri a large piece of his mind after the game, which was nothing but built up emotions due to Barton's return in my view, and something wholly uncalled for. Barton went in strong, Nasri responded rather impishly by tripping him up, and that's that. He got his booking, now lets move on. Keegan didn't, and came out saying that Nasri 'sliced' Barton down. Sliced!? He barely even stuck out his leg as he ran across Barton, which hardly constitutes a slice. Keegan was well off with his assessment of this whole situation in my opinion, and I think his verbal attack on Nasri was an example of someone channeling their emotions in the wrong way. Not the first time such a thing could be said about King Kev, though I do admire his passion.

Whether Barton should have been playing or not is another matter. One thing I don't understand is people getting up on their moral high horse, almost as if Barton is the only misbehaving footballer out there. If you want footballers to be pillars of morality then fine by me, but then why are people like Rio Ferdinand, Craig Bellamy, John Terry and Dirk Kuyt playing our game? (Dirk Kuyt isn't a thug as far as I'm aware, but still it must be asked at every opportunity- why is he playing our game?) You can't just let the antics of some footballers slide, or just give them a slap on the wrist, but then come down like a ton of bricks on someone like Barton, just because he's an easy target.

If Barton or others break footballing rules, then they should (and hopefully will) be punished by the letter of the law. With regards matters outside of football however, either you punish all non-football related behaviour by varying degrees (depending on the indiscretion) based on some kind of legislation, or you allow the club to punish non-football related incidents as they see fit.

John Terry and some team mates got drunk the day after 9/11, swore, vomitted and stripped off in front of American tourists staying at a hotel. That's as much a sackable offense as assaulting someone if you ask me. But that's just it - it's not up to me to decide what kind of moral behaviour demands sacking or not. If Newcastle want to keep Barton on their books, then that's their decision, and no one is in any place to say that they're doing the 'wrong thing'. And if they decide to play Barton in a game that he's strictly eligible for -- even though he's got a misconduct hearing in a few days -- then they have every right to do so. Maybe it's not the wisest decision, but it's Newcastle's decision to make.

Objective morality should either permeate every aspect of football, or no aspect. You can't just bring it in when it's convenient to do so. That's not how life works, and it's not how football should work. You either legislate for moral behaviour across the board, or you allow a club to punish someone in their own way. And if you choose the latter, then you are in no position to say a club is 'wrong' for not sacking someone or for playing someone who's available for selection. You can say you think the club is wrong, but that's as far as it can go when no objective standard is in place.

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter, but I'm yet to really think them through so they're a little rough at the moment.

Anyway, the main thrust of this post is that Arsenal were a joy to watch yesterday, though Newcastle's inadequacies should be noted.

United They Fall

I don't exactly know what it is about Manchester United, but I absolutely love seeing them lose. I have done as far back as I can remember. They were playing Zenit St Petersburg -- a team I have zero affiliation with, and have never even seen before -- in the European Supercup tonight, and I was desperate for Zenit to win. Desperate. Never mind the fact that it's a completely worthless, meaningless cup. Rationality seems to just go out the window when United are involved. Heck, Man Utd could be playing a team made up entirely of former Auschwitz guards in a one-off friendly, and I'd still want the Nazi's to win. In fact I'd be disappointed if they didn't.

Like I said, it's completely irrational, and in the case directly above, even debatably immoral.

Well Zenit did win in the end, so happy days. I only saw the second half, but from what I gather they deserved it, with United only coming to life when they went 2-0 down. After they pulled one back I was like 'Aw man - here we go again', but they failed to convert some half-chances, and in the end it all finished up rather comedically, with Paul Scholes getting sent off for a second bookable offense - his first was a vintage Scholes tackle (read: repeated kick into the opposing players calf muscle) and his second was a very impressive handball which resulted in the ball flying into the top corner. It was one of the most unsublte handballs I've ever come across, with Scholesy making absolutely no attempt to in any way conceal it. He basically just spiked the ball into the net, and received his marching orders as a result. Very funny indeed.

One thing that remains abundantly clear is that United need to buy a striker. If not Berbatov, then someone else. Ronaldo coming back will obviously be a boost, but he can't be relied upon as heavily as he was last year. He just can't. Getting in a good target man is a must, and it may spark Rooney into life, because in all honesty if a new frontman comes in and it's a toss up between Rooney and Tevez to start, then Tevez is way ahead of him on the basis of form over the past year or so. And what's more, Tevez is even showing more of a work ethic than Rooney these days, so a little competition for places might just be the best thing for the former Everton prodigy.

Moving slightly off topic, with United out of action in the Premier League this week, Chelsea have the opportunity to go 5 points clear of them as they play Tottenham at Stamford Bridge, a game I'll hopefully be watching on Sunday lunchtime. The other game I'll be keeping a close eye on is Arsenal v Newcastle at the Emirates. With Newcastle on a bit of a high these days, I'm interested to see how this potentially fragile Arsenal team square up to them. Part of me thinks Arsenal could annihilate them, but I also have that sneaky feeling that Newcastle may just get something from the game. The ambiguity of my feelings is, I suppose, the reason for my intrigue.

There is another big game over the weekend, as Aston Villa take on Liverpool. I honestly don't think I'll watch that one though. I can only take Liverpool in very small doses you see, and having watched them for about 50 minutes in midweek, I feel like that's enough Dirk Kuyt and co. for one month.

The New Zidane?

Talk of 'the new so and so' annoys me to some extent, and I'm sure it annoys the players who receive the comparison. If you're Argentinean, talented, and under 5ft tall then you are automatically labeled 'the new Maradona' (I'm waiting for the day when Argentina fill an entire team with former 'new Maradonas'). And what's worse, some minute Argentinians are actually being called 'the new Messi'. The new Messi? Is Messi already so old that we need a new version of him? Can't we just enjoy the 'old' Messi while he's still playing instead of just frantically looking for the next Argentinian midget we can proclaim as his successor? How easily bored a society are we?!

This brings me to France, and the quest for 'the new Zidane'. Unlike with 'the new Maradona' however, there doesn't appear to be any physical prerequisites in order to be considered a potential Zidane. You don't have to be tall, balding, or anything of the sort. You merely have to be French and a midfielder - and in the cases of Anthony Le Tallec and Bruno Cheyrou, you don't actually have to be a particularly good midfielder; in fact you can even be a bit rubbish.

The most recent candidate that has been burdened with this impossible task (and impossible task it is, because not only is Zidane the best player I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing, but he's also truly unique, as all the great players are) is Samir Nasri. Or at least he's the most recent I'm aware of. As I said at the beginning, these kind of tags annoy me to some extent, but at the same time they intrigue me. If someone is being tauted as 'the new Zidane' or 'the new Maradona' then there must be at least some good reason as to why. I mean these players must be doing something right, and I want to see it.

In Nasri's case, all I really had to go on was Youtube clips. Now I'm well aware of the dangers of Youtube, and that you have to treat what it shows with extreme caution. After all, you could make John O'Shea out to be a midfield general, or Dirk Kuyt to be a slightly-above-average striker by showing some of their highlights from the past few years, but we all know the harsh truths about these two very poor players. And by 'we all' I mean everyone but Rafa Benitez, who should be instantly sacked on the grounds that Dirk Kuyt was still on the pitch long enough to shin the ball into the back of the Leige net - though admittedly that does seem a little ironic, or at least slightly non-sensical if you don't know the full story, which we all do, except for Rafa Benitez, who...(oh wait, I did that rant already. Neeext).

Anyway, I watched almost every Nasri clip I could get my hands on, and I was impressed. I didn't look at him in terms of Zidane, because he's not that type of player. At least not yet. But from what I saw on Youtube, he looked quick, composed, creative, and very skillful indeed, so when Arsenal were inevitably linked with signing him (he is young and French after all - which I think Wenger like to call 'the jackpot'), I very much wanted the move to happen. Not because I support Arsenal (which I don't really, though I like to watch them play), but because I wanted to see Nasri week in week out. Heck, he could have joined United and I'd have been happy.

Well, as you know, he did sign for Arsenal (eventually), and after only two and a half games I must say I'm very impressed with him. There are still big question marks of course. Though he may not play exactly like Zidane, he still needs to have that same big-game mentality that separates the Lionel Messi's from the Cristiano Ronaldo's. At 21 he obviously has time on his side, so it remains to be seen what his confidence is like in a pressure cooker situation.

He looks to be made of all the right stuff though, with many things boding well for the future. The list I wrote eariler after seeing him on Youtube still stands, with a few extras thrown in for good measure. Much like Hleb, he's a very good dribbler of the ball, but he can also pick out a pass (which is something Lionel Messi has been doing a lot more of recently, thus making him even more threatening...if that's possible).

Another very impressive attribute -- and one that likens him to Zidane in my opinion -- is that he's quite comfortable on his left foot as well as his right. In fact I can't even say with 100% confidence that Nasri is right-footed, and that's not because I'm an idiot. This trait is invaluable, as it gives him so much more time and space than most players. Defenders don't know which side to press him from, therefore they're forced to stand off him for fear of being made a fool of, which gives Nasri all the time he needs to make a decision. Also, when he's shooting, he can employ the dummy effectively, because he knows that he can get off a pretty good shot with his left foot if needs be. And when defenders learn this, they of course won't go charging down his shots in a mad rush at the risk of being dummied, thus giving his right-footed attempts a good chance of reaching their destination undisturbed. Embarrassingly few players posses this kind of two-footed ability. Nasri is one of them, and over the course of the season it will become more and more advantageous to him.

I don't want to go overboard on my praise of course. It's still early days, and there are still plenty of games to go before accurate descriptions can be made. Nasri has a lot of potential though. A truck load more than someone like Theo Walcott has, because unlike Walcott, Nasri has in his head a footballing brain. He's the kind of player I enjoy watching, and I sincerely hope he continues to improve, though not at such a rate that there will be young French players called 'the new Nasri' before he reaches his 22nd birthday. Let's not forget that Zidane didn't join Juventus until he was 24, and he didn't join Madrid until he was 29, so it's important to give players time. I said it before in a F365 mail, and I'll say it again - Our society today wants to proclaim greatness now, instead of waiting patiently for it to truly emerge. This is one of the reasons Ronaldo is proclaimed as 'the best in the world', which is part of the reason his fellow countryman Deco has been relatively ignored. Now I'm not implying that Deco is in fact the best player in the world. But in the Portugal team that played in Euro 2008, Deco was their main man. He was the one whom Portugal looked to in order to create something. He was their best player, but people will have you believe that Ronaldo is better than him. He isn't, and I'll have...

OK this has very quickly turned into a Ronaldo rant, so I'll stop. Anyway, keep an eye on Samir Nasri...or something.

Potential for What?

Have you ever read one little sentence that just makes your blood boil? Well I've read a couple from F365's Nick Miller in the past (eg. when he said United's 2-0 win in Rome was more impressive then Arsenal's in Milan) and I read another one last night when he wrote that 'Anderson is still to add the goals that will make him a complete midfielder'.

Now I must admit I do like most of Miller's blog entries and such, but it seems that when he writes about United he just goes into hyperbole mode. Of course maybe the fact that I truly despise Man Utd makes rational statements about them seem like exaggerative nonsense to me, but I'd like to think not.

For example, I can fully agree that United were the far superior team last night, though of course only an idiot would say otherwise. I can agree with everyone in praising the magnificence of Paul Scholes. I can compliment the United defense on their unrivalled stinginess, and I can appreciate the work rate and skill of one Carlos Tevez.

What I can't do however is agree that all Anderson has to do is start scoring goals to be labelled a 'complete midfielder'. And what I certainly can't do is agree with Fantasy Football and give Rooney the 3 bonus points (I have him on my team, and man do I feel guilty about getting those extra points).

The overall point Miller makes is no doubt correct. For all United's possession, they created very few chances. In fact Rooney's spin and shot in the first half is all I can recall in terms of real attacking threat. Even their goal came from a lucky deflection off Darren Fletcher (does he score any other type of goal?). Therefore, they need a striker on top of the return of the most selfish non-winger known to man. This much I definitely agree with.

But that one little statement about Anderson is just way off in my opinion. You can't just say 'if X adds goals then he will be the complete midfielder'. I mean what next? If Mascherano adds goals then he will be the complete midfielder? Nobody in their right mind would say such a thing, because they know Mascherano is virtually incapable of finding the net. And besides, that's not his job. His job is to stop other midfielders from finding the net, or making incisive passes. From what I've seen of Anderson, that's his job description too, or at least that's what should be his job description.

Yes he's Brasilian, but that doesn't mean he plays football like Ronaldinho. This is what the media told us upon his arrival, but they got it all wrong - Anderson's statistics from last season prove that. In 39 games, he made two assists and scored zero goals. Now he's young, it was his first season in a foreign country etc etc. But even so, those kind of numbers don't scream of a player who's just itching to bang in goals.

And what's more, Miller says that it's only the goals he's lacking. What about the assists, I ask? In a United team that scored truck loads of goals last season, Anderson managed to make the final pass in only 2 of them. That's more Mascherano than Scholes (whom some people are saying Anderson will eventually replace).

My point is, I have seen very little evidence to suggest that Anderson will be the creative heartbeat in the centre of United's midfield. The numbers back me up right now, and any notion that they will change is pure speculation and wishful thinking at the moment. They may of course improve, and Anderson may become what everyone is claiming him to be, but I think people (mainly United fans) are jumping the gun and are guilty of exaggeration, just like when they say that Ronaldo is the best player in the world, which as Lionel Messi continues to prove, is a myth (oh how I love being right).

You often hear from United fans about how Anderson had Gerrard and Fabregas in his pocket last year. There is an element of truth to this, but such a statement is not the full story. While I can't remember the Gerrard situation, the Fabregas one has been blown out of proportion. For one, it was a combination of Anderson and Hargreaves that stifled Fabregas at the Emirates. They didn't give him an inch, and thus he didn't create much from the middle (though lets not forget that he scored the first equalizer). However, it's not as if either or Anderson or Hargreaves ran the show and dictated the tempo and provided the creative spark for United.

No. What they did was prevent Fabregas from doing those things for Arsenal. Darren Fletcher or Phil Neville or Nicky Butt will tell you that you don't have to be a genius to do that job. You just have to work hard and have your wits about you. It's the job Mascherano does every week for Liverpool, and right now it's the job that Anderson seems most qualified for. I don't think he'll ever be the equivalent of Fabregas for United, but he could well be the Flamini, which is a hugely important role in the modern game.

And what's more, in the game against Arsenal at Old Trafford, Hleb was the best midfielder on display, with Fabregas just behind him. And this was a Fabregas who was dead on his feet, knackered after having being played into the ground by Wenger. Anderson was taken off at half time, but of course you don't hear about that from Red Devils fans. All you hear is that Anderson owned Gerrard and Fabregas, and apparently that's gospel. Not quite I'm afraid.

Anderson has a lot of potential, no question. The only pertinent question right now is potential for what? Miller thinks that it's the potential to be a midfield goalscorer (though he seems to forget that Anderson hasn't shown any kind of creative end product as of yet), while other United fans seem to think he's going to be better than Fabregas (which will imply he'll add those assists that he still lacks and control the flow of games a la Paul Scholes last night). Right now I firmly disagree, and as the numbers show and as his general play has shown, it's pure speculation to think otherwise.

A valuable player he is -- much moreso than Nani, whom I loathe -- but people need to stop running away with themseles and start appreciating Anderson for the kind of player he is right now - United's own Javier Mascherano. Will Anderson become a goalscorer? Will he start being a creative force? Maybe, but I don't think so, and for good reason. If he does however, then I won't mind being wrong, because the more players who play the game like Fabregas and Scholes the better for football in general.

Hype

I watched both Tottenham and Chelsea play over the weekend, with neither team looking very impressive. Tottenham suffered the embarrassment of losing to a Djibril Cisse debut goal...for a second time (that's gotta hurt), while Chelsea just about scraped past Wigan, despite Frank Lampard's best efforts. First, to Tottenham.

Berbatov needs to be sold, and soon. This much is clear. What I don't understand is why a club managed by Alex Ferguson want to sign him. Yes he's a talented player, but he's got an abysmal attitude, and in my mind, he represents a big gamble. If Berbatov comes in, then in all likelihood that means Tevez gets relegated to the bench. Tevez isn't a genius, but he works as hard as anyone when United don't have the ball, and he chips in with his fair share of goals too. Think of all the time on the ball any backline will get if United are relying on Berbatov and Ronadlo to chase things down. Sure you might have a red-faced Rooney running around like a red card waiting to happen, but will that be enough given the sheer unwillingness of either Ronaldo or Berbatov to do any sort of defensive work? I think not.

And then there's Berbatov's present attitude. I see no reason why he can't give his all for Tottenham right now and then move along to United should a deal go through. A real pro should concentrate on playing football for his present club, instead of talking about 'following his dream' and moving to Manchester. That sort of talk stinks of Cristiano Ronaldo, and I'm beginning to wonder why Ferguson is putting up with these heartless, soulless footballers who think of little else than money and fame. (Read this if you want to see how a proper player approaches the game). Maybe Ferguson just doesn't care enough anymore, which is certainly not good news for United. (My gut feeling is that they might struggle this year, but just like those damn Germans, you can never right them off).

Against Sunderland, Tottenham looked a bit all over the place. Not the good kind of all over the place that Barcelona exhibit so well, but the kind of all over the place that leaves Jermaine Jenas as your most attacking threat. Spurs, like Arsenal, lack any real bite in midfield, but unlike Arsenal, they also lack any real goal threat. A lot of people tipped Darren Bent to step up the the plate this season, but so far my prediction that 'a rubbish player is still a rubbish player no matter who plays behind him' stands. That may change, and he may start banging in goals (though I hope not, for fantasy football's sake), but if I were Juande I'd start looking to buy a new main striker, and soon.

Talk of Arshavin coming in has yet to cease, which perplexes me. Arshavin is a talented player no question, but is he what Spurs need? Maybe I'm wrong here, but to my knowledge he's basically the exact same player as Luka Modric. Now I do love the playmakers of this world, and if I had my way every starting 11 would be full of them, but I'm also well aware that that would not be a good idea, especially if you have ambitions of, you know, winning games and stuff. As intrigued as I would be to see Modric and Arshavin line up alongside each other, I don't think that would be the answer to Spurs' problem. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't.

Simply put, they need a defensive midfielder and a striker. If they get both then they may push for fourth place. If they don't, then mid-table mediocrity it will be, and the magic Juande could find himself conjuring up his tricks elsewhere. (Right now his record is actually worse than that of Martin Jol's. If you ask me, I think Ramos is just getting by on his looks, but that's neither here nor there).

As for Chelsea, it seemed like everyone just wanted to hand them the Premier League trophy after last weeks destruction of Portsmouth. I mean I wouldn't have been surprised to hear of a bookie paying out on Chelsea winning the league already, given that one bookie actually payed out on Stoke going down [!]. Funny stuff.

Admittedly, Chelsea were good. But they weren't that good. Two of their goals came directly from David James mistakes (England's number one people), and another from the penalty spot. In the second half, Chelsea really were average at best, and they continued that trend in Wigan over the weekend.

But for a sublime freekick from Deco (reminiscent to this one scored by the greatest player of our generation), Wigan would have secured at least a draw, and maybe even a deserved win. Chelsea looked their age in the middle of the park, and Anelka looked out of sorts, as he has done since he moved to Chelsea in January.

Frank Lampard continued where he left off for England in midweek by remaining a ghostly figure throughout this match, while Joe Cole was just very, very poor (though of course none of this was mentioned on MOTD 2). The Wigan midfield worked their socks off, no question, but against high quality opposition mere hard work shouldn't be enough to deter them. If Chelsea continue to play like this away from home, then while they may not concede many goals, they may not score many either.

That said, if you forced me to put money on a team to win the league, I'd probably back Chelsea, but only just. I certainly don't think they are invincible, and just like last season, I think things will be quite competitive at the top - provided Arsenal sort out those problems I mentioned previously, and Liverpool, um, eh...Ah who am I kidding? Liverpool really don't have a chance of winning the league, but that's another post for another day.

Awfunal

("Damn you, ground!!")

The above title is a mixture of the words 'awful' and 'Arsenal', a la 'Bennifer' etc etc. I'm referring to Arsenal's performance against Fulham in Craven Cottage, which was -- you've guessed it -- awful. About as awful as the Olympic Final was boring, and that's saying something. Where do you even begin?

Before the game, Wenger was talking about how his team needed to be focused and all that, but focused is pretty much the opposite of what they were the entire game. Clichy and Sagna both had shockers on the flanks. The worst I've seen either of them play in an Arsenal shirt. Miscontrolling the ball, sloppy passing. In fact you could use those phrases about everyone on the team...except Bendtner. He actually went one better and managed to not touch the ball when he came on after 60 minutes. It was actually quite impressive now that I think about it.

The central midfield was non-existent. I hardly remember hearing the name 'Denilson' followed by 'Eboue' from the commentator, because they just could not/did not pass it to each other. Moreover, they could not/did not pass it to anyone - or at least anyone on their own team anyway. Bullard and Murphy just over ran them, eventually reducing Arsenal to either going long or pumping balls in from the flanks, few of which were any good.

Up front, Van Persie on a good day could have scored a hat-trick. This was not one of those days however, and he wasted most of the good chances Arsenal had, all but one of which came from outside the box, highlighting just how unpenetrative Arsenal really were. His partner in crime Adebayor faired slightly better, hitting the post in the first half, but his general play was poor at best, leaving me feel vindicated in thinking that a 25m move to Milan or Barca in the summer would have been very good business for Arsenal indeed, provided Wenger didn't blow it all on inexperienced toddlers.

Speaking of inexperienced toddlers, I must not forget young Theo Walcott, who pulled a Frank Lampard and was practically anonymous for the 60 minutes he managed to stay on the field. He was brushed off the ball on a number of occasions, and for all his blistering pace, he almost never troubled the Fulham left-back. This will not be the year Walcott comes of age. I can all but guarantee that. He may yet become a good player, but right now he's not good enough to play on a big 4 team, and I don't think he will be for a few more years. Once Rosicky and Eduardo come back, Walcotts appearances will be few and far between. If it were up to me, Vela would be ahead of him on the pecking order, but it's not up to me, so who cares?

The one half-decent player today from an Arsenal perspective was Samir Nasri. He had a pretty brutal first half, but he definitely posed a threat in the second, showing good pace and strength down the wings. Like all of his colleagues, he gave the ball away cheaply at times, but even after todays shocker from the Gunners I still saw signs of him being a very good signing for them.

Take nothing away from Fulham of course. They out fought Arsenal, and out played them for large spells too. Had they been more clinical on the break, it could easily have been 3-0. As I said, Bullard and Murphy were immense in the middle, but it really was one big team effort, with everyone putting their all into winning this game. Simply put, Fulham wanted this win more than Arsenal, and they got it. That makes me happy.

Where to for Arsenal now then? It's obviously early days yet, so I don't want to read too much into things. They have problems though. Big, midfielder-shaped problems. The real Denilson is not the player he was today, but I think he's still not ready to be adequate back-up for Fabregas, not to mention his midfield partner. Eboue is just rubbish and needs to be beaten and then sold, or just given away. So in my opinion, him starting in midfield is not an option, to put it mildly. I like Song, but he hasn't got enough experience to be the new Flamini. But then I guess Flamini didn't quite have the experience to be a Flamini either, but that didn't stop him from being a big player for Arsenal last season.

When all is said and done, Arsenal desperately need at least one midfielder. But even if they get Alonso or Inler or whoever, I still think they're short a body. As it's plain to see, when Fabregas is out Arsenal stop ticking. Now of course losing a player like that would hurt any team (except Barcelona), but you must have a back up. Either have a guy come in who's similarly creative, or have an experienced guy come in who won't do anything silly and will keep things tight. Arsenal don't seem to have anyone who can do those jobs against an in-your-face team like Fulham were today, and they'll suffer the consequences until they do.

While having Fabregas back will be a massive boost, it will only temporarily cover over the cracks, just like Ronaldo's phenominal goals tally covered over the cracks in Man Uniteds attack last season. I genuinely fear for Arsenal over the coming months, because I think they had their chance last season and missed it. Will players like Fabregas, Adebayor and all be able to raise their game to last years heights again? Will they have that same hunger and desire? Or will they just drift through one more year and then move on to Barcelona come next summer?

Like I said, we're only two games in so you can't read too much into it. I'll be very interesed to see how Arsenal respond to this loss next week when they face the high-flying Newcaste United, and more pressingly, I'll be very interested to see what goes on in the transfer market, because that needs to be Arsene Wenger's first stop before he shakes hands with KK and bitches and moans on the sideline.

A Dull Game in the Sun

I was going to get up at 5am to watch the Olympic Football Final. I didn't, and I'm very glad of that. Instead, I decided to record it. That way I could skip over the uninteresting bits. You know - the goal kicks, the throw-ins, the injuries, the times Mascherano is on the ball. Unfortunately in this case, the uninteresting bits took up most of the 90 minutes. Not because Mascherano continuously had possession, but because it was just not a good game, for a variety of reasons.

For one, it kicked off at 12 in the afternoon under a blistering sun. Just about the worst time to play a football match. Also, the pitch was bobbley, and really, really slow. To give you an idea of just how slow, if the pitch were a football player, it would be Darren Fletcher (and in the words of J.D., oh he's slow). And when a pitch is bumpy and slow, it's just not possible for players like Riquelme and Messi to strut their stuff. Especially Riquelme. He's motionally challenged already so having a slow pitch to boot just makes him hugely ineffective. His little passes were just getting held up on the turf, and without those he hasn't got much else to offer.

Messi made some obligatory nice runs, but again he lost the ball more often than not. He was of course a threat and an occasional joy to watch, but his performance certainly wasn't up to the standard of that against Man Utd last season (that move on 3:05 is just magic. Scholes didn't even have time to put one of this trademark 'tackles' in).

One player I was quite impressed with was Angel Di Maria (pictured above), who clocks in at Benfica when he's not donning an Argentine shirt. He scored a beautiful chipped goal to settle the tie and light up an otherwise dim affair, and looked reasonably impressive throughout this match, and even the tournament (Yes, I watched other games in this tournament. Woe is me).

Nigeria were stereotypically African, as you might expect from, well, an African team. They were quick, strong, mobile, good in build-up play, and then absolutley horrible within a 30 yard radius of the goal. One time a player of theirs shot from almost the endline, and as you'd expect from that position, the ball just sailed high and wide into the stands. How long will African teams continue to show such naievity in front of goal? Because if they ever become clinical, then Pele's prediction of an African team winning the World Cup by the year 2000 will no doubt come true. Wait - what year are we in now?

Overall, it was a bad final, which is just typical of finals in football tournaments. Except in other tournaments like the World Cup and the Champions League, the outcome actually matters, making the game bearable (although only just in the case of Liverpool-Milan in '07). I mean does anyone outside of Argentina really care that they won an Olympic gold medal? Were the 88,000 people in the stadium there to see the football, or were they there to see large women throw heavy things across some grass a little later on? Given the quality of the final, I think I'd actually have preferred to watch the latter.

Not to worry though. There's plenty more football on show today, with a toss up between Boro v Liverpool and Spurs v Sunderland in the afternoon, followed by Arsenal v Fulham in the evening. But to kick all of that off, there's Football Focus - the show where grown men sit on couches in the most suggestive of manners. I swear one of these days they'll cut to Lee Dixon and Mark Lawrenson on the couch, and the two of them will just be lying on top of each other making out. A disgusting image I know, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Football

After toying with the idea for about a week or so, I've decided to start a football-only blog. I was going to include some football on my other blog, but it just didn't seem like it would work, so here it is - a blog dedicated solely to 'the beautiful game'.

How often I'll update this is still under consideration, but I'd imagine maybe twice a week. Depends on how much fodder the brat Ronaldo gives me. There may be a slight focus on Arsenal, or at least moreso than on any other team. Not because I support Arsenal (an issue I'll address later), but because I enjoy watching them more than most.

Anyway, Dodgeball (and more specifically, Christine Taylor) is on and it's distracting me from making this post funny and interesting, so I'm gonna go. How convenient for me...and the clock.