No More Mr Nice Wenger

"I'd never seen him like that before. He said we didn't deserve to wear the Arsenal shirt and he was right because we really weren't good."

- Cesc Fabregas, about Wenge's half-time blast

2-1 to the Arsenal last night, and it looks like Wenger's finally worked out how to motivate Arsenal when we're playing like crap. We played terribly first half. We played better in the second half. And the only difference in between was that Wenger yelled at his players at half-time. 

You wonder that Wenger never tried it before. God knows, some Arsenal performances over the years have deserved a bollocking. I don't know how he can stand in front of those players at all those half-times and not lose his cool. I yell at Almunia quite a bit, and I don't have a pitch-side view of his various misdeeds. 

Still, a 2-1 away win against Liverpool isn't to be sneezed at. It closes the gap between us and Chelsea. It gives our players another win. It knocks Liverpool back out of contention. And best of all, it knocks some fear of Wenger into our players. 

It might help Diaby jump the next time he's marking a set-piece.

It might help Denilson get his foot in. 

It might help Song run and press and give it 100%. 

It might turn Arsenal into a football team with a spine.  

And wouldn't that be something?

Rumors of Arsenal's death have been greatly exaggerated

Last night Chelsea drew 3-3 with Everton, and Man Utd lost 0-1 to Aston Villa. We're 9 points behind Chelsea at the moment, with 2 games in hand. We're up against Liverpool tonight, and if we win this one, and if we win the game in hand against Bolton, we're only 3 points behind Chelsea. Despite the despondency of the past couple of weeks, it's still very tight at the top. 

As Wenger said:

"Between 78 and 83 points will be enough. If Arsenal, or anybody else, gets to 83 points, they will win the league. This season, more than ever, it looks to be a very open Premier League campaign. It is more open because everybody has slipped up - us at Sunderland, Man United at Burnley - and nobody can really predict what will happen."

It gives tonight's match a bit of extra impetus. Win, and we're back on track. Lose, and we're in a really shitty position. And wouldn't it be something to be back in contention, after all the crap that's happened in the past couple of weeks? 

Then again, I don't think I could handle the disappointment again. I've had enough of new beginnings, lines in the sand, bright new dawns. I don't really care if our youth are maturing during our faltering title chase. We've seen it before and been disappointed. I'd rather have experienced pros at the club who can do their job well, not fuck up in defence, and give 100% effort 100% of the time. 

Anyway, we really should beat Liverpool tonight. I think Arsenal should stick with Arshavin up front, supported by Walcott and Nasri (or Vela). Let's send a big "fuck-you" to all those English pundits who think we're too short to win the league. 

It's time to let Theo off the leash and let him have a go up front. I'm tired of seeing him learning his trade on the wing. He's got all the physical qualities to be a great striker, and he's a good finisher, but he hasn't got the tactical brain to be adaptable enough to be a winger. So let's scrap the education and get him to do what we bought him for. It's time to bung him up front and get our squad of midfield midgets to thread through-balls for him to chase. Sooner or later, he'll latch onto one and make us proud. 

C'mon Arsenal, and c'mon Theo. 

Germany. Serbia. Ghana. Australia

"It could've been better but it could've been worse."

- Pim Verbeek, about our World Cup grouping

World Cup draw last night, and we've been picked in Group D along with Germany, Serbia and Ghana. It's not a bad draw. We could've had something easier (Group F with Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand and Slovakia looks appealing), but we could have had something much harder as well. We wouldn't be favourites against any of those teams, but we won't be out-classed. Australia's good enough to give each of these countries a game, and who knows, we may even qualify. 

I'm kind of disappointed that we didn't draw England in the group. There was an outside chance of an Anglo Group in Group C (England, USA, Algeria and Slovenia), but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Someone else will have the privilege of knocking England out of the World Cup. It's a shame because knocking English out of international sporting events is the reason Australia invests so much money into sports. 

Oh well, I suppose there's always the Ashes next summer. 

Jason Culina thinks the group is tough, but that all the groups are tough anyway. He puts it on par with our 2006 grouping with Japan, Brazil and Croatia. I'd have to agree, but with the caveat that the talent in 2010 will be more even. If we're lucky and organised, we've got a chance of beating each of Germany, Serbia and Ghana. There was no chance in hell we were going to beat Brazil in 2006. 

So if we're good, we'll give the group a hell of a shake. If we're lucky and good, we'll get out of the group. And if we're lucky, good and the stars are aligned, we'll draw England in the second round. And wouldn't that be an interesting game?

Even my nephew can't roll over like the Arsenal

My nephew George learned to roll over last week. It's a big landmark for a baby. It's the very first step towards independent locomotion and freedom. It opens up a bigger world for him; life is no longer the polarising dichotomy of "up" and "down" - there is now a left and a right as well. 

All in all, it's very exciting. 

Watching him roll over the other night made me realise what an incredible tricky thing it is. My sister-in-law lay him on his stomach at first, and propped him up on his arms. Then he started to topple over on his side. He looked like he was doing it easy, but then he got stuck as he lay on his side. He started kicking out a bit to flop over, but couldn't manage it. He looked a bit like a turtle stuck on its back. 

I've been assured that he's rolled over three times already, but it's still obviously a little tricky for him. He hasn't got the knack of twisting his hips with his back muscles. But he's young, and he'll learn in time. Rolling over is natural part of the human condition. And if he needs inspiration with regards to rolling over, he's got the Arsenal as potential role-models. 

Even my nephew can't roll over like the Arsenal. 

We lost again last night. 3-0 to Man City, who comprehensively out-played our youngsters. When you add this to the 1-4 defeat to Chelsea over the weekend, and the 0-1 defeat to Sunderland last week, it's pretty depressing. Nobody rolls overs like the Arsenal on a losing streak. Not only does our first 11 not show up at matches; even our reserve players are starting to not show up. 

Where to from here? 

Well, the glaring deficiencies that were apparent at the start of the season are all still there. We still don't give a fuck about defending. We still don't prepare for set-pieces. We still don't have a strong squad. We still have a lot of young players who fold in pressure situations and who don't have the guidance on the pitch that they deserve. 

What's going to happen to fix the problem?

We're going to get a new striker in January. Other than that, not much. Arsene Wenger believes in developing a squad in a natural way, which to him means not buying the players we need and not coaching defences. So we just let our player develop naturally.

Just like my nephew George, we're going to get a lot of practise rolling over. 

Bergkamp wants to coach

"I would like to train and work in England. Not only as head coach, but as a member of the staff, so I can work with the strikers."

- Dennis Bergkamp, dead-set legend and wannabe coach

Dennis Bergkamp wants to come back to England and coach. He completed his coaching qualifications in 2008. He was trained in the Ajax system. He has perfect technique and vision. He is a thorough professional.

Any takers? 

I'm wondering how many great players become great coaches. I know there are very few great players who become great managers, but what's the strike-rate of great coaches? Off the top of my head, I can think of Martin Keown coming back to coach the Arsenal back-line to great success. Pat Rice has been at the club since forever, so he must be good. I remember from CM03-04 that Juventus has a couple of great coaches who were once great ex-players. But who else? 

The hardest thing with a great player becoming a great coach must be the difficulty in conveying instinct to other people. As a player, Bergkamp would pass and move and shoot instinctively. He wouldn't have known why he did certain things until after he did them. Those awesome passes and goals just came naturally to him. 

I can imagine him on his first day at London Colney, with an impressionable Theo Walcott and Carlos Vela in front of him: 

"Now, when Fabregas hits a 60 yard ball at you from the halfway line, what you should do is control it with your ankle, then shimmy past the opposing full-back, then pause for a split-second to weigh up your options, and then score the goal by kicking it off the side of your right boot," Bergkamp says. 

"Sorry Mr Bergkamp, but are you saying that you control a 60 yard pass with your ankle?" Theo asks.

"Yes, I don't believe in show-boating. Just trap it neatly first-time, don't expose the ball to the opponent," Bergkamp replies. "Now, when you're playing as the focal point of the 4-3-3, a common mistake is to only see moves two steps ahead of play. It's important to think three or four moves ahead, or otherwise you can't surprise your opponent." 

"You want us to make passes that no one else can see?" Carlos Vela asks. 

"Of course. Why else would you make them?" Bergkamp asks, perplexed.

Still, I think we should hire Bergkamp if we can. If anyone can make the leap from playing to coaching, Bergkamp can. It's a simple formula: Awesome player + awesome man = awesome coach. 

You can't argue with maths. 

An update on Placenta-gate

In an update to Placenta-gate, it turns out that Mariana Kovacevic, the physiotherapist who's injecting bits of horse placenta into van Persie's ankle, is on the run from Serbian police and is wanted for tax-evasion. 

She has at least three aliases and as many as four different addresses in Belgrade. She constantly changes her style of dressing and her hair colour to avoid detection. If anyone sees her, they should be warned that she's armed, dangerous and liable to inject you with a syringe full of horse placenta if you confront her.  

As the Daily Mail reports:

"In a case which is developing the sinister trappings of an underworld operation, Kovacoevic has disappeared without a trace. The players she is currently treating are also being kept hidden form view by a bewildering combination of subterfuge, private jets, fast cars and eagle-eyed surveillance."

Kovacevic is currently treating Robin van Persie, Glen Johnson, Fabio Aurelio and Frank Lampard. It's really quite exciting to imagine her stashing those players in various safe-houses across the city. I've been to Belgrade, and the city's a collection of Stalinist shtick with a Blade-runner sensibility. It's the perfection environment to imagine Spy-vs-Spy escapades involving highly-paid footballers, shady placenta-injecting physiotherapists and the Serbian police. 

I can just see van Persie and Lampard holed up in a battered shanty on the banks of the Sava River. Police have surrounded the house and are approaching with guns drawn. Suddenly, there's the sound of thunder, and a vintage 1950s Aston Martin bursts through the flimsy wooden wall. Lampard's in the driver's seat and he's gunning it, while van Persie's standing on the back seat firing an Uzi at the police, who cower under their cars as they become riddled with bullets. 

I just hope van Persie takes care as they're speeding off in the Aston Martin with a clutch of police cars in hot pursuit. And when Lampard crashes into a fire hydrant and van Persie's thrown into a shop window from to the impact, I hope he avoids hitting anything too hard. And when van Persie's running over the roof-tops of Belgrade with the portly police commissioner in hot pursuit, I hope he remembers to look down and not twist his other ankle. 

The last thing we need is for him to be out for another couple of months. 

Sunderland 1-0 Arsenal

"We can only fault ourselves. Some players were not at their best and we gave a goal away at a set piece that provided Sunderland's only opportunity to score. That sums it up perfectly; the game was there for the taking."

- Arsene Wenger, refreshingly frank about the match

Okay,  Eduardo as a lone striker isn't the answer. I think it was worthwhile to give him a chance in the position, but we've to go regard it as a failure. Eduardo a poacher and he'll give you a few dinky little passes, but he needs someone to play off of. He doesn't have the qualities to be the main man himself. 

Then again, thinking back over the last few years, and I'm wondering what is the answer to yesterday's performance. We played poorly against Sunderland, and we lost. We conceded a weak goal on a set piece and we lost. We lost key players in the previous international week and we lost. As much as we'd like to deny it, Arsenal lose matches in circumstances like this, and there's not a lot to say about it. It's just a fact of life. 

I think we can say that thing will be difficult until Bendtner comes back next month. Bendtner can play as a lone striker. van Persie can play as a lone striker. I'm not sure about the rest of the strikers. I think we're going to keep rotating strikers for the next few games, hoping that one of the combinations click. 

So what's going to happen next week against Chelsea? Who are we going to plonk up front against Terry and Carvalho? I'm thinking Wenger will stick with Eduardo. However, I hope he decides to gives Vela a chance up front. Vela has amazing potential, and it'll be nice to see him get a few starts. He's fast and clever, and he can lead the line better than Eduardo. 

Actually, I'd like to see Walcott start on the right wing, Arshavin on the left and Vela up front. It would be like playing three Mighty Mouses together. Terry and Carvalho would be like ponderous elephants trying to stamp on tiny, speedy rodents, and our attacking trio would be biting them, and slipping past them, and stealing all their cheese. And then the elephants would get so upset at their stolen cheese that they'll refuse to eat leaves and then they'll get hungry, and malnourished, and then they'll die. That's what I want to happen to Terry and Carvalho next week (except the dying part, because that's a bit extreme). 

The other thing that bugs me about the Sunderland game was the soft goal. Until we get serious with defending set pieces, we're going to continue to conceded weak goals. It might not matter when we're scoring 3 goals a game, but last night showed us that we're not going to score 3 goals a game every match. This lax defending is going to cost us the points that will cost us the title. And until we do something about it, we can forget about winning the title. 

Hand of Henry

I've been very colour co-ordinated today. Currently, I'm wearing brown cord pants, brown tan shoes and a coffee brown T-shirt. The remarkable thing is that I dress in the dark, so most days I don't know what I've got on until I step out of my bedroom and into the light of the hallway. The fact that I managed to put on clothes of all the same hue today is a remarkable coincidence, and one that I'm not going to question. 

When things go well like that, it's best not to look too carefully into it. 

You could say the same thing about Henry's handball and France's qualification to the World Cup final. Understandably, Ireland are distraught. It was a remarkable bit of cheating. Ireland have even demanded that the match be replayed. France, on the other hand, have a guilty little smirk on their face and are busy trying not to look at the video replay. C'est la vie, and all that. 

The revelation that Henry is a cheat is supposed to pose something of a moral dilemma for Arsenal fans. Can we still love Henry now that we know he's just another dirty foreign cheater who steals World Cup places from hard-working, plucky, salt-of-the-earth teams from the British Isles? After reading a variety of blogs about this issue,  the common consensus seems to be: 

1) Henry's still a legend and one handball doesn't change his status

2) Henry was wrong, and Arsenal fans don't condone cheating

3) Ireland can't complain because all footballers cheat

4) Ireland had chances to finish off the tie, so they can't complain 

5) Isn't Robbie Keane a total cunt?

There's nothing wrong with these points. However, I think the more pertinent question is why do we think Henry should be faultless? Aside from his footballing skills, Henry is a man like any other. He wants to compete in one last World Cup, and is desperate to go to South Africa. So when the opportunity came along, he handballed to win. It's not an attractive quality, but it's a perfectly human quality. 

The thing is that these things happen. Footballers cheat. Referees miss handballs. Wrongdoers can succeed. Unless someone does something sensible about it, like introduce video replays, there's not a lot you can say about it. Footballers are going to handball balls into the net if they think they're going to get away with it. It's unfortunate that Henry did it to Ireland in a very important game, but it's a bit like me pulling out clothes at random and ending up with a colour co-ordinated outfit. 

It was just dumb luck. 

van Persie and his witch doctor

"I will meet with the female doctor who helped Danko Lzaovic. She is vague about her methods, but I know she massages you using fluid from a placenta. I am going to try. It cannot hurt and if it helps, it helps."

- Robin van Persie, seeking state-of-the-art medical treatment

You never know, it's unusual treatment but it might work.

Civilisations from ages past have all reported favourably on the great medicinal benefit of slaughtering livestock and then rubbing bloody bits of it over your body. However, the chicken gizzards on my temple floor told me the other day that van Persie's doctor should also burn a fatten calf as an offering to Baal, say three Hail Mary's and then dip van Persie in the River Styx to make him invulnerable.

But I'm pessimistic about his chances with this doctor. Personally, I don't trust someone who's "vague" about their methods. And I can't see how a topical agent is going to be effective to treat ligament injury. I'd suggest that if they're using that placenta for the stem cells, he's better off injecting that thing straight into the ankle. It might turn van Persie into a half-cow freak of nature, but that might be an improvement - I've never seen a cow get leg injuries during international matches. 

Anyway, van Persie's out for at least six weeks. Nothing we can do about it now. Instead, we've got to figure out who'll baby-sit the pointy end of our 4-3-3 until he comes back. Bendtner's the obvious choice, but he's out for a month. Walcott's out for about the same time. Eduardo's a bit small, he's out of form and he's more of a poacher than a central striker. Playing him in a 4-3-3 is like playing an old Michael Owen as a lone-striker - it's just wrong. 

The thing is, do we need a striker? 

We were going fairly well before van Persie hit his stride, so I'm wondering if the loss of van Persie will mean much to our goals output. As long as we get someone who has his range of passing, we'll be okay. Actually, we could do worse than adopt Roma's 4-2-3-1-0, with Arshavin as the Totti-esque supporting striker. They play a fluid, graceful style of football, with wonderful little triangles and with very little end-product. Until Bendtner comes back, that's what I have my money on. 

Let's just hope we don't play Diaby in that role.

History repeating

"You're still going to do it, aren't you? It's the funniest thing - even after talking about it tonight, you're going to go ahead and do it anyway. You don't learn. You know it's a bad idea, but you're still going to go after her."

- my friend, a couple of hours ago. 

It's not a good idea to go after a friend's hot sister.

 

I know it's wrong to go after her. It's very, very wrong, and there are so many potential pitfalls that my head reels. Intellectually, I can grasp that it's a bad idea. Emotionally, I can understand it. Even viscerally, I get a bit queasy as I think about her, and I realise she's not for me. I've been down this path before, and I have no desire to go back down it, but then again... 

There must be a special sub-section of Hades reserved for people like us. Sisyphus rolls his boulder up the hill all eternity. Tantalus bends over for a drink from the pool, just to watch it disappear from his grasp. I keep chasing girls I really shouldn't be after. And Arsene Wenger cobbles together a potentially championship-winning side, only to watch it crumble through injuries.

It's all so clear when you're on the outside looking in. Take the Arsenal and our current run of injuries to our strikers. Before the weekend, Bendtner and Walcott were out, Vela wasn't not match-fit and Eduardo's in rather sketchy form. We were doing okay with that. But now that van Persie's out until Christmas, we're left with just one fit, poorly-performing striker for at least a month.  

The tragedy is that it was pretty obvious this could've happened. 

We sold Adebayor for £25 million and didn't feel the need to replace him. Instead, we relied on van Persie being fit for a full season. van Persie has had one injury-free season in all his time at Arsenal. Odds are that he wasn't going to last the season. They say he's out for six weeks, but you know with van Persie that those six weeks can easily stretch to three months.

Why did we do that? Why did we put our faith in van Persie's dodgy hamstrings and frail ankles? With that £25 million, we could've bought an Aguero or a Benzema or even a David Villa. We could've got a striker of van Persie's quality, but without van Persie's injuries. But we didn't.

It's happened before, and we're all a bit bemused by it. Losing Vieira, we dallied around and never bought the DM we needed. Losing Lehmann, we prevaricated and never got the great 'keeper we required to win the tight games. Losing David Dein, it took us three years before we got our act together and hired Ivan Gazidis. 

I think Wenger has this idea that we can keep recruiting from within: Diaby can replace Vieira; Song can replace Gilberto; Walcott can replace Henry; Bendtner can replace Adebayor; and so forth indefinitely, like a Fibonacci sequence that keeps on expanding. It works to a degree, but it doesn't. We drop too many points and lose too many games to ever be good enough to win the league this way. 

The problem is that we never learn. We like to think that we're creatures of logic, but really, we're still governed by chemicals and tiny, hard-wired electrical signals that don't give a fuck about things like logic and rationality and good common sense. Wenger might go into a transfer period resolved to make a clean sweep and buy the players we need, but the minute he steps out on the training pitch he sees his proteges, his heart surges with pride, and he wants to give them one more chance. 

Hope springs eternal. This time might be different. You never know unless you try. There's always one more season to gain experience, and one more unsuitable girl to chase. And after all, she is very attractive. 

Cesc Sera, Sera

"I don't know what will happen either tomorrow or in a year or in five years."

- Cesc Fabregas, philosophising about stuff

In a sense, Cesc is right - you never know what's going to happen tomorrow. Life is such an unlikely event that even waking up in the morning should be considered a minor miracle. We exist because oxygen is soluble in blood and binds to haemoglobin, because our hearts beat in a constant rhythm from the day we're born, and because we can somehow derive consciousness from the connections between millions of fatty sheathed neurones in our heads. We take it for granted, but when you think about it, you realise how unlikely the whole set it is. And when you think about that, the idea that you can plan for something to occur in a week, or a year or five years seems absurd. 

Then again, some things are immutable. van Persie getting injured during an international match is something that's as constant as the sun, taxes and that queasy bellyache you get after eating too much KFC. van Persie injured his ankle in a match against Italy, and he's going to be out of for a few months. It's a shame, because he'd just adapted to the lone-striker role at Arsenal. 

But most things in life are ever-changing. Take the Arsenal - our season's in a state of flux at the moment. If we can improve the defence and compensate for van Persie's injury, we've a great chance of winning the league. If the kids improve, we'll have enormous depth on the bench. If we strengthen in January, we can finally paper over the weak areas of our team. But if we don't do any of it, we're likely to slide out of contention by February. It'll take a cleverer man than me to predict the trajectory of our season with any sense of confidence. 

As Cesc intimated, and as Doris Day once sang, what will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. For example, take my nephew George:

He's a bright kid. He was born a month premature, but he's already mouthing words at 4 months of age. He's also got good taste - he only wears Huggies nappies. He's also already got a very Arsenal name (and I'm wondering if it's possible to get a vintage kid's size Charlie George shirt for him). On the face of it, he'd make a perfect little gooner.  But in light of his intelligence, I'm not so sure. 

I've been speculating about the right time to turn him into an Arsenal fan, but I'm starting to doubt my persuasive abilities. He's a very smart baby, and by the time he's able to comprehend what football is, he'll probably realise that Barcelona are a much better prospect than Arsenal. Why should he follow the second most beautiful football club in the world when he can follow the best? I can hope that he'll come around to support Arsenal for sentimental reasons (his Charlie George shirt and all), but I'm not so sure.

So what'll happen in the future, in one year and then in five? I'll influence him the best I can. But while he might trot around in a Charlie George shirt at 3 years of age, he might've switched to a Messi shirt by the time he's 7. I don't know.

As Cesc puts it, I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. 

New Zealand at the World Cup

Where's the justice in this?

When Australia were in Oceania, our last four World Cup qualification play-off opponents were Argentina, Iran, Uruguay and Uruguay. We lost marginally against Argentina. We were 20 minutes away from qualification against Iran. We lost to Uruguay under Frank Farina, and we won on penalties against them under Guus Hiddink. We played some genuinely tough games, in some of the most partisan locations imaginable. 

One of the main reasons we switched to the Asian Confederation was to get a fairer World Cup qualification route. It's fairer to play in two home-and-away groups for qualification, rather than a sudden-death play-off position every four years.  But now that we've left Oceania, we've given that rather tough qualification scenario to New Zealand. And so, what does New Zealand have to do to qualify for the World Cup? 

New Zealand have to beat Bahrain at home. 

That's it.

They've done the hard work and drawn 0-0 against Bahrain away. Bahrain took the unusual step of acclimatising for a chilly, wet Wellington in a heat-wave struck Sydney. All New Zealand have to do is show up in front of 35,000 home fans, keep it tight at the back and score a goal. It's not exactly difficult. They just have to practice the dour, negative football that they showed at the Confederations Cup. 

I've got mixed emotions about this. 

Part of me thinks that they're going to get through this too easily. World Cup qualification should be hard, dammit. They have to be earned. You have to endure early morning defeats and the chilling reality that it'll be another four years until the next chance comes around. You can't expect to rock up to a World Cup by playing Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, and then a play-off with Bahrain. Where's the brave 1-1 draw in front of 120,000 fanatical fans in Tehran? The rioters at Montevideo? The cynical antics of those bastardly South Americans? It's not a World cup qualification unless you've faced all of that for 32 years. 

Part of me wishes New Zealand well. I realise that it's politically correct to barrack for the Asian side. We are in the Asian Confederation now. But I can't help but wish New Zealand makes it. It could be their only realistic chance of qualification for a long, long time. I can't imagine FIFA like the prospect of New Zealand getting through from such a weak route. 

But most of me is really, really excited by the prospect of a World Cup group featuring Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England. If that happens, I think it's a realistic possibility that we can knock England out of the World Cup. England don't travel well. South Africa are at home and, despite being a basket-case, should cobble enough points to get through. New Zealand won't win anything but they'll try their best to hobble England's players. And Australia are awesome. 

So it's possible. If there's one thing better than qualifying for the World Cup, it's doing over England while in the World Cup. That's the whole reason the World Cup was invented, after all. All these countries want a chance to thump England in a meaningful match. And come next year, it might be our turn.

But first, New Zealand's got to win tonight's match.

Song's right - running is hard work

Lately, I've taken up running. I've never done it before, and it's hard work. I've downloaded a series of podcasts that's designed to turn me from a couch potato to a decent runner in 9 weeks. It's challenging. So far, I get about 8 minutes worth of actual running in a 30 minute period. The rest of the time is spent walking, gasping for breath and wheezing in a sickly manner.

Which brings me to Alex Song. 

I admit, I was one of those people who got on his case for not running around on the pitch. It upset me to see him loping around in a casual manner while we were being over-run in the midfield. It offended me to see him walking around while Flamini, his predecessor, would've been pressing and harrying for the full 90 minutes. But maybe I was being too hard on him. Running is hard work, and running around for 90 minutes a game might be asking too much of a 20 year old with more important things on his mind. 

But hopefully, Alex Song will start running again soon. I hope he does, because he's a good player when he does. I was shocked late last season when Alex Song started running around in midfield. I think around the time of the CL semi-finals, he was close to being our best player. He was pressing, and positionally aware, and bossing the midfield with his physique. That's the kind of player we all want Song to be. 

One DM to whom we've been perennially linked, Yaya Toure, has been - surprise, surprise - linked with us again. Now, this is a guy who Song should try to emulate. He's strong and good in the tackle, he's positionally sound and he drives forward, and what's more important, he can run. There's very little chance we'll buy him (the main reason we were after him was to reunite him with Kolo) but we need someone like him to protect the midfield and give a physical presence. Despite all the artistry on display, we need a midfield warrior to boss the opposition. 

I think Alex Song can still be that warrior, but he's got to start running again - even if it's hard work. I know it's tough. The first few weeks will be spent wheezing, choking and gasping for breathe. But we'll be a better team for it. 

(I didn't watch) Arsenal 4, Wolves 1

"A personal reservation about this phase of Wenger's game-altering reign in English football is that he may have taken a brilliant idea to an unworkable extreme, and left Arsenal short of warriors to pick the team up and drive it forward, as Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit did."

- Paul Hayward, saying it for all of us

How good is this Arsenal side? 

3-0 against Spurs. 4-1 against Alkmaar. And 4-1 last night against Wolves last night. I didn't watch it, though. I had a nap which, unfortunately, went on for the rest of the night. Still, I can't help but feel cheered by the result. We're developing a real momentum now. The frustrating Arsenal of previous seasons (lots of possession with no goals) seems to be a thing of the past. 

But the question remains, can we win anything with this side?

On the whole, I'm not convinced. We conceded a weak goal last night in the last couple of minutes. While it didn't effect the result, it's a worrying sign. Defensive lapses are habit-forming. If we don't take pride in clean sheets, then we're going to keep conceding easy goals, and it's going to hurt us in the end. Just think back to West Ham a few weeks ago. If we don't tighten up at the back, there are going to be more West Hams this season, and it will cost us in the end. 

There's a good article by Paul Hayward in the Guardian about this problem. The Arsenal bandwagon is the prettiest bandwagon in the Premier League. When the team's on a roll, supporting the Arse is the easiest thing in the world. It's only when the bandwagon loses steam, fucks up at the back, loses points and ends up empty-handed at the end of the season that you feel you're getting jibbed. 

What I really want to see in January are a couple of purchases: a good goalkeeper and a defensive midfielder who can fill in at centre-back.  Almunia's been reinstated as our 1st choice 'keeper, which I feel is the wrong decision. He's solid 90% of the time, but it's the other 10% that's going to kill us by the end of the season. And we need someone to take over from Song, at least while the ACN is on. I have nightmares that Diaby will be playing as our holding midfielder in January. Wenger needs to understand that just because a man looks like Vieira, he's not necessary going to play like him. And anyway, Diaby doesn't look like Vieira without the shaved head. 

It's not going to happen, though. I'm resigned to that. Arsene Wenger is a purist. He doesn't believe in defending. He believes in passing, movement, technique and selecting players that look like other players. So come January, Almunia's still going to be around, and he'll concede a couple near-post goals and then talk to the media about our "new-found resolve". And Diaby will be a holding midfielder who can't tackle. I hope he shaves his head so that, at least, he'll bear a passing resemblance to Vieira. That'll help. 

Still, if the goals continue, this may be bunk and Arsenal may win the league this year. And if that happens, Arsene Wenger will probably take it to another extreme and play a 1-3-4-1 next season to accommodate the freakish talents of Vela, Wilshere and Ramsey.

I'd stay up to watch that. 

I was wrong, Arsene Knows

"We have certainly not had so many creative options before. This was without Nicklas Bendtner, Theo Walcott, Carlos Vela and Denilson while Eduardo and Tomas Rosicky did not start. That's why I was always amazed people told me to buy, buy, buy."

- Arsene Wenger, sticking two proverbial fingers at me

I was wrong. Arsene Knows. We don't need to buy. After thumping Tottenham last weekend 3-0 and thumping AZ Alkmaar last night 4-1, we're don't need to buy. We have the requisite creative options already. 

van Persie is purring in his role as a central striker. We don't need a big centre forward who can handle two defenders on his own, play with his back to the goal and run the channels. We just needed someone like van Persie with good touch, good vision, and a left foot should be donated to the Louvre once van Persie's career has finished.

Fabregas has scored 3 goals in 2 games, and he's been brilliant. Great goal against Tottenham. Two goals last night. He was a prolific scorer as a kid, and now he's showing that he can be just as prolific as an adult. He doesn't have to play deeper to be truly effective. He's seeing less of the ball now, but his possessions are now more decisive. 

Vermaelen is the ballsy, steely, tough-as-nuts defender we've been missing. Just because he's a couple of inches under 6 foot, doesn't mean he's crap. And he wades forwards to score goals. It just shows that you shouldn't dismiss short, pasty-white Belgians as useless until you've seen them in action. 

We've still a creaky defence. We still need a better 'keeper. We still need a defensive midfielder to take over from Song when he goes to the ACN. Without those reinforcements, we're going to have more West Ham moments. One needs to keep that in mind in the midst of all the hyperbole. But still, if we can keep thumping in the goals in like we've been doing all season, how much does it really matter? I think we've been averaging 3 goals a game in the league, and has anyone managed that and not won anything? 

I know that in Championship Manager, it's pretty difficult not to be a dominant force if you're scoring that much every game. Typically, I finish a season with about 95 points, 100 goals for, 30 goals against. I lose 1-2 games a year and maybe draw five. We're on target for a season like that. It would be incredible if we don't finish in the Top 2 if we keep up this scoring. 

It's going to be a fun season, whatever happens. 

Arsenal, Tottenham and Vampire Weekend

Walcott, don't you know that it's insane

Don't you want to get out of Cape Cod?

Out of Cape Cod tonight?

Walcott, Vampire Weekend

It's the North London Derby tonight. 

It's been a long time since our infamous 4-4 draw last season. That was a watershed game for us. Before that game, we were still a good side. Although we'd sold Flamini and Hleb and strangely, their replacements had been doing well enough that we could be considered a title contender. I think we were 2nd or 3rd at that point. 

But after that 4-4 draw, the wheels came off. We had a lacklustre run of draws and defeats that we didn't really break until February, when Theo Walcott came back and we bought Arshavin. After that, the damage was done. We were stuck with the uncomfortable realisation that, despite Wenger's silky PR skills, the Arsenal weren't good enough to win the league.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The team's changed formation. We've sold Toure and Adebayor, and picked up Vermaelen and Arshavin. Song's realised that he's a much better footballer when he runs instead of jogs. And the rest of us have realised that we're going to keep treading water until either this bunch of kids come good or.... I don't know.

In the meantime, other clubs are improving. Aston Villa gave us a scare last year with a very consistent season. Man City's going to be a serious threat, either this year or next. And even Tottenham are getting uppity and thinking of themselves as our equals. 

The automatic reaction to this idea is derision. Peter Hill-Wood's statement at the AGM ("we don't consider them as rivals") brought laughter from the shareholders, and with good reason. Tottenham have been serial under-achievers for most of their history. I don't think they've beaten us in a league game since I've started following the Arsenal. 

But if you start comparing the teams, man for man, you might be surprised. Who would you take from the following: King and Woodgate vs Gallas and Vermaelen? Gomes vs whichever Arsenal keeper has fucked up the least? Palacios vs Song? These are the areas which have been neglected for the past five years, and it shows. Going forward, we're as talented as the best in the world. Going back, and we're as good (or bad) as Tottenham. 

It's a sobering thought. 

Another sobering thought is Vampire Weekend. I don't like all this newfangled music that the kids play nowadays. It's strange and weird. I'd rather snuggle up in my flannels and listen to the grunge of my youth. But I like Vampire Weekend. I like their Upper West Side Soweto - whatever that mean. And I like how they write allegorical songs about Theo Walcott and Arsenal's inability to get out of "Cape Cod". 

Personally, I like to consider their Cape Cod reference to be about Plymouth, and how the Pilgrims' gauche attempts at colonisation eventually founded a country as diverse and dynamic as the US. And I think Vampire Weekend are comparing America's humble beginnings with Arsenal's humble, fumbled attempts at Premier League dominance. The Pilgrims had problems planting corn. We had problems with a player with corn-rows (i.e. Adebayor). And like the Pilgrims, we've got to get out of Cape Cod - or I'm going to go fucking insane following this Club. 

All in all, Walcott is a very good allegorical summary of Arsenal's current situation. And to think it came from a bunch of college kids from New York. What will those crazy Yankees think of next?

I want to buy an iMac

My desktop PC has been dying over the past couple of years. When I turn it on, it wheezes like a sick old man with emphysema. It chugs along gamely whenever it's overloaded (three windows of Firefox usually overwhelms it). And it takes ages to turn off, as if it knows that it doesn't have much time left.

Lately, I've found myself cheating on my desktop. There's an Apple Store near my house, and I've spent an increasing amount of time admiring their wares. I love the iMacs. They're so sleek and stylish, and who cares if they don't have the grunt of a Wintel PC? There are more things in life than graphics cards and processing power. The iMac is beautiful - so beautiful that it inspires people to take photos of their computer and post it on the internet.

Whether that's the proper way of expressing affection for a machine is another story altogether.

Still, I have reservations. I bought my MacBook about a year ago, and I have great affection for it. For the six months I was in Europe, it was my constant companion. It stored my photos, my music, my journal. It booked my flights and my accommodation, and it was the gateway to my life back home.

But now that I'm home, I don't use it that often. The limitations of a Mac can be stifling. Personally, I prefer a Windows system where I can see where everything is and how everything runs. Macs don't seem to give you that option. And I'm worried that once the thrill of buying an iMac dissipates, I'll be left with another Apple computer that won't let me organise the things the way I want or won't run the programs I like.

I suppose I could make an analogy to our 2-1 win against Liverpool in the Carling Cup last night. Incidentally, I looked up the result on an iMac in the Apple Store. And the new Mighty Mouse is an amazing piece of technology that I had an urge to pocket it and run for the doors.

Anyway, Arsenal is like the new 24-inch iMac - its beautiful lines and elegant design are coupled with underwhelming performance. Ramsey and Merida gave great performances, and looked like world-beaters, but you couldn't rely on them for a whole season. They just don't have the stamina to go the distance.

Liverpool is like a PC that's been cobbled together from various parts - while it gives you better performance, it lacks any sort of aesthetic appeal. After all the money spent this year, you'd think Benitez would've had a shinier team. After Torres and Gerrard, Liverpool looks a bit like a beige box.

I'm a bit disenchanted with the Carling Cup now. Beating Liverpool doesn't seem that big a deal, because you know it doesn't matter. Only the Premier League and the Champions League matter. The kids are good in patches, but Wenger doesn't think they're ready for regular spots. The real test comes with Spurs on the weekend, when players like Diaby and Eboue have to front up to their lacklustre performances and start putting the effort in.

Whatever the case, I think I'd better buy an iMac anyway. It's only about $2000 nowadays, and I won't really use it for much except for Internet and Championship Manager. It'll be awesome to watch the Arsenal play on a shitty 2-inch Internet stream on a new 24-inch iMac monitor. And as Arsene Wenger has shown with his Arsenal sides over the years, performance isn't everything and sometimes beauty is worthwhile for its own sake.

From the AGM

"We haven’t got $500 billion to put into the club, but I suspect that we will be challenging — but I don’t consider Tottenham and Aston Villa rivals. I am very confident and any worries about Champions League income are unlikely to be the case.”

- Peter Hill-Wood, who isn't worried about threats to 4th place

It was AGM night in England last night. And of the many splendored things that Peter Hill-Wood said that night, that quote was the one that really pisses me off. It's such a snobbish, stupid, smug, self-absorbed, self-satisfied thing to say.

I don't understand why Peter Hill-Wood is sneering at Tottenham and Aston Villa for spending money in order to improve the quality of their teams. That's what football clubs do, Peter. Just because Arsenal sell their players for large amounts of money and don't reinvest the funds, it doesn't mean other clubs do the same. For ambitious clubs, they seek to add players to their squad every year in order to improve it.

I don't understand why Hill-Wood thinks he's got a right to be superior. In case he hasn't noticed, we have finished 4th or 3rd for the past four years. We haven't won in five years. We've stagnated. What's worse is that there hasn't been any sign of ambition from the Club to achieve more than 4th place and a Champions League place. For a club the size of Arsenal, that's pathetic.

And finally, I don't understand how Peter Hill-Wood got it in his head that 4th place is some sort of "prize" that we should be celebrating. For a club of our size, 4th place and CL qualification is the minimum. Celebrating that is madness, like jumping for joy when you get out of the bathtub because you managed not to drown yourself. I had a look at the club's profile on the official site, and nowhere on the list of our Premier League achievements does it list our proud record of 4th, 4th, 3rd, and 4th.

The other significant news from the AGM was that Stan Kroenke was asked about his intentions with the Club and he said.... nothing. Under the rules of the Takeover Panel, all public statements against a future bid must be unambiguous, or he'd be prevented from a formal move for six months. I hope the following prediction is ambiguous enough for Stan's liking - in the next six months, we're going to see a giant bust of Kroenke in the Emirate's forecourt with a motorised mouth which speaks "In Stan We Trust", and flaming eyeballs which shoots flaming eyes at gooners who dare to suggest that 4th place isn't good enough for a Club of our stature, or that certain Wengerish transfers are a bit geriatric.

And Arsene Wenger spoke about his confidence that we're going to win something this year:

“This year I am convinced we will win a trophy. It will come down to how resilient, consistent, intelligent and united we are until the end because there will be tough times. There will be periods when it will be difficult, but we have to show our strengths that have always made this club special. This team is now ready to go for it and I am convinced we will perform throughout the season.”

We've heard this before, Wenger. Why don't we just get through Christmas before we make any rash promises, hey?

On financial doping

"And this will be one nation under the dollar, with justice and liberty for none."

- The Simpsons, from the Mr Lisa Goes To Washington episode

I've a confession to make - I rarely have the time to watch the Arsenal anymore. What with working six days a weeks, daylight savings, and an incredibly slow Internet connection, I just don't have the inclination. Whether that means I should continue blogging about a team I'm no longer watching is a question for another day. Or maybe I should just spring $70 a month for Foxtel and record the matches.

Anyway, the morning before the Birmingham match, I read an article about their recent acquisition by Carson Yeung. Turns out Alex McLeish will be handed £40m in the January transfer window to turn his side into a mid-table table side. The article makes pretty clear that that £40m will not do a lot - it doesn't allow Birmingham to acquire a better class of player, it just inflates the price of mediocre players. This will put pressure on other relegation-candidates to find rich owners in order to compete with Birminghams. And this will eventually turn the Premier League into a collection of 20 expensive indulgences, each artificially supported by a rich sugar daddy.

When you consider that the combined debt of all 20 Premier League clubs is £3.1b, it's a frightening scenario. No wonder Arsene Wenger is so adamant against "financial doping".

Anyway, I've been watching highlights of the Bundesliga, and it's not bad value. The play isn't as dynamic as in the Premier League. There aren't as many stars. And technically, it's much inferior to the fare served up in La Liga or the Premier League. But still, to watch the crowds in the stadiums and the commitment on the pitch, it makes me wonder if there isn't something more to football than technical quality.

The Germans have gone down a different route with their league. Instead of surrendering their league to rampant capitalism, they've restricted the quality of their elite clubs to better preserve the integrity of the competition as a whole. I've found this website which explains the areas in which the Bundesliga has been organised than the Premier League. The pertinent points are that: (1) there's a cap on the price of tickets, meaning that season tickets are within the grasp of ordinary fans; (2) there's a ruling that no one individual can own more than 49% of a club, meaning that sugar-daddies can never blatantly impose their will on a club; and (3) teams are actually solvent, instead of mired in transfer-funded debt.

The sacrifice they've made is that the Bundesliga is no longer competitive with the elite clubs of Europe. Look at the Champions League, and you see that even Bayern Munich has slipped into the second tier of clubs. Ribery, the best player in Germany, will surely leave for Real Madrid, Man Utd or Barcelone next season. Wolfbsburg, the Bundesliga champions, would be a long-shot to reach the quarter- or semi-finals.

But still, it's a choice that seems a lot more logical than what's happening in England, where clubs are being swallowed up by idle, profligate businessmen. It's okay in the short term, but we've seen with West Ham and Portsmouth what happens when a wealthy backer goes belly-up. And a lot of other clubs are tethered to financial ruin in a similar way. Maybe it's time to diminish the quality of the Premier League, in order to preserve its integrity. Or maybe I should subscribe to Foxtel and hope that my $70 a month will somehow find its way to a coffers of a struggling Premier League club to hep them survive.

Chocolate-powered Arsenal

"Pressure is very big and has always been. We do not play for tablets of chocolate, we play for trophies and that is what we want to win."

- Arsene Wenger, on Arsenal's new focus on trophies and not candy

This year, we're playing for trophies, not tablets of chocolate.

Is this an admission that in the previous four years, we have been playing for tablets of chocolate? Is this the reason why we took our eyes off the trophies and began a youth policy that doesn't seem to come to fruition? It kind of makes sense. Maybe Wenger thought that with such a young squad, candy bars would be a better motivational goal than shiny metal trophies. As with Pavlov's dogs, he'd sit the team around the dressing room after a win and hand each member a chocolate bar. Then they'd associate the winning mentality with chocolate, and after a while, they'd get into that winning mentality by just showing them bars of chocolate before a big match.

Of course, because chocolate is so ubiquitous, it soon got out of hand. Players who were super-hungry for that winning feeling would just gorge themselves on chocolate instead of playing hard on the pitch to get that feeling. That led to a whole heap of self-satisfied players who didn't feel like they had to work hard on the pitch to get that winning feeling. And that led to a bunch of unsatisfying, horrible performances by the Arsenal. And now, Wenger's come to the conclusion that Pavlovian conditioning isn't the best way of motivating a football team. So we've reverted to putting an old-fashioned carrot in front of the players - trophies.

I think this is a sign that things are looking up. It's depressing to watch a team that plays for candy. They play sweetly when things are going for them, but when the pressure's on, they turn soft and gooey and not particularly pleasant. Last year was a nadir in terms of chocolate-powered Arsenal. This year, under the steely eye of Tom Vermaelen, we can hopefully play for something more than just candy.

We're playing Birmingham next. Again, it's a game we should win. It's been said before that the trick of winning the league is to get maximum points against all the lesser teams. We're always going to drop points against the Top 4, but as long as we win the winnable matches, we'll still be in contention. The key is to win the matches, not just draw. Drawing these matches is two points lost, which is almost as bad as three points lost for a loss.

Mannone should start in front of Fabianski and Almunia. Fabianski is an exciting young 'keeper, but much of that excitement is due to the fact that he's so recklessly dangerous. It's fun to watch him sprinting out of the box and chasing after the ball like a mad dog playing fetch, but it's not good for the heart. Mannone's been a bit more dependable in the games he's started this year. And unless Fabianski and Mannone are injured, Almunia shouldn't play for Arsenal again. Never ever Almunia again.

Also, I like it that Mannone's still young enough to be motivated by a big tablet of chocolate. Just don't eat it all at once, Vito, or you'll get a tummyache.

PHW's "relaxed" about a takeover

"It does look like he is edging towards a takeover, which I would welcome. I have not asked him if that is what he plans to do, but I am very relaxed about it. If it was to happen, I don't think you can expect any big changes because he seems to like things very much the way they are."

- Peter Hill-Wood, about the prospect of a takeover

A couple of days ago, Kroenke bought another 90 shares at £8,500 per share, taking his overall stake in the Club to 28.9%. He's edging closer to the 30% needed to trigger a mandatory compulsory takeover. As Myles Palmer said "he now needs only 645 more shares to take him to 29.9% . Then Stan will probably stop buying shares till the end of the season."

In light of this news, Peter Hill-Wood is "very relaxed" about the idea of Kroenke buying the Club. He "doesn't think" there will be big changes because Kroenke "seems to like things" the way they are. He's being very nonchalant about the future of the Club. In other words, he's telling us that if it happens, when it happens, how it happens, whatever happens it'll be sort of, maybe, probably okay.... he thinks.

To me, it's not a particularly reassuring statement. It came from a man who, two years ago, famously said that "we don't need his money and we didn't need his sort" at the club. Hill-Wood doesn't mince words when he speaks to the media. He says what he likes, how he likes - even if some of what he says is xenophobic, inane crap.

So why has he changed his stance?

Why is he prevaricating and qualifying his statements?

I think it's because Arsenal is being eaten alive by two very hungry billionaires, and Peter Hill-Wood has woken to the fact that there's sweet FA he can do to prevent a takeover. And the Board's anointed Kroenke as the lesser of two evils. And Hill-Wood's just realised that, after insulting Kroenke in all the major papers two years ago, Kroenke might not be too well-disposed to him when he's in charge. So Hill-Wood's decided to say something like that to curry favor with Kroenke so that he can retain his honorary Chairman of the Board title in the event of a takeover.

All hail our new insect overlord.

Personally, I think it'll be a shame if we were bought outright by one person. I like Kroenke and think his presence on the Board is of great benefit, but I wouldn't like to see him owning the Club outright. I prefer the status quo, with a group of major shareholders (some with a long association with the Club) running the Club. It gives us the assurance that if one person decides to sell, we've still got some continuity at the Board level. If Kroenke buys us outright, then sells us us in five years' time, there's no guarantee that the next owners will be competent custodians of the Club.

But then again, as Peter Hill-Wood has learnt in the past two years, there's sweet FA we can do about it. Kroenke and Usmanov are eyeing the Club, have the money to buy it, and are going to make a bid when they think it's time. All we can do is put on some lippy and a nice dress, cosy up with our new owners, and hope it's not going to be too bad.

Wenger for the Nobel Prize

I was shocked when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I felt it was premature. He's only been in government for 8 months, and hasn't had time to much. It's even more remarkable when you realise that nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize closed a few days after Obama's inauguration. 

There were reasons for it. The committee cited the new mood in global diplomacy, and Obama's efforts in nuclear disarmament. And people have suggested that the prize was given as encouragement to Obama to stay the course, and to push for the reforms that the US require. 

But I suspect that there's another reason behind it, one that many of committee would be embarrassed to admit. I think Obama has become a symbol upon which we can project our hopes for the future. There's a lot wrong with the world at the moment, and for some reason, we seem to think that Obama can solve the problems. It's silly to think so, but we all need hope in something. I think the prize was given to Obama speculatively, as if by bestowing upon him the rewards of great deeds, Obama will perform the great deeds that would earn those rewards.  

Then again, the Nobel Peace Prize has always been slightly speculative. It's not like prizes for physics or chemistry, where theories have to have been established for years before a prize is awarded. The peace prize has often been handed out as an encouragement, to draw recognition to activists who are fighting against the odds and without much outside help. Often, it's not so much about success (how can you award someone for an abstract noun?), as it is about the effort. 

Anyway, in the spirit of speculative Nobel Peace Prize nominations, I'd like to nominate Arsene Wenger for the 2010 prize. He's got a lot of characteristics that the Nobel Prize committee are looking for:

1. He's transformed the most conservative, Establishment club in England into a bastion of progressive thinking and innovation. We're the only club that doesn't try to appeal to the insularity that grips English football, and I think Wenger has played a huge role in that. And I reckon Arsenal hoodlums are the most cosmopolitan of all the British football thugs. 

2. He's incredibly optimistic about the ability of people to better themselves - think of how many chances he's given to this squad, and the number of times he's come out publicly to support them. And think about the number of players he's let go because they would have more opportunities to improve themselves elsewhere. And he's an advocate of free movement of people. 

3. He's knit together a polyglot, multinational team that's a shining example of the benefits of globalisation. Over the past 13 years, it's pretty obvious that Wenger looks at people, not passports. There are about has many nationalities as people in the squad, and remarkably, they all get along - aside from the odd head-butt on the pitch. 

The only fault I could find with him is his relaxed attitude towards child labour. We're a club that actively targets 16 year olds as potential employees. In what other field (other than fast-food franchisees) would this be condoned? It's a slipperary slope from giving a 16 year old a football contract to giving a 6 year old a job in Laos sweatshop. 

Still, I think Wenger would be a worthy candidate for the Noble Peace Prize. Granted, it'll only be speculative at this stage. Wenger hasn't done anything with this squad yet. If he could only win the frickin' Premier League, he'd be a shoe-in. But if Obama could win it after 8 months in the office, why cant' Wenger win it after 13 years as manager?

Who's our next manager?

"I have a very strong relationship with this Club. But I always believe the most important thing in the Club is that everybody does what he is paid for and not the rest. If they consult me I will give an opinion but I certainly will not name the next manager because that's not my job and I wouldn't like to do anything other than my job."

- Arsene Wenger

Arsene Wenger won't do anything other than his job.

After observing his activities in the past five years, therefore, Wenger must be paid to be the manager, the head scout, the CEO, a board member, a stadium planner, a financial adviser, an accountant and the Arsenal's main PR spokesman. That's a heck of a job description. No wonder he's on £5 million a year.

One of the problems of the past five years is that Wenger has been doing too much at the Arsenal. It is a coincidence that our transfers dwindled in the time between the sacking of David Dein and the hiring of Ivan Gazidis? I don't think so. Since Dein left, Wenger has been focused too much on off-the-pitch matters, such as balancing the books, negotiating contracts, and developing Arsenal change rooms along feng shui principles. And during that time, our squad has been allowed to stagnate.

I hope this statement is a sign that things are getting back to normal. Ivan Gazidis may be a mouthpiece for the Arsenal Board, but he's effective at his job and he's taking the off-the-pitch pressure off Wenger. I hope this arrangement works out. It's time that Wenger concentrated his efforts on on-the-pitch matters, such as landing our first Premier League title in over five years.

That said, it would be interesting to speculate on our next manager. I assume that when he retires, Wenger will take up some sort of advisory role at the Club. And I assume that the next manager at Arsenal would be someone who shares Wenger's football philosophy and his parsimoney. However, there aren't many established coaches who would accept a position like Arsenal manager, if Wenger is still at the Club in some capacity.

Which leads me to suspect that the next manager will be an inside appointment, someone understands the crazy principles of Wengerball. Wenger's been on record saying that some of his old players have the potential to be Arsenal managers. He's mentioned Henry as one example. And I'm sure Tony Adams, Martin Keown or Dennis Bergkamp would have an interest in managing Arsenal.

However, I've another target in mind. From my Football Manager 08 saved game, I know that Patrick Vieira has the potential to be an excellent manager. After taking over from me at Arsenal, he won two Premier League and three Champions League titles in the space of five years. He then managed France to a World Cup win. He was an awesome player, and he turns into an awesome manager.

Maybe that's the real reason we've been linked to him in January?

Why aren't the Socceroos on free-to-air?

Most gooners don't like the international break. Some object to it on a philosophical level, and believe the idea of the nation-state to be an anachronism in a globalised world. Some object to it on an aesthetic level, and believe it shouldn't take precedence over the higher-quality football played by the Arsenal. And still others object to it out of paranoia, and believe international matches are part of a conspiracy by FIFA officials to injure our players and ruin our chances of "winning" 4th place.

Personally, I quite like the international break.

It's a chance to see what the Australian players have been up to. I've followed the Socceroos half-heartedly since the World Cup qualifying loss to Iran in 1997, and I've watched this current crop for a while. Unlike England, Australia has never produced more than six or seven "international-class" players at a time, so our teams tend to be static. Because of this, players tend to emerge early and you tend to follow them throughout their career.

I've seen the rise of Harry Kewell and the squandering of his early promise. I've seen Viduka rack up the goals with Celtic and Leeds. I've seen the class of Bresciano, and was absolutely gutted when the calcio scandal scuppered his chance of joining a top club like Milan or Juventus. I've seen Scott Chipperfield went from being a bus driver in Wollongong, to an NSL title with the Wolves, to a belated career in Europe and a World Cup appearance with the Socceroos.

Lately, though, I can't follow the Socceroos.

Foxtel, the local pay-TV company, has bought the rights to all Socceroos matches. Suddenly, I have to fork out money to watch them play. And it doesn't seem right to have to pay to watch Australia play. I reckon the right to watch the Socceroos play football on free-to-air TV should be a constitutional right. And in actual fact, the Federal Government has already passed legislation to preserve free-to-air access to significant Australian sporting events.

So why is it that the Socceroos can only be shown on Foxtel? I suppose the rub is the word "significant". Soccer isn't a "significant" sport in Australia. And therefore, their matches aren't "significant" enough to warrant free-to-air broadcasting. It irritates me no end, because I'd quite liek to see how the boys are shaping up for the World Cup.

In other news, Barcelona sporting director Txiki Begiristain hasn't ruled out bidding for Cesc Fabregas in the January transfer window:

"He's a player who fits the Barca profile. He was born suckling on football here and one day he will end up playing at the Camp Nou. I am sure."

Who said nothing happened during the international break? Excuse me, I'm going to have to lie down. After the shock of that article, I'm feeling a trifle dizzy.

Hleb regrets leaving Arsenal (again)

“I regret leaving Arsenal. I was playing every week for one of the most exciting sides in Europe. I was being guided by one of the best coaches in the world in Arsene Wenger. I owe him a great deal. No player ever gets worse under Wenger. I developed a better all-round game under him. I became more robust physically.”

- Alex Hleb, regretting leaving Arsenal... again.

On a slow news day, Alex Hleb has spoken again about how much he regrets leaving Arsenal. At the time, given the protracted nature of the transfer, I got a bit annoyed at him. We'd come so close to winning the Premier League, and then within the space of a few weeks half our midfield deserted us for more glamorous European clubs.

But with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think he should be regretful. If you've supported Barcelona all your life, and one day they show an interest in you, you've got to go. Especially if you're 28 and it's the last chance you'll ever get to play for Barca. If it doesn't work out, so be it - at least you had the guts to take a chance. After all, the only things you should ever regret in life are the chances you didn't take.

I don't think we ever appreciated Hleb as much as we should have. I admit I was one of those who would shout "SHOOT!" at the computer screen whenever Hleb had the ball. And I was pretty blase at the prospect of him leaving, and pretty excited about Nasri coming in as his replacement. I didn't think we'd miss him that much.

But over the course of last season, I've realised what a great asset we lost when we sold Hleb. We lost a great dribbler, a creative force on the right and a guy who can retain possession. And it's that last bit that's really hurt us. Since we sold him, we haven't had anyone who can hold onto the ball while we transition between attack and defense. And we haven't had anyone who would soak up pressure in tight situations.

But would we have him back if we could? I don't think so. Since Hleb's departure, we picked up Nasri and Arshavin. We've switched to a 4-3-3 to compensate for the loss of Flamini's motor, the weakness of Denilson and Song, and to accommodate our wealth of dinky little attacking-midfielder-forwards. Hleb would still be a good fit for the side (aside from Arshavin, we still don't have anyone who can retain possession), but it's pointless to regret the transfer. We have to move on.

As Nick Hornby once said about Liam Brady, we never did replace him satisfactorily, but we found different people, with different qualities. Obviously, Alex Hleb's no Liam Brady, but you get my drift.

Villa y Silva, por favor

"Now a section about asking for something. The simplest way to do this is by naming what you want, and then saying please."

- from my Learn Spanish CD

Lately, I've been thinking about learning Spanish. I like the language, I like the culture and I really like the football. One of my dreams in life is to do the Camino de Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage, and spend a month walking across the north of Spain. Another is to live in Barcelona, learn Catalan and shout independence slogans at dictatorial Madridistas. A third is to spend six months backpacking through Latin America. I doubt I'll ever do any of them, but I know that the first step for all these dreams is to learn Spanish.

So I'm starting with an audio book. It's pretty basic stuff, but I think I need some time to wrap my tongue around the pronunciations before I attend a class. And for this lesson, I'd like to say one thing to Arsene Wenger: David Villa y David Silva, por favor.

We need them both. David Silva is an awesome dribber with great ball-retention. Bung on out on the wing and we've got another Arshavin. David Villa is a lethal striker who, inexplicably, wasn't been bought by Real Madrid or Barcelona this summer. He's better than Benzema, he's better than Ibrahimovic, and he'd definitely better than van Persie, Eduardo and Bendtner. Can you imagine a forward line of Arshavin, Villa and Silva? My mind goes blank when I do. Too many misfiring neurons and too much acetylcholine in the synapses.

There are other players we require. At the top of the list is an experienced goalkeeper, a central defender, and a defensive midfielder. We're actually pretty well stock with creative, fragile playmaker-wingers and pacy central forwards. But still, Villa and Silva are better than what we have now, and they'd make us so good going forward that it really wouldn't matter that we've no one at the back.

I know it won't happen, and I know it's a gross conflict of interest with my newly anointed second side, but I still wish it would happen. What's the use of being the most financially buoyant club in the world if you can't splash out on superfluous signings every now and then?

Por favour, Senor Wenger.

The Return of the Libero?

"But looking further ahead, there is also another player who has space, and that is one of the centre-backs. A single central striker is marked by one central defender, leaving the other one as a spare man. Of course that is useful defensively, but there is no reason why the extra player should only be useful defensively... Why shouldn't that extra defender stride forward into midfield as the likes of Franz Beckenbauer and Ruud Krol once did?"

- Jonathan Wilson, on the evolution of tactics

Is Vermaelen our new libero?

I got this from gunnerblog. It's such an interesting idea that I decided to steal it. I don't think they'll miss it much. Anyway, the idea is that the evolution of tactics has to do with finding and exploiting space. At the moment, most teams play some form of 4-5-1. Which means that the spare man in the team is often the second central defender. At Arsenal, that spare man is Thomas Vermaelen. And what is a young man with time on his hands going to do?

If he's Vermalen, he's going to roam up the pitch, a la Beckenbauer, Krol and the liberos of old. He's been doing well in the role this year. He's comfortable on the ball, has an eye for goal, and is defensively hard. We could do with someone like that in midfield.

So what's the implications of Vermaelen as a libero? I suppose it means Clichy and Sagna have to be more defensively minded. It'll be crazy if we turned into a 1-3-3-3, with only Gallas staying back as a defender. It means Song and Denilson have more help in midfield. Song can drop back to centre-back to cover Vermaelen. He's had practise with it, what what Kolo Toure's rampaging runs and Gallas' attacking proclivities.

So far, we've been good going forwards. Vermaelen's top scorer, and that's got to be due in part to his relaxed defensive duties. But we're poor at the back. That's down to a combination of an inexperienced goalkeeper, really complacent defending from the full-backs, and inadequate protection from the midfield. But there's the start of something special here. Vermaelen striding forward to bolster the midfield has possibilities that should be investigated.

Arsenal under Wenger has always been about crazy attacking football. So why now the return of the libero?