Why are Arsenal players always injured?

"I am 100% confident that, medically, everything was done properly and I checked that with our medical team.... We got two independent doctors who looked at the x-ray post-Birmingham. If they had felt it needed a deeper investigation, they would have told us."

- Arsene Wenger, about Cesc's injury

I'm wondering what's happening in the Arsenal medical rooms. After Barcelona, we have Cesc out for the season, Gallas out for the season, Arshavin out for a while. Freak injuries happen, but Cesc and Arshavin were both nursing injuries, and yet were cleared to be play. Gallas had come out off a long lay-off and wasn't match-fit, and yet was cleared to play.

Gallas was declared fit after going to rehab for 10 days, and then training with the team for 4 days. He was so fit that he was "jumping, running up and down stairs in France and he had very hard sessions." Gallas declared himself fit, and so Wenger thought it was worthwhile to risk him.

I don't get Wenger's rationale. "Hard sessions" aren't game-time. Running up and down stairs aren't game-time. Jumping isn't game-time. The only thing that simulates the demands placed on a body during a game of football is a game of football. I'm sorry, but it's really dumb to throw an unfit 32 year old with history of recurring soft-tissue injuries into a high-pressure, high-intensity football match, especially if that 32 year old hasn't played in a few months.

We should not have risked Gallas in this game. We should've played our reserve centre-back, paired him with Vermaelen, and told our defence to help him out. That's what a reserve is for - to cover for a first-teamer who's injured. If we're forced to risk an unfit Gallas because our alternatives are an unfit Sol Campbell or a liability in Silvestre, all it means is that our squad is too thin and we really urgently need recruits. And if Silvestre isn't good enough to play against Barcelona, what is his purpose?

Cesc Fabregas had a bone bruise injury during the Birmingham game, got his shin tangled between Puyol's legs in the Barcelona game, and broke his fibula. Arsenal's two independent doctors said that Cesc was fine, but he clearly wasn't - bruised bone, led to weakened bone placed under stress during a game, led to shin between chopped between two meaty Catalonian thighs, led to cracked shin on our young captain. Who are we hiring to do our medical consultations?

Was it worthwhile to play Cesc Fabregas in this match? In the context of the match, it probably was. I think Cesc's been playing injured for a lot of the season. There is no replacement for him. And there was no way he'd want to miss this match. If Cesc hadn't tried to kick the ball through Puyol's thigh, he probably would've pulled up sore the next day, recovered by Sunday, and nursed that leg back to health in the subsequent weeks. Freakish bad luck that he's out for the season, but sometimes that's the way it goes.

I think we're in danger of running Cesc into the ground, but that's another story.

So what's next? I find it strange that in the week Man Utd lost Rooney, we lost Cesc. We're got Cesc, Gallas, Arshavin and van Persie out for the first team. We're in 3rd spot, and with a chance of getting within 3 points (?) of the leaders tonight. I think it's remarkable that we're so close, considering our injuries. But I also think it's remarkable that we keep getting these injuries every season, and no one thinks that we need to change our approach to player rehabilitation.

Incidentally, Craig Gardner, the guy who tackled Cesc in the Birmingham game, had this to say:

"If he did suffer his injury in my tackle, then I would be disappointed because I would never try to hurt anyone deliberately."

Plus, Gardiner is a nice boy who cries to his mum, helps old ladies across the street, has no malice in his bones and besides, it isn't his fault that weak foreigners don't like it up 'em. I hope Gardiner realises that the only people who try to hurt people deliberately are psychopaths. The vast majority of people who hurt people are just stupid, crass, selfish idiots who lose momentary sight of the consequences of reckless actions. And being in the latter group isn't something to be proud of - even if you're an English clod-hoofer who can run hard and kick hard and like a bit of rough stuff in a game of footy.

Let's Keep Toure

"I personally feel that Kolo and Arsenal have reached a point now where sadly they must go separate ways, as his relationship with Gallas seems beyond repair."

- Billy Pearson, FootballFanCast columnist

With the arrival of Thomas Vermaelen, speculation rises about the futures of our current centre-backs. Wenger didn't buy him just to be a squad player, so obviously one of Willam Gallas or Kolo Toure are leaving the club. And in truth, the future of both are up in the air.

William Gallas was stripped of the captaincy mid-season, and seems to be headed to Juve or Milan. Kolo Toure put in a transfer request mid-season, and is wanted by Man City. Neither of them can stand each other, and it seems like a matter of WHO rather than IF one of them is leaving.

A lot of people are advocating selling Toure and keeping Gallas. Now, I realise that's an idea with merit - Gallas is the better defender, has more experience, and is French. Once he was stripped of the captaincy, he played pretty well. Kolo Toure, on the other hand, seems to be on the decline.

However, it'll be a mistake to sell Kolo Toure.

Toure IS Arsenal. He's the last member of the Invincibles. He's played a hell of a lot of games for us, and he'll play a hell of a lot more. Yes, he might run around like a headless chook, but he runs around like OUR headless chook. Gallas may be the better player, but he'll never encapsulate Arsenal the way Toure does.

Toure deserves pride of place in our team. It doesn't matter if he's not as good as Gallas. Inasmuch as Raul gets a spot in Real Madrid despite playing poorly of late, or how Shearer became manager of Newcastle despite knowing jack-all about managing, Toure deserves a place in the starting line-up.

Toure is an ornament to the club. When he retires, he's going to go down as a club legend. We'll pay him a retainer and trot him out at club functions, and he'll tell stories about how great the Wenger years were. He'll watch games at the Emirates until he's old and grey, and he'll present first-team shirts to Cesc Fabregas Jnr and Theo Walcott the Third. And when he's too old and decrepit to be of use to us any further, we'll euthanize him, gut and stuff him, and place him next to the bust of Arsene Wenger - that's the Arsenal way.

And that's the real reason I think Toure should stay instead of Gallas. I just can't see William Gallas volunteering to be a stuffed footballing icon in the club museum - he's just not Arsenal enough.

We've sacked Gallas

At Arsenal lately, there's been a lot of talking. Clichy says we've got to concentrate, Almunia says we've got to be harder, Gallas says we've got to stop quarrelling and show him some respect. And Wenger says that everything's going to be fine and that this is the best group of players we've ever had. 

But actions speak louder than words. The players have shown over the past few weeks that they can't concentrate, that they're fragile, and that they concede weak goals. Gallas had shown that he's not up to being captain. And Wenger has been shown that this is far from being the best group of players he's ever had. 

Yesterday, Wenger took the step of stripping Gallas of the captaincy. Gallas had lost the respect of the players, control of the dressing room, and he'd aired out his grievances in public. That's not the way a captain behaves, and Wenger had no choice. It's one small step to make things right, but there's plenty more to do. 

Nothing's really changed. The players are still fighting amongst themselves and there's still a shocking amount of ill-discipline. We still can't defend, and we still have a thin, inexperienced squad that's getting exposed far too often. There's still a chronic lack of leadership and there's no obvious choice for the next captain. 

Toure's the next senior player, but he doesn't seem to have the personality to dominate a team. Cesc has that personality, but he's so close to cracking that putting him in charge of an under-performing team might break him. Clichy's the other candidate, but I'd rather he concentrates on those defensive lapses that have cost us points in recent games.

There's another way, you know. It's radical, but it's oddly appropriate - don't appoint a leader. Let one develop organically. Silvestre has the experience to organise the defence. Cesc has the talent to lead the midfield. That's enough for now. Just let the players play and don't worry about who's leading whom. In time, leaders will emerge from all over the park. 

Right now, the captaincy's a minor issue. 

I'd much rather Wenger focuses on more important stuff. Like buying an experienced defender, a defensive midfielder and a great goalkeeper. Like concentrating on our set pieces and defending. And like winning enough games to get that 4th spot. We're limping into the January transfer window, and when we get to it, we've got to do some serious surgery. 

There's a lot more left to do, Arsene. 

Belgrade

"There are no international trains to Sarajevo."

- the response I got from the train information guy.

In retrospect, it was a stupid question.

It's been over fifteen years since the war, but these things tend to linger. Serbia was a bad, bad country for a long, long time, and I suppose the Bosnians are still a bit wary about them. If I was them, I'd be worried about a train track that led straight into the heart of my capital city, as well.

But it's been a long time since the unpleasantness of the Milosevic days. The last conflagration occurred nearly ten years ago. Sloba's gone, his henchmen are down for the count, and Belgrade seems like a normal city. You do come across the odd bombed-out building, but they're more a curio than anything else now.

I'm a little disappointed about it, to be honest. It's contemptible, but one of the reasons I was curious about the Balkans area was the war. As a kid, the Balkans War was chaotic and interminable. I didn't pay enough attention to it to understand the causes, but the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica and the general badness of Slobodan Milosevic filtered through to my mind. Enough of it got through anyway, to make a visit to Belgrade something out of the ordinary.

Belgrade's an ugly city. I took a walk around the old city, past the Republic Square and around the Kalemegdan Garden. It's grey, shabby and anonymous. It's the distillation of most of worst elements of socialist architecture. It's like something out of Bladerunner, only smaller and without the chic of sci-fi noir. But in fairness, they say Belgrade's a party city, and it's got that kind of air to it - in the morning, there's a bit of hangover hanging over the city. And the city does look much more attractive at night.

I'm of two minds whether to stay in Belgrade another day. I'm a bit too lazy to organise for Sarajevo, and the hostel here is cosy and comfortable. Might be nice to just lounge around and watch DVDs for a day. But Dubrovnik's calling, and I'd like to be there before the end of the month. I've a schedule in my mind of where I want to be by Christmas, and I'd like to stick to it.

Anyway, back to my inquiries about Sarajevo.

In the end, I walked around the block to the bus station and asked for a bus to Sarajevo. There are about six or seven daily, for 1800 dinars. So I guess I was being a bit melodramatic. It's easy and relatively cheap to get to Sarajevo after all. It's not like it's a bloody war zone, now, is it?

P.S. I should write something about Gallas being sacked as captain, but I only do one post a day and it's going to take a while to process it. Plus the Man City game and everything - might wait until after the game.

P.P.S. Now that I'm in Sarajevo, I should clarify. Bosnia and Hercegovina is divided into the "Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (the Muslims and the Croats), and the "Republika Srpska" (the Serbs). Most of Sarajevo falls into the Federation side, and the main train and bus stations are in the Federation. The bus station to Serbia, however, is in the Republika side. The interesting thing is that the trolleybus terminal which connects the bus station to the rest of the city is a 150m walk away - and this trolleybus terminal just happens to be at the edge of the Federation side. So I guess there are still a few tensions around. 

Where do we get our news?

“I think he has done quite well last year for the biggest part of the season and a lot of responsibility has been given to him when it’s wasn’t right.”

- Arsene Wenger, with regards to Willam Gallas' captaincy

I intended this post to be about how Gallas deserves a second chance. Firstly, because he did a pretty good job in the first half of the year. The team played with a resilience and a determination that was missing in the Henry/Silva teams. Secondly, he's got the sort of spiky temperament that can prod our players into playing for something more than aesthetic pleasure. Thirdly, and most importantly, there's no one else. Toure is too self-effacing - he would not be able to cajole great performances out of players. Fabregas is too young - he is a remarkably mature young man, but he still has room to improve as a player and should be focusing purely on his development.

However, I couldn't write about Gallas because I couldn't find the source for this quote. I checked four stories from various internet news sources (goal.com, dailymail, setanta, skysports). Each gave virtually identical news stories, and all attributed the above quote to the dailystar. However, I couldn't find the story at the dailystar. I tried their internal search engine, and no luck.

I'm starting to wonder where this quote came from.

It's not made up. At least four identikit stories refer to this quote, so there's got to be a primary source. However, I still want to verify it. I want to read the original article before I use this quote. Better still, I'd like to read the full interview transcript with Wenger.

After all, you can doctor quotes to say anything.

All the cited stories claim that this quote is proof that Wenger aims to keep Gallas as captain next year. However, that quote, just in isolation, doesn't necessarily suggest that Gallas will be captain. What if Wenger was merely defending Gallas' sulk-in after the Birmingham game? The wording of this snippet is entirely consistent with a defense of a senior player. It does not necessarily imply that Gallas is certain to be captain. What if the next part of the transcript read "Next season, we will spread the load out amongst our senior players"? That would change the meaning of the quote completely.

It's enough to make my head spin.

All in all, I'm a pretty lazy guy. What I read on the internet, I tend to believe. I treat wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I treat newsnow as a reliable source of gossip. If I see a quote from a player, I tend to believe it's real. If I see a denial by said player, I tend to believe that the denial is real, as well. I have faith that journalists tell the truth.

But it does make me wonder.

Where do we get our news?