- That internationals are over, so what happens next?
- Who Controls Football 3: Why the rest of the PL will not continue to play Man C
By Bulldog Drummond
For weeks the media has been telling us that Arsenal are seeking a new centre forward. In response I have been arguing that this is fairly unlikely given that Arsenal were just five goals behind Manchester City last season, scored five more than Liverpool, 15 more than Aston Villa and 34 more than Manchester United.
But still the view is, as Football.London put it Arsenal often failed to secure three points due to the lack of a clinical presence inside the box. And since Arsenal won the same number of games as Manchester City then presumably that applies to City too. In fact it would seem the only people who know how to run a successful football club are those working for Football.London. It can only be the stupidity and pig-headedness of clubs like Arsenal and Man C that stops them from signing up FoLo journalists as managers.
In fact Arsenal had three players scoring in double figures in the league last season and a fourth (Odegaard) who scored eight. If more is required we could add that Martinelli clearly had an off-season, but is likely to recover his goalscoring form of the season before, in which he knocked in 15. Why risk millions on another forward when Martinelli could be brought back to his previous tally of 15 league goals in 2022/3?
In fact we can also gain an insight into the way Arsenal is progressing by looking at the way the number of goals scored by Arsenal in the league have increased year on year…
| Season | Goals scored | Percentage increase on the previous year | Percentage increase overall |
| 202021 | 91 | 3% | 65% |
| 2021/22 | 88 | 35% | 60% |
| 2022/23 | 65 | 18% | 18% |
| 2023/24 | 55 |
.
Kai Havertz scored 13 league goals last season – his highest total in the Premier League along with seven assists. But the point is he scored 9 goals in the last 14 games, a ratio of 64%.
Saka scored 16 in 35 games (46%), Trossard 12 in 18 (66%), and Odegaard eight in 35 (23%). So that ratio of 64% is a stand-out number.
Now of course it was not across the whole season, but it was surely clear to most people who actually watch the games that it took Havertz a while to get used to the Arsenal system. And besides in the previous season he got seven in 35 games, so he was being asked to perform in a new way – which took time for him to get used to.
Now of course no one can absolutely say what will happen next season – Havertz might keep up is 64% rate although that seems unlikely. But he could slip back to a mere 46% – which would be the same as Saka, giving us 16 goals in 35 games.
So I see every reason to allow Havertz to develop in a midfield / striker role giving defenders no idea as to where the next threat will come from – Saka, Havertz, Trossard or Odegaard.
What is clear is that there are more likely to be more transfers for Arsenal in other departments. I can’t see Aaron Ramsey being happy to stay as a back-up player to Raya, and I can’t see Raya, having won the Goalkeeper of the Year award, being happy to share more than League Cup games.
So there could be a transfer in the making in that department with Ramsdale leaving in order to get games and either Garcia who is just 23, coming in from Espanyol as a backup, or perhaps Dan Bentley from Wolverhampton Wands. There have been reports saying that Arsenal put in a bid for Bentley which Wolverhampton turned down, although of course there are always reports.
Indeed instead of thinking about a centre-forward who would disrupt the entire free-flowing midfield / forward part of the team Arsenal could go in for another defender. The New York Times is suggesting Riccardo Calafiori, a defender from Bologna, who played for Italy in the recently unlamented Euros, is a possibility with Jakub Kiwior who made 11 appearances and Oleksandr Zinchenko who made 20 league appearances last season being tipped to be leaving.
But there could be difficulties with disrupting the defence, in that Arsenal not only had the best defence in the league, but a defence that conceded half the number of goals as Manchester United who had the sixth best defence in the league.
Indeed the difference between defences last season was quite extraordinary.
Of course the biggest issue comes with defeating Manchester City. The courts may well help here, but meanwhile, that long run of just one win in 15 matches against Man C finally came to an end last season, as the three games in the league and Community Shield ended in two draws and an Arsenal win. That form will certainly be needed again in the coming season.
I get it, not wanting to disrupt a good playing style and to mess up the awarding Stat figures gained from last season’s players and formation.
I think Barcelona played a non striker system with Messi, not 100 percent Shaw on that one.
Any how, it is good to have a tactical option of playing different stylescwhen the game is not going our way. So to have an aggressive out and out number 9 is a good option to have to change things up with a TargetMan upfront if needed to change during the game.
Also at times, we did need a number 8 making runs through the middle plus at times we were weak down our left defence side.
It maybe about becoming less predictable and having more tactical options for a plan B when games are not going well.
A player to excel in the next new season is Viera. He had the most chances created last season without players converting his chances into assists by actually scoring, but the missed shots was not obviously not counted to accumulate his chances into assists. Complicated, but it’s still chances created.
That’s not strange, what is strange is why they allow a deflected shot on target as an awarded goal to the shooter, yet a pass deflected on to the goal scorer is not an assist. For example Saka’s deflected cross on to Kane was not awarded as an assist yet if his cross was a deflected strike on goal it would have been awarded his goal.
So if a deflected shot on target is a goal, he gets awarded the goal, but if his deflected cross is also on target to assist a goal scorer, he doesn’t get the assist. What’s that all about?
daveg
“So to have an aggressive out and out number 9 is a good option to have to change things up with a Target Man upfront if needed to change during the game”.
As I said before, that all sounds fine, but you don’t get top level strikers simply to use when you want to ‘change things up’ or implement a ‘Plan B’.
-They cost an arm and a leg for a start which means he will not be purchased to be on the bench, simply to change things up.
-Our entire game will have to change to play to our new ‘centre forwards’ style and needs.
And there’s no guarantee a 20 plus goal a season player would result in a Nett gain if we lose more from the vast range of goal scorers we already have.
I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t buy a 20 plus striker, I’m just saying it’s nothing like as simple as saying “Oh, just get one for the games we’re struggling in”. It doesn’t Work like that.
Even so, in the previous article (that Tony has linked to above) I posted some figures relating to those 10 matches that both Arsenal and Man City dropped points in to see if there was anything in the claim that Arsenal need a Striker, and if you compare and analyse those 10 matches in isolation, it is possible to make an argument for the need to buy an out and out centre forward. Or put another way a 20 plus goal a season player. This is how those 10 matches compared:
Arsenal: For 7. Against 15. Goal Difference -8. Points 4
Man City: For 13. Against 17. Goal Difference -4. Points 6
So, here’s the thing. yes, we had a very slightly better defence conceding 2 goal less than Man city, but tellingly Man City scored nearly twice as many goals as we did.
But this could be the most crucial statistic. Man City failed to score on just 3 occasions all season. In the 10 matches that we ‘failed to secure three points’, we failed to score 6 times. Twice as often as Man City.
Ultimately it is arguable, that despite Arsenal scoring 91 goals, it was our failure to score on 6 occasions that cost us the title.
We know how much stock Arteta puts in attention to detail, so it could just be those 6 matches in which we failed to score that Arteta is looking at ?
In those crucial 6 games a Wright, a Smith, or an Henry, may of just turned nil points in to one, or one in to three, but we didn’t have one? Would one of won us the title?
I’m not saying Arteta is looking. I’m not saying he even needs to. I’m just saying that it could be argued that those 6 goalless games compared to man City’s 3 could of cost us the title.
Would an out and out striker of been the answer?
Personally I think it is a very very tricky question. But tricky questions are what Arteta is their to answer and I have every confidence he will find the solution.
After reading your opinion, I am none the wiser in what you are saying. Are you agreeing with Tony that we don’t need a striker or are you agreeing that we need the option of playing a striker.
You opinion says neither and just at the end repeated that you are not sure and you then ask the question do we need a striker, I am not sure. What was your point?
daveg
I appreciate what you are saying and I apologise if I didn’t make myself clear, but I will try to explain.
You ask a very good question. “Are you agreeing with Tony that we don’t need a striker or are you agreeing that we need the option of playing a striker”.
And my answer is I’m not sure.
What I think I’m trying to say is:
Tony’s point
a) It is too simplistic to suggest that simply because we scored 91 goals we don’t need a striker to improve our offensive play. The fact of the matter is we failed to score 6 times. Man City only failed to score 3 times. Ergo, there is an argument that we need to improve our goal scoring.
The question is how do we do that? Okay, If Martinelli returns to ’22/’23 levels that may be enough? If Havertz improves his finishing that may be enough? There is no guarantee of either happening.
Your point
b) It is too simplistic to suggest we just pluck a World class striker out of thin air to ‘change things up’ when our current lads aren’t doing it.
Okay, if we can get one for a reasonable fee who’s happy to be on the bench just in case, then fine. But that ain’t going to happen. Getting one is going to cost a fortune. He’s going to want to start every game. We will have to change our entire approach if we do that. And after all that there is no guarantee of that improving our goals for.
Both arguments are credible. I didn’t try to say which is right and which is wrong.
My personal preference is to work with the offensive players we have.
But as always, I have total faith in Arteta and Edu and trust them with whatever they decide to do.