By Tony Attwood
Journalists write negatively about most clubs. Their prime aim is to fulfil their contractual obligations by writing about football , even when there is nothing to write about that they are allowed to write about. So they can’t mention PGMO in anything other than a positive way for example, and merely repeating news stories that others have run is only allowed if one can find a slightly different angle.
So we can feel sympathy for Simon Hughes, writing in the Athletic, as he struggles to find some new way of beefing up Liverpool and knocking ahead, given that there is not much more to be said about tonight’s Euro games.
Now Simon Hughes was previously with The Independent, and is known as the author of no less than seven books (to be clear, 7,) about Liverpool FC. He also wrote (or so I am told as being a Londoner I haven’t read it) “There She Goes”, which is apparently “a modern social history of Liverpool as a city.”
Now, according to The Athletic, “He writes about football on Merseyside and beyond.”
Which is why it is a bit odd that on the New York Times website we find today the article “Why Arsenal must be wary of giving Mikel Arteta too much power”.
Odd, not because it is on the NY Times site (all Athletic content goes up there) but because quite logically the parallels and examples that Simon Hughes brings to his writing, all come from Liverpool. Except he writes as if he hasn’t quite noticed that Arsenal are not only not Liverpool, it is a club not run in any way like Liverpool.
His article does pose an interesting question. A question to be answered perhaps by someone with a lot of insight into how complex organisation run (a topic studied in social psychology, rather than by someone who once wrote a book about the people of one city with which the author has a close affection and affiliation)
In short in this case we have an author who is clearly utterly biased in his approach, straying beyond the confines of his very, very specific area of study.
He opens by saying that the departure of Edu has “left manager Mikel Arteta as the dominant figure in the club’s football structure. While nobody is doubting the Spaniard’s coaching or motivational acumen, it is not necessarily to anyone’s benefit for that situation to persist in the long term.”
Now herein is a trick that many disreputable journalists use – turning Mikel Arteta from being a man of obvious singular talent as a manager (having taken Arsenal from 10th in the league, 27 points behind Liverpool when he arrived on 20 December 2019 to a mere eight points behind Liverpool by the end of his first complete season at the club, to 17 points above Liverpool by the end of the season in 2023 – oh how that annoyed Liverpudlians).
And of course we know that Arsenal are seven points below Liverpool at this moment, but there are still 84 points to play for so this might change – and that might just explain what is going on in the Liverpudlian’s mind right now.
For the trick here is that Hughes has invented a new idea just to fit the issue he is writing about: that of “the culture of mutual challenge.” That sounds like quite a clever idea for a Liverpool fan to think up. Except he hasn’t. The concept of mutual challenge is one that is often discussed by social psychologists in relation to organisations, and in essence represents creating a supportive environment where people can feel happy to share ideas and views, even if they are against the dominant thinking in the organisation.
This then raises the point, how does this journalist know that a) that existed with Edu at Arsenal, but doesn’t exist now? and b) how does he know that Arteta will not bring in another colleague to take on Edu’s role? Indeed, how does he know that Arteta doesn’t already have someone else in place?
These are valid questions because we have had multiple camera shots of Arteta discussing matters with Albert Stuivenberg during matches, (he’s been at the club since December 2019), and with Miguel Molina (since August 2020) and Carlos Cuesta (likewise since 2020).
Those people aren’t even considered. With the supreme arrogance of journalists, the writer simply ignores these (and undoubtedly others who might be thought of as people who Arteta shares information and ideas with) and says because Eu has gone, that’s that.
It is a very football journalist approach, and I feel a very Liverpudlian approach to take one thought or example, and then not only to generalise, but from that generalisation to say, “therefore Arsenal are in trouble.”
It reflects also something of the Atheltic’s decline in the past year or so, that no editor saw fit to challenge this obvious failure in the article. It might be going too far to call the article pompous balderdash totally lacking in all evidence, but on the other hand, it might not.
Footnote: Next season is 100 years since Chapman came to Arsenal and turned the club from being relegation favourites to multiple league and cup winners. The story of this transformation is being told on the Arsenal History site.
- 1: Taking over from failure
- 2: Approaching a 100th anniversary at Arsenal of mega-importance.
- 3: The Arsenal that Knighton left behind
- 4: Knighton is removed
- 5 A new manager
- 6: What happened to Chapman at Leeds?
- 7. Chapman: success at Huddersfield, and concern at Arsenal
