- 100 consecutive seasons in the top division: by why no celebraton from Arsenal?
- Gabriel scores, Martinelli selected and Englsih refs have a new organisation (but no sign of change)
By Tony Attwood
We are used to football in the UK getting headlines about hooliganism, fighting, and the like. Indeed I have been at matches where the next day, I have read of such things relating to a match I’ve been at, but had no awareness of any trouble. Quite how these journalists always seem to be at the centre of trouble has bemused me. Maybe they started it. Maybe they didn’t see it but some thug told them about it. Maybe it didn’t happen at all.
But I am not sure I’ve seen headlines before such as, “I watched Germany… then fled for cover as gunshots rang out” which was in the Telegraph recently And that did remind me of a time when I was sitting in the stand near the press box and was suddenly aware that none of the media was watching the game, but were all craning their necks to see an alleged fight in the terrace beyond. (There wasn’t one – some eguys on the terrace were just chanting “fight, fight, fight” for the hell of it).
Of course that is nothing compared to gunshots in the stadium reportedly heard during a USA world cup match – what on earth would I do if I were in such a situation? Dive under the seat I suspect, although I know some people would stand up and look around to get a better view (and make themselves a perfect target).
If there really have have been gunshots at a WC game that obviously appalling, but it is interesting that when alleged violence is reported at a football match in England then that is very clearly noted by journalists as being the fault of Engliosh supporters whereas when it turns up at the world cup, the note concerns the “terrifying reminder of how lax US gun laws put everyone under threat.” But it does raise the double question: why do people take weaponry to football matches, and why do people get so angry at football matches?
Maybe it is something to do with the fact that when it comes to watching football, normal rules of behaviour simply don’t apply. Now when that thought is raised, many media outlets instantly blame fans, but I wonder if it isn’t also the behaviour of certain clubs, as for example when on 2 July Nottingham Forest got rid of Vítor Pereira and replaced him by Oliver Glasner as manager.
Now I know we are in an era of clubs sacking managers on a whim, and indeed I have often argued that this is beneficial to Arsenal since most new managers don’t do very well at their new club. And if they do get some decent results, it often takes a while. So changing managers is usually good for us, since AFC don’t do it very often.
So anyway, Forest have had four or five managers in a year, which is quite something and really means we ought to be looking at what is going on. As in, it is perfectly clear that swapping managers causes chaos more often than it brings great results, and mostly results in the replacement manager being replaced – or the club sinking down the table. And yet we were only recently looking at a situation in which Arteta in his first two seasons at Arsenal, took the club to eighth, then fifth, after which the club finished second three seasons running, and there were demands he should be sacked for not having a winning mentality.
My point is that win percentages are not everything. Consider Tottenham: Arguments about budget, tactics, happiness of fans, demands for more transfer money, lack of progress – these are all brought into play when the media discuss Tottenham changing managers, yet again.
And indeed, if you would like to compare their approach with Arsenal’s, we have just finished a series on how Arsenal does not change managers – but still gets success. It is on the Arsenal History Society website.
What we do know, however, is that sacking managers often doesn’t work – it doesn’t bring in that rush up the table that has seats sold out and bookings for next year’s season tickets at record levels.
But then nothing does – including buying lots of players. The only thing that works is bringing in a manager who really knows about the quality of players in our team and other teams, and the way to get players to work together to outplay the opposition. People like Arteta, Wenger… that sort of manager. And many of them (such as Arteta) need time.
But the belief that somehow they ought to be doing better through some mysterious force introduced by a manager plagues clubs, and no matter what, they go on believing it in the boardroom.
So why? Simply because in the boardroom, as on the terraces, they don’t have a clue how to turn a losing team into a winning team. Wenger did. Arteta can. Chapman certainly did.
And maybe some of these managers who have been sacked of late also knew – but the problem is that to get their job as manager they have to promise immediate success, and failed to deliver. So then in turn, they got sacked.
Yet sometimes a manager deserves to go. Remember Pepe – the man who brought him in at a record fee deserved to be ejected at once. But mostly managers are not given that much time to get things right, because they do spend a fortune on new players and tell the board that this will take them up the league. Potential managers who tell the board that the club is in such a desperate position that it will take years to rescue the club tend not to get the job. And as we watch some of our rivals, for that quirk, we can be very grateful.
