The danger that lies ahead of Odegaard, Saka and Martinelli

• Why referees love to make instant decisions and hate VAR
• What no one tells you about why are Arsenal getting so many cards this season

By Sir Hardly Anyone

In February this year we ran a piece with the headline  “Did Arsenal want Mudryk and Caicedo, and was it just luck that they didn’t sign them?”

The point made was that on 15 January 2023, Mudryk signed for Chelsea on an eight-and-a-half-year contract for £62m, rising to £89 with add ons.  We know Arsenal wanted him because…. well because the media kept telling us, and the failure of Arsenal to get the player was considered a major example of Arsenal’s hopelessness.

We noted much of this eight months ago, and I thought it might be worth spending a moment to see how it all turned out, not least because the media criticised Arsenal so highly for missing out on a top player.   The Standard ran the headline telling us that Mykhailo Mudryk was a “most talented and unique player” and we noted that the blame on Arsenal for failing to get such players was universal.   There were all sorts of comments about Arsenal meeting up with the player before any bid was put in – and yet curiously no one raised the matter, and Arsenal were not charged with any offence.

So what did Chelsea get?   Well this season, four league appearances, one league cup appearance, and games in the Conference League Qualifiers.  He is in fact a reserve and we might be glad that Arsenal did not get him.  Although curiously none of the media a) apologise for telling us he was going to Arsenal and b) point out how Arsenal did the right thing in not getting him.

And yet such is the almighty daily desire of the media to put Arsenal down, they now have an article on MSN saying that Arsenal desperately wanted the player.  Their statement is, that Arsenal “were willing and ready to make him one of the most expensive players in their history, until Chelsea produced perhaps the most dramatic transfer hijack of recent years to snatch him from Shakhtar Donetsk.”

But on that position on the wing in which Mudryk plays, Arsenal have not been doing too badly, as they have used Gabriel Martinelli who cost £6m; a fee that was only that high because he holds an Italian passport and thus registering him in the Premier League was easier under post-Brexit deals and should it be required, selling him to a European club would not have any complications in terms of EU regulations.

The Martinelli story is one perfect example of how the media get something so wrong, and then pretend they never did.  Worse they then carry on getting it wrong with the Guardian running the headline Arsenal close to landing Mykhaylo Mudryk from Shakhtar in £80m deal.  That article told us talks were ongoing, the player preferred Arsenal to Chelsea and the fee had been agreed including an upfront payment of £50m.   The Guardian has never apologised for its error in reporting.

The Telegraph recently stated that “These days, to suggest Mudryk might be an upgrade on Martinelli would be to reduce a room full of Arsenal fans to disbelieving laughter. There is no doubt now which player Arsenal would rather have, and he was the one on the pitch here, not the one sitting high above the action.”

And that of course is right – although it could also be said that to suggest that the media has any idea of what is going on in football would reduce a room full of Arsenal fans to disbelieving laughter.   For the problem with that report is that the Telegraph was one of the papers full of story that Arsenal were indeed trying to buy Mudryk.

Martinelli as we know suffered a dip in performance recently, from which he now seems to have fully recovered and we can expect him once more on the wing, cutting inside, for every match for which he is fit.

Indeed thinking of him recently Arteta commented “He looked really sharp, really fresh.   Fresher than anybody on the pitch. He had another gear, he had another level of threat.”