What game were you watching?

After watching the entertaining game between PSG and the Arsenal Tuesday evening, my attention was called to Nick Miller's "Arsenal get lucky with a point at PSG thanks to profligate Edinson Cavani" on ESPNFC.com. He made such outrageous observations that I kept screaming in my head, "what game were you watching?"

It is entirely true that given the balance of play and chances created, Arsenal were extremely lucky to have escaped with a draw. A more clinical team, say Barcelona or Bayern would have given Arsenal a good old shellacking and would be out of sight by the time Arsenal got their equalizer. But if you take a step back and objectively look at the game again, bereft of all the nail biting, emotional, aneurysm-inducing reactions to the live game, it will become clear that this was a game of distinctly 2 halves.

For the better part of the second half, Arsenal had PSG pegged in their half. However, as is becoming painfully regular with Arsenal these days, they failed to really stretch the PSG defense as they probed patiently for an opening. Almost too patiently. I have heard many Arsenal players, past and present, talk about how Arsene Wenger often impresses the need for patience on them in training. Wenger is firmly convinced that the chances will come so you don't need to rush things. There clearly is some sense in that, but don't expect the fans to thank you for that. And when you play teams like PSG and even better teams, in the Champions League, those chances will be few and far between. And not all teams will be as profligate as PSG was. Playing on the counter as they tired and Arsenal grew more dominant, PSG had some very dangerous chances that Cavani in particular should have put away. But for someone to suggest that "PSG continued to have the better of the play after the break" is to suggest a lack of understanding of the difference between "play" and "chances." The reality is that while Arsenal had the better of the play, PSG had the better of the chances. Most of the chances created by PSG in the second half were either on the counter or totally against the run of play. By the time Arsenal scored their equalizer in the 77th minute, it was nothing less than they deserved on the basis of the second half display. Granted, PSG could have, and should have been 2 or 3 goals to the good in spite of being on the back foot for most of the half.

Then there came the part where Wenger's selection for this game was questioned. The majority of the changes were enforced to some degree. Walcott was reported to have a knee injury and Wenger continues to proclaim that Giroud has yet to be fully fit after arriving late from EURO 2016. But some people seem to conclude that it was unthinkable that David Ospina would start in goal ahead of Petr Cech. Wenger has often stressed that he believes he has 2 world class goalkeepers in Ospina and Cech. I can understand how the selection could be questioned before the game. But after the game and how things turned out, one has to be extremely churlish and opinionated to continue to proclaim confusion at the manager's decision in this regard. We talked about how PSG had numerous chances and spurned them. But the truth is that much of that was down to some terrific saves made by Ospina. It is not out of place to say that Ospina kept Arsenal in the game on more than one occasion in this game.

Not only did Ospina's saves help earn Arsenal's point today, but also think about the fact that he is the number 1 keeper for Colombia. Colombia has been ranked in the top 5 of world football for most of the last 5 years, much of which was when Ospina has remained their No 1. The Czech Republic has never cracked the top 20 even with Petr Cech in goal. I am not suggesting that this fact alone makes Ospina a better keeper than Cech. But if a top 5 nation believes that Ospina is good enough to be their No 1, why are we still tying ourselves in knots anytime he is selected to man the posts at club level? When you look back at his performances for Colombia in the 2 Copa America tournaments in 2015 and 2016 as well as the World Cup in 2014, Ospina has been doing exactly what he did tonight for a long time. His saves almost always prove to be pivotal allowing his outfield players to then take advantage, leading to Colombia being one of the more consistent nations on the FIFA rankings.

As it turned out, Arsenal could even have stolen all three points late on as Areola in the PSG goal was called upon to make his own world class save when Arsenal finally got PSG on the ropes toward the end.

Most Arsenal fans would have taken a draw from the game had it been offered before the first whistle and regardless of how wasteful PSG and how lucky Arsenal were, this was expected to be Arsenal's toughest match in this group and to come out of it with a draw is a sign that if Arsenal keep things under control, progress out of the group as group winners is not unreachable and with it a potentially easier knockout phase match-up.

Be Careful What You Ask For

It is somewhat strange, or maybe not, that very little has come out that is Arsenal related after we finally secured our first win of the season and then completed the signings of Shkodran Mustafi and Lucas Perez in the final days of the transfer window. Then news trickled in that Jack Wilshere has joined AFC Bournemouth on loan till the end of the season.

Before the news was confirmed by the club, there were a few very unhappy fans who also saw the permanent departure of Serge Gnabry to SV Werder Bremen as a betrayal of sort. But what does all the whining and moaning about Arsenal's transfer business mean?

For one, it shows we Arsenal fans are a hard bunch to please. In all those years that Arsene Wenger refused to buy experienced players but instead would invest in youth and cheap unknown players, all Arsenal fans cried out for experience. Some of those young players were really good (Fabregas, van Persie, Anelka) and went on to have fantastic careers, mostly after choosing to leave the club that brought them to the limelight. Some were not so good (Traore, Denilson, Bendtner). Some of those young players were really good but for a number of reasons, were unable to consistently convince the Manager that they should be starting every game. Players like Carlos Vela, Jose Antonio Reyes and Lassana Diarra come to mind. This is where the case of Jack Wilshere intrigues one slightly. You see, Jack is good. He is really good. He is so good no manager in their right minds will leave him out of the team if he was fit. Yes, there is the problem. Jack has not been fit for a few YEARS now.

Some players come back from injury and they pick up from where they left off. Not Jack. He often needs about 3-4 matches under his belt to get into the groove again. Well, the way Jack plays often draws hard tackles from opponents who are left very little option than to go in hard on Jack or they will become spectators in the midfield. This means by the time Wilshere has got the 3 or 4 matches he needs to be back to his best playing self, he has often picked up another knock, or a crack here or a tear there.

Wenger is notorious for patiently, and stubbornly, I might add, waiting for players he believed in. After the departure of Vieira in 2005, Wenger brought Abou Diaby in 2006, convinced that he was the natural successor in that midfield role. But as good and powerful as Diaby was, he was propped up on two matchsticks for legs. Wenger refused to buy the sort of player that would truly be the "new Vieira" in the hope that Diaby will overcome his injury woes and fulfill the undoubted potential we all saw in him. It took 9 years for Wenger to finally realize that this dream will not come true. Only after Diaby's departure did Arsene really start chasing players that have the sort of qualities resembling those we lost when Vieira left. The signings of both Mohamed Elneny and Granit Xhaka in 2016 shows Wenger is just finally ready to move on from the Diaby hope.

Back to Wilshere. Wenger has often been accused of overplaying Wilshere and sometimes even playing him when he was not fully ready. In the past few years, as Arsenal stockpiled midfielders, it became increasingly clear that even with his outrageous talent, Wilshere's frequent and long absences have become a luxury. Even with the departure of 3 midfielders (Flamini, Arteta, Rosicky), Arsenal still has an abundance of midfielders who are more than good enough.

So what would you have Wenger do? Keep Wilshere on the payroll in spite of not playing, as he did with Diaby for 9 years? As much as I liked Diaby, I thought it was irresponsible of Wenger to keep faith in one unavailable player for that long. And I would be even more disappointed if he were to repeat the same tomfoolery with Wilshere.

After Arsenal's self-imposed (or some people might say Wenger-imposed) financial restrictions in the aftermath of the new stadium, Arsene Wenger has slowly upgraded the quality of the squad. It is still arguable that the quality can still be increased, but that will likely never happen with Wenger in charge. We are slowly reaching the point where we are going to have some really good players sitting on the bench more than they should. To do that, you will have to kill the prospects of their moving away by pricing them out of the market. Can anyone reasonably argue that paying a player wages in the neighborhood of £150k/week to sit on the bench is justifiable if you win the Premier League or even the Champions League? Some people will argue it was not a bad idea. But if you consider what you would do if it was your own money, it does not sound that ingenious anymore, does it?

Ranking Arsenal's Summer Transfer Business

It was clear, in spite of whatever else the media-induced despondency expressed by Arsenal fans appear to be, that Arsene Wenger, working with his transfer "committee" (comprised of himself, Dick Law and Ivan Gazidis) identified their targets early. Wenger clearly wanted a defender, a midfielder and a striker. They narrowed their choices down to Mustafi, Xhaka and Vardy. At the end of the day, We got both Mustafi and Xhaka, but failed to land Vardy but instead ended up with Lucas Perez. How did it all happen?

Mustafi:

Arsenal contacted Valencia as soon as the window opened. Valencia quoted a fee of £21m. Arsenal did not actually put in a formal offer since they thought they could get him for cheaper because they have spoken to Mustafi's agent and were assured that Mustafi really wanted to join Arsenal. They made a decoy move by appearing to shift interests toward Jeremy Mathieu in the hope that Mustafi will then force the transfer through. But unfortunately, both Matesacker and Gabriel got injured and Mathieu (whom Arsenal never really contacted) got injured too.

Valencia knew they had Arsenal where they wanted them. When Arsenal returned with a formal offer, Valencia rejected it and asked for an increased offer of at least £35m or no deal. What ensued was a series of long negotiations. Valencia held all the aces. They never bulged from the £35m as Arsenal offers increased gradually from £17m to £20m to £25m to £28m. Eventually, they had to shell out the £35m. It took a long time but they got their man £14m more than they would have paid in early July.

Ranking: C. They got their man, but they had to do what Wenger hates doing - pay more than he believed the player was worth. And I agree with him on this one - Mustafi is too expensive at £35m.

Lucas Perez:

Wenger's thinking was clear about the striker choice. He needed a pacey striker (unlike Giroud), a strong striker (unlike Walcott) and a consistent scorer (unlike Giroud and Walcott). Vardy fit the bill perfectly: he is quick, and having just ended a season with 24 goals in a limited Leicester squad, is a consistent scorer. Also, playing in the Premier League means he knows about all the bully center backs in the PL and knows how to cope with them. In addition, at 29, he is mature enough but only has a couple of years left at the very top. This gives Arsenal's young strikers (Sanogo, Akpom and new boy Takuma Asano) time to show they are ready to be the next big thing at Arsenal. Then Vardy chose to remain at Leicester.

Then they turned to Lacazette. Wenger has always liked Lacazette. And Arsenal made contact with Lyon almost at the same time they were triggering Vardy's release clause but without any formal bid. Like Vardy, Lacazette is strong, quick and consistent. But the flip side is that he lacks PL experience and at 25, he is still young enough that he might limit the progress of the aforementioned younger strikers, something Wenger clearly holds very near and dear. This is exactly why Wenger ranked Lacazette below Vardy in terms of targets. But with Vardy staying at Leicester, Lacazette was the next best thing.

But in truth, neither Lyon nor Lacazette were interested in any deals. Arsenal made a firm €35m bid which was promptly rejected by Lyon. So reluctant was Lyon to sell that they did not even state a figure in their rejection. It was clear to Arsenal that Lyon was not going to sell. Arsenal tried their usual stuff of dropping covert hints in the media about the phantom pursuit of some other striker and some discreet investigation about whether Lacazette himself would want to move. It quickly became clear that Lyon were not selling, Lacazette was not moving and Arsenal were not ready to offer the kind of money that would tempt an unwilling club to even consider it.
As with the first 2, and contrary to the notion that it was a panic buy, Arsenal did contact Deportivo La Coruna almost at the same time as they contacted Leicester ad Lyon. Speaking after his signing was completed, Perez said:

Well, there was some contact when the transfer window opened. As always in football, clubs have to evaluate what they need, but they showed interest when they got in contact. Things happened more quickly towards the end of the window so it could be made official. (courtesy www.arsenal.com)

Perez is a late bloomer (like Vardy) and only recently converted from a winger to a striker (like Walcott attempted to do the past few years). But unlike Walcott, his conversion appears to have been more successful. He scored 17 goals in La Liga last year (his first full season as an out and out striker). He is quick, and at 27, he is not likely to present a major long term obstacle to the growth of Wenger's little striker kids. Plus being a late bloomer and unnatural striker, it is likely that he might get tired of the experiment and revert to his more natural winger role, leaving room for one of Akpom, Sanogo or Asano to step up.

Ranking: C+. £17m for a striker is relatively a reasonable price in today's market. But the fact that he is neither first nor second choice is still reflective Arsenal's inability or refusal to grab the market by the scruff of the neck. Top clubs do not wait for whatever shows up in the market. They go out and get what they want.

Granit Xhaka:
One of the more straight forward signings at Arsenal in recent years. Arsenal identified Xhaka as a target, contacted Borussia Monchengladbach, prices were agreed and contract was signed before Granit even flew out to join Switzerland for EURO 2016. This is how everyone hoped transfers would happen.
Ranking: A. An area that has needed reinforcement for some time. Deal was done early, the right money was paid for the right player and everyone is happy.