Loading ...Aug 23 2008
Arsenal Embarrassment at Craven Cottage
Arsenal spent Saturday’s visit to Craven Cottage showing why so many were reluctant to pick their talented side to improve upon last year’s third place finish, because although they were playing without their best player (Cesc Fabregas), they still had by far the most talented side on the field when they took on Fulham in one of their London derbyies. Yet Arsenal were rendered impotent by what is expected to be a relegation-embattled club, rarely challenging Fulham goalie Mark Schwarzer and allowing a team that spent last week recovering from wounds inflicted by a promoted club to beat a team what is supposed to be one of the best and deepest sides in the world. If that sounds melodramatic, it is nowhere near as theatrical as these three words: Fulham beat Arsenal.
It was their second win over Arsenal in the forty-three years.
Before dissecting Arsenal, it is worth nothing that Fulham played very well. Extremely well. The team that allowed Hull to record its first ever Premiership win never made its way back to Craven Cottage. These Cottagers played mistake-free football, and thanks to strong performances by Bobby Zamora, Danny Murphy, John Pantsil and Brede Hangeland, Fulham played Arsenal near-even for the whole ninety. Hangeland’s early goal from a well-played Jimmy Bullard corner held up not because Arsenal couldn’t convert on chances; rather, a Fulham team that seized their moments gave the Gunners few meaningful opportunities. It was a mantle piece win for Roy Hodgson, as much a victory to build on as last week’s loss demanded reassessment.
That Arsenal was not able to create more chances is the take home quandary from this match. It is no exaggeration to say that every Arsenal player would start in front of their Cottager counterpart should they be transferred to Fulham. So how did that team lose on Saturday? As was the case last week against West Brom, Arsenal lacked the motivation to show they can be a great team. While the energy of opening the league season got them an early goal last week, they had no reason to be especially motivated at Fulham. Even after falling behind, they showed no urgency. There was no sense that Hangeland’s goal was a wake-up call in the same way that Newcastle’s goal from Obafemi Martins woke-up a hamstrung Manchester United team last week. Without Fabregas, this Arsenal team had no engine.
They tried to utilized Samir Nasri, playing on the left, as that engine. The central midfielders (Denilson and Emmanuel Eboue) were invisible, but Nasri playing ont he same side as Gael Clichy represented Arsenal’s chance to attack. With Emmanuel Abebayor’s preferred side the left and Robin van Persie comfortable playing that side, it is a strong plan of attack. The only problem with the plan (beyond an exceptional game from John Pantsil) is its hingeing on a 21-year-old player in his second Premiership match. Nasri is not ready to be Fabregas or any facsimile of there of, and when the young Frenchman was never able to create the scoring chances, Adebayor and van Persie were left taking long range shots, none of which bore fruit.
For a team that lost only three times last season, it was an embarrassing result, one that forces you to look at the decisions and approach of the manager. How do you not have your team more motivated for this match, particularly considering the less-than-dominating 1-0 win posted last week when hosting West Brom? With Fabregas out, why is Nasri playing on the left instead of in the middle, where he played all of last season? If Arsene Wenger was willing to go with two strikers by bringing on Nicklas Bendtner in the sixty-fifth minute for Theo Walcott, why not start with a similar attack instead of playing Emmanuel Eboue and Denilson in the middle? Arsenal was playing Fulham, a team they could get aggressive against. There is no need to play two defensive midfielders in a four man middle.
Even amidst those tactical concerns, any one of Arsenal’s stars could have put forth an individual effort and changed the match. But there were no star-quality moments from the Gunners. Emmanuel Adebayor was fine, but he never tried to create something Fulham did not give him. He was outplayed by Bobby Zamora. Robin van Persie was also ineffective, never exhibiting the skill for which he is rightly known. William Gallas was the player who should have been marking Hangeland on the only goal. These three players need to be stars, particularly in Fabregas’s absence. Against Fulham, a team they could beat with just one special performance, none of them were stars.
A lot of the Arsenal stars’ disappearance was due to Fulham, who had no remarkable luck in getting their three points. Their win was well-earned, and the efforts of Plantsil and Hangeland should be talked about throughout the week. But whenever a team like Arsenal falls to a Fulham, we have to talk about the favorite. We have to question whether the team we thought the titan was misjudged.
With only one goal scored in 180 minutes of play against West Brom and Fulham, it seems possible we may have misjudged the Gunners. So far.
WFP Related Posts
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.