Why Arsenal consistently fail in big matches

The 8-2 loss to Manchester United still pains the Arsenal fans and players alike

2014 has been a tumultuous year for Arsenal and their supremo, Arsene Wenger. They finally ended their trophy drought by beating Hull City in the FA Cup final, and booked a Champions League spot, by finishing fourth yet again. Also, Wenger completed a thousand matches at the helm of the club this year, though the match was forgettable, as Arsenal lost 6-0 to Chelsea. In fact, big defeats to big teams has been a recurring theme for Arsenal in recent times, with sorry showings against City, United and Liverpool, all coming to mind.

This season hasn’t been much different for the Gunners, with them losing to Dortmund and Chelsea without even providing a semblance of resistance, and creditably drawing against a below-par City. It is in this backdrop of not having shown up when it counts, that the North London team face probably their fiercest rivals after Tottenham Hotspur.

There are few bigger fixtures in the EPL than this one – the history between Sir Alex and Arsene Wenger, the fierce aggression of Patrick Vieira and Roy Keane, and the controversial move of Robin van Persie to Manchester United, all make this a heated battle.

A battle which is Arsenal’s for the taking on paper; but, when it comes to them, few things work out as predicted. Why is this? Why is it that a team with the likes of Mesut Ozil, Alexis Sanchez, Santi Cazorla, Aaron Ramsey, Jack Wilshere, Theo Walcott and Per Mertesacker, keep failing on the biggest of occasions?

Per Mertesacker and Laurent Koscielny – the rocks in Arsenal’s defence

Weak and depleted defence

Let’s begin with their backline. Ever since the likes of Sol Campbell, Kolo Toure and William Gallas left London Colney, the club has had a leaky defence, with Wenger’s inexplicable stubbornness in not shoring up his defence, coming back to haunt them, time and time again. A look at the summer transfer window this season, only reinforces this fact.

Granted, Thomas Vermaelen had a forgettable 2013-14 season, but in a time and age when the big boys have four centre-backs of the highest quality on their roster, Arsenal sold their captain and World Cup quarterfinalist, Thomas Vermaelen for a paltry 15 million pounds, leaving them with just two proven centre backs. Considering that Eliaquim Mangala left Porto for a princely sum of 32 million pounds, Arsenal could’ve at least found a better bargain for the Belgian.

With Vermaelen gone, the onus was on Wenger to take it upon himself and buy at least two top-drawer centre-backs. He bought Calum Chambers instead, a young, raw defender who was on the bench at Southampton, with the enforced absences of Nathaniel Clyne at right back and Jose Fonte at centre back, being the only times when he got a chance to start.

It was a move with an eye on the future, explained Wenger. But come August, the 20-year old was catapulted straight into the first team, with injuries and suspensions leaving Le Professeur with no other option.

And the fact that he had no other option is his fault, and only his. Fabian Schar, Mehdi Benatia, Konstantinos Manolas, Tin Vedvaj, Dejan Lovren, Angelo Ogbonna and even Joleon Lescott were all there for the taking. In fact, Arsenal had nearly reached an agreement with Manolas’ agent, with the clubs refusal to pay an additional 2 million euros stalling the deal. Needless to say, Roma swooped in, leaving the club red-faced. How very typical.

And this leaves us with the defenders they already have. Why Arsenal play a high line with a defence that has Per Mertesacker in it, is a question to which mankind hasn’t found an answer yet. It is as big a mystery as the Bermuda Triangle itself. The German maybe a good leader and tactically sound, but when it comes to running hard and fast, and this is essential for a defender when the team plays a high line, Mertesacker is of no use, and that is no compliment.

And, the less said about Nacho Monreal, the better. The fact that he might be fielded in central defence tonight, is sure to give the Gooners a lot of headaches.

Mikel Arteta and Mathieu Flamini’s influence in midfield has decreased considerably

Soft centre in midfield

And, then there is the well-documented case of Arsenal’s defensive midfield – a position that has been a gaping hole since the departure of Patrick Vieira. Every season since, has seen a new Vieira come and go, with nobody coming close enough. Chelsea have Nemanja Matic, Ramires and John Obi Mikel, Manchester City have Fernando and Fernandinho.

Arsenal? They have the painfully one-dimensional Mathieu Flamini and the inferior version of Xabi Alonso – Mikel Arteta. While the former tackles well and plays with a lot of heart, he now simply isn’t of the quality befitting a club vying for the title, while the latter has become a little too lightweight to play the holding role, and lacks the physicality necessary to play there, even though he is tactically sound.

So, Wenger plays only one of them at a time, fielding either Wilshere or Ramsey alongside them. And, when the two youngsters go on their customary runs forward, it leaves Flamini/Arteta, and a backline that plays at the edge of the opposition half, there for the taking. One, quick counter and bam – Arsenal have the potential to get torn to shreds. A look at Sergio Aguero’s goal in this season’s tie against City, shows the lack of communication between Arsenal’s defence and midfield.

Arsene Wenger’s lack of tactical flexibility

This question leads us to probably the biggest reason behind Arsenal’s steady mediocrity over the last few seasons – the great man himself, Arsene Wenger. Once considered a man of bright ideas and firm ideals, Wenger has become a deluded and desperate man today, with complaints and obvious statements, unable to hide the fact that his presence hinders the team from moving forward.

Arsenal isn’t the only team in the world to have an imbalanced squad – but, they are surely the worst affected team, as far as squad imbalance is concerned.

Arsene Wenger needs to let go of his tactical rigidity

Wenger had the Emirates Stadium and its spiralling costs to justify not investing enough in the market, until a few years ago. Not anymore. Look at their attacking players – Danny Welbeck, Olivier Giroud, Lukas Podolski, Theo Walcott, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Santi Cazorla, Tomas Rosicky, Mesut Ozil, and last, but not the least, Alexis Sanchez. This attack can give anybody a run for their money, and with a reasonable supporting cast behind them, is talented enough to contend

But, Wenger’s chronic ignorance of everything pragmatic, means this is but a distant dream. He hasn’t had a Plan B for well over a decade now. Good, pleasing football is important, but never at the cost of winning.

Even Carlo Ancelotti, who has the best squad in the world at his disposal, understands the importance of shutting up shop, as and when required. Wenger prides himself on his ideals of taking the game to the opposition no matter what – and, when he does that against the best sides, there is only one result on the cards.

The players know it, the pundits know it, the fans know it – Wenger has to adopt a horses for courses policy, or his team will be engulfed by a fear of failure, every time they play against a good team. It’s now or never.

Mental block against big teams

In fact, this fear of failure has already set in, with many of the players in the squad having a mental block, whenever they play against world-class opposition. Arsenal simply lose the plot every time they play against the likes of Chelsea, United or City. The same thing can also be said of their performances in the Champions League Round of 16, where they simply have to lose, no matter who they play against.

This mental block is fast turning into a habit, becoming a part of their fabric. Only positive results can keep it from affecting them further. And, for positive results, change is imperative. How they change and who they change is up to them. But change they must. Arsenal is a club at the crossroads right now. And tonight, they have a chance to move in the right direction. Either that, or they can look with a sense of chagrin yet again, at the road not taken.