Wednesday 20 March 2013

Moving On- Laudrup is the man to replace Arsene Wenger


Although Arsenal’s fan base still remains very divided regarding the predicament of the Frenchman- who has taken sports writers’ columns by storm following Arsenal’s recent defeats to Blackburn and Bayern Munich, there is a growing realisation that the end of the tenure of Arsenal’s is nearing its twilight, and that even if the club wish to try and retain the services of Wenger, it certainly seems unlikely that he will be around for another 16 years.

Only time will how the distinctive Wenger’s legacy of Arsene Wenger will be viewed, but there is no doubt that he has had a great influence on the way things have been done at the club- too much of an influence, some would say- and this means that he will leave a large void when his departure ultimately arrives, and whatever you think of him at the moment, he will certainly not be easy to replace, and indeed, I believe that choosing his successor will be a crucial decision in the history of Arsenal Football Club, as we must try and find a man who is able turn Arsenal into winners again, and create his own legacy in the process. So will our board of directors pick out an obscure gem, like Wenger once was, a young up and coming starlet  or will they turn to a manager who already has experience and working across the ever-changing expanses of European Football. These questions will be answered in time, but currently I believe there would be no better man to lead Arsenal than the Great Dane- Micheal Laudrup.

A man with a highly prestigious playing career, Laudrup won an incredible five straight La Liga titles with Spanish giants Barcelona and Real Madrid, as well as playing 104 times for Denmark- a nation who in 2006, placed upon him the accolade of being their greatest ever player. As a player Laudrup clearly knew how to win, a trait which seems to have deserted Arsenal in recent years, and could be a characteristic that could be huge asset for any new manager.

Laudrup has also recently transferred this winning mentality to management, with his Swansea side’s ruthless, cutting-edge displays in the League Cup- in which they recently demolished Bradford City at Wembley to pick up the club’s first major trophy in its history. This win also showed Laudrup’s hunger for trophies and the emphasis he is willing to place on the domestic trophies, a desire which some may Arsene Wenger has lacked slightly in recent times.

Laudrup’s managerial CV prior to his brief reign at Swansea is also underestimated by many. Laufrup started out his career in management as the assistant coach of his native Denmark- a role in which he was seen as big success, he and Morten Olsen masterminding Denmark’s progression to the knock-out stages of the 2002 World Cup. This excellent result led to Laudrup’s appointment as manager of Danish Superliga side  Brøndby in the same year. In his first season with the club, Laudrup led the team to the Danish Cup, and a strong second-place finish in the Superliga, as well as claiming the Danish manager of the year award. In the following season, Laudrup again led Brøndby to a second-place finish in the Danish superliga, this time just a single point behind winners FC Copenhagen. However, he finally led his side to the Superliga title in the 2004-05 season, in which he also managed to complete a double, winning his second Danish Cup in four seasons, this again led to Laudrup being voted Danish manager of the year. After finishing runners-up in the 2005-06 Danish Superliga, Laudrup decided not to renew his contract at Brøndby, and in July 2007, he was unveiled as the new manger of Madrid’s third football club- Getafe.

Despite not being known as a powerhouse in Spanish football, Laudrup led Getafe to a reasonable success, reaching the Copa Del Rey final- in which they lost out to Valencia- and the quarter-final of the EUFA Cup, where they were defeated by Bayern Munich. However, he only stayed one season at getafe before moving swiftly onto Spartak Moscow.

However, Laudrup’s spell at the Russian club proved to be perhaps the one blemish on his managerial CV, as he was sacked in April 2009 following Spartak’s 3-0 defeat to Dinamo Moscow in the quarter-final of the Russian Cup.

In July 2010, Laudrup entered his next mangerial post, returning to Spain to manage RCD Mallorca. In his one and only season with the club, Laudrup managed to help Mallorca retain their place in La Liga against the odds, after the club had had to sell many of theirkey first-team players due to major financial problems, which had also led to the club’s ejection from the EUFA cup. At the beginning of the 2011-12 season Laudrup resigned following the suprise sacking of his assistant, which led to a fallout with the club’s director of football. In June 2012, Laudrup then became Swansea manager, where his superb work has been showcased for all English football fans to see.

As well as his rather impressive CV, Laudrup’s footballing philosphy also makes him an excellent fit for Arsenal. Known widely for his elegance, creativity and technical prowess as a player, Laudrup has clearly implemented the philosophy he flourished under as a player in his managerial career, promoting a short-passing game in all the post he has held- from his job as assissant manager of Denmark to his current job at Swansea. And although there are many things that Gooners may disagree with Arsene Wenger on, one clear pint of mutual agreement is our appreciation of the possession football that Le Professor has brought to the fore at Arsenal, and I believe this is something that most Gooners would want to see continue under Arsenal’s next manager.

If there is one downside to Laudrup, it is his possibly lack of loyalty to the clubs he has managed. I said earlier that the next manager of Arsenal must try and create his own legacy, and as Laudrup has only stayed in many of his managerial posts for a single season before moving on to bigger things, it is questionable that Laudrup would have the desire and commitment to do this, and may simply use Arsenal as a stepping stone before taking over at one of his former clubs Barcelona or Real Madrid. Although, with potentially vast resources at his disposal (all 123 million of them) if the board will let him use them, Laudrup could achieve great success at Arsenal and take them back to Europe’s top table, so possibly there would be no motivation to move on.

So with a highly attractive blend of intelligence, managerial experience across mainland Europe, a stylish and excitng philosphy, a burning desire for success and an infectious enthusiasm and likeability, I strongly Micheal Laudrup to be the best candidate currently available to replace Arsene Wenger. But be warned, if we don’t act fast and decisively, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dane made his move to one of European football’s top brass before we can lure him to North London.

Follow me on Twitter @goonerwalker

'McManaman-Gate'- The Tackle, Post-match recation and punishment (or lack of it)


Following Wigan youngster Callum McManaman’s challenge on Newcastle’s full-back Massadio Haidara- and Mark Halsey’s totally obstructed view of the challenge- there is been heated debate across social media, the radio, the internet, the TV and just about any other platform you can imagine. Just to inform those who have been in a very deep slumber, the storm was caused by Mcmanaman’s studs-up, knee-high challenge on Haidara, which failed to draw even a free-kick from unsighted referee Mark Halsey.
For those who haven’t seen it- here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXHT3k0pX70
 
Following the incident, people failed to disappoint with their instantaneous response of outrage and shock. The tackle was undoubtedly very bad- but quite how bad it was clearly became exaggerated in a myth-like fashion. In fact, as is the way in the age of social media debate, it wasn’t long until an unsuspecting twitter user would have been forgiven for mistaking that McManaman had committed murder, such was the ferocity directed at him.
In regards, to my own opinions on the challenge- it was a clear red. Despite getting a slight touch on the top of the ball he all but missed and went over the ball, with his studs up and leading leg well off the ground, making heavy contact with Haidara’s right knee- causing the subsequent serious knee ligament damage that will see Haidara miss the rest of this season. So I certainly agree with Dave Whelan, who asserted that the challenge was “fair”. A puzzling statement, which caused an understandable mix of outrage and bemusement across media airwaves. Whelan’s comments could have be perceived as staunch defence of the club he holds dear to him, but even if they were his honest opinions, to make the comment in public was at best ill-advised and at worst plain stupid, as they only served to strengthen the regular view of Wigan as a small club adopting an ‘us against the world’ mentality.
However, it was clear that McManaman was making an effort to win the ball- albeit a careless one- and that there was therefore no intent to injure Haidara. Although the matter of intent certainly shouldn’t impact whether or not the challenge merited a red card- which it definitely did- it should be taken it account when a retrospective suspension is awarded- a point which many failed to account for- calling for McManaman to serve a long-term ban, or some even calling for punishments almost equivalent to a prison sentence.
I personally think that the lack of malicious intent in McManaman’s tackle should mean that a standard 3-game ban would be sufficient, or at most a 5-game ban, as the challenge was simply ill-judged and a costly mistake, but banning McManaman for a lengthy period would do no anyone good. There was no need to ‘make an example of him’ as the laws regarding tacking in football were firmly laid down long ago; handing out a severe suspension won’t aid Haidara’s recovery or likely make him feel better at all; McManaman is young, and will undoubtedly learn valuable lessons from this regardless of the length of the ban and a lengthy ban would rank McManaman’s innocent error alongside actions with clear malicious intent- such as Suarez’s racism and Ryan Shawcross’ vicious assault/tackle on Aaron Ramsey (yes, I still clench my fists in anger at the thought of it). Before people jump to saying that Sunday’s incident and the Ramsey-Shawcross incident were similar, I’ll point out why they were not, and why Shawcross merited a ban in excess of 3 games, whilst a 3 game ban would suffice for McManaman’s offence. Firstly, the tackles themselves were very different. Shawcross jumped into the air with both feet off the ground, chopping down on Ramsey in a scissor-like motion, despite the ball always being positioned on the ground, which immediately shows the intent that existed in the challenge- if there had been no intent to hurt Ramsey, he would not have left the ground. This is a contrast to the McManaman tackle, which despite being high, was made at the height of the ball- quite a logically concept- and one which shows the opposite, that McManaman only intended to win the ball and not hurt the player. Another clear difference is the past records of the respective offenders. As far as I am aware, Callum McManaman has no previous history of making dangerous tackles- a contrast to Ryan Shawcross, a repeat offender, who broke Francis Jeffers’ ankle in 2007, injured Adebayor with a nasty challenge and a season later made his worst challenge yet in the same fixture- and those are just a few of the horror made by Stoke's Mr No-malice' Shawcross. Clearly this shows that Shawcross hadn’t learned, and that to make him learn, a ban longer than the standard 3 games should have been issued. With McManaman, it should work the opposite way, with no previous history, a 3 game ban would be suitable for a starting point in regards to disciplining the young player.

Here are some clips of Mr 'No-malice' Shawcross in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JImCLHKXTOs 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9FJKunkmKQ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSVLGMjJDE
However, this is all hypothetical. Shawcross’ challenge was only punished with a standard 3-game ban, and McManaman’s...well, here we go again, the stupidity of the FA’s disciplinary system has been highlighted once more. The key flaw is the pointless and ludicrous rule- totally and unsurprisingly unique to football- that if so much as one match official casts an eye over the incident, retrospective action cannot be taken. Yes, I find it as puzzling as you undoubtedly do. If an official makes an incorrect decision, they should stand to be corrected by a judiciary panel. This is not to say that blame should be attributed to officials, it is a simple fact that they cannot get every decision right and I’m sure they would admit that they get some decisions wrong. It would not undermine their authority whatsoever, as on the field of play they would still be 100% in charge of proceedings. All this would simply do is mean that when a referee has innocently made a bad mistake or, in Mark Halsey’s case, not even seen the incident due to a player blocking their view, then they should be given assistance in assuring that the best and fairest outcome is reached. This isn’t the first time this ass of a law has been brought to the attention of eagle-eyed football fans, and unless the law changes, it won’t be the last. The FA- who were yesterday the victims of a fiery, yet largely justified rant by Newcastle’s managing director Derek Llambias would be well-advised to take the simple steps required to amend the rule, as it will help restore the ever waning credibility of their disciplinary system, as well as appeasing the masses of football fans, players, managers and pundits alike, who are craving for change.
I would also wish to end by wishing Massadio Haidara a strong, quick and full recovery from what was clearly a very unfortunate incident and I hope it does not affect the promising career of a talented young footballer.

Wednesday 6 March 2013

Gooner Book Review- Theatre of Silence: The Lost Soul of Football

Theatre of Silence: The Lost Soul of Football by Matthew Bazell




Having seen this book advertised on an e-mail update from Arsenal's protest group- The Black Scarf Movement- I hoped that the book would really help bring to life the issues with the modern game from a fans' perspective and leave with a lot of satisfaction, as my lack of eloquence has often meant I've struggled to express these issue to many of TV-watching friends who adore Monday night football. But with ths book my anguish was quelled, as Matthew Bazell (who is a Gooner!) manages to articulate my views for me, making the book a satisfying read, as I was able to read it cover to cover constantly nodding and grunting approval at Bazell's views.

Although many of the ideas Bazell presents in the book are not the most complex, flowery and fantsyful figments of the magination, he writes the book with a cutting honesty and realism, with his passion being poured into each and every word. As a reader this really allows you to be submerged in his passionate thoughts and feelings, as he vividly brings to life the issues with modern football, from a very personalised and heartfelt standpoint- which makes the book all the more effective, as the reader can appreciate Bazell's standing as an everyday fan. He is one of the 'people' that the 'people's game' should be providng for with greater care.

The book itself is quite simply. It neatly comprises of different chapters, which each in theory, summarise one or two issues with modern football. bazell sticks to this simple theory relatively well, managing make each chapter differ suitably by introducing light-hearted anecdotes to back up his points, drawing on his experiences of the diffrent issues and helping fans to relate to them. If one criticism can be made of the book, it is that Bazell can sometimes become a little repetitive-especially towards the latter stages of the book- and some issues and particular points of frustration can be reiterated a little too much, although he manages to cut short his repetition with a well-manufactured and subtle ending, which ties up all loose ends well and arrives at one of the major points of the book.

This book may essentially be a rant, venting frustration at the way modern football is governed, but it is certainly an erudite, controlled and often witty one. Indeed, Bazell manges to balance his somber realism with appropriate doses of sarcasm, irony and humour, adding a more light-hearted shade to a book that may appear at a glance to be overly downcast.

So for all football fans who can see the issues of the modern game, and wish to face up to them once for all, with a straight-talking and honest account from one of their own- look no further than this book.



 

Monday 4 March 2013

Gooner Match Review- NLD



After a narrow defeat to the enemy, the media is awash with brash claims of a 'power shift in North London'- I'll address that urban myth later, but for now I'll cover the main points we can take from the game.

For me, what essentially decided the game was the ability of the respective defences to cope with the pressure they were put under. Both teams had a similar proportion of the play offensively, with Arsenal possibly even having slightly more of the play. However, when Tottenham put Arsenal's defence under pressure, we were simply at sixes and sevens, whilst their defence stoutly stood firm. This seemed to be down to key organisational errors in our backline- a lack of communication, a lack of cohesion in our offside trap- as well as the odd individual slip-up- such as BFG playing Bale onside for the first goal. I don't necessarily disagree with us playing a high line; I believe we are at our best when we condense the space in this way and put pressure on the opposition, but for this tactic to work effectively, certain defensively fundamentals must be executed precisely. Runners must be tracked (Hello Nacho!), the defence must step up as a unit, defenders must react quickly and communication must be clear. The tactic failed because none of these fundamentals seemed to be in place, allowing the likes of Lennon and Bale to exploit our high line with their pace at ease.

In regards to the defence as individuals, I was again disappointed with Thomas Vermaelen. His from really seems to have dipped since he became captain and I have a theory as to why. Before Vermaelen was made captain he usually had another centre-half next to him to keep him in check, and ensure that the brash, cavaliering side of his game was used sparingly. However, as captain, he is now tasked with leading and commanding the defence himself, with no-one to watch over him. In fairness, an experienced centre-half should be able to position themselves without a fellow defender instructing them, but Tommy has always had a tendency to go AWOL, and that tendency now seems to be going largely unchecked with him as captain.

The defence was clearly our main downfall, although I must comment on the fact that I believed we dealt with Bale quite well. Despite the media building him up as the ultimate do or die factor of the derby, he did little apart from score the first goal- albeit an important contribution. But considering that we were on the verge of being brainwashed into thinking that Bale was a demi-god by the pre-match serenading of his abilities, his impact was underwhelming. We dealt well with him in wide areas, double-teaming him and giving him little room to work- although he did find more joy when he moved more centrally.

So about this grand 'power shift'. Well, it simply isn't true that Tottenham are overtaking Arsenal as a force in North London. To say that them finishing above Arsenal for the first time in 20 years means they are a better side is ludicrous, and to suggest that they will maintain that grand feat is even more so. The resources of the two clubs have to be taken into account. Tottenham are probably performing as well as they can hope to with the resources they have available, whilst Arsenal are underperforming hugely, and have £120 million sat in the bank ready to spent as soon as the club eventually decide we want to compete for trophies again. So with a slight change of policy and a more ambitious regime at the helm of the club, Arsenal would ease pat Sp*rs and resume their rightful place as North London's dominant force, So I suggest that they do that open top bus parade soon, because their fun won't last long.