In the pre- match comments by various Holics I sensed a pessimism about this game I didn’t feel. I was confident of a comfortable victory but this win was far from comfortable.
I had the pleasure of a pre- match Guinness with BtM and we sat down to watch a starting eleven that was identical to the one that began the game at Anfield.
Sometimes title-winning teams have to win ugly. and our narrow victory today was a case in point, as Mikel Arteta’s side needed patience, persistence and a moment of quality to overcome a stubborn visiting defence.
With the interlull approaching, we knew that three points would strengthen our position at the top of the Premier League. We eventually got the job done, but Hull made us work considerably harder than many had anticipated.
Hull arrived with a clear plan: defend in numbers, restrict Arsenal’s space, press high and look for opportunities on the counterattack.
The visitors made life uncomfortable for the league leaders from the outset. Arsenal enjoyed plenty of possession but struggled to turn their territorial dominance into clear-cut opportunities.
Hull even threatened, themselves, forcing David Raya into some important interventions. Stroud particularly tested the Arsenal goalkeeper with a dangerous effort from a tight angle.
At the other end, Declan Rice came closest to breaking the deadlock with a shot from the edge of the area, while their impressive goalkeeper, Tzolakis, proved a difficult obstacle for the Arsenal forwards.
Arsenal also thought they had a penalty when Kai Havertz was pulled back in the area, but a VAR review determined that the striker had been offside. This whole episode was poorly communicated to the crowd in the way that VAR reviews so often are, and in the stadium we were only shown one of those weird diagrams to show Havertz was offside. Kai had another stinker of a game rivalling his performance at Fleetwood – it was all a far cry from his winner at Anfield.
Rice went close with a drive from distance but we lacked penetration. Bruno was ponderous on the ball and had one nightmare moment where he almost gave the ball away in the Arsenal box. Hull were compact, the referee a tad pedantic and only Madueke looked remotely likely to break the deadlock.
The half-time whistle arrived with the Gunners still searching for a breakthrough.
Half -time: Arsenal 0 – 0 Hull
We began the second half with intent but our passing was generally laboured and Tzolis couldn’t get much change out of the right side of the Hull defence.
Arteta recognised that changes were needed and introduced Viktor Gyökeres and Mikel Merino before bringing Eberechi Eze into the action. Havertz, Rice and Tzolis departed.
The substitutions added fresh energy, but Arsenal still needed that elusive moment of quality.
It finally arrived in the 72nd minute.
Noni Madueke drove towards goal and unleashed a shot which Tzolakis could only parry. Martin Ødegaard, displaying the anticipation and instinct which make him such an influential player, reacted quickest to turn the rebound into the net.
Arsenal 1 – 0 Hull – Ødegaard, 72 mins
The Emirates erupted in relief.
Arsenal had finally found a way through, and their captain had delivered when it mattered most.
The Gunners might have added a second as Hull began to tire, with Madueke threatening again, when he really should have scored after being put through by Eze but one goal proved sufficient. Arsenal’s defensive shape made it very hard for Hull to create anything and Konsa and Gabriel were particularly obdurate.
This was not Arsenal at their most fluent or spectacular. Hull deserve considerable credit for their organisation and determination, and the visitors will feel that their performance merited something more.
But Arsenal have increasingly demonstrated an ability to win matches when their attacking football is not at its best.
Full time: Arsenal 1 – 0 Hull
The clean sheet was another positive, while Ødegaard’s decisive contribution underlined the importance of having players capable of producing something special in difficult circumstances. Madueke produced a decent impersonation of Saka today and Konsa was impeccable. He is going to be very hard to drop when Willie Saliba returns. But our other two signings Bruno and Tzolis did not impress although Bruno had a better second half. Havertz doesn’t look like a top quality striker on days like this. He seems to be a big game player which is very useful to have but we really do need more threat upfront.
The victory takes Arsenal to 27 points from their opening ten league matches, matching their best-ever start to a Premier League season.
Arsenal supporters may have hoped for a more comfortable afternoon, but nobody will be complaining about the result. Champions are often defined not by their spectacular victories, but by their ability to find a way through matches like this one.
A fine and rapid report TTG. Below you in the cheap seats on the North Bank, I was never in doubt that we would win. After half time we just swarmed all over them and when the goal inevitably came, Hull never seemed like scoring.
But I have had the advantage of reading various reports on the way home and it seems that PGMOL made an egregious error of law. You reported it thus, which was also my opinion in the stadium.
“Arsenal also thought they had a penalty when Kai Havertz was pulled back in the area, but a VAR review determined that the striker had been offside. This whole episode was poorly communicated to the crowd in the way that VAR reviews so often are, and in the stadium we were only shown one of those weird diagrams to show Havertz was offside. Kai had another stinker of a game rivalling his performance at Fleetwood – it was all a far cry from his winner at Anfield”
But to be offside Kai had to be interfering with play. The learned opinion is that he was not even close to doing so. Hence, the holding offence, by law, takes precedent. A penalty kick should have been awarded.
This is rank lack of knowledge of the laws of the game, not a question of opinion or judgement. Heads must roll.
Meanwhile we have won, Spurs and City have lost and Manchester United are in the relegation zone.
I’ve known worse Saturday’s. To be sure, it’s a good time to be a Gooner.
C100
That’s a very good point and one would hope PGMOL have a fair idea of the rules . Even Mike Dean agreed it was a penalty . At the time I was writing the report my phone was suggesting Liam Delap was running riot against C114y . I refused to believe it and expected to have to get my phone mended !
One point I forget to mention was a perfectly observed period of Remembrance with a poignant rendition of the Last Post . I often wonder how our German players feel during these ceremonies . Lest we forget
Law 11.2 says:
“In situations where:..
• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of
playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball,
or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred
before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already
playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge”
The Laws of the Game couldn’t be clearer. It is the first of those two paragraphs that applies in the Havertz/Mendy situation. The penalty should have been awarded. The ref/VAR got it wrong. And there can be no arguing with that.
A rapid match report that gives Hull the credit that is their due, TTG. I said in the preview that we’d be facing a ‘well-organised, high-intensity and physical side [that] will likely copy Farke’s blueprint that caused us to huff and puff for two-thirds of the match against Leeds last month’. And so it turned out. Watching a team in blue and white defending obdurately with two banks of five, did make me wonder if it was David Moyes in the opposition dugout, not Sergej Jakirović.
My view on the Havertz/Mendy incident is set out @3. Had we gone in at half-time one up, the second half could have felt a bit easier. Thankfully, the skipper found the moment to secure the win, but an xG of 1.08, with two-thirds of possession and 45 touches in their box, suggests buckets of control but little cutting edge. Yet, as you say, you don’t win titles without being able to get through games like these and come away with all three points.
Match of the day was unequivocal. It should have been a penalty. PGMOL (Michael Oliver in this case) was wrong.They are incompetent/corrupt.
Thanks TTG, an excellent report but damn these Saturday 3pm kick-offs,
a ridiculous idea that will never catch on I hope as it’s midnight in
Osaka.
At 7pm I’d met three friends over from Tokyo and we settled into a decent fish
restaurant, the shobin of Mugi Shochu was ordered, the fish dishes
and the flasks of dry sake came and a good time was had by all.
After dinner we repaired to a local whisky bar and I enjoyed several
glasses of Caol Ila, my favourite single malt. Home by 23:30, I settled
comfortably on the sofa and fell fast asleep 😡
I wasn’t worried as I nodded off, Plan B was in place and Son
of OM had earlier been asked to wake me up at kick off. Sadly
Plan B failed as son of OM had been out with his own friends and
was, unknown to me, also fast asleep. Young people today are so irresponsible…..
Anyway, been watching it back this morning, and quite agree with
C100, TTG and Ned on the penalty but at least it’s three more points
in the bag as we go into the damned interlull. Top of the League.
Cheers TTG. A very forgettable match apart from the new VAR fiasco and the goal, but your last paragraphs sums it all up.
Now for another slightly less interminablull.
Thanks TTG
Another difficult game, both to play and watch but a result that moves us on.
I’m of a different view to the majority here about the tug on Havertz and I think that it was the right one. Some random thoughts:-
He was clearly offside as the ball was played through and was moving into space where the ball would be played so – he’s offside. That’s the first offence.
If a penalty had been given, who’s to say we would have scored from it, we have missed some after all for those with short memories)?
I’m not necessarily an advocate of the “things even out across the season” argument but we did get away with one last week against Liverpool (who’s to say they would have scored from the penalty?) and I don’t recall anyone here calling for official / var heads to roll over that.
Until the game is refereed by non-humans and completely monitored by robotic technology, mistakes will be made and emotions will run high. Would we really want it any different? “We was robbed” would be no more.
Feel free to disagree.
UTA.
PS: Sorry Ned @3
I guess I am arguing with that.
Cheers
UTA
Thanks for your usual swift and accurate report, TTG, of yet another difficult watch. It was another afternoon of frustration as wave after wave (well, generally quite slow wave after slow wave) of intricate interplay came to nought, but on this occasion with little in the way of threat or alarm at our back door. I did think that with the catalogue of misdirected final balls, weak shots and blocked shots, we were heading for a 0-0 draw but our busy little captain came up with a neat winner. If they always play like that, Hull will prove a tough nut for anyone to crack.
In the ground, I was mystified by the shenanigans initiated by the VAR who I understand was Michael Oliver. Given that he actually stopped play to have the referee review events, the conclusio that it was a free kick for offside was ridiculous. The BBC site had a piece last night that gave precedents that went either way which, given the inconsistencies we see every week, is no surprise, and the BBC reckoned that Ødegaard’s goal let PGMO(L) aka WTF off the hook of yet another controversy. Personally, I think that it’s ridiculous for an offside player to win a penalty but it appears the law is there to prevent the thugs in the game from maiming an opponent in an offside position without fear of retribution.
Another thought occurred to me as I watched the game unfold. We sometimes take our defence, and most notably our centre back pairing , for granted. I have seen three great pairs/trios at the Arsenal: Adams and Bould/Keown, Campbell and Toure, and Gabriel and Saliba/Konsa. There was Koscielny in the intervening years who deserved a better partner but most fell short and I think that the present trio may well be the best.
Finally, I thought Madueke was outstanding and he and the coaching team deserve huge credit for the transformation of an ugly duckling into something of a swan. I hope his transformation persists.
It’s not all together surprising that we saw exactly the same game, TTG. Congratulations and ‘very well done’ of meeting your goal of completing your game review during your journey home on the train. While you were doing so, the plastic banana men of Manchester were encountering an end-of-their-world experience in Nottingham while The World’s End pub on Stroud Green Road was rocking along happily as they did so. Three points, a clean sheet, six point advantage and top of the league. All in all, a very fine day out. I rather like these 3pm kick-off days. They may catch on.
The Last Post rang out beautifully and poignantly prior to kick off. A superb, atmospheric rendition. I wondered if Arsenal might, for once, leave its final notes hanging rather than initiate the North London Forever anthem. On balance, transition from remembrances of the past to the sobering/stimulating (choose your own) present through its throaty rendition by nearly 60,000 was probably appropriate.
@8 and 9, I think that point is very fair Noosa, also Bath’s point about
how can an offside player win a penalty – it does seem somehow wrong.
However, the law 11.2 that Ned sent seems quite clear and it fits this
situation – in the circumstances the penalty has to be given regardless
of our own sense of things. I am curious what grey area ProRef will find
to worm their wormy way away.
I’ve just seen MotD and as noted above and as expressed in in the Law cited by Ned, Darren Can is quite clear that, as the Law currently stands, that was indeed a penalty that Michael Oliver (surprise, surprise) decided was an offside offence to deprive us of a chance of a first half lead. I find it interesting that he had the ref stop the game so that he could rope him in as an accessory to the crime rather than let play go on and have the episode get lost in the annals of duff decisions. That makes it a total of four officials who did not know the Laws of the Game.
U-21’s on the dotcom against Villa. 3-1 up and playing some great stuff. Saliba played the first half.
Igor Thiago sent off for Brentford v Brighton. Means he’ll miss our away game there on December 2.
A concerning reading of the BBC article Bath refers to at @10 is that PL referees are imposing their own interpretations of the Laws of the Game on the text. There is nothing ambiguous about Law 11.2. It clearly sets out the circumstances in which a foul takes precedence over an offside, and vice versa.
The article says that PL referees have decided that, when applying the law, they will consider the likelihood of the attacker becoming involved in the play from a second phase. In this particular case, as Havertz was the only attacker who had any chance of being involved in the play, his offside position constituted an offside offence.
That is neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. It is simply refereeing overreach. If Pro Ref refs are making up their own laws of the game, and, from the inconsistencies we see week to week, are making them up as they go, we are on a very slippery slope.