The human mind has evolved to always look for patterns that make sense of experiences. Even something as innately human as seeing is essentially a complex pattern recognition/prediction mechanism to discern meaningful “images” from a continuous stream of photons arriving at our eyes. When we experience any event that doesn’t easily conform to our expectations, we find ourselves impulsively drawn towards making sense of that aberration, like trying to discern images from the torrent of chaotic stimuli generated by light rays colliding with the cells in our retina.
Everyone knows all this. And everyone in their more meditative moments recognizes how much our minds rebel against uncertainty and ambiguity. Much of the pessimism in the world is born of the fact that the mind is more at ease expecting the worst compared to living in the awareness of the unknowability of the future. But being so very human as we all are, it needs conscious effort and some amount of self-discipline not to look for comforting generalizations when the facts of the world are discomforting.
But doesn’t that go against the whole scientific spirit of curiosity and seeking explanations? From Democritus to Dirac – while the names of Heisenberg and Schrödinger enjoy a degree of familiarity in the popular culture, the contributions of Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli and the great British theorist Paul Dirac are as fundamental to the foundations of quantum mechanics, and it is thanks to those foundational formulations, through semiconductor physics and all that came after, that you and I can now share common experiences despite being thousands of miles apart, but I digress – isn’t seeking the generalized laws of nature, the uber-pattern of things, one of our noblest and most meaningful aspirations?
So, if we are to seek a coherent pattern, a greater understanding so to speak, from Arsenal’s 1-1 away draw at Chelsea, would that be an attempt at satisfying our scientific instinct for knowledge or would that be looking for comforting solidity of our own intellectual horizons? Readers, I leave each of you to your own interpretations and conclusions.
I myself am not going to look for some greater insight in that result or performance that can then be used to try to predict the outcome of the rest of the season, or even the next match. That is the job of the ‘football scientists’, a.k.a media pundits, and readers, here too you are encouraged to find the suitable words to express your well-thought opinion of them. I reserve for myself the privilege of quoting the great Pauli’s (in)famous quip about a particularly careless scientific paper: “it is not even wrong.”
Anyway, please forgive my circuitous preamble. I feel not too inspired to recall a minute-by-minute account of a scrappy game where football took back seat to uncontrolled emotions, misplaced physicality, a flurry of cards, inconsistent refereeing, time-wasting, missed passes and poor touches, poor decisions, playacting, all in a blur of a kind of an anti-advertisement of Premier League Football.
I don’t like Chelsea football club. Never will. I understand not all Arsenal fans feel very strongly about them, or maybe everyone does. I remember very well from the mid-2000s the sheer distastefulness of the behavior on and off the field, the facts of how they were funded, and what their temporary dominance ended up signifying in teams of football governance. But my personal likes and dislikes don’t really matter. It would be great if Arsenal beats them every time the two teams meet, but then it would be great if Arsenal beats every team in every match we play.
Arsenal’s starting line-up, despite the late-determined absence of Saliba following a knock in the training, I felt was strong enough to play with the kind of controlled assertiveness – demonstrated with such finesse against Bayern in the mid-week – that has now become the defining characteristic of this season’s Arsenal. A bench that had Ødegaard and Madueke, and welcomed back Gyökeres, looked particularly potent. Defensively, even though Mosquera-Hincapié had never played together, their individual performances next to Saliba (and also Gabriel, in the case of Christhian) have been strong enough to assure us that they would manage, especially flanked by the peerless Timber on one side and increasingly consistent Calafiori on the other.
Raya
Timber-Mosquera-Hincapié-Calafiori
Zubimendi
Eze-Rice
Saka-Merino-Martinelli
The match started at a frenetic pace, and with poor quality on the ball from both sides. While Chelsea had come with a clear plan to be both physically disruptive and ambitious in attack, it is the former aspect that was most noticeable. This type of approach from the opposition is nothing new for Arteta’s Arsenal, when we are not allowed to find the control of the tempo and possession. A common tactical theme in that approach is the willingness to bypass the midfield. This season we have mostly played well against oppositions with that approach, with our defense and Zubimendi taking over the possession after the early frenetic stage, providing a platform for the rest of the team to find mooring.
While Hincapié and Mosquera are talented defenders, and both promise to eventually become world-class with ball on their feet, neither of them are quite the replacement of Saliba and Gabriel, especially Saliba, in terms of calmness and quality in possession, and the technical ability to control possession. Especially against the highly talented and dynamic set of attacking players that Chelsea started with, they defended well enough but found it difficult to build the controlled rhythm to bring the temperature of the game down. Timber was not at his very best, and one can hardly blame him given the two masterclasses to which he had treated us in the last seven days. Then, when Zubimendi received an early yellow card, and as a result had to curtail his natural front-footed approach, we lost much of our impetus in bringing any semblance of control over what had by then become a very chaotic match.
About the cards: Arsenal committed 12 fouls, Chelsea 13. We were shown six yellow cards, and Chelsea one yellow and that one reddest of reds. I don’t really know what Caicedo’s problem with the rest of humanity is, someone on the football field one of these days will pay a price for it. Thankfully it was not Mikel Merino and Arsenal. I don’t have anything to say about that imbalance of cards more than has already been said many times and is known to most Arsenal fans.
We didn’t play well in possession as we appeared emotionally and psychologically not in the right frame with many uncharacteristically poor decisions on the ball throughout the first half, and even more uncharacteristically lethargic out of possession and in duels. None of these are inexplicable, given the week we had and the performances we have put on, but was frustrating to experience nonetheless. We have become so used to the consistently high standards in the fundamentals of our game, days like these are apt reminders to enjoy the great performances without taking those for granted, apt reminders that the players are human beings. We had one bright attacking moment when Martinelli, Rice and Eze combined and Martinelli’s clever shot from the edge of the box was well saved by Sanchez, who saw the ball very late.
We started the second half with one substitution: MLS coming in for Calafiori who was on a yellow, and was likely to be the one tested most against the speedy Esteveo and Joao Pedro. Naturally the idea would have been to start dominating possession, make the numerical superiority count, start dictating the tempo, expect a defensive low block, and play the probing game.
The plan had to be discarded as Chelsea scored very early in the second half. From a corner. It seems they are the second best team in the PL after us in scoring set-piece goals, and on a day when our corners suffered from the same overall malaise of being not as good as usual, it was a particularly unpleasant way to concede against a ten man Chelsea. I am sure we can find some faults with one or two of our defenders in conceding, but only if we try very hard.
Chelsea 1 (Chalobah 48’) – Arsenal 0
We looked a bit surprised, and despite being a man down, Chelsea, buoyed by the home support, looked to enjoy themselves. Soon enough, Areta made a couple of substitutions – bringing Madueke on for Martinelli, and Ødegaard for Zubimendi with Rice dropping deeper to the number 6 role.
Saka was not having a particularly good day. I think something about Cucurella puts him off his game. It’s not like he is the only quality left back Bukayo faces in the world. So, what could it be?
Anyway, given that Saka – who plays nonstop when he is fit – was not at his best, and Madueke plays better on the right than left, I think there might have been a case for taking Saka off. However, as it is often the case, Saka even on the days when he is not playing very well, found a way to make a telling contribution with an excellent cross with his left foot that Mikel Merino thumped into the goal with a great leap and header.
Chelsea 1 (Chalobah 48’) – Arsenal 1 (Merino 59’)
Ødegaard’s presence helped us significantly to bring some organization and a measure of control. A fully fit and in-form Ødegaard brings a combination of control, creativity and consistency to our performance that is irreplaceable. Before his last injury, he seemed to have been on his way back to form. Let us hope we can keep him fit.
We started to attack with a bit more purpose. Arteta brought in Gyökeres in place of Eze, who like a few others had a rather subdued performance. Viktor had been one of our best players before he got injured – his performance against the defensive wall of Atletico Madrid being a key example of the kind of incisiveness and power he brings to our attack – and it was great to see him back in action, though he too found it difficult to make a meaningful impact. There was one movement when he combined with Merino and when Merino’s goalbound shot was excellently saved by Sanchez Viktor’s challenge for the rebound could have brought us a goal if not for brave goalkeeping. And then in the final seconds Hincapié chipped in a delightful cross from the byline that Gyökeres timed his run perfectly for a well-placed header, only to see Timber jump ahead of him and direct the ball wide.
In between, Saka and Madueke changed sides, we earned a few corners that we failed to get much out of, with in-swinging deliveries too easy for Sanchez to catch. To be fair to our players, they must have felt concerned for the well-being of their opposition players, given how easily they were losing their balance and starting to writhe on the floor. It was cinematic in its uncanny repetitiveness. Horror or comedy? Take your pick.
The match ended 1-1. If we are to look at the stats, that is a very fair result: both teams had 4 shots on target, xGs being 0.94 – 0.99, Chelsea took a total of 11 shots to Arsenal’s 8, we out-possessed them 62% to 38% which is expected given the red card, and there were three corners for each side. While our passing accuracy in the final third was noticeably better – 78% to 62% – they had better crossing accuracy with both sides delivering 15 crosses. If your eyes had told you that we were the second best in duels, the stats would support them: 56% duel success rate for Chelsea to 44% for Arsenal, for aerial duels 71% to 29%.
In short, a physically and psychologically fatigued team, playing away after two great performances in two key matches, missing their first choice central defenders one of whom is also the metronome of the team, failed to play to their typically high standards against a well-coached team full of young attacking talents. The points were deservedly shared, and the next match is three days away.
