That is the question most Arsenal fans have been pondering over the last couple of seasons. Speculation over Arsene Wenger's future as manager of Arsenal has intensified this season especially after cup exits against Bradford and Blackburn but also as a result of the clubs struggles in the premiership and champions league.
Wenger, in his 17th season as Arsenal manager is the second longest serving manager in England. In that time, Arsenal have never finished outside the top four; indeed in Wengers first nine years as manager, they never even finished outside the top two. That was a remarkable achievement by Wenger and should be acknowledged, especially given the frequency during those years when Arsenal were expected to falter under the challenge of other clubs such as Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool. The problem now is that while Arsenal, who are currently fifth, still have a strong chance of finishing in the top four this season, the club has never looked so far away from winning a trophy or challenging for the league.
So what has gone wrong?
This season has seen Arsenal knocked out of both cups by lower division opposition, the first time they have been knocked out by lower division opponents during Wengers time as manager. While you could forgive defeat by Blackburn, who are just one division below Arsenal, and were only relegated from the premiership last season, defeat by Bradford is far more unfathomable. Bradford are in the fourth tier of English football, 75 places below Arsenal. It was a game Arsenal should have won comfortably, but they had to come back from two goals down and then lost on penalties.
Arsenal have also suffered from a seeming inability to play from the start of a match or consistently well throughout. On several occasions this season the team havent started playing properly until the second half or relied on a few minutes of magic to get them through. By and large they have got away with this against weaker teams. Against stronger teams though they have been exposed and left with first half deficits that they couldn't surmount.
This all points to a lack of leadership and drive both on and off the pitch. Club captain Thomas Vermaelen is a fine defender but he is not vocal enough to be captain. He doesn't inspire or drive his team forward the way a captain should. And the responsibility of being captain seems to have weighed him down, with his performances dipping since becoming captain last summer following Robin VanPersies departure. The only player currently at Arsenal who does inspire and attempt to galvanise the team is Jack Wilshere. While he is a great player, at the age of 21, he is too young to bear that responsibility on his own.
Wengers transfer strategy, prioritising youth, potential and technical ability together with a rigid adherence to a certain style of play has led to signings such as Ramsey, Walcott, Chamberlain, Jenkinson, Gervinho. In the past two years, he has started to combine these younger signings with some more experienced ones such as Podolski, Cazorla, Arteta and Mertesacker. What all these players lack though is the strength of character, the spirit and determination to lead a team and drive it on to success even when it isn't playing well.
You have to ask why Wenger showed no interest in signing Scott Parker in 2011. He was available on the cheap from West Ham who had just been relegated, he had just won player of the season, was willing to take a pay cut and wanted to play champions league football which Arsenal could offer him. Instead he ended up at Tottenham who couldn't. Parker, a good all round midfielder would have helped bolster the midfield. Instead Arsenal signed Mikel Arteta, a decent player with more technical ability than Parker, but who unlike Parker won't do the physical work needed in a premiership midfield. When Arsenal then sold Alex Song in 2012, without replacing him, they were then left without any real physical presence in midfield or protection for the defence. It means Arsenal rely on technical ability to get round opposing teams, but leaves them with a soft core and a more vulnerable defence.
Yet it is obvious that Wenger doesn't see that as a problem, he has been quoted as saying that defensive midfielders are no longer needed in modern football. Considering the weakness of the Arsenal defence, it is blatantly obvious that a defensive midfielder is needed to sit in front of the defence and help it out. Wenger is a manager that has never been too concerned about the defensive side of the game. When he first became Arsenal manager in 1996, he didn't need to worry too much about the defence. The famous Arsenal back six had been the best defence in England for years, established by George Graham who was Arsenal manager from 1986-95. But as the defence aged, they had to be replaced and the Arsenal defence has largely struggled since. Sol Campbell filled the gap for a while and moving Kolo Toure from midfield to centre back was a master stroke. But signings such as Pascal Cygan, Phillippe Senderos, William Gallas and Sebastian Squillaci have been disastrous.
But more than bad players being a problem, it has been the defensive system, or lack of, that has been the problem. Under Wenger, Arsenal have tended to focus on playing the offside trap, and it has been more successful than most people seem to realise. But when it fails, it fails miserably. A good offside trap utterly relies on total communication between defenders which in the days of Adams and Keown was almost telepathic. That level of communication is obviously not there anymore. Meanwhile the fullbacks tend to push too far up the pitch in their drive to attack which leaves the centre-backs vulnerable. When they move wide to cover the fullbacks, they leave large spaces through the centre, which obviously isnt helped by the lack of a defensive midfielder. Tottenham exploited this very effectively in the recent game where both Tottenham goals were the result of a poor offside trap combined with centre backs leaving space in the middle.
This is something Wenger has to sort out. When Steve Bould was appointed assistant manager last summer, it was expected that he would work on improving the defensive organisation. And when Arsenal started the season with three clean sheets in three matches, it was thought that he had had an effect. But since then Arsenal have reverted to their old problems, while rumours have emerged of a split between Bould and Wenger. Maybe Wenger is too set in his ways to accept the change that needs to happen. Bould seems a more forthright assistant than his predecessor Pat Rice, so maybe Wenger is resisting him. Its impossible for me to say.
Outside the transfer window, Wenger cannot bring in new players before the end of the season, but he can try and sort out the teams defensive strategy. He needs to let Bould work with the defence on that. Arsenal have a reasonable run of fixtures coming up, which they can use to put pressure on Chelsea and Tottenham in the race for third. Now is not the time to decide whether Wenger should leave, but certainly at the end of the season, his situation has to be reviewed. Wengers current contract is due to run out in 2014. Maybe next season should be used by the club to have Wenger groom his successor, whether it is Steve Bould as has been suggested or someone else. Whatever happens, such has been Wengers influence on Arsenal, his departure will be a huge change and could require a long period of adjustment.
Monday 11 March 2013
A Victory for the Pro-Choice Movement
The Choice and Feminist Societies at NUI Galway secured a significant victory in a referendum held last week. The referendum was to decide whether the Students Union should take a pro-choice stance. The exact proposition that was voted on was:
'That NUIG Students Union adopt a pro-choice position, in support of the national campaign for full reproductive rights, which includes a womans right to abortion, whether elective or medically neccessary. Furthermore, the SU should use every available measure to realise these rights on campus and nationally.'
This was a radical proposition that goes much further than the very limited legislation the government is expected to bring forward by the summer. And if we are to believe national polls, the referendum proposition went much further than public opinion. A poll in the Irish Times just last month found that only 37% of people fully supported a womans right to choose, although the poll found a large majority in favour of allowing abortion when a womans life/health are at risk or in cases of rape/incest or foetal abnormality.
Yet when the vote happened last Thursday, 70% of students who voted, supported the proposition. And this was with the highest voter turnout in years, possibly the highest ever in NUIG. Out of 3,596, votes, 2478 voted yes, 1118 voted no.
Obviously this reflects the fact that young people are generally more supportive of abortion rights. If the same vote was taken on a national basis the result would most likely be very different. But following on from success in referendums in Trinity College and DCU, it shows that things have changed drastically in this country.
Since the death of Savita Halapannavar, the issue of abortion has constantly been in the news. An issue that was brushed under the carpet for too long has emerged with people finally being emboldened to express their pro-choice sentiments. People were galvanised by Savita's death in a way that could never have been imagined. This showed during the campaign for a yes vote, with students and staff showing huge support for canvassers, while the no side came under constant attack.
The no side became increasingly desperate as the campaign week went on. Their posters were being defaced and removed all over campus. Their canvassers were mocked and abused. Many students said they were swung towards a yes vote by the no campaigners. At the forefront of the no campaign were the notorious Burke family. From Castlebar, they are known for their extremist views on homosexuality, marriage, divorce and abortion and regularly protest outside the Dail. At NUIG, they had been expelled from the Christian Union Society because of their extreme views. They used the Christian Union society name and logo for their own posters and leaflets against the referendum and spent the whole week putting up the posters. Even after it was found out that they had no permission to put the posters up, they continued to replace the ones taken down. They even resorted to following and harrassing yes campaigners. I, myself had three run ins with one of them, as she followed me around campus on Monday, and then spied on me and confronted me on two other occasions.
While the Burkes did their cause more damage than help with their extremist views and confrontational tactics annoying voters, far more worrying was the campaign for a no vote to keep the union neutral. Many people said that it wasn't appropriate for the Students Union to take a stance on such a divisive issue as it would alienate some students. And this line was trotted out by many students who claimed to be pro-choice. This is a rather ridiculous view as students unions have always taken political stances on issues such as the availability of contraception, the decriminalisation of homosexuality etc. Unions are there to take a stance for the best interests of their members, students unions seem to have lost that central tenet.
As it turned out, the vote no to keep the union neutral campaign was backed by religious groups trying not to scare voters off with the extremist tactics employed by the Burkes. But the keep the union neutral posters and leaflets were also illegal under the universities postering and leafletting policies as they had no name or organisation attached. What was obvious from the no campaign was that it was well funded, as all their posters and leaflets were glossy, colourful professional work, unlike the yes side who had to rely on black and white, amateur made literature.
So how did the yes side win? The Choice Society has only really been active since January yet we had more people campaigning. The Choice Society and Feminist Society worked together to cover the campus all week. We got talking to people and convinced them, we didn't rely on sensationalist and scaremongering slogans. And crucially, people voted, with the high turnout helping to win the referendum.
The vote came in the middle of the Abortion Rights Campaign's ten days of action for X case legislation, the first step towards abortion being allowed in this country. During the ten days, the campaign received huge support, with widespread participation, and this was reflected in the referendum.
And with the result of the referendum being announced on International Womens Day, the result was also very symbolic. It was a very fine way for NUIG to celebrate the day and it will live long in the memory for all those who campaigned.
The crucial battle in NUIG will now be making the SU follow the mandate they have been given. In the elections, held on the same day, Sean Kearns was elected President while Declan Higgins was elected Welfare officer. Both of them are anti-choice and so won't willingly campaign for choice. The SU will have to be pushed into doing so. Students need to push motions through the SU Council proposing specific actions that the SU can take such as a march for choice from NUIG. Students should also propose ways in which the SU can get involved with the national pro-choice campaign. When motions are passed by council, students will then have to keep pressure on the SU to follow them. The students who were galvanised to vote yes, need to be galvanised into taking action. The referendum was just the first step in what will be a long battle.
Pro-choice students in NUIG now have at least a year in which they can try and achieve real results on campus before another referendum can be held. Lets get to it!
'That NUIG Students Union adopt a pro-choice position, in support of the national campaign for full reproductive rights, which includes a womans right to abortion, whether elective or medically neccessary. Furthermore, the SU should use every available measure to realise these rights on campus and nationally.'
This was a radical proposition that goes much further than the very limited legislation the government is expected to bring forward by the summer. And if we are to believe national polls, the referendum proposition went much further than public opinion. A poll in the Irish Times just last month found that only 37% of people fully supported a womans right to choose, although the poll found a large majority in favour of allowing abortion when a womans life/health are at risk or in cases of rape/incest or foetal abnormality.
Yet when the vote happened last Thursday, 70% of students who voted, supported the proposition. And this was with the highest voter turnout in years, possibly the highest ever in NUIG. Out of 3,596, votes, 2478 voted yes, 1118 voted no.
Obviously this reflects the fact that young people are generally more supportive of abortion rights. If the same vote was taken on a national basis the result would most likely be very different. But following on from success in referendums in Trinity College and DCU, it shows that things have changed drastically in this country.
Since the death of Savita Halapannavar, the issue of abortion has constantly been in the news. An issue that was brushed under the carpet for too long has emerged with people finally being emboldened to express their pro-choice sentiments. People were galvanised by Savita's death in a way that could never have been imagined. This showed during the campaign for a yes vote, with students and staff showing huge support for canvassers, while the no side came under constant attack.
The no side became increasingly desperate as the campaign week went on. Their posters were being defaced and removed all over campus. Their canvassers were mocked and abused. Many students said they were swung towards a yes vote by the no campaigners. At the forefront of the no campaign were the notorious Burke family. From Castlebar, they are known for their extremist views on homosexuality, marriage, divorce and abortion and regularly protest outside the Dail. At NUIG, they had been expelled from the Christian Union Society because of their extreme views. They used the Christian Union society name and logo for their own posters and leaflets against the referendum and spent the whole week putting up the posters. Even after it was found out that they had no permission to put the posters up, they continued to replace the ones taken down. They even resorted to following and harrassing yes campaigners. I, myself had three run ins with one of them, as she followed me around campus on Monday, and then spied on me and confronted me on two other occasions.
While the Burkes did their cause more damage than help with their extremist views and confrontational tactics annoying voters, far more worrying was the campaign for a no vote to keep the union neutral. Many people said that it wasn't appropriate for the Students Union to take a stance on such a divisive issue as it would alienate some students. And this line was trotted out by many students who claimed to be pro-choice. This is a rather ridiculous view as students unions have always taken political stances on issues such as the availability of contraception, the decriminalisation of homosexuality etc. Unions are there to take a stance for the best interests of their members, students unions seem to have lost that central tenet.
As it turned out, the vote no to keep the union neutral campaign was backed by religious groups trying not to scare voters off with the extremist tactics employed by the Burkes. But the keep the union neutral posters and leaflets were also illegal under the universities postering and leafletting policies as they had no name or organisation attached. What was obvious from the no campaign was that it was well funded, as all their posters and leaflets were glossy, colourful professional work, unlike the yes side who had to rely on black and white, amateur made literature.
So how did the yes side win? The Choice Society has only really been active since January yet we had more people campaigning. The Choice Society and Feminist Society worked together to cover the campus all week. We got talking to people and convinced them, we didn't rely on sensationalist and scaremongering slogans. And crucially, people voted, with the high turnout helping to win the referendum.
The vote came in the middle of the Abortion Rights Campaign's ten days of action for X case legislation, the first step towards abortion being allowed in this country. During the ten days, the campaign received huge support, with widespread participation, and this was reflected in the referendum.
And with the result of the referendum being announced on International Womens Day, the result was also very symbolic. It was a very fine way for NUIG to celebrate the day and it will live long in the memory for all those who campaigned.
The crucial battle in NUIG will now be making the SU follow the mandate they have been given. In the elections, held on the same day, Sean Kearns was elected President while Declan Higgins was elected Welfare officer. Both of them are anti-choice and so won't willingly campaign for choice. The SU will have to be pushed into doing so. Students need to push motions through the SU Council proposing specific actions that the SU can take such as a march for choice from NUIG. Students should also propose ways in which the SU can get involved with the national pro-choice campaign. When motions are passed by council, students will then have to keep pressure on the SU to follow them. The students who were galvanised to vote yes, need to be galvanised into taking action. The referendum was just the first step in what will be a long battle.
Pro-choice students in NUIG now have at least a year in which they can try and achieve real results on campus before another referendum can be held. Lets get to it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)