Friday, May 25th, 2012 « Untold Arsenal: Arsenal News. Supporting the Lord Wenger; coach of the decade

By Anne

This article continues from the earlier piece: Sagna claims his leg was broken deliberately.  You can  read part one here

The first article which focusses on events at the start of the 2011/12 season concluded with the thought that in the case of injuries to Koscielny and  Sagna, opposition player actions which appeared to be innocuous turned out to have horrific consequences.   And yet, rather than investigate this news reports choose to mislead us about these facts.

Now we continue with the thought that the Untold Ref Review documented events as occurring within the first 10 minutes of the match….

• 7 minutes: “‘Frimpong delays the restart”
• 9 minutes: “Ref has a word with Arshavin about delaying the restart”
• 10 minutes: “Theo has a moan at the ref, who correctly tells him to calm down”

To me, it seems highly unusual for our players to be attempting to delay the restart of the match within the first ten minutes. It raises the question of why they might have been doing it, and suggests to me that something was occurring that they were concerned about. However, following the injury to Koscielny, these complaints to the referee ceased. Also, the quality of Arsenal’s performance dropped.

An example of the change in mood can be found in the Guardian’s “as it happened” report:

“20 min: Arsenal’s strong early start has come to a juddering halt…

23 min: It’s all Liverpool at the moment, unsurprisingly so given the shock of the loss of Koscielny.”

For another specific example, “Theo Walcott and Aaron Ramsey were subdued, early mistakes seeming to sap their confidence, while Andrei Arshavin showed only glimpses of his former excellence.”

My personal interpretation of the above would be that it was likely something other than “early mistakes” that caused our players to lose their confidence, and perhaps something more akin to an “early injury.” Specifically, if the players had realized that the ref wasn’t going to be protecting them from injury, this would be one possible explanation for why they played a much less open match than they normally would have, and attacked with much more caution.

In his match report, Howard appears to reference this same “lack of confidence” in Arsenal players, although he chooses to do so in a mocking manner. Also, he appears to be attempting to blame the players’ “lack of confidence” on a “mental block” that apparently prevents Arsene Wenger from realizing that he needs to start spending money in the transfer market:

“The mental block that seems to have immobilised Wenger …has been translated into a total lack of confidence among a set of players.

“The Gunners have now won just two league games in 13.

“Andrey Arshavin hasn’t kicked a ball in months while Theo Walcott can hardly have played worse than he did against Liverpool.

“These are two players you don’t need in a crisis.”

Howard’s reference to a “crisis” here is interesting in the larger context of all of the “Arsenal in crisis” talk that was going on in the media generally at the time. Because in addition to the talk of a general “crisis” at Arsenal, there was also a great deal of talk that specifically referred to an “injury crisis,” which, to me, seems most plausible as the reason for “a total lack of confidence” amongst Arsenal players.

Interestingly, Howard implies that it was this same “lack of confidence” in Arsenal’s players that was responsible for the “collapse” at the end of last season, and the fact that Arsenal “have now won just two league games in 13.” Of course, Howard is not to be trusted on this subject.

However, it is interesting to consider Arsenal’s performances in conjunction with the possibility that there might be certain matches in which Arsenal players are being targeted for injuries, but in ways that are deliberately hidden from the viewing public. If this was occurring, for example, it would certainly explain certain under performances by Arsenal that seemed inexplicable at the time.

However, Howard seems intent on blaming Arsene Wenger for these injury problems. He continues that:

“Jenkinson, through no fault of his own, should have never been in a position where he is asked to perform for the first team. The same goes for Ignasi Miquel and the other two 18-year-olds on the bench.”

While I would certainly agree that this is the case, what exactly was Arsene Wenger supposed to do that would have prevented the decimation of his entire back line, and avoided the need to call on these young players? How could Arsene Wenger, just by spending money in the transfer market, prevent Arsenal players from being injured?

Just in general, one of the most curious aspects of Howard’s match report, in my opinion, is his treatment of Aaron Ramsey. And the reason for that is because, while Ramsey was not injured during the Liverpool match, Howard’s report actually highlights Ramsey more than any other Arsenal player, and also makes references that appear to be insinuations about Ramsey being injured.

For example, the match report is accompanied by a large photograph of Luis Suarez and Aaron Ramsey at the moment when Ramsey’s own goal (off the chest from a Miquel clearance) goes into the net.

The photo is captioned: “WHAM, BAM, THANK YOU RAM … Suarez celebrates after Ramsey’s freak own goal.”

Howard’s next reference to Ramsey, which comes much later in the body of the article,  is the following statement (emphasis Howard’s):

“As for Aaron Ramsey, he looked shot to bits by full time. Yes, Arsenal have been unlucky with injuries.

“Then, again, Arsenal players are ALWAYS injured. It makes you seriously question their injury prevention and treatment programme.”

I would like to repeat at this point that Aaron Ramsey was not, as far as I know, injured during the Liverpool match. So, what is Howard doing referring to him as looking “shot to bits?” It’s an extremely ugly reference, in my opinion, and I’m not sure why someone would make a reference to an injury like that when it hasn’t occurred.

With regard to the second part of Howard’s statement, the above is not the first time that Howard uses this “it’s unlucky,” but “then, again,” type of phrasing. In my opinion, this is just a backhanded way of saying that something is “not unlucky” (i.e. deliberate). So, to me, when Howard says that “Arsenal have been unlucky with injuries,” but “then, again, Arsenal players are ALWAYS injured,” what he’s actually saying is that injuries to Arsenal players aren’t unlucky at all.

And the impact of the above statement becomes even more significant when you consider it in conjunction with the statement that follows:

“It makes you seriously question their injury prevention and treatment programme.”

The aspect of this statement that concerns me the most is Howard’s reference to Arsenal’s questionable “injury prevention” programme. However, from there, I’ll let all of you draw your own conclusions.

In the same manner that injuries to Arsenal players would be consistent with a motive to pressure Arsenal to spend money in the transfer market before the close of the Summer transfer window, it could also serve as a possible motive for  the suspensions of Gervinho and Song (following the Newcastle match), and Frimpong (following the Liverpool match). And the reason for that is because these suspensions also play a role in depleting Arsenal’s squad during this crucial period.

In his match report, Howard seems to suggest as much as well:

“There is nothing unlucky about [Arsenal players’] continuing indiscipline. You would have thought the penny might have dropped after the suspensions of Gervinho and Alex Song from the league opener at Newcastle.”

I personally interpret Howard’s statement that there is “nothing unlucky” about the sendings off of Song and Gervinho as intended to mean that they are occurring for a specific reason. And while it’s not entirely clear to me what Howard is getting at in this segment of the article, I would personally interpret these statements in conjunction with my personal belief that the opposing sides in these matches were likely targeting Arsenal players for injury, and that the referee was not providing protection from the same.

For example, the suspensions of both Gervinho and Song came as a result of deliberate fouls on Joey Barton, and based on what I know already, I wouldn’t consider either foul to be undeserved. However, it’s certainly possible that Barton’s conduct in the match was even worse than we know about.  You would have to consider the role of the referee in the above scenario as well. Because if the confrontational situation did, in fact, arise because the referee was not adequately protecting Arsenal players, then the referee would be selectively punishing them with sendings off.

And in fact, the above would be consistent with Kenny Dalglish’s tactics in the Liverpool match. Because Dalglish kept Suarez on the bench, and waited until Frimpong had been sent off before sending on Suarez and Meireles and attempting to score goals. Dalglish’s decision to start Suarez on the bench would suggest that he expected the sending off to occur. Also, the point when Frimpong was ejected from the match was also the point when Arsenal lost control of the match.

If, while he was on, Frimpong had been providing the Arsenal players with some measure of protection that the referee was not, this would explain why Arsenal’s performance fell apart once he was off.

In my attempts to learn more about the impact of the Frimpong sending off, I found the following  comments on the subject of the players’ morale afterwards:

“Arsenal completely deflated after Frimpong’s sending off, and aren’t causing Liverpool any problems at all…Up until Frimpong’s dismissal, the match was evenly distributed between the two teams, but after Frimpong went off Arsenal were deflated.”

I also found the following interesting::

“A goal down, a man down, and with absolutely no belief in a comeback, Arsenal conceded a second when defenders insanely allowed Lucas space to run at a retreating back line.”

However, if our defenders were retreating from Lucas as he approached the goal, this would suggest to me that they might have been wary of approaching him for some reason. This is interesting in conjunction with a separate Howard article that makes reference to Arsenal being forced to “wave the white flag” against Liverpool.

Finally, the  injury to Carl Jenkinson occurred after Frimpong was sent off:

“Carl Jenkinson suffered a calf injury in the 83rd minute, but had to play on because Arsenal had used all their substitutes.”

Having reviewed the video, Jenkinson’s injury was another of those mysterious “off camera” injuries, in which the player is shown limping off injured, but no attempt is made to explain how the injury occurred. Moreover, most of the reports on this match don’t even mention that Jenkinson was injured in the first place. But why would they hide it?

And if they’re hiding that, what else might they be hiding?

Returning to Howard’s article, the most interesting aspect of the section about the suspensions of Gervinho and Song is the fact that Howard opines that, in response to these suspensions “[y]ou would have thought the penny might have dropped.” This appears to me to refer to money changing hands.

Although I could quite easily be wrong, in the context of Howard’s article, it seems that the most logical way to interpret the above statement would be as a reference to Arsenal spending in the transfer market, and as an implication that, as a result of Arsenal’s failure to do so:

“Emmanuel Frimpong still became the 88th player to be sent off in Wenger’s time at the club. It can’t all be down to bad luck and youthful enthusiasm. In fact, the potential leg-breaker on Lucas in the 70th minute was a red card in itself.”

But what would have inspired Frimpong to make such a challenge on Lucas, if it was not down to “bad luck” or “youthful enthusiasm?” From there, Howard continues to say that:

“Down to 10 men again, Arsenal were rocking some time before Miquel’s attempted clearance hit Ramsey on the chest and rebounded into the net. Yes, it was unfortunate.

Then, again, this sort of thing is ALWAYS happening to Arsenal.”

This is interesting because it’s phrased in the exact same manner as Howard’s earlier reference to Ramsey:

“As for Aaron Ramsey, he looked shot to bits by full time. Yes, Arsenal have been unlucky with injuries.

“Then, again, Arsenal players are ALWAYS injured. It makes you seriously question their injury prevention and treatment programme.”

Clearly, with his emphasis on the word “always,” Howard is intending to convey some sort of specific message with these portions of the match report. But what? Howard follows this second reference with the statement that:

“As for Liverpool, there was only going to be one winner once Kenny Dalglish’s side cottoned on to just how poor Arsenal were.

“The big difference was the Reds boss could summon Raul Meireles and Luis Suarez, who scored the late second, from the bench. So what now for Wenger and a team as the Gunners face the most pivotal week in the Frenchman’s 14 years at the club?

“Get that chequebook out — it’s not your personal property, Arsene.”

At least in part, this statement appears to refer to the sending off of Emmanuel Frimpong, which was the moment that Dalglish sent in Suarez and Meireles. According to Howard, Dalglish made this substitution decision because he had “cottoned on to just how poor Arsenal were.” But in what sense would the sending off of Frimpong make Arsenal “poor?”

Just for some context on the impact this had on the match as a whole, the following is an excerpt from the BBC’s match report:

“Arsenal…held their own until impressive Emmanuel Frimpong was sent off with 20 minutes left.

Liverpool boss Kenny Dalglish reacted by introducing Luis Suarez and Raul Meireles in what proved to be the decisive move, as the pair were involved in both goals.”

Perhaps this was the moment when Arsenal was forced to wave “the white flag,” as referenced in Howard’s separate article that I cited above. But why?

Steven Howard sure is being mysterious in this match report, isn’t he? But what could this be telling us about the Liverpool match in general?

Conclusions…

Certainly the events above must cause us to look back both at the number of sendings off Arsenal have had, and the number of injuries Arsenal have had, and ask, is it all just coincidence? Was every sending off justified?  Does it all even out in the end?  We might recall the huge headlines of August 2003 in every paper when Arsenal under Wenger recorded their 50th red card.  No other club’s red cards were recorded or highlighted in this way, there was no table of reds to compare one team with another.  It was always, “Wenger sees red”, and a horror story.

What is also true is that a sudden burst of injuries to players in one position is not a novelty for Arsenal.  In 2005/6 for example every Arsenal player who played left back was injured one after another: Cole, Clichy, Cygan, Lauren, and finally even Gilbert (a player whose ability can be seen by the fact that he then moved on to Peterborough, Yeovil and Shamrock Rovers).  Arsenal ended up playing the right footed midfielder Flamini at left back, for the want of anyone else.

As I say, maybe it is all just coincidence, these injuries, these sendings off.  But even so, it is rather strange.