'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Today Arsenal were drawn in the Champions League knock-out round to Monaco much to the relief of the majority of the fan base. We’ve been hoping for a kind draw in the Champions League for a few years now and whilst many will say that is our own fault for not finishing top of our group you have to consider that Dortmund finished top and still drew Juventus and Arsenal and Man City are teams other sides will have wanted to avoid.
Of course, finishing first gives you a better chance of a more favourable draw but it is not guaranteed. When were were drawn against Monaco, and thus our chances of progressing were improved upon the potential of drawing Madrid, Barcelona or Bayern, my mind wandered to a post by Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail. I know, the Daily Mail. I would completely understand if you chose to immediately navigate away from this page.
This is going to come across as a Wenger apologist-knows-best-protector-mediocrity-loving-problem-with-the-club type post and whilst I don’t think it is I have given up trying to project my ambivalence as those who dislike the manager will only ever see “I Heart Wenger” t-shirts adorning those who are not stood by their side pubescently screeching the same remarks they are or espousing trite cliches about competing, transfers or tactics. Yawn.
I take issue with what Samuel wrote because it’s the typical anti-Wenger rubbish designed to fuel the parochial views of the out crowd who offer nothing but the same tired promises for why Wenger should go. I’m not tarring all with the brush because many simply state they are just tired of the manager and want a change. I don’t agree with that, but I can support that view because it’s honest and reasonably considered. “I don’t believe in him any more” is far more powerful in my mind than “He needs to go because he is back and because of these #FACTS which is cheap and poorly argued.
The Daily Mail article is just another piece of ammunition – a factoid of intense torpidity – that will be trotted out by those extremists wishing to indoctrinate all into their way of thinking or bully and abuse those who disagree.
The article claims that Arsène Wenger would not have the Champions League record that he does if he had worked under the same conditions and restrictions that previous incumbents have. There is a basic and limited merit in this argument, but how Samuel continued to elaborate irked me.
He focussed on the fact that before 1997 only the Champions were entered into the competition and Wenger has only won the Premier League 3 times. As far as anti-Wenger posts go it’s quite prosaic. It is incredibly limited in its considerations and probably why it was written for the Daily Mail.
Had Chelsea not been in the Champions League would Abramovich have bought them out? Had Chelsea been left untouched by a billionaire would City have seemed such an attractive proposition to the Sheikhs? Would Arsenal’s Invincibles have won the league in 2005? Would Arsenal have been knocked out of the 2004 Champions League? Would Arsenal have gone without a league title as long as they have with just United as their opposition?
The answer to these questions is “who knows?”. It is impossible to say but we can, with a degree of reasoned deduction, say that Arsenal probably would have won more leagues had the league not been injected with two money super-powers.
Attempting to diminish Wenger and Arsenal’s achievement of the past 18 years in this way reeks of agenda and click-baiting. Liverpool won the Champions League in 2005 without winning the Premier League. Where is the article saying they were lucky to even be in the competition? If the rules were still the same then United would not have won a treble in 1999. Where is the article saying their greatest ever season was pure luck (8 added minutes FFS! I’m not bitter.)?
Where is the consideration that Arsenal unencumbered by the exertions of fighting on more than one front would not have fared better in the league on multiple occasions?
It is churlish to suggest that previous managers would have fared better under the new rules whilst Wenger would not have done as well as them under the old rules. Wenger revolutionised Arsenal in 1997. Imagine if he was Arsenal manager in the 80s – every team would have been light-years behind in training methods and player conditioning. Are you seriously suggesting the manager who put the Invincibles together and won two doubles would not have been able to win multiple titles in the 80s? The effing 80s?
I’m sure Graham would have been a success in this era because we see elements of his fastidious approach to defence (let’s not forget his teams also played some decent football pre-1994 – although Nigel Winterburn recently told me he would choose to play for Wenger over Graham… make of that what you will) in successful managers in this era such as Mourinho. However, would he have been able to get Arsenal into the Champions League for 16 years on the trot? Who knows so who is Samuel and anyone else for that matter to suggest he would?
Under the current rules Arsenal would have qualified 9 times in the 18 years prior to Wenger’s reign – 6 of which would have been for the qualification stage only. For arguments sake let’s take it as a given they would have made it into the group stages. That’s 50%. Who can say if those extra games would have seen Arsenal struggle to finish in the top four again the next season?
This is the quote that rankles the most:
Wenger has done wonderful things at Arsenal but he has been aided by an era that has placed Europe’s most prestigious club tournament beyond the reach of all but a few. If his predecessors had been given that advantage they would surely have played more European football; had Wenger worked with their limitations he would boast nowhere near 180 appearances.
It is so definitive in its conclusion about what would have happened under either era. Of course, Arsenal have benefited from an expanded format but so have Chelsea, City, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton and Spurs. Of the 9 clubs who have played in the Champions League from England this century only two can, in my view, truly claim to have earned their place in it because Chelsea were nowhere near winning the league before Abramovich came and it’s widely documented that he chose to purchase them because of their location and status in the Champions League. What other London club fulfilled that criteria? Arsenal.
City were languishing in lower divisions not so long ago. When they were bought by the Sheiks I said to my City supporting colleague that they would win the league within 5 years with that sort of cash injection and I was right. Stick the best part of £500m into Stoke and they will win the league within 5 years too. Money talks and that’s a fact.
It’s not easy staying in the Champions League year after year and such an achievement should not be dismissed or belittled just because you no longer support the manager.
Why can’t we just appreciate Wenger’s achievement without comparing him to previous eras and managers?
Feedback
