So Arsene Wenger has reached 18 years as Arsenal manager and he retains by some distance the position of longest serving Premier League manager. With such a lengthy spell and all that experience, you would think he would have wider respect and wisdom. But it is unclear where he lies in the spectrum of long serving managers. Is he an Alex Ferguson or a Dario Grady?
Wenger certainly has considerable respect in the game. He has won eight major trophies and achieved a remarkable consistency at the top end of the league. He has created elegant attacking teams, broken many records for unbeaten streaks and developed rough cut diamonds into world class players. Who knows how many more trophies he might have, had Arsenal adopted Chelsea style spending from 2004 onwards.
Opposition fans can’t believe Arsenal supporters could consider that another manager would be better. But his critics exist. Mostly a faction of Arsenal fans who are frustrated by perceived under performing, short sighted transfer market activity and a misguided faith in certain players. Perhaps if Wenger had won his eight trophies at regular intervals, he would received measured credit. But Wenger won seven trophies in his first 7 full seasons. Then went 9 seasons without a trophy. This year’s FA Cup broke this interminable drought. So Arsenal fans lament as they know the standard has declined from Wenger epoch part 1. There is a constant craving for the new Tony Adams, the new Patrick Viera, the new Thierry Henry. These players were developed by Wenger rather than bought so money is less of a factor. But success now is driven mostly by money rather than a manager’s ability to nurture. Look at United’s panic buying this summer.
A question to be asked of Wenger is whether a change of style limited his success in the fallow years or was it really just the limited cash to continue competing with Chelsea and Manchester United. The turning point was clearly after the 2004-2005 season. Arsenal won the FA Cup by not playing well, had finished strongly in the league, but sold their captain Viera. Investing at this time may have kept Arsenal at the top, but Wenger looked to rely on new signing Alexander Hleb and the emerging Cesc Fabregas. An unproven talent at that point. The next season 2005-2006 was disappointing in the league but redeemed by a Champions League final, narrowly lost. The further sales of Lundberg, Pires and Bergkamp’s retirement broke up the Invincible team. The move to the Emirates stadium limited the spending on new players.
The early Wenger teams had tall muscular players like Viera, Silva, Bergkamp and the inherited back four. The style was strong defence with quick counterattacking style relying on quick breaks from Pires, Henry and Lundberg. At some point around 2006, Wenger shifted to smaller nimble players adopting one touch style akin to Barcelona’s tika taka. Was the 2006 final defeat a catalyst or did Wenger see this as the route to the European holy grail? One consequence of this style shift was a lack of resilience to tough tackling technically inferior teams. Arsenal gained a reputation for weakness against these teams, especially in the north west of England, especially against Bolton. The theory was that technical talent would make these tactics irrelevant. Arsenal would just pass their way to victory. But football never works like that.
Arsenal did make significant transfers through the barren years. Arshavin cost 15m. Rosicky - undisclosed but similar. But this was more than offset by selling the quality of Cole, Fabregas, Van Persie and Nasri. The youth players rarely made it to first team regulars, except for Wilshere or Gibbs. New signings often performed well below expectation: Gallas, Silvestre or Gervinho
These “barren” years were characterised by regular collapses of form in March and April with cup exits and dips in league form.
At this point in time Wenger may have one of his strongest squads. World cup winners mix with a core of English players and established talent like Alexis Sanchez and Aaron Ramsay. But.. but questions remain. Winning the league will be difficult for Wenger considering the depth of Chelsea and Manchester City. The Champions League does turn up occasional un-fancied winners - Porto in 2004, Liverpool in 2005, Chelsea in 2012 - but more likely is another exit in round 16 or quarterfinals. This asks what is there left for Wenger to achieve. There is additional money to spend but his critics accuse him of myopic transfer activity - basically avoiding buying a defensive midfielder.
