The Madness Of Arsene Wenger
One of the most often quoted phrases made by those with a certain disdain for the manager is Einstein’s misattributed witticism “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
This quote, of unconfirmed origin, is used to highlight a major flaw in the methodology of the manager and his ability to turn Arsenal back into title contenders*. (*They mean winners)
It is designed to sound witty and illuminated, to prove that anti-Wenger sentiment is rooted in the verifiable fact that the manager has lost it and is no longer able to compete, or is too stubborn to adapt, rather than an irrational reaction to a self-created sense of entitlement ironically boosted by the early and phenomenal success of the man they seek to vilify.
Any support for the manager or reasonable attempts at logically deciphering his secretive manner in the transfer window and why additions were not made in key areas is usually met with this quote, often accompanied with accusations of brainwashing, delusion, rectal osculation, acceptance of mediocrity, lack of ambition and general stupidity.
Arsenal face many similar problems in their assaults on the Premier League title but the insanity quote is a straw man.
A quote far older than this is ‘there’s more than one way to skin a cat’ which means a problem often has more than one solution so it is logical that it can be reversed to mean ‘the same result can be reached in more than one way’. If you skinned five cats five different ways you have the same result; a hairless, and extremely shocked, possibly dead, cat.
Let us use the skinned cat as a metaphor for Arsenal’s last two Premier League campaigns. In both seasons we fell short but also had 4 months of a great run and at least the same period suffering with injuries. On the face of it, it looks like the same problems with the same causes. This is where the confusion lies. The causes are similar and the end result is the same but it doesn’t follow the definition of insanity.
In 2013/14 we suffered greatly with injuries in the second half of the season and lost our place as league leaders. Our form against our closest rivals was poor and ultimately it cost us the title.
You could slightly amend that short paragraph and it would be a reasonable description for 2014/15 but it lacks context and nuance. Yes, injuries cost us a lot of points in the first half of the season but they were quite different from the season before. These injuries were a result of a gruelling campaign, summer tournament and short preseason. Many of the injuries occurred on the pitch which contrasts with previous seasons where players would break down in training leading to questions about the standard of coaching. This suggests something had changed – possibly the introduction of strength, conditioning and fitness management guru Shad Forsythe – and whilst the problem remained the same it had a different cause.
Arsenal improved their form in matches against their rivals yet struggled against opposition like Stoke, Southampton and Swansea. The win over Manchester City at the Etihad saw a new brand of tactics in the big games – a much petitioned ‘Plan B’. It was a change in approach that was first seen, less successfully, against eventual Champions Chelsea and to a lesser extent at home to Manchester United and Liverpool. It was a change that possibly would have proved to be key had Arsenal not faltered so often so early and performed better against the aforementioned middle teams. The end result was Arsenal did not win enough games yet it was a different kind of fixture that cost Arsenal and it’s a subtle but important distinction I think is overlooked.
Arsenal’s approach and shape has changed numerous times in the past few seasons and different types of player have been introduced and adapted around in their attempts at winning the title. Arsenal have brought in new fitness specialists, changed training methods and tactics. They’re not doing the same thing every year but the results are still quite similar.
It’s not unexpected to see people misinterpreting this and hungrily swallowing pithy sound-bites that fit their preconceptions but it is nonetheless frustrating when a fallacy such as this becomes a stock response.
Perhaps the real definition of insanity here is seeing similar results and assuming nothing has changed.
Thanks for reading! Please comment on this post, subscribe by email, share with friends and follow me on twitter (@thedanielcowan). Please check out the official NLIR Facebook page http://facebook.com/northlondonisredblog for news, views, freebies and more.
Don’t forget to tune into the funniest Arsenal podcast around “Goonersphere Podcast“
Advertise your business here! Click here for details .
Share with others:
Top article and some interesting ideas. Nice to see a bit of intelligence on show!
I’m glad you enjoyed it.
If there is more than one way to skin a cat, then why does Wenger continue to keep trying the same way, thus perpetuating the Einstein quote?
Essentially we are not strong enough to challenge nor have we been the past couple of years. We have always been a couple of players short. Yes, we have adapted to a degree against the big teams, but we are far too inconsistent against teams that we should be beating.some would call that arrogance. And that is why wenger keeps getting branded as past it because it is always the same flaws year after year, but the players have changed.
You’ve contradicted yourself twice in that statement. He isn’t doing the same things, he’s just getting the same results. If you can’t separate the two then of course you’ll be gullible enough to swallow that particular fallacy.
Thanks for the insult. In my eyes, he is trying to do the same tika taka. The only difference is sitting deeper and compact and trying to counter against some teams. But still via tika taka and playing everything through the middle. From a tactical perspective, that really isn’t a massive leap.
That being said, we have the same flaws every year which is an inability to radically change from that format when you need to and underestimating teams quite often this playing with this lethargic tempo. Teams will defend deep against as a result. Wenger had no answer for it and it has been the same for years, thus still doing the same things. We are too predictable.
You must have very thin skin if you think anything of what I said is remotely insulting. Implying that you are gullible in no more insulting that you calling Wenger arrogant. If you felt it was an insult, I apologise, it was not meant as such.
Classifying our passing game as “doing the same thing” is a very simplistic way to look at it. Our shape has changed, we have become more direct with Alexis and we keep less of the ball with Coquelin in the team.
You are completely lacking in the nuance I discussed in my post. My article is about the exact type of person your comments imply you are.
We are not the same, we are not doing the ‘exact same things’. We just have similar outcomes. Our flaws are not the same, or where they are the same they are for different reasons. The only truly predictable thing here is your next response.
Where exactly did I call Wenger arrogant?
Secondly – sitting deep and counter attacking isn’t really anything new. We did it a few seasons ago when Poldi and Giroud first joined. And then we resorted to type again.
My frustration isn’t in the beating of the top teams, but rather beating those who may be a goal up and then sit and defend. Or those ‘lesser’ teams who defend deep. As much as you claim that our shape may have changed, the build up and attack has stayed the same – through the middle. No width. No one in the box for crosses. And not many shots from distance. This makes it easy for teams to defend against us. Ferguson wrote about it years ago, but nothing had changed.
Our flaws in our attack are the same as it has always been. Too narrow.no width. Tippy tappy. When it comes off, it’s great, but when it doesn’t – it should be changed, but it never does. And that is the predictable side of our football.
So rather than trying to patronise me, why don’t you actually try to counter with something constructive because it seems that you haven’t much to say other than belittling comments.
Well I’ve actually countered every single one of your points. Maybe the reason you believe I’m being patronising is because you refuse to see them?
I’m not trying to belittle or patronise you and apologised off the bat if it came across that way. Maybe you just haven’t seen the changes in our system/approach or don’t consider them change enough but my argument was not about whether or not the change was successful but whether or not the quote is fair and I don’t think it is.
I’d disagree that we don’t go wide because I often, frustratingly, see us try to play through the middle when Giroud is up top but then go wide and ping in crosses when Theo plays striker – it’s bewildering but it shows we do go wide. You are right when you say no-one is in the box to receive them but that’s not exactly “no width”.
If you think disagreeing with you raking over the exact points I rebuffed in my post is patronising or belittling there’s not really much I can say.
actually, on second thought – don’t bother.
You’d figure that a blogger would be able to actually take some counter arguments without resorting to belittling someone while offering nothing constructive in response, but obviously, you can’t.