Abou Diaby to Miss 3 Weeks Due to Injury, Mikel Arteta Struggling with Fitness
Abou Diaby limped off in the recent Premier League clash against Chelsea.
Unfortunately for Arsenal, the Frenchman is set for another spell on the sidelines. Arsene Wenger recently confirmed the midfielder will be ruled out for up to three weeks due to injury.
Speaking to Sky Sports, Wenger commented:
Arteta will have a test on an ankle injury. Diaby is out with a thigh injury.
Both players have been key to Arsenal's excellent start to the season. When Diaby exited the Emirates pitch against Chelsea, the hosts never looked as imposing.
The 26-year-old has forced himself back into the side that continues to suffer midfield injuries. Diaby has made five Premier League appearances this campaign, completing 86.2 percent of his passes on average.
He has also helped out defensively, contributing an average of 2.2 tackles and 1.6 interceptions per game. Diaby's fitness has remained a constant concern since he returned to the starting 11, especially after a minor scare a few weeks back.
Arteta's ankle problem will also have Wenger worried. The Spaniard has been in excellent form this year. The 30-year-old has a pass success rate of 93.4 percent on average this campaign and continues to work hard defensively.
He has made an average of 4.5 tackles and 2.8 interceptions every match. Although he could feature against Olympiacos, Arteta is likely to miss the encounter as a precaution.
Jack Wilshere continues his fight back to full fitness alongside the likes of Bacary Sagna and Tomas Rosicky.
The Gunners are entering a vital point in their season.
The 2-1 loss to Chelsea means a quick response is needed. Wenger will hope to have his team back to full strength in time for the fixture against Manchester United on Nov. 3.
Will the loss of Diaby and Arteta impact Arsenal's season? Let me know in the comments section or on Twitter.
All statistics in this article are courtesy of Whoscored.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?