Chelsea 2-0 Arsenal: Same Old Arsenal, As Strong As a Chocolate Saucepan
Sky Sports might as well have shown a repeat of last Sunday's showdown between Arsenal and Manchester United because the game and outcome were exactly the same.
For Manchester United insert Chelsea, for Wayne Rooney insert Didier Drogba.
Once again, Arsenal's results of late have proved to be nothing but a false dawn for Gunner fans: When push comes to shove they can't cut it against the best sides.
Arsene Wenger's pleas for patience are beginning to fall on deaf ears.
He claims that he was right not to sign a new striker in the summer window and again in January as Arsenal have scored 60 goals to date this season.
What he needs to realise is putting four past Portsmouth and Bolton is all well and good, but struggling to get one past the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United will not win you a title.
Wenger has tried to copy the Barcelona system of last season where if a team scored two, they would score three.
Sadly for him, the EPL and La Liga are two different beasts, and the space afforded to Spanish teams is not given to those in England.
This system might work for the likes of Bolton, Portsmouth, and Birmingham but against Manchester United and Chelsea it's a different story.
Both the above teams can defend, and given one chance, they will take it.
Most tellingly, both Manchester United and Chelsea have a similar threat up front in the form of Rooney and Drogba.
Both have tremendous skill, can score headers while also having another key plus—they are powerful.
If the space is not there, they will bully their way to create it.
Arsenal have no such player.
It showed today as Arsenal at one stage had over 60 percent possession but were 2-0 down; if that doesn't tell its own story then I don't know what does.
The first goal came from a corner.
Song lost Drogba while Clichy went AWOL from the far post to let Drogba smash home.
The second goal was a brilliant solo effort from the Ivory Coast international as he collected the ball just inside the Arsenal half before taking on the Arsenal "defence" before placing a thundering shot past Almunia.
I don't want to take away from Drogba's effort, but in all honesty it's probably a stretch to call it a "defence," as Arsenal basically stood and watched him go past.
Having gone 2-0 up so early, Chelsea relaxed and set about defending their lead.
Despite the odd threat from Arshavin, it was pretty easy for Chelsea, who perhaps could have added to their tally should they have felt the need.
After the last two performances (and indeed after most performances), Wenger must answer some serious questions:
Why can't Arsenal do the football basics?
This includes the art of defending. The art of crossing the ball. The art of heading.
Why did he wait until Monday to try and sign anyone?
On Tuesday, Wenger told the world of Arsenal fans that he tried ever so hard to bring in a new signing. If he hadn't had a whole month to do this, one may feel sorry for him.
Strong rumours abound that Wenger sought to sign Stoke goalkeeper Thomas Sorenson. It was clear to most for the last few months that Manuel Almunia was a liability, but it took Wenger until the Manchester United debacle to see this?
He also must answer for his tactics.
He brought in the inept Theo Walcott for Tomas Rosicky on the right and seemed intent on going gung-ho at Chelsea. Silly mistake!
Chelsea are strong at the back and are happy to soak up the pressure before picking off teams on the counter-attack. They did it all too easily today against Arsenal.
Barring a major collapse from either team, the title is once again between Chelsea and Manchester United—Arsenal fans were probably fooling themselves that it was ever otherwise.
Same old Arsenal, same old Arsene, same old mistakes: Arsenal about as strong and powerful as a chocolate saucepan over a red hot stove.
Yet we'll be back Wednesday night cheering on the Gunners against Liverpool. Got to take the good with the bad: Ooh to be a Gooner!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?