Arsenal: Andrey Arshavin's Lazy but Effective Style Should Silence His Critics

Arsenal’s Russian playmaker Andrei Arshavin has been receiving some criticism from Arsenal fans for his behaviour on the field—more specifically, his lazy approach to the game.

But is this criticism soundly based? Let’s throw a glance at what we know.

Andrei Arshavin’s Arsenal affair is about to reach its first completed calendar year. He was signed at the very last moment in the 2009 winter transfer window, and since then, not a lot has changed in him.

He is still short, unperturbed by anything in a match and lazy. Often, he’s been criticised for the latter. There is a notion closely tied to the English Premier League—and how wouldn’t it after decades of  its influence—that a player who doesn’t give his all in a match must not be that good of a player after all.

Mentality is everything. Yes, you need to have the skills, but if you don’t have the mentality, why would you need the skills?

And here is the place where we have to mention Arshavin: He is exactly that type of footballer who defies this notion.

His calmness on the field, constant urge to kiss the ground and the time in which he steals to pick himself off it, just speak of plain laziness stirred with a slight lack of desire to waste valuable energy while doing so. In a way, Arshavin has a demeanor of someone who wants to do the job as effortlessly as possible, get paid, and go home to have a much-needed rest.

This, of course, directly clashes with what the English way of thinking is all about. Just think about Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney; try to compare them with Andrei Arshavin, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

As usual, contradictory mentalities go and in hand with a confrontation—verbal or non-verbal. In this case, tons of criticism is flying Arshavin’s way.

Often, disgruntled by his performances, fans would throw in statements like, “Arshavin is just damn too lazy to play for Arsenal,” “He lacks desire, which means he doesn’t want to play for Arsenal,” "Substitute him with someone who will stay on his feet for most of the match.”

And that’s where they are wrong.

The short Russian is not lucky to be a Gunner as he is by no means dressed in red and white by some fortunate outcome of events. He deserves to be there because he is still the same player who scored 52 goals and fed avalanches of passes in 236 matches for Zenit Saint Petersburg, helping them win the 2008 UEFA Cup.

In his first season at his new club, Arsenal, his first half-season to be more precise, he was deadly.

Still not fit enough to play in a such high-tempo league, Arshavin made his mark in almost every match he participated in, collecting nine assists and six goals in 15 games. His impressive statistics were spiced up by the importance of his goals.

In his second season, this time the full one, Arshavin made 39 appearances, scoring 12 goals and assisting for seven more.

Fast forward to this year’s version of the Premier League and we see that he has started in all 15 matches played so far. Surely, that’s not a sign of an unworthy player. On top of that, he has been part of the team in three European Leagues and one League Cup matches.

His so famously lazy approach to the game has contributed to Arsenal’s quest for trophies with six goals and nine assists—the third-best assister in the Premier League so far. Arshavin’s importance for Arsenal can be perceived also by comparing him with Samir Nasri. The Frenchman has been the most influential player up to now with nine goals and six assists. Surely, Arshavin, despite being criticised for his lazy style, has contributed with pretty much the same as the current the best Arsenal player.

It certainly looks good on paper, but looking at it from another angle, there is even one more thing to add.

Arshavin is a key player who enjoys big games.

In the last few years, Arsenal have suffered from the lack of a such player. If the Russian playmaker plays at his best, he can be lethal to any team with his sudden bursts of brilliance.

In fact, he has done it before—why won’t he do it again?

Indeed, he will. But until then, there will always be someone who will consider the half-full glass as half-empty.