An absurd early response from CNN that essentially Obama has to "move to the middle." Where does this come from? He has been legislating from the center since the second year of his Presidency. CNN has clearly moved to the right to try to compete with Fox and they are disturbingly out of touch with any reasonable analysis of the past 30 years. This is not surprising given the blue hairs before the camera, but it is a tiresome way to start the next four years. A more incisive analysis seems to be coming from MSNBC where they are arguing about the asymmetrical partisanship in America -- with the conservatives moving to the right and the democrats moving to the new center (which keeps moving right). I have written about this before, but it is time for the democrats to start standing for something other than "a little better than the GOP." If they do that, and lead a New New Deal, as Obama promised four years ago, the economy will improve, the deficit will fall in the long run, poverty will shrink, the middle class will thrive, economic growth will return, inequality will decrease and they will have established a solid base for the future. This has been true since 2000, but the legacy of Clinton continues to haunt the party and push them to the right to fight out tight races when they could be winning big. The lesson of 2008 should be just that -- Obama won huge by offering the country hope and change. But then he allowed the Republicans to reframe his actions as too radical for America. It is time to restore that narrative and throw away the talk of deficits for a time and actually help this country grow again. Let's get started ...
P.S. Romney is not conceding Ohio even as everyone has called it. One wonders if he is counting on the GOP Ohio machine to somehow steal the state for him? Romney remains the tool I always assumed he was.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Obama Wins!!!!!!!
I don't know why, but CNN has not called it but MSNBC has. Obama is reelected!!! He is projected to win Ohio and that puts him over the top. Fox has not called it yet, but appears resigned to the fact. Not sure what is wrong with CNN. Fox just called it as well. The story of the victory appears to be the changing demographics of the country. Exit polls show Republicans winning 61 percent of the white vote but getting crushed among Latinos (80 to 20) and blacks (don't know the exact figures). CNN finally called it. The Democrats also will retain control of the Senate according to MSNBC. As Rachel Maddow is now saying, a progressive approach to policy in some areas (though I have critiqued Obama below) has actually been legitimated by his reelection. The politics of cynicism, racism and lies loses. Yes it was close, but money alone cannot usher in a one percenter proclaiming tired old discourses about business and government.
Do most people in America support healthcare reform? Maybe not. Do they support tax increases to increase government support for the poor? Maybe not. But they reelected an African American president who supported gays by repealing don't ask, don't tell and putting his support behind gay marriage. They voted for a president who passed major healthcare reform. A president who pretended to take on Wall Street, who saved the auto industry and who tried to be bipartisan with the most obstructionist Senate since the Civil War. At some level, they seemed to reaffirm a belief that government can do some good and that there is no place in politics any longer for hard right ideologues. Yes the south is still firmly in Republican hands. Yes some right wingers will still rule the roost in the House. But this may be an important moment in American history when we turned a corner. The GOP will have to look hard in the mirror and maybe run on sensible policies rather than negativity, God and lies. A boy can dream ...
Do most people in America support healthcare reform? Maybe not. Do they support tax increases to increase government support for the poor? Maybe not. But they reelected an African American president who supported gays by repealing don't ask, don't tell and putting his support behind gay marriage. They voted for a president who passed major healthcare reform. A president who pretended to take on Wall Street, who saved the auto industry and who tried to be bipartisan with the most obstructionist Senate since the Civil War. At some level, they seemed to reaffirm a belief that government can do some good and that there is no place in politics any longer for hard right ideologues. Yes the south is still firmly in Republican hands. Yes some right wingers will still rule the roost in the House. But this may be an important moment in American history when we turned a corner. The GOP will have to look hard in the mirror and maybe run on sensible policies rather than negativity, God and lies. A boy can dream ...
Update ...
It is starting to look more likely that Obama is going to win reelection. It looks like wins in Iowa and Colorado might be enough to put him over the 270, even losing all the other battleground states -- though Florida and Ohio are looking pretty good at the moment. Oddly, while MSNBC have already called Wisconsin for Obama, CNN is spending considerably time talking about the chance that Romney could win it. The same is true of New Mexico. And Obama could very well sweep the battleground states, including North Carolina and Virginia. Another key indicator appears to be the reality that no one from the Romney camp is talking on TV right now while many democrats are on MSNBC looking and sounding very confident.
Looking at the Senate, a couple of big results for Democrats including Elizabeth Warren beating Scott Brown and the rejection of two radical Tea Party candidates in Indiana (Mourdock) and Missouri (Akins). Republicans did pick up a seat in Nebraska, with Bob Kerry losing an attempt to get back to the Senate. Overall, it is looking good for Democrats to retain control of the Senate and maybe even pick up a few net seats.
A final point -- CNN has the same group of analysts they've had for years, and they are dull, out of touch and really white. Without the cool graphics, they would be the worst of the stations. MSNBC is much better, in my mind, and even Fox is more interesting. Not to be unkind, but could it be time for David Gergen to move on to greener passages?
More to follow ...
Looking at the Senate, a couple of big results for Democrats including Elizabeth Warren beating Scott Brown and the rejection of two radical Tea Party candidates in Indiana (Mourdock) and Missouri (Akins). Republicans did pick up a seat in Nebraska, with Bob Kerry losing an attempt to get back to the Senate. Overall, it is looking good for Democrats to retain control of the Senate and maybe even pick up a few net seats.
A final point -- CNN has the same group of analysts they've had for years, and they are dull, out of touch and really white. Without the cool graphics, they would be the worst of the stations. MSNBC is much better, in my mind, and even Fox is more interesting. Not to be unkind, but could it be time for David Gergen to move on to greener passages?
More to follow ...
Election Night 2012
I have been watching the election coverage for almost two hours now and the news appears to be trending for Obama and the Democrats maintaining control of the Senate. Yet many races are too close to call including all of the real battleground states (PA did go to Obama as did Wisconsin, as expected). One of the big stories emerging is that people are having a hard time voting -- with lines of several hours in urban centers where minorities are heavily populated. This is disturbing news that has been building since the 2000 election -- Republicans are cutting early voting, trying to implement ID requirements, using questionable electronic voting companies and software and putting up every available barrier to allowing everyone who wants to vote, to vote. Party politicians have always engaged in these practices, but the tendency to say those without shouldn't be allowed to vote asks fundamental questions about an issue I have raised on several occasions in the past --> Republicans don't appear to like democracy very much any more. And they have been very effective at undermining not only the voice of the people but the central tenets and functioning of democracy itself. If Obama wins in Ohio and Florida it is in spite of these efforts, which looks increasingly likely.
As to the coverage, it again reminds of Guy Debord's spectacle society. CNN has a bunch of cool graphics and charts but is doing little to actually put the results in context or remind people that Obama is closing in on an insurmountable lead. Even MSNBC is largely just reporting results, though they are doing more to actually add a little context and anaylsis to their reporting. I tuned into Fox for a short time to listen to Dr. Laura Ingraham, but the plastic smiles, too perfect hair and skewed coverage were just too much to stomach and I haven't gone back yet. On a more positive note, Obama may very well win because people believe he is more interested in helping the working and middle class, because they actually saw how government is needed in times of crisis (ala Hurricane Sandy) and because Romney didn't convince enough people that he would actually govern as a moderate. But too many races are still too close to call, so I'll sign off here for now.
As to the coverage, it again reminds of Guy Debord's spectacle society. CNN has a bunch of cool graphics and charts but is doing little to actually put the results in context or remind people that Obama is closing in on an insurmountable lead. Even MSNBC is largely just reporting results, though they are doing more to actually add a little context and anaylsis to their reporting. I tuned into Fox for a short time to listen to Dr. Laura Ingraham, but the plastic smiles, too perfect hair and skewed coverage were just too much to stomach and I haven't gone back yet. On a more positive note, Obama may very well win because people believe he is more interested in helping the working and middle class, because they actually saw how government is needed in times of crisis (ala Hurricane Sandy) and because Romney didn't convince enough people that he would actually govern as a moderate. But too many races are still too close to call, so I'll sign off here for now.
Monday, November 05, 2012
And Then There Was One ...
Day until the election that is. Obama appears to be holding onto a small margin, particularly in the key swing states that will decide this election. The Senate is also up for grabs, a number of important propositions are on ballots and local, state and Congressional races still hang in the balance. Potential trouble is brewing in Ohio, where charges of irregularities in a late voting software update have led progressive to worry that another Florida 2000 could be around the corner. And a recent article claims $6 billion has been spent on the election, facilitate by the Citizens decision. What should we think as we await the results of another close election? One is that our democracy is clearly broken. Partisanship has become endemic, conservatives have again put social issues at the forefront of an election (even as the economy remains mired in trouble), many people continue to vote against their interests while as many as 40 percent probably won't vote at all. Republicans are again engaged in major attempts to suppress the vote -- though this is understandable as it is probably the only way they can win the election. Long term trends clearly indicate a shift back to Democrats, as Latinos and other minorities continue to outreproduce whites at dramatic rates, but a clear question that emerges is what will the Democratic party look like by then.
Thomas Frank has asked this question with increasing consternation in recent years, and he has a point. The Clinton model, which Obama originally seemed to upset, has again taken hold of the party and disallowed the sort of radical change we now need. Instead both parties are encumbered by the same interests and merely depart on the magnitude of government retrenchment. Social issues remain a key battleground, but they are secondary to the increasingly dire economic status of the country and most of its citizens. As all this occurs, Republicans continue to tell us that "more of the same" will somehow finally reap benefits while the billionaires cry that nobody loves them. It seems like the plot for a dystopian Orwellian novel and yet it is where we stand today. A victory by Obama will at least stem the tide of our rightward turn, but it is a weak salve at best. Let's hope for that twinkle of hope tomorrow.
Thomas Frank has asked this question with increasing consternation in recent years, and he has a point. The Clinton model, which Obama originally seemed to upset, has again taken hold of the party and disallowed the sort of radical change we now need. Instead both parties are encumbered by the same interests and merely depart on the magnitude of government retrenchment. Social issues remain a key battleground, but they are secondary to the increasingly dire economic status of the country and most of its citizens. As all this occurs, Republicans continue to tell us that "more of the same" will somehow finally reap benefits while the billionaires cry that nobody loves them. It seems like the plot for a dystopian Orwellian novel and yet it is where we stand today. A victory by Obama will at least stem the tide of our rightward turn, but it is a weak salve at best. Let's hope for that twinkle of hope tomorrow.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Hollywood Interrupted?
Hollywood has been running low on ideas for years now, but I just heard about a remake that makes as much sense as, well, most remakes. In this case it is the awful, late Cold War thriller sans the thrills, Red Dawn. Why in the world do we need another version of a movie that was essentially anachronistic when it first arrived in 1984 (though Reagan was, of course, still stoking the fear of a communist takeover on the heels of Perestroika)? Some took pleasure in the cheesy patriotism on the cheap, but why would we need this film now? Have we run out of ideas for terrorist fear-mongering? Or are we preparing the U.S. to attack Russia? I heard Putin once read a pamphlet by Osama bin Laden ... let's attack. The original film brought together a stellar cast of A-list, B-quality stars including Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey and Charlie Sheen. The new film has Australian stud Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Avengers, Star Trek, Snow White and the Huntsman) and a bunch of other people I've never heard of. In fact, Hemsworth might be the greatest benefactor of remake fever, as he has been involved in 10 remakes or sequels since 2009 alone.
So where have all the ideas gone? In a cultural studies I teach, we decided to look at the top grossing films the past two years (Box Office Mojo). In 2012 so far, nine of the twenty are sequels or prequels, one is a revamping of a series (Spiderman), another of a TV show (21 Jump Street), three more popular kids books (The Hunger Games, Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, Snow White & the Huntsman). The originals include the Pixar kids feature Brave, the comedy Ted, Hotel Transylvania, the romantic tear-jerker The Vow and the soft-porn for women Magic Mike. Not exactly scintillating stuff by any measure. In 2011, the top twelve films were sequels except for Thor, which was sort of a prequel. The 13th highest grosser was The Help followed by Bridesmaid and then we see a sequel (Kung Fu Panda II), a remake (Puss in Boots), a prequel (X-Men: First Class), the animated film Rio, a remake of the TV series (The Smurfs) and another Alvin and the Chipmunks joint.
So what's happened? Have we really run out of ideas? My guess is no. Instead the problem is that the marketing machine that Hollywood has become relies almost exclusively on first weekend sales, which rely almost exclusively on building hype. So how do you build hype? With famous actors, occasionally with a famous director (particularly Clint Eastwood for older men) but most often my giving audiences what they already liked -- or are willing to see out of some responsibility to stay up with the narrative. The movie theatre really has become like television although with only one episode a season. Risk taking comes with, well, risks. And Hollywood seems less and less likely to engage in them. Yes we will still see the occasion indie film, and yes P.T. Anderson and Wes Anderson will continue to get their movies made, even if they suck. But less foreign features seem to be showing up in theatres, many art house theatres are closing and the options available to the discerning fan seem to continue shrinking. How can we combat the push toward mediocrity? Only one way ... with our wallets.
So where have all the ideas gone? In a cultural studies I teach, we decided to look at the top grossing films the past two years (Box Office Mojo). In 2012 so far, nine of the twenty are sequels or prequels, one is a revamping of a series (Spiderman), another of a TV show (21 Jump Street), three more popular kids books (The Hunger Games, Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, Snow White & the Huntsman). The originals include the Pixar kids feature Brave, the comedy Ted, Hotel Transylvania, the romantic tear-jerker The Vow and the soft-porn for women Magic Mike. Not exactly scintillating stuff by any measure. In 2011, the top twelve films were sequels except for Thor, which was sort of a prequel. The 13th highest grosser was The Help followed by Bridesmaid and then we see a sequel (Kung Fu Panda II), a remake (Puss in Boots), a prequel (X-Men: First Class), the animated film Rio, a remake of the TV series (The Smurfs) and another Alvin and the Chipmunks joint.
So what's happened? Have we really run out of ideas? My guess is no. Instead the problem is that the marketing machine that Hollywood has become relies almost exclusively on first weekend sales, which rely almost exclusively on building hype. So how do you build hype? With famous actors, occasionally with a famous director (particularly Clint Eastwood for older men) but most often my giving audiences what they already liked -- or are willing to see out of some responsibility to stay up with the narrative. The movie theatre really has become like television although with only one episode a season. Risk taking comes with, well, risks. And Hollywood seems less and less likely to engage in them. Yes we will still see the occasion indie film, and yes P.T. Anderson and Wes Anderson will continue to get their movies made, even if they suck. But less foreign features seem to be showing up in theatres, many art house theatres are closing and the options available to the discerning fan seem to continue shrinking. How can we combat the push toward mediocrity? Only one way ... with our wallets.
Manchester United 2 - Arsenal 1
It is hard to believe that the team that showed up on Saturday at Old Trafford looked like potential title contenders a few weeks ago (at least to a few). Then we went on the international break, came back and lost to Norwich, were lucky to get past QPR, got crushed by Schalke at home and lost 2-1 to Man U in one of the most one-sided 2-1 games you will ever see. The team was ugly from the first minute until the last, forgoing the completely meaningless strike from Cazorla at the death. It was the sort of pathetic display from Arsenal we have gotten used to over the past eight years, but very hard to understand -- given the importance of the contest. Besides a scintillating performance by Mannone, who kept the score respectable with a number of world class saves, and a decent game from Mertesacker, who is certainly vying for most improved together with the injuried and missed Gervinho, the team played with the sort of abject listlessness they seem to have collectively caught during that break.
The game started poorly after Santos was again caught off on the right after a Man U interception, but a poor pass to the charging RVP by Raphael should have been cleared easily by captain Vermaelen. Instead he completely flubbed the ball and Van Persie cooly placed it between his legs and past the outstretched Mannone. What followed was a comedy of error half that somehow ended without Man U putting in another goal, even as Rooney stepped to the penalty spot to do just that in the final minute. He missed right and Arsenal must have thought they were still in a game they had no right to be. So they would certainly come out in the second half and give it a go, right? No, they wouldn't. For about five minutes they looked like the fluid team they did earlier in the season, before regressing to form and finally sealing the deal by allowing the shortest man on the pitch, Patrice Evra, to head a ball in from Rooney after a short corner. Vermaelen was arguably again at fault, as his poor positioning behind the full back allowed him to get into space and force it into the corner. From there, Wilshire lost the ball on a bad touch (which was the habit of the entire team throughout the contest), charged into too strongly to try to win it back and was shown his second yellow in the game. Man U just missed several chances to make it three, before Arsenal suddenly woke up in the waning moments and had a few decent opportunities before the lovely, but meaningless, Cazorla strike that ended up being the last kick of the game. On to player grades before I consider the future of a team that is reeling at the moment ...
Mannone (9): maybe a little high, but he had a number of world class saves and could have easily had a clean sheet but for the two defensive lapses by the Gunners. He, like the team as a whole, is an enigma -- some weeks he looks great, others like the third option he was at the beginning of the season.
Sagna (6): had a decent defensive game, but nothing spectacular. Made a number of important stops or interceptions but didn't get forward very effectively and no crosses to Giroud (which is what we need at the moment to wake up our sleepy offense).
Mertesacker (7): best of the bunch today, with a number of important defensive headers, interceptions and I don't remember him missing a pass all day (the only Gunner that can be said of).
Vermaelen (4): what has happened to our captain? He has always been prone to the occasional mistake and risky tackle attempt, but he played a terrible game when we needed his leadership on the pitch. Giving up the early and needless goal to RVP set the stage for what followed and he was also culpable on the second goal. Truly awful from our purported leader.
Santos (5): really bad first half where he was beaten down the wing consistently and gave the ball over and over again through either bad passes or dawdling on the ball for too long, he did show up in the second and playing marginally better defense and moving forward with purpose (although he blew a good opportunity with a truly awful cross).
Arteta (6): one of the worst games I've seen from our stalwart in some time. He gave the ball away on several occasions and even had some bad passes thrown in -- as the most proficient passer in the EPL, even a few stand out. Didn't really get the attack moving forward and lacked the decisive edge we were looking for.
Wilshire (5.5): not a great second game back for the young star. He too often tried to dribble right through defenders, without any success, missed real passing opportunities and was part of the reason the Gunners rarely got into the box until the last minute of the game. The red card ended any chance for a comeback, but the team ironically played better after he left.
Cazorla (6): after his early form, Cazorla has had a slight drop off and this might have been his worst game yet, forgoing the goal that might actually be meaningful in our "trophy" run for fourth place. He put too much weight on several passes that would have put us in good positions, lost the ball on several occasions, didn't shoot a few times when it might have opened up the Man U defense and handed the ball in the box, almost putting the game out of reach at the break. Hopefully his play in the final few minutes will awaken the beast again on Wednesday.
Podolski (4.5): the German has a habit of disappearing in some games while being everywhere in others. Yesterday he was nowhere to be found, except with bad passes, bad crosses and lost possession. It's hard to understand the unevenness of his play, but we need the player from the start of the season who charges forward with purpose, not the one who seems like he doesn't want to be on the pitch.
Giroud (5): one of the biggest problems for Giroud right now is the rest of the team isn't giving him the service to provide clear chances, but I also notice that he is not doing enough holding the ball up when it is sent into him in the air. Too often yesterday, he had a chance to get the attack started and took too heavy a touch or simply gave the ball away, putting us back on the defensive right away. Had a few half chances, but wasn't in the right position, the cross was bad or he fluffed the half chance.
Ramsey (5.5): I do not believe that Ramsey should be starting games right now, but there he was again in an odd position for him (right winger). The choice by Wenger didn't work out well at all and one wonders if Walcott, Gervinho or Chamberlain were in that spot if the result might have been different. Given the overall performance of the team, I doubt it, but Ramsey was truly inept. He missed pass after pass, made a few good runs (which always resulted in nothing), and too often gave the ball up. When he plays in midfield, Ramsey has a penchant for slowing down the attack -- up front he is even better at killing it. He is just the latest example, to me, of a player Arsene keeps faith in when it is undeserved.
Subs
Walcott: came on with a chance to sort of play in his preferred position and his advertisement was a resounding "don't buy!" Instead of sending the ball in the air to him, it arrived at his feet on several occasions, and in each case Walcott took a heavy touch that gave the ball away. He looked like the same player that's been driving me crazy for most of the last three years and I honestly hope he goes in the transfer window. As a winger, his speed and improved crossing and shooting make him a dangerous player, but his desire to play in the middle is not matched by his talent. Watch his performance versus RvP and you see why it should never happen.
Arshavin: his first involvement was a foul from behind that resulted in a yellow. After that he played into the game a little and created a little offensive flow, but not really enough time to truly measure his performance. Given how badly the club is creating, I (gasp) wonder if he should get some more time on the pitch against Fulham.
So Arsenal lost a game 2-1 that could easily have been 5-0. Bad passes, bad touches, losing the ball at their feet, lack of creativity, shaky defending and a general listlessness showed how far we are from the top three (though we still only sit two points out of fourth as Tottenham lost at home and Everton settled for a third successive draw). It was not necessarily a defining moment for the season, as we have not been getting anything at Old Trafford for years now, but it does ask serious questions about the team. 1) How much longer are we going to accept this slightly-above-mediocrity team? 2) Is it time for Wenger to hang it up if we finish outside the top four 3) Are we actually going to spend some money in the winter to at least bring in a viable central striker 4) Why does the team fail to perform on the big stage so often 5) Is mediocrity the preordained future for this squad as our best players seek out greener (or redder or bluer) pastures each year. Watching RvP play for the victors was always going to be painful, but I would like the team to shun him a little, instead of Santos asking for his shirt at half-time (please let the Brazilian leave sooner rather than later).
I was a little disappointed with the team selection as well. It would have been interesting to start with Walcott after his heroics in the Capital One Cup last week, I don't understand allowing Santos to play in this game after his recent performances when we could have switched things up and let Jenkinson or Coquelin play instead and Ramsey on the wing is too defensive a move for me. The most disappointing thing is after we seemed to wake up our semi-dormant offense against West Ham, we have looked downright anemic ever since. There is too much dawdling in the middle of the park, bad passes forward, runs made right at defenders as if they will step out of the way, heavily weighted passes and an inability to put in good crosses. The team needs to wake up and reestablish some flow -- which might be helped when Gibbs and Diaby return. But with the talent we have, the only word to truly describe the game yesterday was disgraceful. Let's hope we do better against Schalke on Wednesday.
The game started poorly after Santos was again caught off on the right after a Man U interception, but a poor pass to the charging RVP by Raphael should have been cleared easily by captain Vermaelen. Instead he completely flubbed the ball and Van Persie cooly placed it between his legs and past the outstretched Mannone. What followed was a comedy of error half that somehow ended without Man U putting in another goal, even as Rooney stepped to the penalty spot to do just that in the final minute. He missed right and Arsenal must have thought they were still in a game they had no right to be. So they would certainly come out in the second half and give it a go, right? No, they wouldn't. For about five minutes they looked like the fluid team they did earlier in the season, before regressing to form and finally sealing the deal by allowing the shortest man on the pitch, Patrice Evra, to head a ball in from Rooney after a short corner. Vermaelen was arguably again at fault, as his poor positioning behind the full back allowed him to get into space and force it into the corner. From there, Wilshire lost the ball on a bad touch (which was the habit of the entire team throughout the contest), charged into too strongly to try to win it back and was shown his second yellow in the game. Man U just missed several chances to make it three, before Arsenal suddenly woke up in the waning moments and had a few decent opportunities before the lovely, but meaningless, Cazorla strike that ended up being the last kick of the game. On to player grades before I consider the future of a team that is reeling at the moment ...
Mannone (9): maybe a little high, but he had a number of world class saves and could have easily had a clean sheet but for the two defensive lapses by the Gunners. He, like the team as a whole, is an enigma -- some weeks he looks great, others like the third option he was at the beginning of the season.
Sagna (6): had a decent defensive game, but nothing spectacular. Made a number of important stops or interceptions but didn't get forward very effectively and no crosses to Giroud (which is what we need at the moment to wake up our sleepy offense).
Mertesacker (7): best of the bunch today, with a number of important defensive headers, interceptions and I don't remember him missing a pass all day (the only Gunner that can be said of).
Vermaelen (4): what has happened to our captain? He has always been prone to the occasional mistake and risky tackle attempt, but he played a terrible game when we needed his leadership on the pitch. Giving up the early and needless goal to RVP set the stage for what followed and he was also culpable on the second goal. Truly awful from our purported leader.
Santos (5): really bad first half where he was beaten down the wing consistently and gave the ball over and over again through either bad passes or dawdling on the ball for too long, he did show up in the second and playing marginally better defense and moving forward with purpose (although he blew a good opportunity with a truly awful cross).
Arteta (6): one of the worst games I've seen from our stalwart in some time. He gave the ball away on several occasions and even had some bad passes thrown in -- as the most proficient passer in the EPL, even a few stand out. Didn't really get the attack moving forward and lacked the decisive edge we were looking for.
Wilshire (5.5): not a great second game back for the young star. He too often tried to dribble right through defenders, without any success, missed real passing opportunities and was part of the reason the Gunners rarely got into the box until the last minute of the game. The red card ended any chance for a comeback, but the team ironically played better after he left.
Cazorla (6): after his early form, Cazorla has had a slight drop off and this might have been his worst game yet, forgoing the goal that might actually be meaningful in our "trophy" run for fourth place. He put too much weight on several passes that would have put us in good positions, lost the ball on several occasions, didn't shoot a few times when it might have opened up the Man U defense and handed the ball in the box, almost putting the game out of reach at the break. Hopefully his play in the final few minutes will awaken the beast again on Wednesday.
Podolski (4.5): the German has a habit of disappearing in some games while being everywhere in others. Yesterday he was nowhere to be found, except with bad passes, bad crosses and lost possession. It's hard to understand the unevenness of his play, but we need the player from the start of the season who charges forward with purpose, not the one who seems like he doesn't want to be on the pitch.
Giroud (5): one of the biggest problems for Giroud right now is the rest of the team isn't giving him the service to provide clear chances, but I also notice that he is not doing enough holding the ball up when it is sent into him in the air. Too often yesterday, he had a chance to get the attack started and took too heavy a touch or simply gave the ball away, putting us back on the defensive right away. Had a few half chances, but wasn't in the right position, the cross was bad or he fluffed the half chance.
Ramsey (5.5): I do not believe that Ramsey should be starting games right now, but there he was again in an odd position for him (right winger). The choice by Wenger didn't work out well at all and one wonders if Walcott, Gervinho or Chamberlain were in that spot if the result might have been different. Given the overall performance of the team, I doubt it, but Ramsey was truly inept. He missed pass after pass, made a few good runs (which always resulted in nothing), and too often gave the ball up. When he plays in midfield, Ramsey has a penchant for slowing down the attack -- up front he is even better at killing it. He is just the latest example, to me, of a player Arsene keeps faith in when it is undeserved.
Subs
Walcott: came on with a chance to sort of play in his preferred position and his advertisement was a resounding "don't buy!" Instead of sending the ball in the air to him, it arrived at his feet on several occasions, and in each case Walcott took a heavy touch that gave the ball away. He looked like the same player that's been driving me crazy for most of the last three years and I honestly hope he goes in the transfer window. As a winger, his speed and improved crossing and shooting make him a dangerous player, but his desire to play in the middle is not matched by his talent. Watch his performance versus RvP and you see why it should never happen.
Arshavin: his first involvement was a foul from behind that resulted in a yellow. After that he played into the game a little and created a little offensive flow, but not really enough time to truly measure his performance. Given how badly the club is creating, I (gasp) wonder if he should get some more time on the pitch against Fulham.
So Arsenal lost a game 2-1 that could easily have been 5-0. Bad passes, bad touches, losing the ball at their feet, lack of creativity, shaky defending and a general listlessness showed how far we are from the top three (though we still only sit two points out of fourth as Tottenham lost at home and Everton settled for a third successive draw). It was not necessarily a defining moment for the season, as we have not been getting anything at Old Trafford for years now, but it does ask serious questions about the team. 1) How much longer are we going to accept this slightly-above-mediocrity team? 2) Is it time for Wenger to hang it up if we finish outside the top four 3) Are we actually going to spend some money in the winter to at least bring in a viable central striker 4) Why does the team fail to perform on the big stage so often 5) Is mediocrity the preordained future for this squad as our best players seek out greener (or redder or bluer) pastures each year. Watching RvP play for the victors was always going to be painful, but I would like the team to shun him a little, instead of Santos asking for his shirt at half-time (please let the Brazilian leave sooner rather than later).
I was a little disappointed with the team selection as well. It would have been interesting to start with Walcott after his heroics in the Capital One Cup last week, I don't understand allowing Santos to play in this game after his recent performances when we could have switched things up and let Jenkinson or Coquelin play instead and Ramsey on the wing is too defensive a move for me. The most disappointing thing is after we seemed to wake up our semi-dormant offense against West Ham, we have looked downright anemic ever since. There is too much dawdling in the middle of the park, bad passes forward, runs made right at defenders as if they will step out of the way, heavily weighted passes and an inability to put in good crosses. The team needs to wake up and reestablish some flow -- which might be helped when Gibbs and Diaby return. But with the talent we have, the only word to truly describe the game yesterday was disgraceful. Let's hope we do better against Schalke on Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
