“Arsene Who?”
By Garstonite // December 20 2010
The theme of this “project” is to look at individuals who got their big break and analyse what it is that made them stand out from the crowd. So, right to it and on to Arsene Wenger and the first question that springs to mind is – what is it that David Dein saw in him that made him decide that he was worth plucking from the obscurity of the Japanese league and bring him to Arsenal?
A better question, though, is what was it that Monaco saw in him in 1987, when his only previous “achievement” in the game was getting Nancy (*snigger*) relegated in the same year?
For a man that grew up above a pub - a place he says he first learned about tactics and team selections from the punters that visited - his philosophy on the game is surprisingly refined. Although, perhaps my idea of a pub and the people that vacate them is different than those you see in France.
An article in The Independent by Sam Wallace in 2006 – marking Wenger’s ten year anniversary at Arsenal – said: “There has always been the perception that Wenger came to Arsenal as a nonentity and a novice - maybe in the closed Premiership-centric world of English football, but not to those of a wider perspective.”
Indeed, Wenger’s job at Monaco was admirable and one that gained him notoriety on the continent. During a time when French football was feeling the effects of an economic crisis, gate receipts for matches were said to have fallen 50%. A factor you perhaps have to consider when contemplating why an untried coach was given the chance he was. Nothing on his curriculum vitae did, that is for sure.
At Nancy-Lorraine – his first managerial post – his side, with little resources, struggled to compete in the top flight of French football. In his third season, they were relegated, but AS Monaco had clearly seen enough in his philosophies of the game to hand him the reins. In his six encounters with Monaco while at Nancy, he had failed to win once but the games were always tight, with four 1-1 draws and two 1-0 wins for Monaco. Wenger in fact forged a rather different reputation at Nancy than the one he has now. Even in his last year – a year they were relegated, the side recorded 18 clean sheets. The problem was down at the other end where they only scored 28 goals. Regardless, what’s certain is that the appointment was bold.
At Monaco, Wenger replaced Istvan Kovacs who had forged a laudable reputation in the game during his time at Ajax. Wenger was a novice by comparison, but he had a great – perhaps better- knowledge of the French league. One of his first buys was defender Patrick Battiston, the man notorious for his collision with Harald Schumacher in the 1982 World Cup, back when his “30 year old policy” didn’t exist. Among his other buys were Remi Vogel and Fabrice Mege from within Ligue 1, but his most notable signings were that of the two Englishmen Glenn Hoddle and Mark Hateley.
Hoddle, who enjoyed three successful years in France before being cut down by a knee injury, said of Wenger: “All the thinking was way ahead. At Tottenham, we had never even heard of a warm-down.” Wenger was a control-freak, much like Rafael Benitez. When he first took control at Nancy, he infamously invited the player’s girlfriends and wives to the training ground where he told them what meals to cook for his players. He knew the importance of proper nutrition and as a player, refused to even have so much as a drop of alcohol.
In his first year at Monaco, he won the league with relative ease. At home, his side played with a freedom, scoring 53 goals in 19 games. Away, he returned to the principles he had forged at Nancy, drawing 10 league games.
The following season, Wenger had to cope with challenging in the European Cup too. It was a season where Glenn Hoddle flourished; scoring 18 league goals from midfield and it was also a season where a certain Eric Cantona started arriving on the scene at Marseille and then Bordeuax. For Monaco, juggling with the pressures of the European Cup and the league proved too much. They finished third in Le Championnat and were undone at the quarter final stage against Galatasaray. The round prior they humiliated Club Brugge 6-1 on aggregate, with one of Wenger’s buys, Jose Toure, playing a star role in the 5-1 home win. Wenger’s biggest buy in that summer though was George Weah, a man he introduced to European football and would later become FIFA World Player of the Year.
The set-up of the team was very similar to that of the Arsenal side that he won the title with in 1998. Two defensive midfielders, two attacking full-backs in Sonor and Petit (who would later move into a different role, of course), Glenn Hoddle playing off the lone front man with Djorkaeff and Weah given license to roam out wide.
Monaco though would only go on to win one more trophy under Wenger – the Coupe De France, defeating Marseille 1-0 in the final, the team he spent most of his time cast in the shadow of. Monaco finished runners-up to Marseille in the league three years in a row. Marseille also competed in two European Cup/Champions League finals – winning one – but their achievements were blighted by a match-fixing scandal that eventually saw them forced into relegation in 1994. Wenger reached one other final – the Cup Winner’s Cup in 1992. Along the route, Wenger’s side demonstrated a flamboyant approach (demolishing Swansea 10-1 on aggregate) but came unstuck when they played Otto Rehhagel’s Werder Bremen side.
One perhaps rather biased blogger claims that other than Van Gaal’s Ajax and Sacchi’s Milan, no other side played as attractive football during that spell as Monaco did (no mention of Liverpool but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was referring more to the early 90s than late 80s).
Jean Petit, Wenger’s assistant during his time at Monaco, suggests however that despite moderate success there, the pair didn’t achieve what they set out to: “We had the best players in France. With such a squad, with such players, we wanted to keep the structure in place for years. We didn’t manage to do that.”
But perhaps Jean is being a little harsh on himself. We must bear in mind that French football itself was struggling. The match-fixing scandal with Marseille was the culmination of a destitute period. The national side failed to reach Euro 1988, the 1990 or 1994 World Cup. The only major tournament they did qualify for – Euro ’92 – they left the competition without a single victory and left at the first hurdle. It was in need of revolutionising and it was people like Wenger who were pioneering it. He outlasted ten Marseille managers during his spell at Monaco and during his time with them, he brought players like Lilian Thuram and Emmanuel Petit through the ranks, as well as bringing in Youri Djorkaeff from Strasbourg. All of whom, of course, would later go on to be apart of the French side that would win a World Cup and European Championship in ’98 and 2000.
Youri Djorkaeff said of Wenger, referring to his time under him at Monaco: “It was always tactic, tactic, tactic. I never saw him nervous. At half time, he would only say two or three things. Positive things, tactical things. He was the only coach in France who worked this way.”
Wenger was harshly sacked after finishing 9th in his last season at the club, replaced by Jean Tigana. Wenger had unfortunately missed the boat on his opportunity to go and manage Bayern Munich, who instead plumped for the man that beat his Monaco side in the Cup Winner’s Cup final, Otto Rehhagel.
Wenger went to the relative solitude of Japan and Nagoya Grampus, a side previously synonymous with Gary Linekar’s brief end of season sabbatical. There’s no doubt that Wenger brought a lot to the Japanese club. He won them the Emperor’s Cup in his only season there and was just three points away from the league title, but perhaps it is safe to say that Nagoya Grampus gave as much back. It is said, after all, that “travel broadens the mind”. The Eastern culture certainly inflicted on his personality in some way or another. One aspect Wenger never had to worry about in Japan was the one topic he often obsesses over – his player’s diets. “When I lived in Japan, it was the best diet I ever had. The whole way of life was linked to health.” During his time in Japan, he influenced the career of Dragan Stojkovic, who now holds the reigns at Nagoya Grampus and has recently won them their first ever league Championship. Wenger’s protégé said that the greatest advice he received from him was to “always believe in myself”.
While he may have achieved enough to be revered in Japan ever since, what was it that David Dein saw or knew about him that convinced him that he could hack it in the English Premier League? What was clear that, with the influx of foreign stars, it wasn’t going to be long before manager’s followed. The only other foreign coach to have been given the opportunity, Jozef Venglos at Aston Villa, did little to convince others that they were the way forward. And Wenger, only the second, didn’t exactly have the glittering CV of others coaches going from job to job and country to country at that tim either
David Dein and Wenger were already friends having met during Arsene’s many visits – the last being during the Japanese winter break. But in Wenger’s own words:
“It is difficult to put into context today. Because today [when] every foreign manager comes in it is on a red carpet. It was not like that when I arrived. There was a history and belief in England that the foreign manager could not be successful. At that time, what Arsenal did, you needed to be a little bit crazy. Crazy in the sense that I had no name, I was foreign, there was no history. They needed to be, maybe not crazy, but brave.”
When he arrived at the North London Club, the London Evening Standard ran the story with the headline “Arsene Who?” Fourteen years on and the legacy he will leave Arsenal cannot be overstated. The astute buys of the likes of Patrick Vieira and Thierry Henry – a man he initially brought to Monaco as a young man – brought a refined approach to an English league that was still struggling after the post-Heysel European ban. He implemented a style of play previously unseen and tactics and philosophies that were alien to the English masses.
Gerard Houllier, long-time friend, said that David Dein had already made his mind up on Wenger but when asked his opinion of his possible appointment, he simply replied: “Hire him. He will be a success.”
Wenger is a rare breed. A manager unlike most others: massively intelligent (he speaks five different languages and has an economics degree), he’s hugely methodical and with a human side that gets players playing for him.
But what do we know of the approach of Wenger?
As controlling as he is as stubborn, many critics have pulled him up in recent years on his “over-30s policy” that sees no players over thirty given more than a one year contract. Given the success Wenger had when he first arrived in the country with the likes of Keown, Adams, Bould, Dixon and Winterburn, it seems rather ironic. Tony Adams helps us understand Wenger’s thought-process by saying “Wenger would say things like, ‘Physically a player is finished when they are over thirty.’ He believed players over the age of thirty were dead.” It’s a philosophy that fits in with his approach. He places a massive emphasis on speed, as demonstrated in his introduction of plyometric exercises. Similar training techniques as you would see in sprinters; hopping, skipping and jumping. Short burst of energy. Exercises that work on a players acceleration. It was a change for Lee Dixon who said that when Wenger first arrived at Arsenal, with a month to go before the season started, he and Adams approached him and said that he didn’t think the players were going to be fit enough for the opening day. Wenger replied by telling them that they shouldn’t worry and the lack of cross-country training would have no affect on them. Arsenal started the season flying. Dixon concluded, “He was right. Listen to him.”
That’s not to say however, he isn’t meticulous in his football preparations. Thierry Henry praised Wenger for the way he allowed him to express himself on the pitch, but generally speaking his training sessions are heavily orchestrated. Positioning, 4 v 4s, 8 v 8s, football matches played in confined spaces, games played on one goal. Some suggest that his sides lack a defensive strategy, but his philosophy is focused on possession and coercion. Without the ball, that is, the opponents cannot pressurize his defence.
According to many, Wenger has also categorically banned long balls in training. He wants every one of his players to look for the shorter ball, to play in triangles; it breeds understanding, confidence and movement. In his attacking players, his ideal, in his own words: “I like to have one off the striker and two on the flanks who come inside” before talking along the same lines of Sacchi’s “my playmaker was whoever had the ball” by saying “I always feel that if you have players who can deliver the decisive ball in all areas of the pitch, you have more chances of being creative.” Ljungberg and Pires were greatest example of this type of player: they both chipped in with their fair share of goals, but they also recorded a similar amount of assists.
The main criticism of Arsenal today is neatly summed up by Ed Smith who says: “Arsenal too often adorn the match and too seldom define it.” So many people have pinpointed his side’s lack of physicality, the need to bring in quality, experienced players in one or two key areas. But Wenger is inflexible. He is convinced his strategies, but in many respects, that is how you want a top manager to be because if you don’t hold on to your values, you have nothing.
Discussion
Posted by royhendo // December 20, 2010
I’ve a clear memory of Wenger berating Kolo Toure a few seasons back for clearing the ball into touch while they were under pressure. You got the feeling he wanted him to find the free man and hit on the counter. It’s purism in its, well, purest form isn’t it?
Posted by Arsenal Column // December 21, 2010
A great read once again (from this site). His past has been less detailed so it’s great that you’ve covered it.
As ever with Wenger, you can look at his so-called intransigence but that is missing the point; he is doing it in a way that is exciting and unorthodox on the pitch; that looks overly romantic but it’s how football management should be tackled: Emphasis on keeping the ball, expressionism, staying competitive in the present thus aiming to secure long-term stability. The opposite - the results based industry - is soulless to watch.
As for the lack of trophies and how you improve it; it’s a difficult one. They are in between trying to be like the Invincibles and Barcelona. How do they find the balance between dynamism and intricacy?
Orthodox measures are less easy to implement; Arsenal is more direct this season because they want to break down opponents more easily. Bayern Munchen and Barcelona regularly out pass the Gunners in the UEFA Champions League and their style of football, being more calculated and considered (or slower in Lehman terms) means the defence can filter back and organise more efficiently. Arsenal’s rapid and intense brand of football is resource-heavy and creates undue strain at the back.
There are other issues, also, that make Wenger’s job harder (some, in part, self-inflicted on himself). The establishment of a youth policy, especially in its early years, means tactical and mental strength will always be offset by a lack of experience. And the age of austerity that Arsenal plc entered following the move to Emirates coincided with a league becoming ever more obsessed with money.
And finally, a technique based footballing style is heavily reliant on a youth system and in that respects Arsenal are still ten years behind Barcelona.
Posted by Garstonite // December 21, 2010
Hello AC, thanks for the comments.
Just a quick reply and I’ll tackle your points from back to front - on the Barcelona comparison, take a read of this post from Degs off RAWK about the Barcelona model and the misconceptions around it.
On the point about other sides in Europe being more calculated, I think that is generally the way. Continental sides take care of the ball far better than English sides. It’s in our culture that whenever we get the ball, we must attack. There’s no room for a ten/fifteen minute spell where a side knock the ball about just to breed confidence. It’s importance can’t be overstated. The affect that it can have on your opposition pyschologically can be very damaging. That’s where English sides fall short in my opinion. It’s exciting to watch, but it is very naive.
I don’t think this current Arsenal side has it within their genetics to succeed in Europe. The one year Wenger did get a good run going was when a lot of the players were wiser. Arsenal were very different than the side we usually see in that run. Very calculating, very astute. You go gung-ho against Barcelona and they will tear you to shreds.
Dynamism and creativity is what all sides should strive towards and I think Arsenal do it better than absolutely everybody in this league. Where I think you will fall short is lack of an alternative strategy. United, for instance, can field the same eleven players two weeks on the bounce and turn in a very different performance - Barcelona away in the year they won the CL for instance, they had a very attacking line-up on paper, but Tevez and Rooney practically played as midfielders. Arsenal can’t do that. There’s too much on the shoulders of the likes of Alex Song.
Posted by Garstonite // December 21, 2010
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267176.msg7777609#msg7777609 - Here’s a link to that post from Degs that I mentioned, btw.
Posted by royhendo // December 21, 2010
The one thing that intrigues me about that CL draw is the prospect of a fit Walcott - is he going to be fit? That really unsettled Barca last season.
It was also echoed in the Hercules victory at the Nou Camp - the pace on the break was difficult for them to cope with. Saying that, they’re hit a rich vein of form. It’ll be a tremendous watch.
It’s a great point that - the exchange on how Arsenal’s football is ‘resource heavy’ and how if they ‘rested the ball’ and sought periods of control for its own sake they might benefit from it. Do they do that? I don’t see enough of them.
Posted by royhendo // December 21, 2010
The Hercules game: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/sep/13/hercules-stun-barcelona-sid-lowe
Posted by munawwar // December 24, 2010
great post Garstonite. the barca link is fascinating. good facts. i wanted to know how he knows about the players origin of then being british / non spanish origin before they joined the the barca academy?
Add a comment
