There is an article in Today's Sunday Times, so entitled. It is written by the respected sports journalist (and there ain't many of those) Hugh McIlvanney. No major prizes will be offered for guessing who it's about!
I bought the paper, itself. Unfortunately, I was forgetting that The Times is one of those papers that requires a subscription to read on-line. I will look to see if there's any way of providing a link. It's an interesting read, if only for the fact it's my a journalist like McIlvanney. It's pretty savage critique of Wenger by a journalist not known for sensationalism.
Well, I ain't no spring chicken. I only buy one English paper per week out here, as they're not cheap. The Sunday Times usually has a good sports section - which means I can follow my Rugby, as well. Therefore, I cough up Eur 5 for it every Sunday. The article accuses wenger of failing to address Arsenal's glaring defensive weaknesses for too long. Says that the departures of Nasri & Fabregas were long forseen, or should have been - and dealt with more quickly. It goes on to say that for a manager who inherited a team with a sound defensive unit, he has failed to learn the importance of sound foundations. That it was the trophy winning combination of that defensive unit, allied to the blend of power and finesse of Vieira and Petit - which provided the vital support for the forward play of the likes of Bergkamp & Henry. It also makes claim that his narrow concept of what makes an Arsenal player has ruled out, what would have been many good buys. I could go on. Like I said, from a serious journalist like McIlvanney, it's a pretty full-on attack.
The invincibles had a pretty solid defence you know, and none of them were around before Wenger arrived.
I agreed with most of the article, Luke. If he had any sense, Wenger would take notice, too. Journalists like McIlvanney don't make a habit of writing spurious, or sensationalist, material.
