Arsenal’s Andrey Arshavin – Plain mediocre or a victim of the English-Russian World Cup war? Part 1
Andrey Arshavin, the Arsenal number 23, has always been a regular member of Arsene Wenger’s first choice line-up. However, recently, the playmaker has been subjected to a lot of stick from the British media for being a touch ‘careless’
on the field.
Making his move from Zenit Saint Petersburg, the Russian was the centre of attention to one of the most protracted transfer sagas of the 2008-2009 season. The little playmaker proved to be an instant success. Netting 4 goals at
Anfield in the 4–4 thriller against Liverpool was easily the highlight of his career; the perfect beginning? However, things have started taking a turn for the worse; curiously coinciding with the English v Russian battle for sealing the honours for the 2018
FIFA World Cup.
Arsenal’s last outing in the Champions League saw them lock horns with Partizan Belgrade for an effective qualification to the last 16. In the build-up to the European tie, here is what the Russian international had to say:
"We struggle in defence so we have to score more than we concede. It's very frustrating and we're trying to improve.”
During the course of the 90 minutes of football, Arshavin was battered by the commentators for underperforming. The Russian playmaker was often seen receiving the ball and losing possession too quickly. Some called him a moody,
ineffective figure that had just forgotten how to play football on the day. The left-sided winger was constantly dispossessed whenever he tried to ‘dribble’ past Partizan’s full back.
In the absence of Cesc Fabregas, it was expected that Arsenal’s attack-minded players would step up. The Arsenal manager had opted to play Denilson and Alexander Song in the centre of the park to provide some much needed armour
for the lightened back four. It could also be argued as a ploy to not get beaten as Arsenal required a draw at minimum. While Samir Nasri has been constantly praised for his individual ability since scoring 2 ‘wonder goals’ against Fulham, Arshavin
was comparatively subdued – the need of the moment required the attacking players to create magic out of nothing; arguably a tall order for a regular club but a routine ask for any Premier League powerhouse.
The final third of the match saw the Russian substituted to allow Theo Walcott to inject some pace on the right side. The effective scoreline on the Englishman’s introduction seconded the Anti–Arshavin stance as Walcott scored
to put the home side in front. The number 14 had another opportunity to put the game to bed but squandered the opportunity due to his lack of judgement. The commentary team, on the other hand, was quick to come to the England International’s defence, highlighting
that the ‘central striker’ is a victim of mere team tactics that sees him shunned to the flanks.
Hypothetically speaking, for a football fan reduced to ‘hear’ the match commentary due to – ahem, technical difficulties or the limitations of a radio device – It seemed as if Walcott could do no wrong in that 20 odd minute stint.
The manager was praised for making well timed and ‘appropriate’ substitutions and everyone in North London went home happy. To make for a strong cup of tea the following morning, the newspaper would further lighten things up with a distinctive section bearing
something along the lines as this:
‘It was a night that saw the British player triumph over the Russian (albeit playing for the same team); saving the day in the nick of time’
Why didn’t England get to host the World Cup, still?
To be continued...
The article is based on the continued naivety of the biased British media and the writer’s need to dole out a well due reality check to restore the image of the media as an impartial voice.
Tags: