Today a post by regular contributor Eduardo which originally appeared in yesterday’s Comments section of PA.

Those with an agenda against Ramsey like to parrot the pundits and commentators who spout rubbish such as:

“Ramsey unbalances the team ‘cos he moves central and [amazingly] to the left, during games.”

This one “soundbite” suggests that many don’t actually know:

1. What ‘team balance’ actually is.

2. What Wenger’s tactics are (despite AW actually having explained his exact thinking in playing Ramsey on the right of midfield).

3. That this is not something new from Wenger.

So let’s shed some light on all of this, starting with team balance.

The Ramsey haters, it seems, only do simplistic thinking. In their world, to have a balanced team you have to have the same sort of player on each side, doing the same things. Of course, this is only true from them when it actually suits their argument. They will therefore tell you we need one attacking fullback and one who stays back. One ball playing CB and one brute. One ball winning CM and one passer. And finally, up front, a big one and a little skilled one. But, for some unexplained reason, we need two line-hugging wide men, who only cut in to have a shot or get in to score. Thus the wide role is the only one where it’s yin and yin – no yang to be seen anywhere! I always knew they hadn’t a brain cell between them, but now I realize they don’t have a yang, either (explains a lot about their —– envy).

This brings me on to point number two – ignorance of Wenger’s tactics.

Well, in thinking about why the Ramsey Haters don’t actually know what Wenger’s tactics are, I would actually suggest that this is a deliberate act. This disingenuity reveals itself when you match up the Ramsey Haters with the Wenger Haters – it seems there is a massive overlap.

So Ramsey, it would appear, is merely collateral damage in the ongoing agenda they have against Arsene Wenger.

Anyway, back to what they fail to understand about Ramsey’s role and the tactics behind it. As stated in point 1, they think we need the same on the left and right of midfield, but that little tactic died a tragic death when 4-2-4 outgrew its usefulness. It was only a bit-part tactic when 4-4-2 was the norm. I don’t see any of the successful teams who use 4-2-3-1, actually using their wide midfielders in a rigid role. I don’t see any of them having similar players on opposite sides, either.

As I said earlier, it is a conscious act to seemingly not know what Wenger’s tactics are with Ramsey wide midfield. Its deliberate nature exposed by Wenger having, on multiple occasions explained the thinking behind it. And believe it or not, it’s all about team balance.

Wenger has explained that the reasons for selecting Ramsey wide midfield has many aspects, including:

a) Wanting someone who brings a different kind of game than Sanchez. Alexis takes on players, dribbles a lot, is more of a striker kind of wide man, whereas Aaron is more of a midfielder type – someone who will help support our central midfielders, especially when opponents put three players in there against our two.

b) Bellerin is a very attack minded fullback, and Ramsey’s game complements Hector’s game in two critical ways. Firstly, Ramsey has the discipline to track back and/or block opponents’ attacking lanes when Hector charges forward. Secondly, the fact that Ramsey moves infield also leaves the space for Hector to run into – that space is not only there because Ramsey is not, but often because opponents have also followed Ramsey infield.

c) Wenger has also explained that it’s a deliberate ploy to have Ramsey pop up on the left. AW wants to “overload” on that side. Opponents already have their hands full trying to plug the holes caused by Alexis and Ozil (and even Santi drifts that side), so in a way Ramsey going there too, is to ‘bust the dam’. Acknowledgement of Wenger’s explanation of Ramsey’s role by these critics has so far failed to materialise, as to do so would be tantamount to accepting that Arsene does, after all, do tactics!  And that would never do, now would it?

Finally, point number three – it’s not something new from Wenger.

And no I do not mean, as some like to claim, playing people out of position.

In fact, in his 19 years in charge, Wenger has by and large had different types of player on either side of midfield.

Consider who was on the right when we had Overmars on the left. He was STILL on the right when Pires showed up on our left. I’m talking about the type of player whom many of the AAA/WOB say we should have bought in the summer – a player that for me, Ramsey is most like in so many ways.

Of course, I’m talking about The Romford Pele himself, Ray Parlour.

Was there ever a more opposite player to both Overmars or Pires. Didn’t Parlour, just like Ramsey, drift infield, go box-to-box, but from a wide base?

Parlour was replaced on the right by Ljunberg. Although Freddie, as a player was dissimilar from Parlour, he still played a different role to Pires. He was the off-the-ball runner; he was the guy to get on the end of God’s and Pires passes.

Freddie, just like Ramsey, would pop up all over the place.

Pires and Ljunberg were replaced by Nasri and Hleb. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Nasri and Hleb had similar types of game or roles. Then Theo became our wide right player. Again we never had anyone similar to Theo on our left playing in games at the same time.

And the reason for that, just as it is now for having Ramsey on the right and Alexis on the left, is team balance, and of course tactics.

But don’t shout it too loudly, it might upset the moaners.

Good morning ++++ers,

And a fine one it is.

If last Sunday morning’s blank screen presented me with something akin to rolling large rock up a steep hill yesterday’s events in Leicester offer not even a vaguely similar challenge. I have had to search deep in my superlative drawer however to do the game justice.

An exceptionally enjoyable game of football played by two sides who set out to play fast and inventive football and maintained that approach to the 93^rd minute. They treated each other with respect, no diving, hard challenges but no malice, and who gave referee Pawson very little to whistle about. The final score could have been 7-12. Even at 1-4 the home side were hurling themselves at Cech’s goal as if their lives depended on it. 22 shots for us from inside the box, 4 from outside – 92% on target – ridiculous !

Our lot ?

The headlines go to the goal scorers and to Alexis’ return to net stretching proficiency. If the Chilean has not been back to 100% efficiency then the Foxes offered him the stage to show what he does best. An extra half yard of space or split second allowed him to shine. His second and third goals were super strikes. I say the second was the standout, made by the perfect chip from Ozil, but Sanchez’s leap above the tall defender was masterful.

Theo made further progress, more confident, a little sharper and proactive in his movement than where six weeks ago he was not there. His craft is coming, incrementally, a game and a goal at a time. Next Sunday will be an important test to see if he can spring what is, surprisingly, quite an efficient ManYoo defence.

The relatively unsung heroes of the afternoon I would pick three; Cech and Kosc for withstanding an opening 15 minute battering with just a one goal deficit. And third Hector Bellerin who I thought again had outstanding game. Young Hector was pressed hard by Danny Drinkwater in the opening but gradually tamed the brute. His flank play going forward was brilliant yesterday. That young man is going to be HUGE.

Them ?

That Jamie Vardy did not earn the game’s second hat trick is a bit of a mystery. The goal frame was badly bruised. He is about as far from the “world class” goal scorer model as I can imagine. His touch is a bit scruffy, his movement and running is untidy, he is all ‘rough edges’ including his haircut, but what he has got he uses to the nth degree. Playing non league until he was 25 and joined Leicester so his chance in the top flight came late on. I hope that Leicester are able to hold on to him as anyone who scores goals these days is prone to be lured for big money. Stay where you are son. They love you.

Robert Hoof and Wes Morgan deserve an honourable mention in despatches. I doubted either would last on a hot afternoon and chasing Sanchez and Theo up and down. At the end I suspect both were on their proverbial knees but they kept throwing themselves about.

One mild shadow on an otherwise perfect afternoon was the injury to Flamini – after weeks of waiting quietly he steps up to his triumph at the Lane, followed by a second chance to perform against a side who I think would suit Matty’s style. Then his hamstring pops 20 minutes in. How unlucky is that ?

Onward to Olympiakos on Tuesday evening and a little more pressure for a good result than is ideal. And unlike yesterday Tuesday is about the result, not the quality.

Enjoy your Day of Rest.

* And thank you to Claudio Ranieri for the Italian term for yesterday’s contribution from Alexis

Greetings on this fine early Autumn morning to you all, and above an excellent snap from the Mirror this morning that captures the moment the battle turned decisively last night.

A little more chipper in my mood this morning and I suspect I am not the only Arsenal fan with a little skip in their step, a gleam in his or her eye. If I were a squirrel I would have risen especially early to grab some extra winter store.

And the spring for this more joyous demeanor we all know. Well who would have thought it?  The man they could not hang – or allegedly Arsenal football club could not give away in the Summer – Mathieu Flamini. Deadwood to destroyer of worlds in the space of 90 busy minutes at the Lane! Well, well, well.

The game itself was what I expected. Plenty of scurrying after the ball, both sides a mix of experience and squad players. Having sat largely un-played on the bench since August these players were not going to pass up the chance to impress the crowd in the stadium or the legions at home. Fewer youngsters than I expected in red shirts, perhaps a firm indication of how much stronger our squad is these days.

Our players?

Per and Chambers I thought were excellent at the back, with Callum showing none of the nerves that characterized his start against Liverpool. He is growing into the role literally and metaphorically. Huge bad luck to net an own goal but after a brief shake of the head there was no evidence of him letting it prey on his mind and he played as well as before the accident to the final whistle.

Ramsey did his box-2-box thing which he does so well. The Ox worked hard and was unlucky not to get on the score sheet. Olly worked his arse off again and will earn his just rewards soon.

Debuchy was picking up some stick but given his lack of match time so far this season it seemed a bit unfair. Whisper it quietly to the Scarfers that Danny Rose – yes him – was actually having what is known as a “good game” and flying past Debuchy and Joel. It happens sometimes – opposition players play well; in Rose’s case unexpectedly well. Gibbs’ header off the line at 1-1 was another crucial roll of the dice. Thank Gawd for goal line technology or that would have brought the game to a standstill.

I did not see anyone in red fail to put in a decent effort. I suspect Campbell is disappointed that he did not make a bigger splash but he was eager with some good touches, more chances will come his way.

And the opposition?

It seemed Spuds had decided to go rather more youth/experimental than us but I thought they put up a decent performance that on another night, and we have had a few, might have earned them at worst extra time and possibly more. Very much in the balance at 1-1. Eriksen is a top quality footballer, Townsend did well and, as I mentioned above, Rose nearly cracked us open. Fazio looks like an accident in a constant process of happening – with a face like his surely a career in gangster movies beckons if he does not master this football lark.

So onward to the KingPowerWalkersCrispsDrome on Saturday for what will be probably a good physical working over from the Foxes and our old friend Claudio Ranieri. Am I worried? No I think we have our mojo retrieved and shining brightly.

Bring on the next one.

Enjoy your Wednesday.

A guest post from Alex Goodchild

It has been one sporting feast of a weekend, filled with drama and excitement. Despite the Rugby World Cup having just kicked off in London, the Premier League refused to be overshadowed, offering such spectacles as the next instalment in Wenger’s rivalry with Mourinho and Manchester City’s home clash against a West Ham team that had already defeated both the Gunners and Liverpool on the road. Sadly, it was also a weekend marred by controversy, with much media focus on unpleasant scenes erupting from the 17^th hole of the Solheim Cup and ugly Diego’s ugly behaviour spoiling Arsenal’s London derby. With the World Cup in full swing, it’s time football learned from rugby’s refereeing example.

In recent years, the sense of enmity between London’s leading clubs has been so vitriolic as to result in a regrettable number of unsavoury incidents, exceeding what can be deemed acceptable sporting conduct. Two seasons ago it was a disgraceful personal barb from Chelsea’s manager, last year it was a reckless tackle from Gary Cahill, which prompted in a touchline row between ‘Le Prof’ and the Portuguese One. This year, the flashpoint centred on Diego Costa. A game where both sides were short of confidence and both very even as half time approached was plunged into chaos after the violent conduct of Costa sparked the dismissal of Laurent Koscielny’s team mate Gabriel.It was an incident that drastically affected the course of the game and almost inevitably consigned Arsenal to defeat.

It should be clear that one can have no complaints with Gabriel’s sending off itself; though the manner in which he raced to defend his teammate, who was struck on the face a number of times before being head-butted, was admirable, the Brazilian’s subsequent behaviour was petulant and deserving of the red card. Yet where one suspects that Arsenal fans feel truly aggrieved is how Costa was allowed to stay on the pitch in the first place. His actions were those of a forward frustrated at being tamed by an imperious partnership and who clearly has a history of violent conduct. It is excruciatingly unjust that the Spaniard was not sent off in a match that was won ultimately by Chelsea’s superior numbers and surprising that not one official caught sight of such conspicuously violent behaviour. Perhaps this is where football needs to change, where it ought to take a leaf out of rugby’s book on reviewing play.

The concept of live video technology is almost as polarising in rugby as it is in football. Some herald it, whereas other more traditional commentators, such as former England internationals, Brian Moore and Stuart Barnes see issues with it. For those of the conviction that consulting a video referee in football to review play would slow the sport to the speed of cricket, there was good ammunition from Friday night’s opener between England and Fiji. Officials deliberated incessantly over replays that were already conclusive, pondering over every different angle, such as whether or not the Fijian scrum half had grounded the ball properly to score a try. In fact, by Telegraph Sport estimates, the game was delayed by as much as ten minutes as a result of such indecisiveness. Yet crucially no pundit would contest the need for video technology. Each decision taken by the referee, however long it took, was the correct one, whether it was sending a Fijian player to the stands for ten minutes for foul play or the decision to award England a vital bonus point-sealing try at the death. The best use of the referee’s most useful tool was by Wayne Barnes in the fixture between Argentina and New Zealand, where he was able to seamlessly integrate the video referee into the game’s proceedings, which allowed for the correct decisions to be made within a highly efficient timescale.

Contrary to Garth Crooks’ claim that Mike Dean seeks to be the centre of attention, he is in reality a rather proficient referee. Granted, he has made some real blunders when arbitrating Arsenal, but he has improved greatly and is nowhere near as confounding or contentious as Anthony Taylor. Dean was unable to spot Costa’s viciousness and acted only according to what he could see. Rather, it is exasperating that he was not afforded the technology to simply consult the footage and make the right call in a sport where even goal line technology exists. It is damning of the sport’s risibly archaic method of officiating when a fan watching a pixelated stream on his computer has the insight of a television replay when the game’s man in the middle, with the most power to influence, is left blind. If video technology were introduced to the game, there were be no hiding for so-called wind up merchants like Diego Costa and the foul play he embodies and no more frustrating ‘I didn’t see it’ protestations from referees.Arsène Wenger, one of the game’s great visionaries, recently commented that he was ‘convinced that video technology will soon come into football.’ Let us hope, in the interest of fairness in our beloved game, that he is right.