Theory vs. Application

If there was one glaring apparency in the 90-minute slow-motion coronary failure that was Manchester City vs. Arsenal, it was that we're not strong enough in the challenge across the pitch. The common term is "50/50." In theory, it's a situation in which two opposing players have an equal chance of winning the ball. That is only in theory. Because when applied, only one player wins 100% of the ball. And when one player is more battle hardened, committed and physically imposing, 50/50 turns into 100/0.

And that is what this match was... a foregone conclusion.

• You don't have to be the most physical side, otherwise Stoke City would be submersed in silverware. 
• You don't have to be the most trigger-happy side, otherwise Everton would be the 3rd horse in the title race.
• You don't have to be the most efficient side, otherwise Reading wouldn't have been relegated in 2008.
• You don't have to be the smartest side, otherwise £2 million on Michu would be chump change to a particular top-flight club in Wales.

What you do need is a good enough combination of any of those factors paired with pure, unbridled self belief. This season more than ever, Arsenal is deficient in both areas of the pairing.

In our 4-3-3 formation, our midfield takes the pitch at an underwhelming average height/weight of 5'7" 147lbs. In theory, it's ok as long as you're committed, able to find better, more lethal positions and stay a step ahead. We don't consistently do that, especially against top sides where we always appear outclassed.

From an offensive side: Our play through the channels has lacked enough bite to keep teams honest. They press us high with no respect for our ability to react within our realm of continuity, or sit back and watch our slow build-up play stall on poor crosses or the inevitable poor ball after a string of toothless passes.

Defensively

• Per Mertesacker's calmness in possession offers no atonement for his ironic lack of aerial presence (he's 6'6" and somehow appears shorter when he jumps), absence of top-level pace (even for a centre-half) and susceptibility to double-moves.
• Laurent Koscielny's business-end savvy on set-pieces doesn't excuse his errors and disciplinary record.
• Thomas Vermaelen seems to fall victim to the same problems as Koscielny, minus the cards.
• Keiran Gibbs is great defending the ball, but doesn't offer much reassurance off of it and every step looks uncertain when he turns and runs in recovery.
• Bacary Sagna's current run of form is alarming. He publicly remains professional, and his effort is always evident, but with the hole we have dug ourselves, one would like to believe a player of his proven class would be a pivot.

I remember assurances at the beginning of the season from Arsene Wenger that the team was more balanced than ever. In theory, I trusted that this balance would yield a new style of play that didn't rely on the contributions of a superstar to rescue results with individual moments of brilliance - rather, a synergy of productivity that could challenge for the title in a new way that had yet to be seen over this near-decade of rebuilding.

By mid-season, those assurances have been rubbished. Arsene finds himself with more questions about the quality and spirit of the squad he's managed for 6 months than he began with. But most importantly, there has been no realization of any theory other than:

When you lose your best players and don't replace them with equal or better talent, getting results becomes more difficult.