AFTER that super-strange split English soccer season, which somehow got completed – at least domestically - it’s perhaps fitting to offer assessments of the various part-seasons that have prompted debate recently.
The Bruno Fernandes effect
Manchester United were unbeaten in the Premier League after the Portuguese playmaker signed for them in late January, a run of 14 matches, which is not to be sniffed at. That stretch included nine victories, with one of the five draws coming in his very first game, and two in the last four matches of the campaign when the team was clearly tiring.
Yet impressive as that form has been, it still wouldn’t be good enough to win the league in recent seasons. Nowhere near good enough, in fact, equating as it does to just under an 87-point season – 12 short of Liverpool this term, and an average of 12 points behind Manchester City in their two most recent title-winning campaigns.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of ManU’s results since last January is that they only conceded seven league goals in those 14 ‘Bruno’ matches. Yep, seven. In nine of those the Red Devils kept clean sheets.
Obviously the ‘front foot’, fast-moving, forward-looking football that Fernandes inspires helps keep opponents away from the United goal, but their defensive improvement is apparent too.
Maybe that column criticising David de Gea needs to be re-visited…
Cynics will, quite rightly say ‘It’s only 14 games’ and argue that ManU didn’t play either of the top two during that run. However, they pushed champions Liverpool pretty well in both meetings before Bruno – and beat City twice without him (three times if you include one leg of the League Cup semi-final).
With a stronger challenge from themselves, and perhaps Chelsea, among others, the title-winning tally might be closer to high 80s next term.
In Arteta’s defence
On the face of it, Arsenal didn’t improve much in the league under Mikel Arteta, yet appearances can be deceptive.
The defensive organisation evident in their victory over Liverpool, and the huge shock of their FA Cup semi-final success over Manchester City, wasn’t just a feature of those two games.
Before he took over in late December the Gunners had shipped 27 goals in 17 matches, putting them on course to concede 60 over the league campaign, which is close to relegation territory.
In his 21 games in charge they let in 21 goals. You do the math. Defensively that’s top four form.
Overall, Arteta improved their points per game by 25 per cent; sure, he was starting from a low base, but arguably he would have taken Arsenal to more than 60 points (61.5 to be pretty precise).
That’s not Champions League, but it’s not far off it.
Ancelotti stalling?
Carlo Ancelotti’s appointment as Everton boss was confirmed just before Arteta’s first game in charge, the goalless draw at Goodison.
Overall, the young boss has done better than the much-praised old master.
Being kind and not including that 0-0 draw, the Italian oversaw 30 points from 20 league matches, which equates to a 57-point season.
Much was made of his ‘superb’ start, with the only defeat in his first eight league matches coming away at Manchester City.
Yet after that they lost five more times, with only three more wins – albeit including a couple of reasonable results in beating Leicester City and Sheffield United (although both those clubs performed poorly post re-start.
Perhaps more worryingly, four of those other five losses all came against teams with whom Everton should be competing if they want to get into the Champions League places – Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, and Wolves.
The feeling is that Carlo may be a manager for teams IN the Champions League, not those trying to get there.
Sure, he lifted the Toffees from their sticky spot in 16th up to 12th, but he barely improved their goal-scoring ratio (24 goals in 20 games compared to 20 from the first 18), and only tightened them up a little defensively (conceding 27 in 20 after letting in 29 in those first 18).
Everton have spent oodles and oodles over the past three seasons – almost £424m in gross transfer fees, close to £226m net. For comparison, Liverpool have spent just over £320m, and less than £71m net over the same timeframe.
The Blues will have to go into the red if they’re to bridge a gap that’s wider than the river Mersey.
Of course one shouldn’t judge any manager on just over half a season
Which leads me on to….
Pearson parachuted in and out
Sure, Watford may have gone down even if they’d kept Nigel Pearson on, given that their last two matches were against Manchester City and Arsenal.
However, given what he did in the 20 league games they did allow him surely he deserved to be retained?
Pearson’s Watford won seven games, including beating Manchester United and – famously – inflicting a first defeat on Liverpool, 3-0 no less. They also drew four times, making for 25 points from 20 matches – the sort of average which comfortable secures survival over a full season (47.5 points).
The sort of average which brings gushing praise to the likes of Steve Bruce and Roy Hodgson…
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention Jose Mourinho’s progress at Tottenham.
ENDS
Oh, go on then.
Jose’s never slow to blow his own trumpet, but he did do well in difficult circumstances, albeit helped by enforced break allowing Harry Kane to return to fitness.
Having taken just 14 points from their first 12 league games, as the domestic downturn since the start of 2019 continued under Mauricio Pochettino, Spurs collected 45 points from Mourinho’s 26 league matches. That’s almost a 50 per cent improvement in points per game.
Unsurprisingly, their scoring rate didn’t increase dramatically, up by just 10 per cent, but their goals concession rate was 81 per cent of what it had been before he took over.
It’s a moot point whether or not a full Jose season would have got them into the top four but at least he has Spurs heading upwards again.
