[Football] Did Arsenal bottle the league?

[The Wizard]

From this position:

Yes it’s still been a fantastic season for them over all but they won’t get a better chance at winning the PL with several other big boys toiling, and from this position with the results they’ve had against teams they would have expected to beat, for me it’s a 100% bonafide definition of a bottle job.

Seeing the salty arrogant arse fans trying to paper over the bottle makes it all the more amusing, or am I being harsh?

 

[timbha]

No. Just not good enough

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

100% absolutely YES. Shipping 5 goals to Southampton and West Ham is not what champions do.

 

[The Wizard]

No. Just not good enough

But they were good enough for 28 games then at crunch time all of a sudden they weren’t?

I’m not claiming that Arsenals squad is anywhere close to City, but the team they have still should have been able to hold onto a 2 goal lead to a half arsed Liverpool (at the time) and West Ham and not drawn 3-3 at home to Southampton, and let’s be honest we are great but they also shouldn’t be getting battered 3-0 at home by us.

 

[beorhthelm]

yes, they lost points in games they should have been winning or grinding out draws.

 

[SUIYHP]

I'm turning the question on its head and focusing on City. The quality of that side is utterly horrifying. If anything they would have been the bottlejobs if Arsenal had won the title.

 

[Baldseagull]

No, they are just not as good as City, as evidenced by losing to them home and away with an aggregate score of 7-2. If Arsenal could have taken 3 points in one of those games they would be 2 points in front of City, albeit with City having a game in hand.

 

[BBassic]

 

[Hotchilidog]

No. They did the best they could. Chasing City is a thankless task that leaves little room for error. Arsenal should be thanked for keeping it interesting for as long as they did, otherwise this thing would have been over before easter.

Arsenal do not have the squad depth that City do. City could probably put two teams out and finish fist and second in this league given the resources they have at their disposal. We were the worst possible opponent that Arsenal could have faced on Sunday given their desperation for a win.

Fair play to the Gunners I think they'll be up there again next season and maybe a little wiser.

 

[nicko31]

No they didn't, they just aren't as City. Although cheats in my book, they are still streets ahead, they came good when it counted.

We saw back in January when ARS were 3-2 up against us there was no game management, there was panic.

And they didn't lose the title against us, it was lost weeks ago. Like failing to keep at 2-0 lead against West Ham. Arsenal have still had a very good season

 

[pb21]

Im not sure bottled it is the correct way of describing it, but there is an element of that. More they aren't as good, as Man City over the course of a 38 game season.

 

[The Wizard]

Think people are missing the point:

Why were they good enough for 28 games to be 8 points clear, but at crunch time when it mattered they weren’t?

If a guy is leading the Masters golf going down the last by 5 shots and makes a 9 and loses, that would be a bottle job because he was good enough for 71 holes but then all of a sudden wasn’t.

There’s no argument from me that City are the better team and have a far superior squad but from that position, given they’ve dropped points from 2 goals up against Liverpool and West Ham, conceded 3 against Southampton and lost 3-0 at home to us can we really say it wasn’t a bottle?

 

[MJsGhost]

I'm turning the question on its head and focusing on City. The quality of that side is utterly horrifying. If anything they would have been the bottlejobs if Arsenal had won the title.

This.

Just look at the form table for the last 14 games:

Arsenal 3rd, only behind Liverpool on GD and averaging over 2 points a game is hardly a big-time bottle job.

Man City is the outlier - just a ridiculous run.

That said, even though it's not really fair, I will very much enjoy telling the Arsenal fans I know that they bottled it

It's very much worth looking further down that table too.

Chelsea
Stains

 

[Beanstalk]

It depends on the context.

If you are asking if they bottled it with 10 games left, then absolutely they did. Arsenal were 5 points clear (on the premise of City winning their game in hand) with 10 games to go and they're now likely to finish second by at least 6 points.

If you are asking if their finishing second is a failure, in the context of the whole season it absolutely isn't. Incredible achievement to take a side from 5th to 2nd in the context of the modern Premier League.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

No. They've had a remarkable season and exceeded all expectations, they've just come up against a juggernaut. Without a freakish team like City, Arsenal's end to the season would usually have been enough to win the league. City's recent form and run of results is frightening though. As Liverpool have shown in recent years, unless you are perfect, you can't beat City.

It's not a popular narrative for the media machine, but in all honesty, the PL is as dominated by one team as the French and German leagues and the Italian league was up until a couple of years ago. It will be that way until Pep calls it a day at City.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Without Arsenal we would not have had a challenge to City at all. They fell short and everyone wants to pile on and laugh at them but that’s because we don’t like Arsenal, well most of us. They will be stronger for the experience and expect them to go again next season. What doesn’t kill you etc.

 

[MJsGhost]

Think people are missing the point:

Why were they good enough for 28 games to be 8 points clear, but at crunch time when it mattered they weren’t?

If a guy is leading the Masters golf going down the last by 5 shots and makes a 9 and loses, that would be a bottle job because he was good enough for 71 holes but then all of a sudden wasn’t.

There’s no argument from me that City are the better team and have a far superior squad but from that position, given they’ve dropped points from 2 goals up against Liverpool and West Ham, conceded 3 against Southampton and lost 3-0 at home to us can we really say it wasn’t a bottle?

Using that analogy, your golfer would have to have got the joint 2nd best score on the last hole, yet still not won.

Also, 5 shots clear on the last (less than 2% of the competition to go) is in no way comparable to being 8 points clear with more than a quarter of the season to go (and your rival has a game in hand AND with the home fixture against them still to come).

 

[rool]

I am getting old and bitter so was quite pleased to see them blow it especially after Trossard/ Caicedo and after Ramsdale giving it large at the Amex.
I'm guessing he was quieter on Sunday?

 

[The Wizard]

Using that analogy, your golfer would have to have got the joint 2nd best score on the last hole, yet still not won.

Also, 5 shots clear on the last (less than 2% of the competition to go) is in no way comparable to being 8 points clear with more than a quarter of the season to go (and your rival has a game in hand AND with the home fixture against them still to come).

Very pendantic but true I suppose, you get my general point.

I totally get people saying Arsenal have over achieved and had a fantastic season in context of what was expected at the start but that doesn’t change the fact that they have caved under the pressure city have applied.

Both can be true, City are a relentless winning machine right now, Arsenal have had a great season but they have well and truly gone off the boil, they were good enough for 28 games to reach that point and since then they’ve won 2 games from 8, it’s also the manner in which they’ve thrown point away in those games.

 

[BNthree]

Think people are missing the point:

Why were they good enough for 28 games to be 8 points clear, but at crunch time when it mattered they weren’t?

Thing is the 28 games Arsenal had played aren't exactly the same as the 27 games City had played. There are so many variables involved with each of the games it is impossible to compare between teams after X number of games. Maybe Arsenal had had some "easy" matches against opposition that weren't fully in form or were missing players while City hadn't. There's a lot of reasons why they could be ahead after 28 matches but not after 36.