Arsenal's Europa League defeat raises serious questions over the sale of Olivier Giroud
A club’s transfer business can only be definitively judged over the long term but, as the dust settled on Arsenal’s Europa League exit against Atletico Madrid, one thought lingered: might it have all been very different with Olivier Giroud in the team?
He was sacrificed in January amid the determination to sign Pierre-Emerick Aubamayeng but, with the former Borussia Dortmund striker ineligible for European competition, Arsenal were significantly weakened in what became their priority for the season.
This was further magnified by the swap deal that saw Alexis Sanchez and Henrikh Mkhitaryan exchanged and also the sale to Everton of Theo Walcott.
With Mkhitaryan injured from the first leg, Arsenal went from pre-Christmas Europa League attacking options of Giroud, Walcott, Sanchez, Mesut Ozil and Alexandre Lacazette to a starting three of Danny Welbeck, Ozil and Lacazette.
Arsene Wenger felt so unsure of the back-up to that trio that he waited until the 68th minute of the second leg before making his first change. This was despite creating such few clear-cut chances in the context of their dominance of possession across both legs.
Yes, with Atletico’s 32 clean sheets this season, they were going up against the best defence in Europe, but the lack of a Plan B was screaming out across the 180 minutes of football.
Arsenal were clearly backed into a corner over Sanchez, but Giroud and Walcott were very much sales of choice.
With only about £40 million coming in for the pair of them, they simply largely facilitated Aubameyang’s club record £54m fee. Good business? Next season will tell us more but, over the past eight days, how Wenger could have done with the very different options they provide.
Giroud, especially, would have given Arsenal a completely different focus for their attacks than the hard-working but physically diminutive Lacazette. Arsenal, remember, had a total of 57 crosses over the two games against Atletico Madrid but always had little chance of making any sort of dent aerially with Lacazette. Their attacks became badly predictable.
Giroud had already scored three times in six Europa League games before Christmas and has proved himself the master substitute in the Premier League over recent years.
Wenger must have yearned for his presence on the bench during both legs. Walcott, too, would have offered something distinct.
As it is, the jury is very much still out on a January transfer window that felt like the first in which it was not Wenger making the big decisions but chief executive Ivan Gazidis and his new head of recruitment Sven Mislintat.
The other big call in January was the decision to accede to Mesut Ozil’s wage demands and pay a reported £350,000-a-week salary. Simply blaming Ozil for Thursday night’s defeat is unfair - he created more than most - but the problem for Arsenal and Ozil is the context against what he is now understandably judged.
Special wages raise the expectation of special performances and he was no more than average when it mattered most in Arsenal’s biggest game of the season.
The legacy of the January window for the next manager is also clear. Huge resources were committed to three players in Ozil, Aubamayeng and Mkhitaryan who are all now on long-term contracts and will be into their 30s when these deals expire.
It means that the basis for the club’s attack is likely decided for the next few years and, with the club’s leading scorers in every season since 2012 all leaving in January, inspiring this new unit will almost certainly decide the success of the next man.
