As they prepare for the north London derby on Sunday, who would you rather be: Arsenal or Tottenham? For the past four years, it wasn’t a question that required much consideration. Even in 2015-16, when Arsenal last finished above Spurs, it felt freakish. The trajectories of the two clubs seemed clear: Spurs were rising, replete with gifted young players and blessed with a charismatic manager whose ideas were notably modern, while Arsenal were sinking in the dotage of a managerial great whose best years were behind him but whose departure would inevitably bring turbulence.
Arsène Wenger’s retirement in 2018 did lead to chaos – or perhaps more accurately, exposed the chaos that was already there. With Ivan Gazidis and Sven Mislintat leaving, only Raul Sanllehi remains of the triumvirate who were supposed to replace him. Major concerns remain about recruitment and particularly the influence of the agent Kia Joorabchian.
The first two games after the shutdown were a distillation of Bad Arsenal, a limp defeat at Manchester City enriched by some slapstick defending, followed by a farcical collapse at Brighton. But three weeks on, the mood seems far brighter. It’s not only that Arsenal won four games in a row (including an FA Cup victory at Sheffield United that was rooted in a quality they have not recently been associated: resilience). Nor that their first-half performance in Tuesday’s draw with Leicester was sharp and focused. It is the general sense that their manager has a plan, has been able to communicate it to his players and, while there is still a huge amount of work to do, there is a sense of progression.
This detached run-in may end up playing into Mikel Arteta’s hands since it has given him a largely consequence-free run of games to clarify his thinking. The future suddenly seems to have no place for Matteo Guendouzi, while the huge promise of Bukayo Saka has been underlined and there have been opportunities for Joe Willock, Eddie Nketiah and Reiss Nelson. Suddenly, it’s Arsenal who have the fleet of exciting prospects.
Youth development had been a defining feature of Mauricio Pochettino’s Tottenham but the appointment of José Mourinho was a step away from that. Quite what it was a step towards is harder to say. Certainly, the recent games against Everton and Bournemouth suggest it is not something anybody will want to watch. Bournemouth have yielded 105 shots on target this season; not one of them came against Spurs on Thursday.
All that potential now seems to be splitting into two camps – those who are struggling to live up to their promise and those who are considering leaving.
The redevelopment of White Hart Lane was necessary but, as Arsenal know, the impact of stadium investment on squad development can be severe. The timing for Spurs could hardly have been worse, given the pandemic means they cannot benefit from the increased capacity and enhanced corporate facilities.
Then there is the familiar problem of Mourinho. Having appointed him, it is only reasonable that Daniel Levy should give him time to instil his theories and at least a couple of transfer windows to fashion the squad to his liking. There are still those who will insist he is a born winner, but it’s increasingly hard not to feel that we have seen this all before and know how it plays out. The sense is that the endgame has begun.
The “Special One” press conference was closer to Gazza’s tears than to today. Mourinho proudly asserted he was not one from the bottle; that bottle would be vintage now.
What happened at Porto and then those first two years at Stamford Bridge have as much to do with the modern game as Arrigo Sacchi’s Milan or Brian Clough’s bolshiness had to do with early Mourinho – they were part of the background culture from which he had grown but had little direct relevance.
Mourinho is from the age of attrition. His leading contemporaries are now working in China, in international football and at Everton. The world has moved on and he has not moved with it. Which is not a particular criticism of him. Sir Alex Ferguson’s hunger and capacity to evolve were not normal and have skewed perceptions. Very few managers endure at the very top for more than a decade.
Back then, Mourinho’s outrages were mitigated by his charm. But now it is as though Richard III had suffered no Bosworth. This is him after almost two decades on the throne, worn down by tax planning, worrying about alum prices, dealing with uppity nobles, the French and Lancastrian pretenders and suffering the growing realisation that some of his past excesses – drowning his brother in a vat of malmsey, murdering his nephews in the Tower, ending Anders Frisk’s career – probably shouldn’t have been excused on the basis of a knowing glance and a quip that made a good headline.
Even the most ardent revolutionary becomes in time the weary establishment. Years cool the fire of passion and with it what was believed the light of truth. Does even Mourinho believe in his methods any more? Criticism of him has come to feel routine. Nothing he does has shock value, very little raises a smile.
Since his time at Real Madrid, it has felt as though he has distrusted players, been unable to relate to them as he did at Porto, Chelsea and Internazionale, whose players in discussing him can still seem like members of a cult. He has always sought to generate a sense of siege, but the players used to be inside the walls.
As he rails, again, about the deficiencies of his squad, you wonder whether it means anything other than that there has been no reinvention (and even the perceived need for reinvention implies the old model had failed). And yet a huge contract that runs until 2023 means the endgame could have a long time yet to run.
Both north London clubs have their difficulties. Both can look back to a recent past when things were a lot less complicated than they are now. But as Tottenham stagnate, there is at least at Arsenal the sense of a plan slowly being put in place.