I am not a huge fan of turning sports into simplistic allegory. Indulge me, though. This Arsenal team us set up to be conservative, and conservatism – in most walks of life – is a philosophy of control, of limits, of non-expression, of comfort borne from predictability and familiarity.
We see it in art, in architecture (my chosen field). Systems are followed. Rules are adhered to. Ordering. Known-ness. Sometimes that order can be comforting, thanks to the aforementioned familiarity. We recognize something, we thus feel safer within and around it. But familiarity can also become too predictable and veer towards the authoritarian. And there’s no room for the improviser in such an authoritarian system. It’s too risky. Too much is unknown.
If one is uncomfortable relinquishing control then forget it, having a player who might not do exactly what you want or expect isn’t an option. Because they aren’t in control, or under control. And I am realizing that’s where we are – all other factors acknowledged (like an imbalanced squad, or players on expiring contracts, or injuries, or just plain sub-standard talent). We have a manager who seeks control, who asks for and basks in the familiar.
We have a manager who wants roles played with predictability, who is fundamentally conservative. And I am not that, politically or otherwise. I don’t prefer that kind of sameness, especially not in sports, entertainment, and in my own work. I don’t prefer rote repetition. Invention is difficult, brings risk, but also reward in the new, unexpected. It can often result in artfulness.
So I don’t believe in the world (or, at least, footballing) view that seems to be Unai Emery’s. One can surely argue that conservatism is what we need in this moment, with the team in this state, the talent below what we’ve come to expect, and with the squad turning over.
But yesterday, and against Brighton, and Huddersfield, and West Ham, and others, it seems the evidence is mounting that this just isn’t the time for a manager who prefers a safe harbor.