Problems at Arsenal towards the end of the season?

Arsenal have performed well this season. But not quite well enough. The onus is on them to claim a trophy that has eluded them since 2005. Since seeing off Manchester United in the FA cup final that year, Arsenal have reached two major finals, but have lost both of them. And despite a lot of early-season optimism, this season has recently become something of a disaster for my beloved team.

Samir Nasri, Marouane Chamakh and Theo Walcott all had tremendous starts to the season, but with their form rapidly dipping, so has the team's. Despite often being blighted with injuries at key moments during the past few seasons, the club simply cannot keep churning out the same excuses year after year.

Many can also point to the fact that Manchester United have been quite fortuitous to pick up some vital wins on the road. In each of their wins, there has been a controversial moment which has gone in their favour. Even still, United's form has been far from convincing at times this season, but Arsenal just have not capitalised. But why, with the season reaching it's dawn, have we let trophies slip out of our hands once again?

With defeats in the Carling Cup final, the FA cup quarter finals, at the hands of United, and a comprehensive Champions League second-round exit, we have pushed the self-destruct button. At times this season, we have shown the form of Champions. Late winners, ground-out results and a new steely side seemed to reflect all of the praise that Arsene Wenger showers on his youngsters.

There is evidently something fundamentally wrong in the team. Without Johan Djourou in defence, we have no organisation at the back. Without Cesc Fabregas in the middle, we have no talismanic presence that can lift us in tight games. Without Samir Nasri, we lack a player who can turn a game on it's head with one piece of magic. Too many players are out of their depth. Squillaci, Fabianski, Denilson and Bendtner are all good footballers, but they're not players that win you league titles, not players that can stand up when the going is tough and be counted for.

Perhaps the most heart-wrenching defeat of the season came in that Carling Cup final. To lose to a team as techincally poor as Birmingham is one thing, but to concede the goals in the manner we did is simply inexplicable. That competition, undoubtedly, represented our best chance in these six long trophyless years of success. With a mediocre Premiership side to face, we were quite rightly favourites. We dominated, as we tend to do, but conceded a goal as farcical as a Basil Fawlty German walk.. It epitomised our luck, our concentration (or lack of it) and our inability to see out matches. All in one.

With lacklustre draws with Sunderland, West Brom and Blackburn in our last three games it seems as if the race for the title is all but over. We have a tricky run-in and Wenger has no hiding place now for our demise. I do not doubt his credentials as a manager, he is arguably our best ever. His frugalness gets the better of him though, his chequebook probably has as much dust as our trophy cabinet right now. Trust me, we are not far from being the best team in the league. In my opinion, we need: a centre-half, a tricky winger, and a clinical striker. But they need to be proven, world-class stars. We cannot keep waiting year after year for the next batch of youngsters. WE NEED A TROPHY NOW. To evoke memories like this...

My favourite personal essay

Introduction:

From the days of merely hitting the ball with ones hand, Tennis has undergone an impressive transformation since the 19^th Century. Many rules have been introduced to increase the regulation of the sport - for example the introduction of the racquet - conforming to the theory of ‘sportization’.

Elias proposed that a process occurs whereby the framework of rules in sport becomes stricter which, in turn, provides equality in sport as a whole. The theory stemmed from the political confliction of the time between various European societies, relating to the imbalance of power between the ruling classes of the time. This thus reflected the need for a structure to politics, as well as in a sporting sense, with rules seemingly becoming a necessity for stability. Regulation of the sport served to abolish the idea of inequality in sport as the leisured class and the poorer working classes were able to, essentially, play the same sport.

Background Information:

Tennis formed one of the major sports in the second-wave of sportization of pastimes, with the modernised version of the sport primarily emerging in the 19th century. Elias concluded that sports like tennis had become an integral factor of the civilisation process, suggesting that other games followed tennis’ role of becoming more regulated to avoid high levels of violence, which were evident in Greek and Roman sports such as ‘Folk’ Football, boxing or wrestling.

An argument about the theory: 

One critique of Elias’ figurational sociology theory is the argument that the perception of modernity is too narrow-minded. It seemingly refuses to acknowledge the idea of capitalism in society at the time, tying in with Berman’s proposal that modernity was primarily concerning “a Promethean vision of human possibilities based on the necessity for constant growth and continual revolutionizing of production."

 This theory would appear to be a clearer indication of the link between different types of tennis and different social classes. For example, the poorer, working classes would have been forced to play on an ad hoc basis in the 19^th century, as opposed to the wealthier contingent, who were able to afford the correct equipment and use the correct courts freely on a regular basis. This links in with the idea of capitalism playing a vital part in tennis, as it is still seen, even today, as a predominantly upper-class man’s game.

Conclusion:

The idea of the development of sport can be typified through tennis. From basic court markings to wooden tennis balls, the 19^th century version of the game reflects the idea of a lack of standardisation and regulation. Through the ‘sportization process’, tennis and other sports have been able to establish themselves as a proper force in the sporting infrastructure and ultimately lead to a more commercialised sporting age.

Wesley Hoolahan - My Favourite NPower League Footballer

My favourite NPower league footballer is Wesley Hoolahan. Norwich City find themselves second in the Championship table after an impressive run, where they have execeeded all expectations. Whilst many will point to the contributions of Grant Holt and Chris Martin, Hoolahan has played a pivotal role in the Canaries' rise to the top.

Assisted by the likes of Arsenal loanee Henri Lansbury and ex-Wolves winger Andrew Surman in midfield, the 28 year old Irishman has contributed heavily this season with 10 goals and numerous assists to his name. What I particularly enjoy about Hoolahan is his technical ability.

In a division not particularly renowned for pace, passers or poachers, the winger has a certain aura about him in the Norwich side and is quite often instrumental to most of their flowing attacking moves. Manager Paul Lambert said of his winger recently: "He has been excellent for me in the 18 months and has done lots of good things, helping us to pick up a lot of points."

In my opinion Hoolahan doesn't get the credit he often truly deserves. Whilst Holt will quite rightfully grab the headlines for his goalscoring exploits, Hoolahan's all-round game makes him stand out to me as a creative genius.

His passing, his vision, his dribbling skills and his set pieces all prove how wonderful a player he is to watch. Being an Arsenal fan, I enjoy to watch a decent standard of football by technically astute individuals. Hoolahan certainly falls into this bracket and if Norwich are successful in a second consecutive promotion to the top flight, the diminutive Irishman will be crucial to their hopes.

How do we like the FA Cup?

For years, The FA Cup has largely centred on the idea as a real, traditional, English sporting masterpiece. David v Goliath, Saturdays lounged out in front of the TV, long road trips from Plymouth to Newcastle. All that kind of stuff...

Since the FA have introduced proposals to 'revamp' this glorious competition, people have began to question whether these changes are for the good or, indeed, for the bad. Perhaps more importantly, whether these potentially radical decisions will genuinely revamp or ruin the Cup?

Some of the ideas include:

• Seeding teams from the third round in order to prevent the 'big' clubs from facing one another early on.
• Scrapping replays
• Playing all ties in midweek
• And giving the winner a Champions League Spot (if UEFA grant a fifth spot to the Premier League, that is...)

I can find faults in every one of these.

Firstly the seeding of teams. In fairness to the FA these so-called 'big-clashes' can be often detrimental to the hopes of either team, but on the flip side of that why would we want to see potential thrillers be thrown aside? This is part of what makes the FA cup, the FA cup. So often have we seen a Chelsea vs Manchester United match fail to inspire in the latter stages of the competition when everything is to lose. Another key argument here, is how it denies the lower teams the right of a money-spinning trip to Old Trafford or the Emirates, to play against some of the world's best players. These sort of days can salvage football clubs, inspire players and make for a great spectacle. Sometimes even greater television.

Then there's the idea of scrapping replays. Astonishing, ridiculous, reckless. Those three words epitomise just how ludicrous this idea really is. The idea for this has presumably stemmed from the F.A.'s inability to put together a consistent, stable footballing calendar for the year. International friendlies should be playing second fiddle, when replays are being considered. For me, they in lie the spirit of the cup. Minnows pitting their wits against a strong, experienced side and earning a creditable 0-0 draw. Exhausted and drained from these 90 absorbing minutes, they are thrust into half an hour's worth of extra -time. As I previously mentioned, the idea of upsets in the cup should never be denied - even if a replay is required. The minnows will quite rightfully gain revenue and TV rights that they perhaps might not have with extra time. Yes, some may argue that the Carling Cup does just this. But for heaven's sake, the competition has changed names more times than I could possibly count. It has never had the aura, nor the status of the FA cup.

Midweek ties only. Wow, what are they smoking in the Soho HQ these days? Have they really thought through the traffic on the M25 at 6.30 on a Tuesday night? This is just preposterous to be quite frank. How are families expected to turn out in their thousands to midweek games with work the next morning or 'the school run' to contend with? Saturdays and Sundays are there for a reason! Weekends represent family value, and provide fathers with a chance to introduce their children to the magic that the cup evokes. Again, the Carling Cup provides midweek action, but then how will the FA really make any genuine changes to the calendar. Don't tell me there's a pact with UEFA to have all Champions League and Europa League Games at the weekend? Surely not...

I like the idea of the fifth spot from the Champions League, I really do. But will it empower our League too much? It could potentially anger foreign leagues, in particular France and Germany who are awarded just 3 in comparison. This point has to be taken into consideration before you assess the economic impacts that it will bring to our countries' clubs.

My views clearly represent a general consensus, as this following article suggests: http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2900/fa-cup/2011/02/14/2351649/fa-blasted-by-football-supporters-federation-over-proposed

So there goes then, my analysis of the FA cup and whether it should be changed/revamped/revised/ whatever you want to call it. My opinion? Not a chance...

Why Phil McNulty is the best sports journalist writing today

I have admired this journalist for as long as I have wanted to become one. What makes him stand out from other journalists is his unique and imaginative way of reporting. The words he uses, and the way he uses them makes him even more impressive.

He regularly blogs on the BBC Sport website and his work usually centres on the biggest games in the country. Being the chief sports writer for the BBC, he is obviously very experienced and I feel that he is the perfect role model to any budding journalist. I, myself, strive to get into the print/online industry and wish to work either for a national newspaper or specialist Football magazine in the future.

Being socially active through the usage of Twitter and Facebook, McNulty establishes a rapport with his audience. We, as the general public, are able to actively engage with him through commenting on his blog or tweeting him etc.

His analysis of matches is thorough and detailed to give the audience an impression of a brilliant game, even if it might have been a drab 0-0. What he includes also in his reports are the implications behind the match, and what these particularly mean in the context. For example, he will look into the deeper meanings of what tactical issues there may have been, the manager's prospects in a job, the abilities of different players which all contribute to a fantastically written blog.

He always attends the biggest games in the Premier League, he is regarded by many as one of the finest writers for the BBC, his interactivity with a national audience and his writing is as interesting as they come.

That is why Phil McNulty is the best sports journalist writing today.