Arsenal: Was Granit Xhaka As Bad As Everyone Says?

Granit Xhaka has been heavily criticised for his performance in Arsenal’s loss to Manchester. So, was he actually that bad or is it mere frenetic fandom?

As the fall-out from the weekend’s results continues, with the added crease of Liverpool stealing a late winner in the Merseyside Derby thanks to the sharpness of on Saido Mane, it is clear to see the struggles that Arsenal are suffering from are affecting their title chances detrimentally.

In particular, while their talent, their quality on the ball and their physical gifts are very rarely questioned – and rightly so given the enormous potential of the side that has been hinted at, at various times throughout the season – their mental strength, their will, desire and fight have been lacking and it has been costly.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

One player who has been heavily criticised for his recent performances is £35 million man Granit Xhaka. Signed in the summer in the hope that he would establish himself as a domineering presence in central midfield, it was Xhaka, alongside Francis Coquelin, who was utterly dominated on Sunday against a fluid, interchangeable Manchester City midfield.

The relentless movement, the interplay and the skill of David Silva and Kevin De Bruyne, in particular, were too much for the Swiss enforcer to deal with. Although Arsenal looked comfortable early in the game and went into half-time with a 1-0 lead, the second half showed the huge disparity between the two sides, especially in central areas. However, was Xhaka actually as bad as he seemed and as many have said or is it mere frenetic fandom that is driving a shortsighted storyline?

Granit Xhaka (top) completed 80% of his passes while Francis Coquelin (bottom) completed just 58%. Neither is very good!! #Arsenal pic.twitter.com/NRYtAGDptm
— Andrew Dowdeswell (@a_dowdeswell) December 19, 2016

Xhaka was by no means successful on Sunday. His passing was erratic, completing just 80%, he made one successful tackle… from five attempts, made just one interception, one clearance and zero blocks. That is not a good performance by any means and the stats only back up the eyeball test. There is a huge limitation to using numbers to paint what is an ever-changing picture, and often the eyeball test gives a much moe detailed and precise valuation.

However, in this case, the stats support what so many saw.

There is one caveat. While Xhaka was poor, he was significantly better than his partner, at least when in possession as you can see by the graphic above. Coquelin completed just 58% of his passes, also only won one tackle, made one interception (a very low number for someone who prides himself on breaking up play) and only three clearances.

Next: Arsenal Vs Manchester City: 5 Things We Learned

Both Coquelin and Xhaka were thoroughly outplayed by the City midfield. They were unable to gain a foothold in the game, could not provide Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez with the service they needed in the second half, and were not effective in their defensive work either. So yes, Xhaka was as bad as many have said. However, it was not just him who was below par.