Arsenal Vs Atletico Madrid: The perfectly painful contrast

Arsenal and Atletico Madrid are two extremely contrasting teams. Their differences were painfully on full-show during their Europa League semi-final with their differing game-management abilities most concerning.

It is not merely sour grapes to say that Arsenal were the better team in their Europa League semi-final against Atletico Madrid. Their footballing intent, the control they had over both legs, and the chances that they created all dictate that they deserved to win the tie, if a team can ever ‘deserve’ anything in football.

Catch the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal podcast right here

But the fact of the matter is a stark one. They didn’t win. Atletico did. And at the end of it all, that is the only thing that counts.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

• 3 standout players from 1-0 victory over Everton
• 3 positives & negatives from Goodison Park victory
• Arsenal vs PSV preview: Prediction, team news & lineups
• 3 talking points from Arsenal’s victory at Goodison Park
• Mikel Arteta provides Gabriel Martinelli injury update after Everton win

The reasons for such a sad and sorry defeat will be discussed until the cows come home. From Arsenal’s inability to defend to Atletico’s far more ruthless and clinical attacking play on the counter-attack, there were many influences on this game, some more significant than others. But, for me, there was one clear distinction between these two teams that was so perfectly and painfully evident across the two legs: Game management.

Thomas Partey stated after the first leg that Diego Simeone had imparted training sessions, prior to the first leg, that focus on the prospect of playing with ten men, something that then transpired after only nine minutes. That element of detail, discipline and awareness was something that Arsenal lacked so desperately. They lost this game because of two stupid, foolish lapses in concentration.

In the first leg, it was Nacho Monreal and Laurent Koscielny conspiring to allow Antoine Griezmann to saunter his way in behind the defence, past David Ospina, with the help of a rebound, and slam the ball into the roof of the net; in the second leg, it was the turn of Hector Bellerin, sleeping as Diego Costa slipped off his shoulder, unaware of the incoming danger.

And these goals came at crucial points in the match: Griezmann’s was in the final moments of the first leg with the home side looking to deny their visitors that crucial away goal; Costa’s came on the stroke of half-time, a half that the Gunners grew into and ended in the ascendancy.

Compare that to Atletico. Even with ten men and down a goal, they still knew that taking a 1-0 loss back to Wanda Metropolitano was not the end of the tie. They recognised that they could still win over the 180 minutes, as long as they didn’t throw it away in the first 90. Arsenal, on the other hand, not only conceded sloppy goals, but conceded crucial goals, especially Griezman’s.

Next: Arsenal Vs Atletico Madrid: 5 things we learned

It was their inability to manage the game that cost them. Not their lack of quality, not the fact that they couldn’t score, not the fact that they were the worse team, though such factors perhaps played a part. The Gunners lost because they failed in their game management. Atletico won because of the exact opposite. What a painful and perfect contrast.