Arsenal: Unai Emery must solve underlying problems, despite results

Arsenal have won five Premier League games in succession. They are enjoying a nice run of form. But there are some underlying problems that Unai Emery must solve, even if the results suggest all is rosy.

Ever since losing the first two games of the season, Arsenal have won every match of the year, five in the Premier League, one in the Europa League and another in the EFL Cup — funnily enough, they have not yet drawn a match. The latest of these was a 2-0 win over an excellent Watford team on Saturday afternoon. September has been a prosperous month indeed for the Gunners.

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

And Unai Emery is beginning to receive praise from the media, the fans and pundits for the positive results that his team is achieving. Sitting four points off the top of the Premier League after losing your opening two games is good going.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

But there are underlying problems that belie the quality of the results. Yes, Arsenal have now won seven games in succession in all competitions. And yes, they have just kept their second clean sheet on the season. And yes, they are now level on points with Spurs. But they’re not actually playing very well. The results are positive, but the process is not. In the age-old analytics debate of results vs. process, Emery’s team are a shining example of the controversy surrounding accurate and sound analysis.

Take, for example, the Expected Goals (XG), a figure that helps define the quality and quantity of shooting chances by determining how likely a player is to score from a particular shot, from each match thus far — it is not a perfect measure of a team’s performance, by any means, especially for singular matches that are skewed by small sample size effects, but it does provide a nice, broad picture. In the five league wins thus far, Arsenal have outscored their XG considerably.

Against West Ham, their XG was 1.82. They scored three. Against Cardiff, it was 1.34. They scored three. Against Newcastle, it was 0.93. They scored two. Against Everton, it was 0.93 again. They scored two. And against Watford, it was 1.59. They scored two. In each game, Arsenal scored more than they were expected to.

Similarly, Watford had an XG of 2.38. They didn’t score. In fact, of the five games, Newcastle had the lowest XG of 0.41. Everton, West Ham and Watford all had an XG of one or more, and Everton and Watford actually had a higher XG than Arsenal, i.e. based on the number and quality of their shots, they were expected to win the match.

These statistics are supported by the eye test. The Gunners don’t look very good. They are conceding big chances, especially on the counter-attack, they are turning over possession far too easily, they are struggling to create opportunity, particularly in the first half, and they are relying on Alexandre Lacazette and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang to over-perform their XG and snatch victories out of a hat. So far, it’s working. But it isn’t sustainable.

Although the results may look positive, the process is not. And so we come back to the debate of results. vs process. How do you judge the efficiency and effectiveness of an individual or organisation or team? Is it by the results they actually achieve or the processes that they perform? In football, it is the processes that determine the longevity and the consistency of the results. And, right now, Arsenal’s process is problematic. Emery has some solving to do.