Arsenal: Intangibles vs. Performance

Arsenal are not performing well. But they have shown great intangibles in their ability to grind out results, as Matteo Guendouzi revealed. Which is more sustainable?

Unai Emery arrived at Arsenal and stated that ‘progress’ was the aim for his first season in charge. It was a smart answer to the question of having to define success. He did not want to put a measurable target on success and be subsequently lynched if he failed to meet it.

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

However, anyone who has studied goal-setting will tell you that it is critical to make goals that are measurable. You do not need to make these public but there must be a way of measuring your progress. The problem is that we, as fans and reporters, are analysing this club without knowing their measurable targets, assuming there are any.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

You see, this far into the season, you could very easily make an argument that Emery’s work is extremely positive. Arsenal have not lost in 16 matches in all competitions, they are fifth in the Premier League, have qualified for the knockout stages of the Europa League, and are in the quarter-finals of the EFL Cup. But the performances have not matched the results. Is progress, therefore, measured by the results or the performances?

According to UnderStat, Arsenal have outperformed their expected goals for by 9.05 goals and their expected goals against by 2.19. That is, according to the chances they have created and conceded, they should have scored approximately nine more than they have and conceded approximately two more than they have. By the same calculations, they have 7.79 points then their expected goals scored and allowed. The results do not match up with the performances.

So should progress be considered by the performances of the team or the actual results that are earned? And should Emery and his players actually be praised for outperforming the underlying statistics and showing the intangible qualities required to grind out the results or should they be criticised for their poor performances?

Matteo Guendouzi, for instance, praised the togetherness of the squad this week:

"“We’re on a good run of 15 or 16 games without a loss, which is something we need to continue on. We’ve drawn the last three games in the league, but we’re a very solid team, and I hope we can do great things. There’s a really good togetherness in the group, and that’s why we’ve made a good start to the season. It really is everyone together. There’s no specific groups, and it shows on the pitch.”"

Now, I am not here to say that Guendouzi is wrong. Or that Arsenal should be criticised for performing poorly, even if the results suggest otherwise. Or that the mental resolve that they have displayed has not been refreshing, flying in the face of their usual softness and vulnerability. But there is a question to be answered here: Should progress be praised by the intangible, mental qualities that Arsenal have displayed or should it be criticised for the underlying processes lacking effectiveness?

I do not know the answer to that question. I would not commit one to you either way. But the tension between intangibles and performance has run through the history of sport, and it does so again here with this Arsenal team.