Arsenal: Post-Arsene Wenger change good and bad

Arsenal are steaming into the post-Arsene Wenger era with a new management structure. Their changes have been vast and clinical, which is both good and bad.

When Arsene Wenger resigned as Arsenal manager in 2018, a decision that was forced upon him by a club who allowed him to save face but had decided to usher in a new era, change was always going to come. The desire for evolution, even revolution, was great, and necessary.

Find the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal Podcast here — Can we talk about something else?

There was development behind the scenes. Wenger was an old-school manager who had an old-school position at the club: entire power over every aspect of the organisation. But the metamorphosis of the modern game is such that it is difficult to place such responsibility on one man. A head coach is preferred to a manager.

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 likes of Sven Mislintat, Huss Fahmy, eventually Raul Sanllehi and now technical director Edu Gaspar were intermittently introduced before, during and after Wenger’s resignation to help assemble a team that could lead the Gunners forward. Unai Emery was then appointed as Wenger’s successor, but was crucially given the title of ‘head coach’, not ‘manager’.

Since this time, Arsenal have made vast changes to their scouting network, youth development and coaching set-ups. Per Mertesacker now heads up the academy, Steve Bould has been demoted from the first-team coaching staff, replaced by Freddie Ljungberg, while long-time chief scout Steve Rowley is also now out the door. In addition to these, Steve Morrow, who was heavily involved with the scouting, acquiring and developing of young talent, has now departed, somewhat under a cloud of controversy, allegedly clashing with Mertesacker due to philosophical differences.

All this is to say that, for better or worse, Arsenal are a very different club to what they were under Wenger. And according to one source speaking to The Mirror, these sweeping moves have not helped:

"“The DNA that made ­Arsenal the club it was has slowly but surely drained away. Appointments have been made – both before and after Wenger’s departure – that either didn’t work out or aren’t working out. Long-serving members of staff have been shocked by what’s ­happening to the club.”"

It was quite clear that the post-Wenger era needed to modernise the club. It was run in a relatively archaic manner, one that Wenger moulded in his own image. Those in positions of power had been there for extended periods of time, Wenger liking to keep the same staff that he trusted entirely. This left a stagnated, rotting feeling, one that would see performances on the pitch suffer and Champions League football lost.

So when Arsenal quietly ushered Wenger out the door, they were committing to a new way, a revolutionised way, one that is in keeping with the modern developments of the sport. In theory, this is a positive step. It was certainly a necessary one. But in practice, the changes that are exercised must be beneficial ones, and for many of these decisions, the jury is still out.

The post-Wenger era needed to be one of change and modernisation. Arsenal were falling behind the eight-ball. But succession and development must be handled carefully, and whether Edu, Sanllehi and others are doing that still remains to be seen.