Arsenal: The crucial difference between Matteo Guendouzi and Granit Xhaka

Both Matteo Guendouzi and Granit Xhaka have shortcomings. However, there is a crucial difference between the Arsenal midfielders: the nature of their shortcomings.

Matteo Guendouzi started the season in fine fettle. He played the full 90 minutes in every Premier League match under Unai Emery bar two. He started every league game and was invariably excellent in the majority of them. The many second-half comebacks Arsenal concocted in that turbulent early period were in large part down to Guendouzi’s game-inspiring brilliance.

Emery loved Guendouzi’s all-action style. He hared after the ball, played with an intense fire and energy, and sometimes allowed his emotions and energy to get the better of him. But this on-the-edge approach suited Emery’s equally hell-raising style. He wanted his team to be exciting and brash and high-intensity. Guendouzi embodied that.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

Once Mikel Arteta took over, however, Guendouzi’s role in the squad diminished. He started just two league matches under the Spaniard, was dropped out of the matchday squad entirely due to discipline issues during the team’s midseason trip to Dubai, and slipped behind Lucas Torreira, Dani Ceballos, and, crucially, Granit Xhaka in the pecking order.

Guendouzi and Xhaka have proven that they struggle to play together. They play the central midfield position in a similar manner: their distribution is their primary strength; they sit at the base of the midfield and dictate the tempo of Arsenal’s play; they break lines with testing passes between the opposition ranks or instigate counter-attacks with long, raking balls over the top; they like to have plenty of touches of the ball as they look to orchestrate and conduct. These players are vital to a successful possession-based approach. But having more than one can get complicated.

Arteta chose Xhaka, not Guendouzi. He has never publicly revealed the reason, but the likelihood is that it is Xhaka’s greater positional discipline and awareness that gives him the edge. Guendouzi’s more off-the-cuff approach suited Emery. But Arteta is a stringent, detailed manager who has a system that his players must execute to the letter. Xhaka will follow instruction with far more attention than Guendouzi.

Each have their shortcomings, which is why there is much debate over which should start. But there is a crucial difference between the two that should be recognised. The nature of their inhibitions produces very different long-term outlooks.

Xhaka’s issues are primarily unimprovable. He is slow, lethargic, is overly dependent on his left foot, and cannot dribble particularly well. Coaching can provide marginal gains in these areas, of course, but he is never going to suddenly turn into a burner. There are physiological limitations to his play. He has a very defined ceiling, and under Arteta, he has already reached it.

Guendouzi, on the other hand, suffers from teachable, solvable problems. His ill-disciplined can be curtailed with experience. He will better learn the central midfield position as Arteta demands it be played. He can recognise when to press the ball and when to sit off and remain compact with smart teaching and work on the training ground. Irrespective of their ages, which is another feather in Guendouzi’s cap, Xhaka’s ceiling is far more restricted than Guendouzi’s.

Next. Arsenal: 3 players not to sell yet. dark

This is why Guendouzi, not Xhaka, must be the future of the Arsenal midfield. Whether he reaches his potential or not remains to be seen, and he will be harshly judged on his development and progression. But the very presence of an extra gear makes him that much more valuable than Xhaka at this stage. Arteta can mould Guendouzi into an elite midfielder. That, Xhaka can never be, and it is a vital difference to note.

Home/Arsenal News