Fields Medal

 

One of the biggest stories in mathematics when I was in secondary school was hearing that there was this guy in Princeton called Andrew Wiles who had been working very long and hard on Fermat's Last Theorem.

Back then, I was one of the more talented people at mathematics in my school, although I had been regularly accused of underachieving by my teachers. Mathematics was, for me, an easy A. I did hang out with the mathletes, took part in school competitions. But I never made it to the regular maths team. I wonder what it would have been like to been on track to be a maths quiz star. You had to be patient enough to study mathematics.

I didn't need patience to do the maths that appeared on regular homework. They were concepts that I grasped pretty quickly. I don't remember having to expend much effort on mathematics until I reached JC, and although I had to work for my As, it was relatively straightfoward. And it was easy because everybody around me was kicking and screaming, so I just had to progress at their pace, which I could well do with one eye closed.

So in hindsight, Andrew Wiles was an important parable for me at an important time. He locked himself away from the world and hammered away at a problem for 7 years until it got solved. Mathematics wasn't really about sprinting. It wasn't about Archimedes having a flash of insight and jumping out of his bathtub in joy. It was about taking a very long hike up a very tall mountain, and doing it over and over again.

Given the experiences I had as a teenager, it would be very churlish for me to wish that things were different, but I wish I managed to put together a successful run at being a mathlete, and I wish I had somebody to help me along with that. (I actually did, but I didn't know how to make use of that resource). I wish I had put together a regimen, where some form of intense focus and some ritual / regime helped me go up that mountain. I chose the more flashy route, which was an artistic life whose path was littered by flashes of inspiration. That is nice, but mathematics helps you think about structure, architecture and the intricate patterns behind putting things together.

Mathematics has gotten to the point where a lot of it is abstruse. It's easy to hide in a forest of complexity. The truly interesting results are the ones which lead to applications, or forming unexpected connections between superficially dissimilar instances. I wish I had at least learnt some fundamental results like Galois theory or saw the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra (that polynomials always have complex solutions). I never learnt anything about diophantine equations. Those were the regrets I had about mathematics.

I heard about how mathematicians lived like recluses, and spent their days and nights chipping away at hard problems. There was June Huh, who was the very epitome of the tortoise brain, who worked slowly, but somehow always saw the deeper connections underneath the concepts.

There was Paul Erdos, and I remember Fan Chung describing him as somebody who always led you on an adventure that was very strenuous. There was Zhang Yitang, who had a story similar to Andrew Wiles: he toiled in obscurity for a long long time before coming up with his twin prime work.

Genius in mathematics wasn't so much the “AHA” flash of insights that come by. People have different styles of trying to find things out. I'm probably too messy a person to be a truly great mathematician, and after all, you need to have done most of your work before 40.

It's great that this time, the class of 2026 has 2 ethnic Chinese Fields medallists. The first two were Yau Shin Tung and Terence Tao, and they are legends. Yau Shin Tung didn't prove the Poincare conjecture: that was Grigori Perelman. But he laid down a big part of the foundations. Wang Hong and Deng Yu have big shoes to fill. Yau Shin Tung wasn't a Chinese national when he was awarded the prize, but he should be considered a mainlander too.

I'm more interested in prizes like the Fields Medal, the Abacus prize, the Turing prize and various other computer science and mathematics related work. I think that the Nobel prizes in Economics and Life Scences are still very vital. I am less sure about Chemistry and Physics. They gave the Chemistry Nobel to AlphaFold, and that to me was a bit like cheating, because why would you give a Chemistry prize to machine learning?

World Cup Cinderellas

There are some teams which capture the imagination of the world at a major footballing event. In 1990, it was Cameroon. In 1994, we had a few, because traditional powers like England and France didn't qualify, and Argentina and Germany were knocked out early. We had Romania, Bulgaria and Sweden as Cinderellas. In 1998, the Cinderella was Croatia. In 2002, Senegal, Turkey and South Korea were the Cinderellas. Turkey had an easy path to the semi-finals, but the backbone of their team was the same side which beat Arsenal a few years earlier to win the UEFA cup. In 2006, Portugal reaching the semi-finals might be a Cinderella moment, or it might not. 2010, the Dutch could have been considered Cinderellas, except that they played so dirty in the final that it was a disgrace. Uruguay performed very well, but it turned out that they had Luis Suarez, Diego Forlan and Edinson Cavani. They also had the handball gamesmanship in the infamous Ghana game. Ghana did well to reach the quarters. There weren't any surprises amongst the semi-finallists in 2014. Costa Rica and Colombia achieved all time bests in reaching the quarters. The real surprise was the infamous Brazil – Germany match in the semis. In 2018, we had 3 dark horses in the semi-finals. England, Belgium and Croatia. Belgium had one of the best teams, so this was more like a golden generation who didn't finally go on to win it. England are so crap at World Cups that reaching the semi-finals at that time felt like a great achievement, although they should have found some way to get past Croatia. Croatia is one of the few teams that actually appeared on this list twice. Russia is a country that is a pariah state now, but the way they powered over Spain was at that time truly inspiring. In 2022, the Cinderella was Morocco, who ensured that an African country finally reached the World Cup semi-finals. There were Asian countries who did it before, but the don't count: Turkey had done it before, but they were considered European because they compete in UEFA and anyway Istanbul (which have their 3 great clubs) is in Europe. South Korea had done it before, but when they were knocking out Italy and Spain, the refereeing was so biased that nobody believed those games were fair.

There is more of a good record of Cinderellas winning tournaments in the Euros. Sweden and Denmark getting to the semi-finals would have been considered a success. Sweden proved in 1992 and 1994 that they had a golden generation. Denmark actually won the whole thing. During the final, there was an outrageous amount of time wasting and gamesmanship that took full advantage of being allowed to play the back pass for the last tournament before it was officially banned. In 1996, the Czechs were the dark horses, having knocked out France in the semifinals to get to the finals. The English getting to the semi-finals were over-performing, although they were agonisingly close to beating the Germans, and after that it wouldn't have been the hardest thing to beat the Czechs in front of their own fans. There were no dark horses in Euro 2000, which was celebrated as one of the great tournaments, because there were so many great teams there. Maybe Portugal could consider themselves moving ahead in life to get to the semis but that was the golden generation that had Rui Costa and Figo. In 2004, that was the mother of all Cinderella performances, when the Greeks knocked out France, the Czechs and finally the hosts Portugal to win their first and only international trophy. It was an era where defensive play could win you tournaments: Mourinho would introduce the concept of parking the bus to the world. But for a country that was really a minnow (they had never won a game before in a tournament) to beat 3 great nations on their way to the championship is a truly extraordinary achievement, so let's not quibble too much about how they did it. In 2008, Turkey reaching the semi-finals would have been a great achievement. Russia unearthed a few gems among their players, including Arshavin and Pavluchenko. But the star of the show was Spain, whose golden generation was starting to blossom. Finally, after having 2 of the greatest club sides in football, they broke their duck and won their first Euros in 44 years. They were such underdogs at that time that nobody thought they would win 3 tournaments in a row. No real surprises in Euro 2012, other than Italy reaching the finals. They were in their massively underachieving phase and Serie A was on a downward trajectory that Inter Milan winning the champions league in 2010 was unable to disguise. Euros 2016 would see a few dark horses. First was Iceland, who somehow managed to not just reach the knockout stages but knock out England. Then there was Wales, who went all the way to the semi-finals, although they had an easy path: they only had to beat Northern Ireland and Belgium. OK, Belgium were quite strong in 2016. The most significant thing about that tournament was that Portugal finally won and Cristiano Ronaldo had his continental trophy. He just had to beat Croatia, Poland and Wales to get to the finals, but they somehow managed to beat France. In Euro 2020 (held in 2021 because of the pandemic), the Cinderellas were Denmark, England and Italy. Denmark were lucky to get to the semi-finals, only having to beat Wales and the Czechs. But they may also have been spurred on by Christian Eriksen collapsing on the pitch. England got all the way to the final, having beaten Germany, Ukraine and Denmark to get there. The Germans were the Germans, but probably at a low ebb in their powers. Italy had a good squad, probably. Their road to the final was not easy: Austria, Belgium and Spain. And finally they got over England with Chiellini executing that shirt pull on Bukayo Saka to hold him from running away with the ball. No Cinderellas in Euro 2024, where England reached the final but were denied by Spain again. Their route to the final was relatively straightforward: Slovakia, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

What we can see is that the list of minnows rarely repeat themselves. Minnows who overperform usually don't do it again. Only a select few make it to becoming true world powers, like Croatia, who took on the mantle of the great football nation that the former Yugoslavia was threatening to become. (God knows why that didn't happen to Serbia). Like Spain who in retrospect were building a golden generation. Belgium were truly unlucky to have had Marc Wilmots and Roberto Martinez as coaches of their golden generation. They might have won something with a truly great coach. So we can praise Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Sweden, Colombia, Costa Rica, Greece, Denmark, the Czechs, Russia, Wales, Iceland, Morocco to the skies when they pull of something extraordinary. But it's rare that any of them can repeat that feat.

Anyway, who knows which nation can be cinderellas at the 2026 World Cup? Somehow, it seems that there's more potential for a power shift in the World Cup, because the African nations are rising and the Europeans – other than a few giants like England / France / Spain are declining.

USA World Cup

 

USA 94 was a weird World Cup. In the end, it was the first “expansion” World Cup to be held in a place where football had yet to take root. People might question the wisdom of holding the World Cup outside one of the traditional heartlands of the World Cup. But since then, there have been “expansion” World Cups to Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Russia, Qatar and the USA again. There will be World Cups held in Morocco – which may well be a world power for football eventually – and Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

1994 captures the USA in an interesting position. The Cold War had just ended. America seemed to be going downhill, and plenty of pop culture around that time captures the mood of despair of the Reagan years amongst the underprivileged people of the USA. But even though the decision to award the World Cup to the USA took place in the 1980s, during the Cold War, the USA was at the peak of its power, even though we didn't know it at that time. There was a lot of goodwill towards the USA, and when their team surpassed expectations to qualify from their group, they unexpectedly became very popular.

Throughout the years, the identity of the USA team was that of the plucky underdogs who triumphed against adversity. And this identity was forged in the USA 1994 team, the one that nobody gave a chance to at first. There were notable instances of on-field violence: an American player getting elbowed and getting a Brazillian sent off. And Andres Escobar's own goal leading to his team getting eliminated early, sent back home, and he got murdered back in Colombia. But people sat up and took note that the Americans had that one quality that had always been their saving grace: grit.

Colombia's elimination was a sad story, because it was the end of a golden generation, who, like Belgium in 2018, could see a small country do a plucky underdog story. Instead, the underdogs were the USA. Colombia could have hosted the World Cup in 1986, but they couldn't ensure that the country was safe enough and so Mexico had to step in. It's possible that Colombia's failure to host the World Cup cast a big shadow on the prospects that South America would ever host the World Cup again. After that, South America only hosted the World Cup once more, in Brazil's ill fated 2014 World Cup. In contrast, before 1986, South America hosted the World Cup in 1930, 1950, 1962 and 1978, roughly once every 15 years. The national team had Carlos Valderrama, Freddie Rincon and Faustino Asprilla. It should have done better, and they managed to reach the quarter finals in 2014, probably this is what that golden generation should have done. There was another group that was identified as the group of death. In truth, their group, with USA as the hosts, Romania as an underdog and Colombia as a great dark horse should have been considered as the true group of death.

Maradona had been the big story of the last 2 World Cups. In 1986, he was the king, who almost single-handedly won the World Cup. He managed to win games against defenders who spent the entire game kicking lumps out of him. Given how brutally he was treated, it wasn't entirely surprising that he had a relatively short career, and his body broke down, where the pressures and drug addictions basically ensured that his post-Napoli career would be nothing more than an appendix. But it was surprising how well he played in the first 2 games of USA 1994, before he got caught for doping.

USA 1994 was also unusual because 2 of the teams which reached the semi-finals were dark horses: Bulgaria and Sweden. Romania was also another big underdog. We thought that Colombia was going to be one of the dark horses but we were wrong. It was also unusual because neither England nor France was there. However, this would be the beginning of a great era for France, leaving aside the 2010 France shit show.

USA 1994 was a success, but admittedly expectations were very low. The football was more free flowing, and it was the beginning of a new era in football, where attackers were better protected, the game was more free flowing and athletic, and the attackers were cleverer. There was a run of decent-to-great tournaments in WC USA 94, Euros England 1996, WC France 1998 and Euros Benelux 2000. They had good star players, and good attacking teams. Attendances were very high. It resembled the Simpsons, where there was a lot of chaos and dysfunction, but ultimately things were optimistic.

The 1994 World Cup felt like a new beginning in many ways. It was the first truly post Cold War World Cup. 1990 had been won by a Germany that had yet to re-unite, contested by a Yugoslavia that had yet to Balkanise, and a USSR that had yet to fall apart. The World Cup would lose the magic that it had in the 1960s and 1970s, it would get replaced by a sleeker, more commercial but less innocent product. The football was good, but the surprises were eliminated. We would not see stars from other parts of the world that got unearthed at the tournament: scouting networks became so good that people no longer got surprised by the emergence of new talents.

It's striking how many of the stars of USA 94 were from the Barcelona dream team. Romario, Hagi, Stoichkhov. In spite of the underdogs, the final had the usual suspects: the greatest football nation, Brazil, faced the country with the greatest football league, Italy. Funnily enough, Italy barely deserved to win the 1982 World Cup, was eliminated by Argentina in a shock result in 1990, as hosts, and failed to win the 1994 World Cup because of penalties. Was eliminated in the final in Euros 2000. They were eliminated by South Korea, in a referee scandal in World Cup 2002. I didn't think they deserved to win in 2006, but in a way, it was some compensation for all the bad luck that they had over the years. Brazil had one of their great eras. The finals in 1994 was a replay of that famous 1982 football match where Italy upset Brazil. It was a match that proved that the system was much more powerful than great individual players.

USA gave birth to a football culture, where it was centered around the more liberal and immigrant half of the USA. The Barack Obama USA. It was very international, and immigrant communities were as much likely to support their own foreign countries as the Americans. It gave rise to the famous saying, “poor Americans, always playing away”. Football resembled what it was in Singapore: people watching at odd hours, and supporting European teams. IT was not really a recipe for success. But there was always potential for growth. On the fandom side, the USA had a great future.

When it came down to the on-field side of the equation, things are a little grimmer. Football became this country club sport, where people charged large amounts of money for kids to participate in it. It never got taken seriously.

The truth is that USA 94 wasn't just supposed to be the dawn of football in the USA, that period of time was a period of reform, following the Heysel and Hillsborough stadium disasters. There were rules that were introduced that were positive, like the back pass rule and 3 points for a win instead of 2. This made the game more attacking and positive. But it also made the game more elitist, and turned football into a winners take all sport.

The powers of countries in the sport are very lop sided. There are only 8 countries which have won the World Cup. Of these countries, Uruguay probably were a little lucky to win 2 World Cups, even though they were the “it” team of the 1930s. 1950 was Uruguay upsetting Brazil to win, and 1954 was West Germany upsetting the Hungarians to win. Those were the last few times the dark horse won the World Cup. Uruguay went back to being a small backwater country, but Germany grew to become a major power in football. Otherwise, the great powers were the usual suspects: France, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France and England. Italy is in danger of dropping out of the ranks of the greats.

It is very hard for other countries to break into this club. It is also very hard for countries to create a great league. Although it is true that sport washing has taken place. During the 1990s, PSG, Manchester City and Chelsea were relatively average clubs. All 3 of them have been bought over by rich oil sheiks and achieved great success on the football field. The English Premier League was very young when 1994 happened, but they were poised to succeed in the long run, because of their ability to reach out to people all around the world. Paris and London became great magnets for footballing talent all over the world. Pele, on the eve of USA 1994, made 2 infamously bad predictions. He predicted that Colombia would win the World Cup, when in fact they were knocked out in the first round.

European leagues had always dominated world football, but from around 1992 onwards, because of commercial deals and TV money, the disparity became even more pronounced. The English Premier League managed to extract the most money from the game. Serie A at that point had a lot of great teams, and was a genuinely competitive league which attracted the great players from all over the world, but that was because the football clubs were bankrolled by plutocrats. There was the traditional big 3, like AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus. But there were also other great clubs like Napoli, Lazio, AS Roma, Parma, Sampdoria, Fiorentina. Teams like Brescia even occasionally had the big stars. After the 5 year ban following the Heysel stadium disaster, English teams never really dominated the European Cup like they used to, but they are making their presence felt in Europe. However, in the 90s, they were very weak in Europe, and Man United winning the Champion's League in 1999 felt like a great big underdog story.

So the USA 94 to me represented 3 things. It represented the introduction of football into the USA. It hasn't really exploded. The USA was the big sleeping giant in football and in many ways it is still sleeping, but it is a country with a lot of football potential. In many ways, Pele was right when he predicted an African winner of the World Cup. Football is essentially a working class, developing country sport. That's why Brazil and Argentina excel at it and that's why the USA and England don't. But a lot of European countries have an immigrant underclass, which is a great raw ingredient for producing great footballers.

In the USA, you couldn't put the migrants and the underclass to work on the sport. And football couldn't divorce itself from the college sport system. It was too expensive and too exclusive. If the US could make those things work for them, there's no telling how well they could do in the future. The good news is that Christian Pulisic is playing for AC Milan. The bad news is that AC Milan is no longer a great football team.

The other thing it represents is the globalisation and its effects on the sport. The commercialisation, and possibly FIFA evolving into some kind of a kleptocracy.

I have yet to see what this World Cup tournament is going to turn out to be. It could possibly be one of the more infamous ones, like Argentina 1978. South Korea and Japan in 2002 was also a bit of a fiasco with the refereeing scandals, but at least it was fun to see a lot of big countries eliminated early. This one has ICE raids and

The USA team has just beaten Paraguay 4-1. It's a great result for them, and there is this promise that Pochettino could bring the team deep into the tournament. It would be great to see them do well. I also hope that England will do well in this tournament. Otherwise, this tournament is also related to the 2 themes of USA 1994. The development of football in the USA, and how it's become some kind of alternative pop fandom whereby teams from Europe are cool but easy to love (but no love for Major League Soccer). The USA being a rainbow nation that doesn't really have home fans and a local following of local teams.

And the other big theme this time is that there is this great big backlash against globalisation. Sadly but unsurprisingly, there has been ICE raids on some of the football teams, and a Somali referee banned from entering the USA. There has also been England's kit being stolen from their camp in Kansas City. Not much surprise there, considering that Trump can barely stop himself from fucking it all up.

We didn't really expect that the USA would be MAGA country for the 2026 World Cup, but it's a fait accompli and you just have to get on with it. There are some people from the Muslim World and they are sour that European teams have protested against the human rights records.

Arsenal Champions

It wasn't easy, but Arsenal finally got over the line. Man City looked to have clawed their way back to parity at one point, closing a 9 point gap (albeit one with a game to spare). But they could not win against Everton, and when they drew against Bournemouth, the title finally returned to Arsenal. I thought Arsenal were going to win the EPL in 2023, when they built a commanding lead for the beginning of the season, but I guess now is better late than never.

The games were difficult. One particularly wrenching game was the one against West Ham. Arsenal, at that time, needed to win it. There was a goal at the end by West Ham, but it was disallowed. That goal could have given West Ham 1 more point. It wouldn't have made up the gap with Tottenham, but I don't know if it would have given them a psychological edge.

Then the next game was against Burnley. It was regarded as an easy one, as was the one against Crystal Palace. But they are only easy because Arsenal already had the psychological advantage of being ahead of Man City at this crucial point. Those games were nervy 1-0 wins, and they wouldn't have given Arsenal much of a goal difference advantage, but winning the league is all about grinding out the wins during squeaky bum time.

Ultimately, after Arsenal got derided as “bottlers”, it was Man City who bottled it. Man City did not bottle the title challenge during that first unforgettable premier league title in 2012, when they had to score 2 goals within 10 minutes. They didn't bottle it either in 2022, when they had to score 3 goals within 30 minutes. They did bottle it in a few FA cup finals and a few European knockout matches. But this Man City side are a young side who was a refresh of the older Man City side with the old warhorses. So they'll have to learn how to be title contenders all over again.

Arsenal did lose title challenges in 2023 and 2024. But the 2023 side were unexpectedly thrust into this position. There were different versions of Arsenal: the one that played exciting attacking football, the one that played very cautious and defensive, the one that relied on set pieces and gamesmanship. Ultimately, Arsenal managed to get over the line after trying every trick in the book.

Arsenal winning the premier league happened to me during the years which I regarded as rites of passage. They won the league when I took my PSLE, when I passed my Grade 8 and exited my tweens, when I ORDed from the army, when I graduated. And again after a very rough start to my working life which settled in.

And after that, it was failure after failure. The Wenger years after the invincibles were really painful to watch. Even when Arsenal were at their best, they tended to have a soft underbelly. Especially the 02 03 season, when Arsene Wenger said that he could go a full season unbeaten. Then his side bottled it. And people don't remember this because the following season, he actually managed to achieve that feat.

There were the various collapses. Arsenal's title chasing collapse in 07 08 was quite painful, because at one point it seemed that they could go on to win a title. Arsenal tend to start seasons well and tail off at the end. I don't know if this has some effect on their psyche.

The really significant part now is: what does it augur for me? Which milestone have I reached in my life? Am I ready to be the head of my household? Am I moving forward with my career?

Another thing is that Arsenal have ended a very long title drought. To be fair, a lot of title droughts ended in my lifetime.

Nottingham Forest (1979, first time)

Aston Villa (1910 to 1981)

Everton (1970-85)

Arsenal (1971-89)

Leeds (1974-92)

Manchester United (1967-93)

Blackburn Rovers (1914-95)

Chelsea (1955-2005)

Man City (1968-2012)

Leicester City (2016, first time)

Liverpool (1990-2020)

Arsenal (2004-26)

There will probably not be another title drought broken for a very long time, unless there are changes to the big six. The next big drought will be Man U and Chelsea, and it's strange but those 2 did dominate football together for around 10 years between 2004 and 2013, and they are the ones in drought. If Tottenham break their duck, it will be very massive, but I don't think they will.

I think Arsenal will win another title. But I don't know if they have what it takes to build a dynasty. This will be the first time in quite a while we have neither Klopp or Guardiola in the premier league. Those two are like the Wenger and Ferguson of 20 years earlier.

One of the most impressive things is when a manager comes into a mid table side, rebuilds the whole club, and turns it into a winning machine. Bill Shankly did that with Liverpool. Brian Clough did that with Derby, and their second title should have been credited to him. Matt Busby did that with Man U. Don Revie with Leeds. Arsene Wenger with Arsenal. Jose Mourinho with Chelsea, albeit with financial doping. Jurgen Klopp with Liverpool, and Pep Guardiola with Man City. With all due respect to Roberto Mancini, although he did bring the club forward.

Ferguson did that with man U, most famously. The first title winning side had little in common with the people who were already there. He had to clear out Paul McGrath – even though McGrath was still good enough to excel for Aston Villa years later. There are the people you had to get out of the system. The first title winning side had Brian McClair, Bryan Robson and Mark Hughes from the old side. The rest were people he brought in. Similarly, Arteta had to find a way to get rid of Aubamayeung and Ozil, and Lacazette had to be released. He had to be very ruthless with his goalkeepers. First, he got rid of Bernard Leto, and brought in Aaron Ramsdale. And even Ramsdale was not good enough. He was only good enough for a team fighting for the UCL places, and David Raya was the one who would win you the EPL. Emile Smith Rowe was another one let go, although he's obviously good enough for Fulham.

When Arsene Wenger won the league with Arsenal, his teams were famous for being the opposite of George Graham's “defend at all costs” style. Arsene Wenger's first team managed to combine the solid backline inherited from George Graham with the stylish and expressive attacking play up front. His later teams suffered because Wenger being able to build a solid team wasn't one of his biggest strengths. Mikel Arteta managed to mix and match Wenger's style with Mourinho's gamesmanship and Guardiola's tactical thinking. His side also peaked at the right time, when neither Klopp's Liverpool or Guardiola would have their amazing 90+ point seasons. Perhaps nobody would ever reach those heights again, because Man City and Liverpool have brought something new to the premiership that other people have dissected and worked out.

Perhaps the EPL would dominate Europe to an extent that they did during the first 7 years of my life, when they basically won 6 out of 7 European Cups. The new Europa League and Europa Conference League is a bit of a disaster because English teams have been winning many of the prizes: Aston Villa, West Ham, Chelsea, Tottenham and maybe even Crystal Palace.

But a lot of credit to Arsenal for coming in first in a super competitive English Premier League, although Klopp and Guardiola leaving has made it less competitive for quite a while. Next year will be harder, because Chelsea will improve under Xabi Alonso, Liverpool aren't going to have 2 bad seasons in a row – either they'll improve or Arne Slot will leave. Man United will have better players and a better manager in Michael Carrick. Man City won't have Guardiola, but will inherit the team that was starting to gel together.

The most important thing for me, though, is this superstition that something interesting will happen to my life when Arsenal wins the league. It is a very unexpected drought. But Arteta, Wenger and George Graham all have had their doubters. George Graham was up against the greatest Liverpool side. Wenger had to wrest the throne from Man U who managed to defend it against Aston Villa, Blackburn and Newcastle. He had to come up with something special. Arteta brought Arsenal to a level very similar to Wenger's: never the greatest side ever (except during their invincibles season). But they were always near enough to the title that they could win it if Man U slipped up. Arteta's side winning wasn't much of a surprise, and was a long time coming. But he also had doubters, because this was Arteta's first job, and Arteta's not as much of a great manager as Guardiola or Klopp were. Still, he was willing to try every trick in the book to get Arsenal through.

I guess the previous droughts were shorter. George Graham was playing an extreme form of 80s ultra-defensive football. Arsene Wenger went in the opposite direction. That said, a drought of 22 years was a very long time, and Wenger was responsible for 14 of those years. His best chance at killing that drought was during the 15 16 season. I think that the fact that Arsenal lost the league to Leicester made me almost give up on that club. The next season started a long streak of Arsenal finishing behind Tottenham in the table. Maybe it was the failed title challenges in 2008, 2011, 2016, 2023, 2024 which made me question whether Arsenal would ever win the league again.

But Arteta, just like George Graham and Arsene Wenger were saviour figures at the club. They weren't people like Ancelotti, Pellegrini, Ranieri or Conte, who came in to give an already great club something extra special to get them over the line. He had to build it back up from a mid table side to a champion's league regular, and finally, a champion. And this time, hopefully Arsenal wouldn't have their progress disrupted from having to pay to build a stadium, so maybe no more long periods of disappointment. Which means, if they were to win the league more regularly from now on, it might be an omen that I might move forward with my life.

I've always been quite a reluctant Arsenal fan. I've never believed that I should be a great supporter of a team not from a city I live in. But it's mainly because of this superstition that Arsenal winning the league is a door opening in my life to something. I don't really know what. And I don't have any anxiety anymore about Arsenal going for a long time without winning the league. Somehow time just flies.

Unfortunately, Hearts wasn't good enough to win the Scottish league, and very unfortunately had to play against Celtic in the season decider. They didn't break their duck like I had hoped. But well we can't have everything go our way in a season.

Title Chasers

I think about all the time when I followed a football team as they went through a league title challenge. One of the most amazing title challenges was in 1989, and that was immortalized in the book and movie “Fever Pitch”, when Arsenal nicked Liverpool at the end to win the league title. It would also be near the end of Liverpool's imperious reign at the top of English football.

The first league battle that I witnessed was when Singapore got relegated in 1992. The most amazing thing was that they started that season with a few league wins and were at the top of the table in early rounds. I don’t know how and why, but we ended up sliding down the table and we got relegated to the second division.

In 1993, we had to climb back up. There were a few Singaporean stars who were playing for Malaysian state clubs. I think Singapore’s relegation guilt-tripped them into returning to Singapore to turn out for the Lions. It was a relatively easy thing to win that league, although for some reason, Selangor was relegated at the same year as we were, and we had to make sure that we didn’t finish the league second to Selangor.

The Malaysian League is not as important as it is in English football. It’s a lot like the regular season in American sports, just to figure out who qualifies for the knockout round at the end, and it’s the cup knockout that really matters. But in 1994, Singapore was challenging for the title, after getting their best players together and week in, week out, we were trying to stay ahead of Kedah, and I think we played Kedah in one of the final matches, and ended up beating them. The title run-in, I recall, was very exciting, especially when we were going to play at some of the stronger sides in the league, like Kedah or Sabah.

In 1995, one of the biggest catastrophes took place in Singapore football, when we were asked to leave the Malaysia Cup for the penultimate time. This coincided with the rise of the premier league. The local football scene was never the same after this.

So I turned my attention to the premier league race. The 94/95 season turned out to have a very exciting title race. It was Man U vs Blackburn. Blackburn were chasing their first title since before the first World War. Man U had done a great job of narrowing the gap to Blackburn, but were unable to win it. They could have won if they won their last match, but didn’t. The sight of Blackburn winning the league in spite of losing their final match is one of my first great football memories.

There was that Man U vs Newcastle during the following season, with Newcastle surrendering a lead that was 12 points at Christmas. Then there was the first of 7 Arsenal vs Man U title rivalries, which Arsenal won first in 97/98. It’s a bit hard to exaggerate how much of a shock it was to see Arsene Wenger come in from nowhere and run away with the title, especially since they were mid table over Christmas. The only other manager who came in and grabbed a team by the scruff of the neck and made them champions – the only team which did it so abruptly was Conte’s Chelsea, when he took the team that Mourinho built and then dismantled all the way to the title. Even the Leicester miracle wasn’t that much of a surprise because they were already in red hot form during the relegation escape the previous season.

In hindsight, Man U lost the title in 1998 because of an injury to Roy Keane, and Eric Cantona retiring. The following year they got Yorke, Blomquist and Stam. And got Roy Keane back. It was another tight league challenge, and only decided on the last day. Arsenal made it to the semifinals of the FA cup. It would have been another great season for them, but it was completely overshadowed by Man U seizing the treble.

Man U won the next 2 league titles easily. But in 01-02, Man U threatened to make it 4 in the row. Instead, Ferguson made a rare error of trying to get Veron into the famous Man U midfield. Instead, he broke up the great quartet of Keane-Scholes-Beckham-Giggs. Veron would have tried to introduce a slower, more tactical game, than what the rest of the team were used to. Arsenal, though, had a new generation of players blossoming into an extremely formidable attack: Ljungberg, Henry and Pires. There were title challenges that went all the way in 01-02 and 02-03. It was a shame that Arsenal never got their three-peat because they let the 02-03 title slip. But there was a time when it seemed that the balance of power had permanently shifted from Man U to Arsenal.

The invincibles season saw Arsenal march to the title without Man U or Chelsea being able to stop them. Then Chelsea came with the moneybags. Ranieri had done fairly well with Chelsea, and lifted them into 2nd, and knocked Arsenal out of the champions League. But he was fired, a little harshly, and replaced by Mourinho. (He would get his revenge more than 10 years later by winning the title with Leicester 1 year after Mourinho’s last title with Chelsea). I always thought that Ranieri was unlucky to get sacked as Chelsea manager but his title win with Leicester was a stroke of luck that balanced the earlier bad luck.

Chelsea won 2 league titles during Mourinho’s first 2 seasons. So for 3 years in a row, there was no proper title race. But during the 06-07 season, especially when Man U had an attack that had Ronaldo, Rooney, Saha and Tevez in it, Man U came storming back. The period from 01 to 06 saw Man U being relatively mediocre under Alex Ferguson, but he slowly put together a spine of another great team – probably his last great team. Man U and Chelsea were battling it out all the way. In 06-07. In 07-08, it was a 3 way struggle with Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea. In 08-09, it was Man U vs Liverpool. In 09-10, it was Man U vs Chelsea. Every year was a big title challenge. Then after a relatively easy title in 10-11, there was that amazing end to the season in 11-12 when it was finally clear that Man City’s era was beginning and Man U’s era was ending. Given Man City’s dominance in Manchester since Alex Ferguson’s retirement, it seems even quaint now that they ever called Man City the “noisy neighbours”.

There was an epic title race in 13-14. It may have been Brendan Rodger's greatest achievement to take Liverpool to within a whisker of the title. Steve Gerrard will always be associated with 3 runners up seasons in 02, 09 and 14. But the 14 season is probably the most tragic, because he gave away a crucial goal in the defeat to Chelsea and the draw against Crystal Palace. It was the slipping on his butt that was the most visibly tragic aspect of the whole thing. The 14 team had up and coming players like Luis Suarez, Raheem Sterling and Philippe Coutinho: the 09 team had Mascherano, Torres, Pepe Reina and Xabi Alonso. Great players, almost good enough to win. Ultimately, you needed a team that was almost as good as Pep Guardiola's centurions, the Liverpool team in 2019 which won the champions league and got 97 points – and the next year you'd get over the line. The team which won in 19 may have been better than the one in 20, but the one in 20 won because Man City was undergoing a rebuilding that was between Guardiola's first and second great teams.

And now we have Arsenal again. The first year that Arteta was around, Arsenal failed to get any European competition at all, and they were behind Tottenham. Then he almost got them into the champions league places but failed. Then he got them within touching distance of the title in 2023, but, as in 1999, finished second to a side that won the treble. They came close again in 2024, this time being more defensive, but failing to score the goals that would win them enough games. In 2025, their nemesis Man City did not challenge for the title, but Liverpool, with the side that Klopp left behind, marched to the title without any major obstructions.

Finally, we have the Arsenal side of 25/26. For the first half of the season, they were clearly better than Man City. But Man City was merely transitioning from Pep's second great team to his third, and his rebuilding was starting to bear fruit towards the end. Arsenal had only ever had one great team during the premier league era. The George Graham side which won the league in 89 and 91 were a good but not great team, whose stars were actually the back line of Adams / Bould / Dixon / Winterburn / Keown. Wenger's side was exceptional in the sense that it was assembled cheaply and he managed to pick up bargain stars like Vieira, Petit, Overmars and Anelka, to add to Bergkamp, Wright and the defence of the old warhorses. But they were not clearly better than the Man U treble side. Only the side which had Henry, Campbell and company was clearly the best in the world and could win the league easily, no matter how short lived it was.

The trials and tribulations of this side has been mentioned earlier. They were 9 points clear at one point, albeit with a game in hand. Then they managed to lose a cup final and a league match to a resurgent Man City, which highly suggests that they can be challenging for the title next season. They also got knocked out of the FA Cup to a lower league Southampton. Man City, Liverpool and Man U will be stronger next season than this one. And that suggests that Arsenal's greatest and best chance to win the league will be this season. They dropped points against quite a few mid table sides. Wolves. Brentford. Bournemouth. Nottingham Forest. It's only that Man City were so bad that they could afford to do this.

In the UCL, they had an easy path to the final. Barcelona and Inter Milan were already eliminated, Real Madrid has Mbappe and Bellingham to destroy a good team spirit, and Bayern and PSG will thankfully eliminate one of the other, so Arsenal only has to beat one of them. But the winner of that tie will be the favourite because their attacking football is so irresistable.

But they have one foot in the UCL final, and could be looking at a great double. In the 22 years that Arsenal have not won the premier league, there have been relatively few title challenges. They were mostly content to take a champions league place. The title challenge of 08 fizzled out after the traumatic leg break of Eduardo and Gallas' tantrum. Then in 11, a promising season fizzled out after their nemesis Birmingham City upset them in the league cup final. And to add insult to injury, they lost 8-2 to Man U in the opener of the next season. (Although to their credit, they went out and bought Arteta the next day). There were good half seasons followed by collapses. There was 2016, when they beat Leicester City home and away, and after that, they celebrated, even though there was nothing to celebrate other than getting a title challenge back on track. They subsequently collapsed and left it to Tottenham to do the chasing. They had nothing to show in these 22 years other than 1 UCL final, 1 Europa league final, and a few FA cups.

25 26 is that season that resembles 2016, where the traditional title challengers are hibernating. Man U's rebuilding stalled when Ruben Amorim refused to change his tactics. Liverpool bought expensively and failed to make their squad gel as much as they should have (and maybe they were also mourning Diogo Jota). Man City were only putting the final pieces on their rebuild, although they did transition from a side that tried to park the bus against Arsenal to a free flowing and attacking side, although they'll now have to replace Bernardo Silva and John Stones.

The next few matches will determine their season. They look easy, but they've already slipped on a few banana peels. They do not have the luxury of slipping on any more. The next 2 matches are against Atletico Madrid at home, which is winnable but it is never easy against them. West Ham looks easy but it is a must win for West Ham in order to avoid relegation. Then Burnley and Crystal Palace look easy but Arsenal must not slip up. And if Arsenal are in the UCL final, then it will be against the side which can score goals for fun. 4 or 5 matches to define their season. If Arsenal win trophies, it will be one of their greatest ever seasons. If they don't then everything will be harder next year.

What I do remember about supporting a team which wins the title is what winning feels like. It feels like a steady march. Milestones go by, targets get hit. Lesser teams get swatted aside. There is this anticipation, this intense fixation against the teams they have to face. I still remember that during the 93 and 94 Malaysia cup and league seasons, people were anxiously studying the stronger sides like Kedah, Sabah, Sarawak and Pahang. I remember the live commentary on the radio.

Football is ergodic. That is mathematics speak for saying that every possibility will come up. We've seen improbable things. Mourinho is still celebrated for the last 2 times when dark horses won the UCL – in Porto and Inter. Man U got transformed from a juggernaut to a struggling team in the middle of maybe 2-3 decades of league title drought. Leicester City won a league, an FA cup, and then 2 relegations. Brentford / Bournemouth / Brighton are the new mid table sides. Bolton / Charlton / Stoke / Birmingham were the old mid table sides.

Southampton, Sunderland, Coventry and Ipswich have made returns to the premier league after long absences. Tottenham could still get relegated 1 season after breaking a trophy drought. Everton could escape relegation after a fight. Liverpool could break one of the most infamous league droughts of all time. West Ham, Aston Villa, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Wigan and Crystal Palace could win trophies.

We could witness Hearts winning the Scottish League, and the first time since Alex Ferguson that a team not from Glasgow did it.

Musings on the Hormuz crisis

Decline of the USA

 One of the things that I learnt today is that the USA has this policy called the petrodollar. It means that oil is bought in US dollars. This creates an artificial demand for US dollars and keeps it high, and allows the USA to keep on printing money. This creates a commanding fiscal position for the USA and allows a lot of countries to be effectively paying the USA when they buy oil. This system is one of the reasons why the USA is such a powerful country in our world.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq triggered the war in 2003, because a few years earlier, he tried to take Iraq off the petrodollar system. The petrodollar is a more compelling explanation for the Iraq war compared to the weapons of mass destruction, or raiding Iraq for the war.

If and when Iran has instead cornered the supply of oil through the control of the Hormuz, it is a big blow to the petrodollar system. I think one of Saddam Hussein's mistakes was that he tried to switch his oil trade away from the dollar. If and when Iran gets to decide which ships pass through the Hormuz, they'll also be able to trade oil with countries on a bilateral basis, and bypass the petrodollar system.

Another reason is that the USA is the guarantor of security for shipments of oil. Other countries in the world sign up for the petrodollar because the USA is in charge of security. There are quite a few people out there who are quite happy to criticise the USA for all the blood spilled when you're securing the oil supplies, and yet they are the beneficiaries of this oil system, and would be yelling and screaming if the price of oil were to shoot through the roof, as it is doing now.

The end of the petrodollar will have a lot of consequences for the USA. The USA already paid a very high price for the preservation of the petrodollar. For Trump to squander that away because of a spectacularly stupid mistake would be a great shame. Maybe not a great shame for the Middle East but for the soon-to-be former allies of the USA.

Another reason why the USA always supports Israel is that Israel is the attack dog of the USA, and a partner in the oil security system, even though their interests are not perfectly aligned. For many many years, this has meant that Israel felt entitled to pick any fight they ever wanted to pick, without having to worry about the repercussions.

I see some people getting triggered at the prospect that the petrodollar system may be ending. But I think it is reasonable to say that this Iran thing has been a big blow to the petrodollar system.

The other repercussion of this Iran crisis is that the Israel Gaza conflict is brought even closer to home. Previously we could say that Israel Gaza is none of our business. This time, Southeast Asia is impacted by the Iran wars in 2 big ways. First, is that the stoppage of oil and fertiliser from the Persian Gulf is an oil shock for many countries in the region. Second, is that the balance of power will probably be tilted away from the USA to China as a result of this foolishness. And then this will spark a lot of talk about the US Israel crisis. 

A second Suez

Some ppl are comparing the Iran war to the Suez incident. I am very surprised that Bilahari Kausikan did not forsee what Iran was going to do, that he bought into the logic that the USA was necessarily going to defeat Iran. First, he underestimated how easily the Iran could strangle the Straits of Hormuz (this is a pretty basic error). And second, he thought that it would be easy to defeat Iran. It's NEVER easy to defeat Iran, as Iraq has already found out. Iran is mountainous, it has a tough terrain. And now Iran isn't just close to a nuclear bomb, but it is a military superpower where drones are concerned. Thirdly, it can screw over the metropolises of the Gulf pretty easily. 

The most consequential events in world history are also the most unexpected. In your personal life, your house could be set on fire. You could be the victim of homicide, or receive a life changing medical report.

The reason that he gave for the US to go in on Iran is simple: the US will simply have to project its strength in order to maintain its credibility. I agree with him on the part that the outcome of this episode will speak volumes for the credibility of the USA. But if you make a stupid mistake, you could lose a lot of credibility for the USA. I’m reminded of the boy who licked the lamppost in the movie “A Christmas Story”.

There were previous incidents, where Trump executed senior members of Iran’s leadership, when Iran and Israel fought a 12 day war. After each episode, Iran opted not to escalate. That, in hindsight, was practicality. Iran could not risk doing something crazy and stupid, because it knew that its situation was precarious.

But with the latest attack, even the anti-government protesters had to realise that the US and Israel was not their friend. Plus the senior ayatollah leadership had been decapitated. This prompted Iran to launch attacks on the Gulf states and the Straits of Hormuz. What changed this time was that Iran suddenly was in a situation where it had nothing left to lose. If Iran had nuclear weapons, they could have used these nuclear weapons.

Iran is a country that in many ways resembles Afghanistan. It is ruled by Muslim hardliners. It is mountainous. Both of them are infamously impervious to foreign invasion.

There are a few concepts in foreign policy that are pertinent to this incident. One of them is escalation dominance. Israel got used to the fact that whatever Palestine or Hezbollah did to Israel, Israel could enact a larger retribution on their enemies. But they didn’t know what to do with Iran, who holds 2 trump (pun intended) cards: Iran basically controls the straits of Hormuz – not now, but forever and ever. And Iran can extend its military power onto the Gulf States.

Previous US administrations realized that Iran had these trump cards, that it could play. But this particular one has a shaky grasp on reality.

The USA is being confronted with a sea change in international relations. Its unipolar moment is gone. That moment was basically squandered with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That laid bare the extent of its power.

⦁ It weakened the will of the USA’s people to extend its military strength across the globe, and hampered the extent to which the federal govt can conduct military expeditions across the globe.
⦁ It weakened the fiscal position of the USA
⦁ It angered the Muslim world and caused a downturn in its relationship with its allies.
⦁ It distracted the US from building other components of national strength:
    ⦁ An industrial base
    ⦁ Supply chains
    ⦁ Trade relationships
⦁ It took the USA away from the pivot to East Asia and allowed China to come into that vacuum.

Some people are comparing the Iran Hormuz crisis to the Suez crisis. In 1956, the UK made a big blunder in that it had collaborated with the French and the Israelis to take the Suez. The USA forced the UK to back down. This showdown exposed the weakness of the UK and forced them to reckon with the reality that they had to give up their global empire. 

Also, the problem with Israel is that Israel may just talk you into doing dumb and stupid things. 

Saudi Arabia wants Iran to be defeated. Actually none of them want an Iran who will pull that crazy stuff on them. So in terms of screw ups, this one is so bad that:

Straits of Hormuz is blocked for nothing.

Infrastructure in the Gulf states is destroyed for nothing.

The cold war between the Gulf states and Iran has turned hot.

Arsenal's Narrowing Lead

I'm always rooting for Arsenal to win the English Premier League again. They won in 1998, 2002 and 2004. The first 2 of these wins were very closely fought. In 97-98, the title fight went to the last day. And also in 98-99. Man U and Arsenal won one each. In 01-02, Arsenal had to play catch up to win the league, and win several matches in a row. The next year, they surrendered the league title to Man U. Only in their invincibles season did they win the title convincingly. 

I wasn't following football back in 88-89, but Arsenal won the title on the last day, albeit against a Liverpool side that had been emotionally shattered by the events of Hillsborough the previous month. That was certainly an example of a narrow title win. And we didn't know it then, but the 1991 title win was the first year in Liverpool's long league title drought, that would span 29 years. 

As important as the titles that Arsenal won, were the titles that Arsenal didn't win, that they lost narrowly. In 98-99, to Man U. In 02-03, the title that would have achieved a three-peat for Arsenal's greatest team. 

The last 3 seasons, from 22-25, Arsenal had lost the title. They were 2nd in all 3 seasons. The first season, they had built up a commanding lead, but they couldn't hold on to it because they were not sufficiently prepared to go out and win the title vs Man City. The next season was the same story. Then they had a drop off in 24-25 when they failed to win a title against Liverpool. 

For the second season in a row, Arsenal were the hot favourites to win the title. In the 24-25 season, they just couldn't compete, because they had an injury crisis. It was hoped that this year, they'd have new signings that would carry them through to the league title. However, some of their reinforcements have not turned out to be the winners they'd hoped for. Eberechi Eze and Victor Gyokeres have not made as much of an impact as might have been hoped. Kai Havertz and Ben White have not been as injury free as might have been hoped. 

The problem with Arsenal is that it's like the England national team. When they seem to be on the brink of victory, the anticipation reaches a fever pitch and it's too much of a distraction. There had been some talk a few weeks ago that Arsenal would simply ride to the title, when they were 7 points ahead at this stage. Since then, Man City turned a losing position against Liverpool into a victory, and Arsenal drew a game against Brentford. And this followed draws or losses against Man U and Nottingham Forest that should have been wins. It is a sinking, familiar feeling for Arsenal supporters who are used to seeing title challenges collapsing when they draw against mid-table sides a champion is expected to beat. 

It's still not a bad position to be in, when Arsenal are still involved in all 4 competitions at this late stage, and people always believe that Arsenal could win one or more trophies. But the problem is that Arsenal isn't quite as wily as Pep Guardiola. Mikel Arteta has a problem that's quite different from Arsene Wenger. Wenger leaves too much to chance. Arteta tries to control the uncontrollable, and he robs his teams of the freedom and spontaneity to find their way through some of the barriers when plan A doesn't work. There is too much dependence on set pieces and gamesmanship, and some of their attacks are too predictable to cause problems to the opposition. 

When I see Tim Sherwood being a pundit, that reminds me that he was in the Blackburn side which made 2 title challenges in the mid 90s and won 1 of them. At one point, they were 8 points ahead, then they almost lost the title to Man U, even though Man U were without Eric Cantona. You could say that being 7 points ahead at the start of the year is a very strong position, but now that has almost been cut to half to 4 points. Neither Man City nor Arsenal have the better run-in for the title, but if Arsenal doesn't solve whatever it is which is stopping them from running away with the title, they're going to find themselves second for the 4th time in a row. Previously it would feel a bit extreme to call them bottlers, but this time, it would be a lot more appropriate. 

I usually associate Arsenal winning the title with me making a breakthrough in life. Life hasn't been hard for me, but it isn't going forwards either. That's why I'm always hoping for Arsenal to win the title. And so far, they've had a pretty long drought, considering that there were title challenges a few times. 

I think that Blackburn's title run-in is one of the most interesting of the title challenges. It's when you have a team breathing down your neck, and somehow you hold your nerve and win it at the last. It was like that for Man City's 2012 win too, back when it wasn't managed by Guardiola, and title wins were a little shaky. I have a feeling that Arsenal aren't going to win the league by more than 5 points. They'll either have to go down to the wire, or give it up. 

And in one of those previous years, I was also trying for a league title of my own. It was an "A" levels year, and I remember feeling that it was never a guarantee that I would come out of it with straight "A"s. In real life, it also felt like winning a league title by a narrow margin, although I did end up with good results. 

Just for the record: here is the context. Arsenal have just slipped up twice. They drew against Brentford, then drew against Wolves. They should have gotten at least 4 points from those 2 games and they got 2 instead, and lost some ground to Man City. Then they won against Tottenham, which is a really bleak game to play: if they drew or lost, it would have been catastrophic, because it would have represented a title challenge collapse. If they won, "lad's it's Tottenham". It's a Tottenham who had just sacked their manager for being shit. Arsenal won against Tottenham, and it turned out that it's the least they could have done, and half of the talk is about their title challenge being back on track, and the other half of the talk is about Tottenham facing relegation troubles. 

So here's the thing: in spite of a lot of youtube video's I've watched that largely opined that Arsenal would take advantage of slumps in Man City and Liverpool to win this year's title, it's not ever a given. Guardiola wins a lot of titles because he always has a new trick up his sleeve. His understanding of football is so good that he'll be able to come up with something strategically creative. He's not a one dimensional tactician. Every time somebody has him worked out, he can come up with something different. He started with tiki taka, but he could also play a pressing game, and he even tinkered a bit with long ball tactics, which meant slaughtering the sacred cow in possession statistics. Arteta consistently finds it hard to get one over his former teacher. When you are up against Guardiola in the league, there's not ever such a thing as the title is in the bag, until you're mathematically certain of victory. Just ask Liverpool, who lost the title on the last day against them more than a few times. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update in 1st week of April: 

I'm adding more stuff to this today. Fast forward to the middle of March, and things seem good. Wins against Chelsea, Brighton, Mansfield Town, knocking out Bayer Leverkusen, Everton. Everything seemed rosy. Suddenly they were 9 points clear, and having a good lead going into a double header of cups. 

And then what happens? They get beaten by Man City in the final of the League Cup, and then they get knocked out of FA cup against lower league Southampton. And suddenly their position at the top of the league looks shaky. The FA Cup was an especially bitter blow: Man City had just thrashed Liverpool 4-0, and quite possibly this left them a little shaken going into the game. 

And when the league resumes, Arsenal are 9 points clear, but that lead is fragile. Man City have a game in hand, and they could win it. Then Man City and Arsenal have a head to head, and if Man City win that one too, then the lead would be down to 3, and 3 is a very slim margin. With the form that City are now in, it seems that they have finally clicked in the right time in the season, and they could go on a long winning streak like they've done before under Guardiola. 

With Arsenal, it is the hope that kills you. Even before the last 3 seasons of finishing 2nd, there were title challenges which went nowhere. There would be a great first half of the season to only peter out near the end. In 2008, they were probably unlucky in that they were meeting one of the greatest Man U teams we'll see in a long time. But while a lot of title challenges are over, done and dusted by February, this one is still alive in April. And a title collapse from now on could probably kill their spirit for the next few years. 

1999 was a year that could have belonged to Arsenal. They went deep into the FA Cup and was knocked out in the semi-final by a goal by you-know-who. They went into the last day of the EPL with the possibility of winning the title still alive. But they lost both the league and FA cup and instead it would always be remembered as Man U's miraculous treble. Years later, in 2023, people would not remember Arsenal's title challenge, but rather than Man City won the treble. 

Also, people can remember the title triumphs in 2002 and 2004, but the one in the middle, that would have completed the three-peat, was petty gut wrenching: Arsenal were good enough to win it against Man U, but didn't.