Does Ozil deserve criticism for role in Arsenal loss to City?

There could be few things more Arsenal than getting through a difficult November, looking as though they might actually be able to challenge for the title, and then losing two games in a row in which they’d taken the lead. And there could be few things more predictable than the fact that in defeat, many would turn on Mesut Ozil, a player whose whole demeanour seems to ensure he will always be scapegoated. 

Of course, criticism is merited for his abject attempt to mark Ashley Williams in last week’s defeat to Everton - and also for the defensive organisation that led to such a mismatch. Of more general significance - given the fact that asking Ozil to mark a hulking opposition centre-back is clearly absurd - is the criticism he received after the Manchester City game when he barely imposed himself at all. 

Or at least that was how it felt. Yet Ozil actually had 58 touches. Among Arsenal players, only Nacho Monreal (59) had more. Of those, 30 came in the second half: he can’t really be accused of having gone missing. Theo Walcott, by way of contrast, touched the ball only 25 times in the whole game. It wasn’t that he kept giving the ball away: his pass completion rate of 85.4% was higher than any other Arsenal starter apart from Gabriel (86.7%). 

So why did Ozil attract so much of the blame? In part it’s because those passes didn’t hurt City. Only one of them was key. He had no shots. At the same time, he was dispossessed twice and lost the ball with poor touches twice. But it was his defensive work, or lack of it, that was the real problem: no tackles, no interceptions, no clearances and no shots blocked. 

None of this, though, should come as a great surprise. It’s true that Ozil averages 0.7 tackles, 0.8 interceptions, 0.2 clearances and 0.1 blocks per Premier League game this season, but he rarely plays in games when the ball spends so much time in the Arsenal half. It’s understandable that should dip when City are as dominant as they were in the second half. 

But it goes beyond that. There was at times a seeming unwillingness on the part of Ozil to go chasing the ball. Again, though, that’s not a great surprise. That’s who he is. He’s an old-fashioned number 10, an enganche-style figure, a playmaker as flaneur. He is actually relatively quick over the ground, but somehow gives off the impression of languidness and that’s what can so enrage fans when things are going badly. He has the body-language of a man who doesn’t care. 

Yet it’s also that that makes him great. He drifts. He finds space. He is what he is. He’s 28: he’s not going to change. It may be that he’s an anachronism with no role to play at the very highest level of football, but that’s art of what makes him so watchable. His last-minute winner away to Ludogorets was a goal born of his composure, his decision-making ability. A more frenzied player simply wouldn’t have had the clarity of purpose to score that goal. 

Perhaps there is a sense of self-indulgence about Ozil, and perhaps that does hold them back. The comparison with David Silva or Kevin De Bruyne is acute. Ozil could never play as what Pep Guardiola refers to as a false eight. He simply doesn’t have the energy or the application. He isn’t that sort of player. 

But to condemn him for that seems futile. If his wage demands are as high as they are reported to be, at well over £300,000 a week, perhaps that is an argument to offload him. But the anger just seems pointless, like criticising a chair for not being a table.