It can be tough being a young player at Arsenal. Thrust into the limelight at an earlier age than those at rival clubs, they are subject to instantaneous judgement, to an often brutal degree. Some thrive, able to cope with such a high pressure environment at a young age, maturing quickly and gaining experience unavailable elsewhere. Some find it much tougher.

What other top club, in the current environment, would give the captaincy to a 21 year old? Few would give players the opportunity to play a hundred games by that age, let alone give them the armband. But Cesc is a shining example of what can be achieved by bringing the future into the present.

The danger is assuming every player should be like Cesc, and ripping them to shreds when they fail to reach those unfairly high standards. I don’t spend a lot of time reading blogs of other clubs, but I would hazard a guess that no other set of fans tear into their squad as much as we do ours. And it isn’t just the internet writers, it is the paying supporter, and the journalist reporting for the morning papers. All fall into the trap of lambasting a 20 year old regular while giving a 23 year old elsewhere an easy ride because of their ‘inexperience’.

More recently, there has been a trend of criticising a player because of their mental deficiencies. Fabianski is the most recent example – by all accounts he is nothing short of stunning in training, showing all the promise of a man who has the world at his feet. But a few bad matches and all you see is ‘he doesn’t have the bottle, sell him’, or ‘he’ll never been strong enough to play for Arsenal’.

Utter nonsense. There seems to be a notion that a player cannot improve their mental ability as they can their technical, that if they don’t have the requisite mental strength as a 20 year old (or a 24 year old keeper, which is equivalent) then they never will, which is garbage of the highest order.

Put it this way – I am approaching thirty – do I behave in the same way as I did at eighteen? Do I go about my working day with the same approach? Of course not. At eighteen  I lacked focus and drive, and I certainly didn’t have the confidence in my professional abilities that I now possess. I could never have sat in a meeting of high powered executives and told them bluntly what I felt they were doing wrong. That comes with time.

Had I started a blog at 18, you can be sure I wouldn’t have had the commitment to keep it going three years later. I was something who got halfway through everything.

In short, I have grown up, and the process never ends – in ten years time, I’m sure I’ll be looking back on this period of my life and chuckling at how little I knew. It is the same for everyone.

Football is no different – player mature, they gain mental steel, confidence and an assured calmness that comes with age. If you don’t think they can overcome mental barriers, look no further than Diaby and Song, two players who not so long ago were facing heavy criticism for an apparent laziness on the field. Prior to his Charlton loan spell, you could not find a single fan who believed Song would ever possess either the physical or mental attributes required by a top club. Now look at him. The same is true of Diaby, whose renewed purpose has won over doubting fans.

The list is easy to extend – Eboue was the victim of the most extreme kind of fan reaction before turning it around. But as soon as one figure of ridicule wins us over, we move on to another target. For Song and Diaby of 2008, read Denilson and Bendtner of 2010. And Walcott. And Vela. The list goes on.

I struggle to understand why a player who has all the required technical and physical attributes can still find their fledgling career written off by the media and their own fans because of a lack of nous in their brains. Fabianski is the perfect example – completely devoid of confidence, he is a liability at the moment, as Eboue was during his worst moments as an Arsenal player, but does that mean he should pack up his gloves and find another career?

Surely it is in our interest to believe that as our players mature, those mental frailties will fall by the wayside, and their technical proficiency will shine through. We have seen it in Song, Diaby and Eboue – why not Fabianski, Vela, Walcott and Bendtner? We’ve seen the flashes of brilliance from them all, we know they are capable.

The law of averages suggests that they won’t all make it. Phillippe Senderos was unable to overcome his inability to deal with setbacks, and was moved on. He won’t be the last.

But equally, Song will not be the last to prove us wrong. Cesc may only be 22 himself, but he is a truly exceptional case – you cannot realistically expect a player to be the finished article by that age. Don’t let the success of a few taint the abilities of the rest.

Give them a chance, let them prove us wrong. After all, that’s what we want, isn’t it?

Bored at the weekend, I was flicking around the sports channels and came across Sunday Supplement. For those of you who don’t know, the concept of the programme is to take a group of newspaper columnists, and let them debate football issues from the morning papers. What it invariably turns into is a series of increasingly outlandish statements and predictions as they try to outdo each other.

One of the topics they were discussing was whether the title was a two or three horse race, and they came to the conclusion that since United are only two points ahead of us with a tougher run in, then you can’t claim them to be in the hunt while excluding us. On the flip side, they all agreed that were we to pip our two rivals and lift the trophy, we would be the most undeserving Premiership champions in history. Granted, columnists do like their hyperbole, but it got me thinking.

Their entire basis for the claim was our record against the big teams. Five of our six losses have come against the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea, and for that reason they insisted we could only win the league by chance – we aren’t as good as them. But our record against the traditional Big Four is Played 6, Won 2, Lost 4, whereas United’s title charge last season came off the back of the record Played 6, Won 1, Drawn 1, Lost 4.

Yes, that’s right. They had a worse record against the big teams than we do this campaign – it passed unnoticed because their defeats weren’t back to back. How many times did you hear United labelled as undeserving champions?

The reason they lifted the trophy last season was their remarkable ability to destroy the weaker sides in the league. While everyone else dropped points here and there, they relentlessly and routinely took all three. In fact, their record against the bottom half of the league was a frankly astonishing Played 20, Won 19, Drawn 1, the only blip being a draw with Newcastle on the opening day.

It didn’t matter that they couldn’t beat the elite, because they were more consistent than them. So it is strange to hear criticisms of our team going the same way – by playing so expansively we have found the knack of winning the so-called ’smaller’ games, and a lot more efficiently than our supposed superiors.

To put it in perspective, here are everyone’s records against teams from outside the current top five:

Arsenal: Played 21, Won 16, Drawn 4, Lost 1, Points 52

Chelsea: Played 22, Won 15, Drawn 4, Lost 3, Points 49

United: Played 22, Won 14, Drawn 3, Lost 5, Points 45

Against those fifteen opponents, we have played a game less than both our rivals, yet have a far superior record. Given that our remaining matches are more of this type of fixture, and not the sort we have been losing, we can realistically expect to stay in contention.

This easily unnoticed record is the reason we have a genuine chance this season – the mark of champions has long been the ability to be consistent, and we are precisely that, more so than our rivals. It matters little that we lost to United and Chelsea when both were beaten at Goodison Park, a fixture we scored six in.

We have failed in matches against the top two, but United did the same last year, lifting the trophy anyway. There is no reason why we cannot do the same, and if they deserved it, so will we.

Two years ago, the Premier League proposed one of the most ludicrous ideas I’ve ever heard – the expansion of the Premiership to thirty nine games, with the extra game being played at random locations around the world. The aim was to promote the Premiership brand far and wide, woefully ignoring the harm it would do the league.

For starters, we already play plenty of league games – more than many European nations – and given that the extra game would be the third time certain teams meet, there would always be an element of unfairness, which would soon lead to controversy as the season ended. Imagine if a team were relegated by a point after losing to Chelsea three times, while their surviving rival picked up easy points in their extra game. The whole point of a round robin league is that everyone plays each other an equal number of times.

So, the powers that be have moved on. Aware that fourth spot is one of the league’s prize positions  (and in fact, the main target for those outside the Big Four), they are putting together a proposal to end the season with a playoff competition which would determine who takes the fourth and final Champions League spot.

The format is yet to be decided, but the likely approach would be similar to the promotion playoffs in the lower leagues – 4th v 7th and 5th v 6th over two legs, for a place in the playoff final.

Arsenal are refusing to back the deal, as are Chelsea, United and Liverpool. No surprise there, you might say, but you will also be less than shocked to hear that Martin O’Neill is all for the idea, and David Moyes considers it worth investigating.

Here is my problem with it – leagues are not cups, and in my opinion, should not ‘jazz themselves up’ by incorporating elements of cup competitions. Some sports decide title winners by means of a playoff – I hate that, as it can eradicate the achievement of going the entire season unbeaten. The best teams rise to the top of the league, but the best do not win cups.

That is why we have the Carling Cup and the FA Cup. The league is the league.

You might argue that the lower league promotion playoff system works, and I would agree with you. But it is different there – they are 24 team leagues with 2-3 automatic promotion spots and 3-4 relegation spots. So that means 16-18 clubs in the middle could have little to play for come the end of the season, were such a system not in place.

That is plainly not the case in the Premiership. In the final games, typically only those sitting 10th-13th have nothing to play for. The smaller league ensures that mid table is only safe when there are a couple of games to go, while the two tier European system means that there are Europa League spots available for those slightly higher up.

The second major flaw in the plan is that of logistics. The league season ends on May 9, with the FA Cup final the following weekend. The Champions League final occurs on the 22nd May. Where do you put the three extra matches? Teams near the top of the league are the likeliest to be featuring in the FA Cup final, and it is in no-one’s interest to force clubs to prioritise a Champions League playoff over that showpiece event. That is precisely why there are gaps in May – teams should be rested.

So do you cram the season even tighter, finishing the campaign in April? Or do you push the playoff end date back into June, where the World Cup belongs? Both options contradict the FA’s position of giving England the best chance in international tournaments – I doubt the media would deem the playoffs such a brilliant idea if a key player got injured.

The Premier League’s responsibility is not to attempt to determine who finishes where, and who gets what prizes. But that is precisely what they are trying to do – unhappy with the same four clubs repeatedly claiming the Champions League positions, they are trying to arbitrarily shake things up. But it is a false economy – would they be happy if Liverpool came sixth in the first season the plan came in, but then won the playoffs? I doubt it.

Football is a cyclical beast. In the early days of the Premier League, the likes of Leeds, Newcastle and Blackburn were finishing in the top four. Even Norwich and Crystal Palace had their moments. Chelsea were nowhere to be seen, and Arsenal also had seasons in mid table obscurity.

Given time, the same will happen again. A lot comes down to money, but Man City are surely going to break through at some point, while the more debt-ridden Liverpool are among the vulnerable. If the Premier League is patient, their vision will be realised by natural means, without having to resort to methods aimed at moving clubs around artificially.

The other reason why the Big Four are seen as such an issue is that the disparity of prizes on offer for fourth and fifth is huge. The Champions League is the top table, but the Europa League is almost embarrassingly brushed aside – witness Everton’s early evening kick off tonight, placed there to ensure it is ‘out of the way’ before the big boys get to play.

UEFA have created a ridiculous situation by having such a stark contrast in the value of their two competitions. By attempting to bloat the Champions League year on year, they have destroyed their secondary tournament.

If they really want to rescue it, they could halve the number of teams in the Champions League, resulting in the Europa League growing in size but becoming purely a knockout competition. And do away with teams dropping down from one competition to the other after the group stage – nothing devalues the Europa League more than featuring sides that have already played and lost six games in the Champions League (dropping down after the qualifying round makes sense though).

That way, both competitions would feature high profile teams, and qualification for either becomes a genuine reward. Teams finishing seventh in the Premiership might still play Milan or Bayern, and when the big boys fail to make the Champions League, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will wipe the floor with the Europa League.

It would create a fascinating mix of matches not seen for a very long time. It would give smaller teams the chance of a glorious day. And it would mean the Premiership could be left as a league.

In short, it sounds like a good plan. Which means it won’t happen.

It feels like the calm between the storms. In the midst of a difficult run of fixtures, we all of a sudden find ourselves with a seven day gap between games. It will be the last such break for a while – next Wednesday we welcome Liverpool to the Grove, with the Champions League campaign restarting in Porto the following week. So enjoy the respite while you can.

Of course, it also means there is more time to reflect – some choose to look back in more detail at the United game, some instead ‘look forward’ to Chelsea. Many take a gloomy view whichever they go for.

It is remarkable how quickly we’ve been written off – it was only a couple of weeks ago that we leapt to the top of the league, but one extremely poor performance and we’re yesterday’s news. In a way, that might suit us – no-one expects us to get a result at Chelsea on Sunday, despite how ineffective they looked at Hull on Tuesday. Odds against an Arsenal win are longer than any I can remember since, well, last season’s trip to Stamford Bridge. Which, if I remember correctly, we won.

Much has been said about our defence, and about Almunia and Denilson, since Sunday’s hiccup, but it shouldn’t mask what continues to be a serious challenge for the title. Last season, United themselves had a dreadful record against the rest of the Big Four, but still claimed the title due to their ability to overrun the bottom half of the league. They were lauded for it.

It is easily missed, but we are going about our campaign the same way. Heavy defeats to United and Chelsea have been countered by a superb record against the lesser teams, the sort that used to derail our seasons by ‘parking the bus’ and going away with valuable points.

It is no coincidence that as soon as our midfielders became a major goal threat, we’ve been able to break down the most stubborn of opponents. When Adebayor was leading the line, and Henry before him, we relied so heavily on their goals that the lack of support from midfield mattered little. The likes of Hleb, Gilberto, Flamini and even Reyes were never prolific goalscorers, and even Cesc took a few years to find his shooting boots. Back then, opponents could focus on a couple of players, a tactic that often rendered us impotent and frustrated.

That is no longer the case. If you were to stop two players from scoring, another six would be queuing up to add to their tallies, even surging up from centre back to smash one in from distance. It is nigh on impossible to defend against, and is the reason our scoring feats are going down in the record books. It is also why we’ve been able to defy predictions that Van Persie’s injury would end our season.

The important point is this – everyone concedes goals to us, and while no-one can deny our defensive weaknesses, there are only a handful of teams capable of a) keeping us down to a single goal or less and b) being clinical enough up front to take their own chances.

Certainly, United and Chelsea fall into that bracket. But I’d take losses to both if exchanged with ten victories over lesser teams. While Chelsea and United suffer at Wigan and Burnley, we’ll keep accumulating the points that keep us in contention.

The Premiership campaign is not a knockout trophy that takes you out of the running after one defeat. It is a marathon, where you gain no more for beating Liverpool than you do for overcoming Wolves. In that way, we might be a lot better equipped to triumph than you think.

It is nearly three years since Arsene Wenger first coined the term ‘Sky Sports Justice’ following the Carling Cup final with Chelsea. That day, in case you’ve forgotten, Adebayor was sent off for slapping Wayne Bridge, when that was in fact Eboue’s action. The press machine went into overdrive, focusing heavily on the ‘brawl’, and Eboue in particular, and as a result both clubs were disproportionately fined, with Eboue banned (Adebayor’s ban was not rescinded). Drogba, meanwhile, slapped Cesc away from the main cluster of players, but Sky refused to show it in their coverage, and no charge was brought. It was one of the clearest cases of media-driven action (and lack of) we’ve seen.

Since then, it has become worrying prevalent. We are now in the age of 24 hour news coverage, Sky Sports News running stories on a loop while the written press pick their targets, going after them online and each morning. Phone-ins give voices to those who read the Sun’s agenda-filled stories and wish to emphasise and embellish them, and suddenly fiction becomes fact. A minor incident becomes the disgrace of the century, and an individual finds himself the victim of a bloodthirsty witchhunt. It is all rather unedifying.

Moreover, it is a tough subject for a manager to broach – challenging the power that the media have over the football authorities can and will turn them against you, which only increases the focus on those incidents in which your players could be seen to be in the wrong. For example, any Arsenal fan can tell you that the Daily Mail has become the anti-Arsenal rag, with a constant stream of stories mocking everything that goes on at the Emirates, irrespective of whether there is any shred of truth in the words they print. With every story they twist reality to make us seem like the bad guys.

That isn’t a complaint, incidentally – I’m sure fans of other clubs can find columnists and even entire papers that continually paint them in a bad light. Much like political affiliation, they like to appeal to a subset of the country’s readership by taking a consistent line on the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. They pick their targets, and stick to them. If their numbers dwindle, they switch. It is classic marketing, but so many are gullible enough to soak in every last word.

Sometimes they even announce their change – witness the Sun’s recent political declaration of support for the Conservative party over Labour, a complete about turn after a decade of allegiance. Now every story comes from the opposite angle. Do all the columnists and reporters back the switch? Of course not – they’re just doing their job. It is the same in sport.

If the media are effectively only doing their job, the same cannot be said of the authorities who should be strong enough to act independently of public furore.

First, of course, we had the Eduardo farce. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I believe it was a dive and I would like to see divers punished. But, and this is a big but, UEFA charged him and found him guilty based entirely on the media outrage sparked by the Scottish FA. FIFA’s rule is clear – if there is any contact it cannot be deemed a dive. UEFA were attempting to pacify the outcry with a scapegoat, but had to back down when they realised the punishment would never stick, and that they were only giving themselves a massive headache going forward.

Had the press not focused on the dive, the charge would never even have been brought. Was FC Zurich’s Alphonse hauled before judge and jury for his dive against Real Madrid on the first day of the group stage? Of course not. It was the first in a string of examples that exposed UEFA’s hypocrisy.

More recently, we had Henry’s handball. More instinctive than a dive, it was blown out of all proportion because of the magnitude of the event, and the timing. No other handball incident (Scharner and Defoe, to name two who transgressed in the weeks after the furore) even got a mention. The hypocrisy is staggering, yet once against the press triumphed, Henry today being forced to attend a disciplinary hearing.

Not only did he face sanction, but he was found guilty before the trial. Sepp Blatter said:

“This is a matter of the disciplinary committee but it was blatant unfair playing and was shown all around the world, but I don’t know what the outcome will be.”

Henry escaped a ban, but it was made abundantly clear that it was due only to a lack of legal options. You can be sure that had laws not been set firmly in stone, FIFA would have found a way to suspend him, effectively giving the press carte blanche to vilify individuals and get them taken to task for offences no worse than we see week in week out.

Worrying times, indeed. But all it takes to fix this problem is for FIFA and UEFA to be strong and communicate. Resist the hype machine, and explain clearly why fair decisions are taken.

But instead, they pander, and show themselves up as weak-minded in the process, presenting the media with an opportunity to influence by carefully selected stories to fit their agendas. They no longer report the news, they create it.