The modern Premier League, where 90 points is often seen as the baseline for title success, often leads to analyses focusing on where the title was lost rather than won. Manchester City's consistent excellence has made it a given that they will surpass 90 points, shifting the focus to whether other teams could have done more to challenge that total.
One pivotal moment in this context was the final day of March last season, when Arsenal visited Manchester City. Liverpool had earlier defeated Brighton, giving them a three-point lead over Arsenal and four over City, having played one game more. Arsenal opted to frustrate City, resulting in a 0-0 draw. Although City had a slight edge in expected goals (xG), Arsenal managed two of the three shots on target. They maintained their advantage and knew that if they won all nine of their remaining games, only Liverpool could finish above them.
In the immediate aftermath, Mikel Arteta lauded his team's resilience, noting that City had scored in every home game for three years. He emphasized the importance of sometimes setting aside ego and ideology to do what is necessary. Arsenal had lost their previous eight visits to the Etihad, including a 4-1 defeat the previous season. In the immediate context, the draw seemed a good result.
As it transpired, Liverpool won only four of their nine remaining games, while Arsenal won eight. However, Arsenal's home loss to Aston Villa was crucial, allowing City to win all nine of their remaining games and secure the title for a fourth consecutive season. While Arsenal technically lost the title at home to Villa, there is a lingering sense that they missed an opportunity at City.
The game was under their control, but could they have been bolder in the final 20 minutes? Would it have been worth taking a gamble to create a clear gap between themselves and the champions? Might they have been more likely to win their final nine games without the pressure of knowing they had to do so? There is no definitive answer. Had Arsenal opened up, they might have handed City a chance, potentially lifting them above Arsenal and leading to criticism of Arteta's tactics.
It's not about right or wrong, but with hindsight, given that at the time of the Arsenal game, City had not won any of their eight matches against the top six sides, might that have been an opportunity missed? This is not to say Arteta should have attacked from the start, nor to criticize an approach that resulted in Arsenal conceding fewer goals than City, Liverpool, and any other side last season. It's to suggest that in one period of one game, there was a possibility to attack opponents who seemed to have become flat.
It's certainly not to suggest that Arteta should be overly aggressive at City on Sunday. The issue is more about sensing the emotion of a game and capitalizing on psychological shifts, a difficult and imprecise ability that might be fading amid data-driven planning. City in March was the only away league game Arsenal have not won this year. They have not been behind in an away league game since losing at Fulham on New Year's Eve, a bizarre game where they took the lead, seemed comfortable, and then lost their way, as they had at Liverpool and West Ham the previous season.
This occasional habit raises doubts about their psychological capacity to win the league and was perhaps reflected in how Declan Rice's red card unsettled them at home to Brighton. Yet, in 11 away league games since that Fulham aberration, Arsenal have scored 31 goals and conceded just three. For someone often portrayed as a Guardiola-lite, Arteta has a clear streak of José Mourinho.
This makes sense: with so many teams practicing Guardiola-style football, competitive advantage is found at the margins, in refusing to engage and going long to evade the press, in defending—something Jürgen Klopp predicted five years ago after a goalless draw between Liverpool and Bayern Munich. Even Pep Guardiola, with his back fours comprising only central defenders and direct play to Erling Haaland, isn't a classic Guardiola-style coach anymore.
Arsenal's 28% possession at the Etihad was strikingly low, but they also had less of the ball in the second part of last season against Brighton, Tottenham, and Manchester United. Against Spurs last week, they had just 37%. This was perhaps a response to the absence of Rice and Martin Ødegaard as much as to the opposition, but the job was well done, with a sense of control far greater than in the 2-0 win at Aston Villa three weeks earlier. Against Atalanta on Thursday, set up to defend, they had 46% possession but needed an astonishing double save from David Raya to maintain their clean sheet.
City this season have been a curious mix. They have conceded the opening goal in both home league games, struggled in patches against Brentford and West Ham, and were pedestrian against Inter, but Haaland, even by his own high standards, has been in exceptional form. Arsenal shut City out in both league games last season, but that will be harder to achieve without Ødegaard and, given Haaland's form, offering up even a half-chance could be enough to undo them.
Potential points deductions notwithstanding, this fixture already feels like a vital game. Avoid defeat, and Arsenal can reflect on being in touch with three of their toughest away games already played. Lose, and a five-point lead for City might already look decisive.
