Part 2 : Will Arsenal’s Lack Of Dynamism In Attack Prove Costly

Yesterday’s draw away at Brentford deserves closer attention because it strips the debate down to essentials. This was not a game defined by elite opposition or extraordinary circumstances. It was a familiar Premier League problem, physical pressure, aerial threat, territorial resistance, and emotional intensity. These are precisely the conditions under which Arsenal’s attacking approach is most scrutinised.

The first half was revealing. Arsenal controlled possession but generated no shots on target. Brentford disrupted rhythm rather than shape. They pressed selectively, contested second balls aggressively, and forced Arsenal wide into predictable circulation. Long throws and set-piece pressure kept Arsenal mentally engaged in defensive duties even while dominating the ball. The result was a game played largely on Brentford’s terms despite Arsenal’s territorial advantage.

This is where the lack of attacking dynamism became visible, not as absence of ideas, but as absence of escalation. Arsenal moved the ball well, but rarely at speed. The spacing remained cautious. Penetrative actions were delayed until optimal conditions emerged, conditions Brentford were comfortable denying.

The halftime introduction of Martin Ødegaard improved matters. Arsenal’s circulation became sharper, tempo increased, and the ball moved through central zones with greater intent. This was not a tactical overhaul, it was a reminder of how dependent Arsenal remain on central creativity to reboot attacking rhythm when the system stalls.

When Noni Madueke scored, the game should have shifted decisively. Instead, Arsenal reverted to management. Possession was retained, rest-defence tightened, and risk was dialled back. The goal did not trigger an increase in attacking ambition, it triggered consolidation. Brentford were allowed to reset emotionally and tactically. Their equaliser, from a familiar source of pressure, felt less like a shock and more like a consequence of unresolved tension.

The key takeaway is not that Arsenal failed to dominate Brentford. They did. The issue is that dominance did not translate into suffocation. The structure stabilised the game rather than breaking it open. Against teams who thrive on chaos and persistence, that restraint can be costly.

This tension is visible in Arsenal’s personnel. Viktor Gyökeres embodies the system striker. His pressing output is elite. His off-ball work is invaluable. He fits the collective perfectly. Against top-tier defenders, however, he can become isolated, required to win duels without structural overloads designed to protect the team. On the left, Gabriel Martinelli’s form has fluctuated. At his best, he offers penetration. At his worst, the absence of a consistent one-versus-one destabiliser becomes noticeable.

The right side remains Arsenal’s creative engine. The Ødegaard–Saka–Timber triangle is excellent, but excellence repeated becomes predictable. Opponents mirror-press, overload the zone, and force Arsenal back into circulation rather than incision. Again, this is not about lack of quality. It is about profile balance. Arsenal have built a team of system excellence. What they lack, intermittently, is a player or mechanism that breaks structure deliberately.

It is tempting to frame the title race as a contrast between Arsenal’s control and Manchester City’s dynamism. The reality is more complicated. City are the primary rival, but they are not an infallible benchmark.

City’s structure is not inherently superior to Arsenal’s. In fact, there have been extended periods this season where City have looked surprisingly ordinary. They control games well, but not relentlessly. More importantly, they have shown a recurring tendency to drop intensity in second halves. Leads are managed rather than extended. Games drift. Pressure dissipates.

This matters because it reframes the entire debate. Arsenal’s lack of attacking dynamism only becomes decisive if the title race demands repeated moments of forced separation. If City were operating at peak intensity every week, Arsenal’s ceiling would be under constant threat. Instead, City have allowed matches to breathe. They have conceded initiative. They have shown vulnerability when games slow down.

In that context, Arsenal’s high floor becomes a genuine asset. If the run-in is defined by accumulation rather than explosion, by consistency rather than chaos, Arsenal’s structural discipline may prove sufficient. Their ability to avoid bad halves, self-inflicted collapses, and emotional swings could neutralise the need for extreme attacking volatility.

This does not invalidate the ceiling argument, but it softens it. The question shifts from whether Arsenal can out-chaos City, to whether City will even force that scenario. If City continue to manage games conservatively, dropping intensity after gaining control, Arsenal’s restraint may not be punished. In other words, Arsenal’s lack of dynamism is only a problem if the title race demands dynamism. If it becomes a test of nerve, efficiency, and error avoidance, Arsenal may find that their supposed weakness is simply a different form of strength.

This is not an argument for Arsenal to abandon structure. Their structure is the reason they are here. The challenge is selective release. Allowing moments where intuition overrides optimisation. The emergence of Max Dowman and Ethan Nwaneri(now on loan at Marseille) hints at a future where freedom exists within structure. The psychological hurdle is trusting disorder without fearing collapse.

Arsenal’s title hopes do not depend on becoming reckless. They depend on recognising the moments when control stops being enough, and allowing the game to breathe. February does not demand answers. It demands awareness. The final third of the season will demand decisions. Whether Arsenal make them may decide the title.