Hopes high for Daggers ahead of the new season

AFTER the struggles of last season, where they propped up the nPower League Two table for long periods, the Daggers will be confident of a more successful campaign this time.

Having released experienced players in the form of captain Mark Arber, Jon Nurse, Peter Gain and Damien McCrory - all of whom played a big part in the clubs play-off triumph at Wembley in 2010 - manager John Still is looking to rebuild his squad.

Although having one of smallest budgets in the league, Still has secured the signing of former Arsenal defender Gavin Hoyte on a 2 year deal. The 22 year old right back, who has enjoyed loan spells with AFC Wimbledon, Lincoln City, Watford and Brighton and Hove Albion, is the brother of Middlesbrough full back Justin Hoyte - who also began is career at Arsenal - and looks to be great addition to the squad.

Meanwhile, several of the younger members of the squad have been offered extended contracts. Promising midfielder Billy Bingham has signed a new 3 year deal and Still has great faith in the 21 year old, who made 30 appearances last season, scoring twice.

"Although he has been here a while he has suffered with injuries, but has returned to pre-season looking fit and sharp, so we are hoping he can really push on," Still said.

Another youngster tied in to a long-term deal is striker Dwight Gayle. Signed last summer, Gayle was sent straight out on loan to Bishops Stortford, where he scored 42 goals in all competitions for the Blue Square North side.

"He got a good year's experience at Bishops Stortford," said Still. "I am hoping he can follow in the footsteps of the likes of Paul Benson, Tresor Kandol, Ben Strevens and be a fantastic forward for us. He has all the attributes."

Abu Ogogo is another to be offered a new contract while also being named as club captain, while striker Brian Woodall, who had a great season, has been rewarded with a new 3 year deal.

Another striker, Sam Williams, who missed most of last season with a knee injury, will be expected to play a major role this time, and his partnership with Josh Scott up front will be vital to the success of the team.

Scott himself has suffered terrible injury problems over the last couple of years - missing virtually the whole of the 2010-11 season - but he is back now and ready for the challenges ahead.

In midfield Matt Saunders, who was signed on a free transfer in February, has also had his fair share of injuries, but everyone at the club has high hopes for him after impressing in the few appearances he was able to make last season.

Expectations for the Essex club are usually low, but I think they could cause a surprise or two this season. If the young players - like Woodall and left back Femi Ilesanmi - continue to develop as they have been, and the team recaptures the form it showed at the end of the last campaign, I can see them challenging for a place in the play-offs.

Still came in for some unnecessary stick from the fans last season but he proved once again to be the right man for the job. Let's hope the club can be rewarded for the loyalty they showed him with another trip to Wembley in May.

Racism in football? Fact or fiction??

DID YOU watch 'Is Football Racist?' the other night? What did you make of it? Do you think we still have racial problems in the game, or is it just another case of mountains out of molehills?

Personally I think the racial issues in football are nowhere near as bad as Clark Carlisle was making out. As he said himself, he has never been subjected to any racism, despite being in the game for 17 years, and most of the players he spoke to had hardly encountered any either.

Northampton striker Ade Akinfenwa told of a team-mate who once called an opossing player a 'black c**t' during a game, but apologised for it straight after the match. Hardly a major issue then. Things are sometimes said in the heat of the moment. Of course that does not make it right, but it is easy for something to slip out in these high-pressure situations. I doubt the player in question is actually a racist, and Akinfenwa certainly did not appear to have a problem with him. He accepted the apology and moved on.

Then we had Stan Collymore. It appears the worst he has suffered has been a few remarks on Twitter. Hardly surprising when you see some of the rubbish he comes out with, both on social media and the radio. While I am not condoning bringing race into it, we should remember this is a man with a very questionable past, so for him to get on his high-horse about a few comments on Twitter really does lack a lot of creditability.

Funnily enough the most harrowing story in the programme was that of Carlisle's father. He spoke of the racial abuse he suffered as a young man, both on the pitch as a semi-professional player and on the terraces as a fan. He said that was one of the reasons he never took his son to matches. Very sad. But this was back in the 1970's. Things were very different then.

He lost a lot of sympathy from me, however, when he looked to blame his failure on making it as a professional on his colour. Really?? I don't recall it standing in the way of Viv Anderson or Cyril Regis, for example, or later John Barnes. My guess is Mr. Carlisle was just not quite good enough.

In fact it was Barnes who was up next. I remember watching him play for Watford back in the early 1980's and thinking what a fabulous player he was. I was on the North Bank when he tore Arsenal apart in 1982 and I left that game thinking I just seen the greatest player ever. He was the new Pele.

But Barnes was one of the first black players I can remember getting racially abused at football. We all recall the banana throwing incidents at Liverpool, but I also remember an England match where he was abused by his own fans. Monkey chants every time he got the ball and some refusing to celebrate the goals he had scored. Unbelievable. Maybe Collymore should remember that before he starts playing the victim...

I guess it is unsurprising that Barnes now appears to have a chip on his shoulder. I always saw him as a trail-blazer for black players in this country but he ruined it all by trying to blame his colour on his lack of managerial opportunities. I recall him doing a terrible job at both Celtic and Tranmere Rovers so that is more likely to be the reason he has not been flooded with offers since. The same goes for Paul Ince.

So I don't buy into the argument that club chairmen are racist. Every chairman wants the best man for the job regardless of their colour. Yes, there has been a lack of black managers and coaches in the game but I think that is more to do with culture. Most black players seem to go into the media when they finish playing. Mark Bright, Ian Wright, Leroy Rosenior, Garth Crooks, Collymore etc. Perhaps coaching does not appeal to them in the same way it does to white players?

So, in conclusion, much progress has been made over the last 30 years or so and black players are no longer disadvantaged in the game. There are more black players now than ever before so it is inevitable the number of black coaches will eventually increase as they come to the end of their playing careers. But I still do not think we will see a massive change. If you look at some of the black players currently reaching the end of their careers, how many appear to be management material? Ashley Cole? Rio Ferdinand? I don't think so. That is not racism, it is simply that they are not cut out for a career in management.

Yet they expect to be considered for these jobs simply because of their colour. Positive discrimination I believe it is called. Or just discrimination as I call it. The best man for the job should get it, be they black, white or green. And most black managers have just not been good enough. In fact, with very few exceptions, you could argue that most white managers are not good enough either. I mean most of them get sacked, don't they? Is that racism too?

Carlisle is an intelligent guy. He is very good role model for all young lads looking to make a career in football. He has been given an important role within the game and is proof that colour will not hold you back if you do not allow it to.

So instead of the likes of Ince and Barnes blaming 'inverted racisim' on their woes, perhaps they should take a look at themselves. Go away and improve your management skills. Do not expect to be given a job simply because of your colour.

Instead of Collymore complaining about a few Tweets, he should understand it is him people do not like, not his colour. The more you look to blame your colour on your failings, the more you create racist feelings.

Of course racism exists in society. I think it always will. And it is not just blacks who are victims of it either, let's not forget that. But if the programme proved anything at all it is that racism is not a major problem in football in 2012. Suarez and Terry incidents apart ,we really have very little to be ashamed of.

So is football racist? I would say not, but what do you think??

The King is dead, long live the King

SO VAN Persie is not going to sign a new contract. Are you surprised? I know I'm not. He is 28 years old and been at Arsenal for 8 seasons. In that time he has won just one major trophy - the FA Cup in 2005. Surely a player of his ability deserves to have won more?

With big names like Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri long gone, the club has remained as far away as ever from the big prizes in recent years. Van Persie has decided he has seen enough. He wants to finish his career with a flourish and he feels he will not be able to do that at Arsenal.

But lets not kid ourselves. No player is bigger than the club. Others, far better than the Dutchman, have left before and the club has survived. Moreover, van Persie has spent more than half his 8 years at the club on the treatment table anyway.

It has only been in the last 18 months that he has finally remained injury-free, a spell that has seen him reach new levels of genius. 48 Premier League goals in 56 matches since January 2011 tells its own story. But if he does leave now I, for one, will not shed a tear.

As soon as a player no longer wants to play for you, you have to get rid of him. We will get good money for him too, although we are unlikely to re-invest that in the team. We never do. But at least we will be able to post a healthy profit again next year.

Before the Euros I thought the future success of the club rested with van Persie staying, but I think I may have got it wrong. I believe we will now move forward even stronger. Being known as 'RvP and the other 10' was not good for the club as a whole and others will now have to step up and take responsibility.

The arrival of Lukas Podolski and Oliver Giroud means we now have two very good forward players, while maybe this could be a good time to finally play Theo Walcott in a more central position. A front two of Giroud and Walcott, with Podolski just behind, could actually make us an even more potent attacking force.

I would therefore like to see any money from the RvP sale used on the defensive area of the team. A central defender and a holding midfielder - Matt Hummels and Yann M'Vila for example - are the sort of players we need to challenge for the title this season.

So the King may be about to leave, but long live the King. We should not forget the magical moments van Persie gave us, especially in the last season and a half, but we need to look to the future now. And what a glorious future it could be.

We still have a very good squad of players - with the bonus of a fit-again Jack Wilshere to come back in as well - so I am convinced we will be celebrating a Premier League or Champions League triumph next May. And how will Robin feel then??

Wimbledon. Can the second week live up to the drama of the first?

WHAT AN incredible first week of Wimbledon that was. From Rafa Nadal's surprise early exit to late-night matches under the roof on Centre Court, it has certainly been a week that will live long in the memory.

Nadal was beaten in five amazing sets by little known Czech Lukas Rosol on Thursday evening, before six-time Champion Roger Federer was taken all the way by Frenchman Julien Benneteau the following night - finally coming through 6-1 in the fifth.

Meanwhile, Andy Murray made it a third night of late drama when he finally over-came Cypriot Marcos Baghdadis at 23.02 on Saturday night, the latest ever finish at the All-England Club.

On top of the drama on court there was the return of the old debate over equal prize money for men and women off it. Frenchman Gilles Simon claimed, after his second round exit to Xavier Mallise, that women do not deserve equal money as their matches only last half as long as the men. He also claimed the men's game is more exciting.

Maria Sharopova, favourite to lift the women's title, countered by claiming her matches attract more attention than his, but her argument was rather let down by the clash between current Champion Petra Kvitova and Varvara Lepchenko the following day, which lasted barely 53 minutes.

Nadal was not the only former Champion to suffer an early exit, however, as Venus Williams crashed out in straight sets to Russian Elena Vesnina in the first round. Sister Serena, meanwhile, ensured a Williams did make it through to the second week after squeezing past Zheng Jie, 9-7 in the final set.

Defending men's Champion Novak Djorkovic has eased through the first week and is now favourite to retain his title, although in this Jubilee year can Murray finally end the 76 year wait for a British Men's Champion?

His biggest hurdle in reaching the final, apart from his suspect temperament, are Jo-Wilfred Tsonga and David Ferrer, who beat him in the French Open last month. But history may be on his side as the last British Champion, Virginia Wade, also lifted the title in a Jubilee year - 1977.

So we have much to look forward to as the second week kicks off this afternoon, weather permitting of course.

Lies, damn lies and possession statistics

POSSESSION STATISTICS. Apparently they are the new way of deciding who is the better team. Not goals scored, no. Possession stats.

Five-hundred square passes have now become more important than 2-3 forward passes that actually lead to a goal-scoring opportunity.

Sepp Blatter wants to find a new way of deciding drawn matches; well maybe he should consider possession stats? The result would be the same. Spain would still win.

England was considered to be not good enough at the Euros because their possession stats were so poor. Despite this, however, no one managed to beat them. No one. Not even finalists Italy.

They may have had only 38% of the ball and had the least shots on target of all the quarter-finalists, yet they scored as many goals as the others. Surely this proves how effective they were with the ball when they had it?

It has been said that 4-4-2 is out-dated and that the 4-3-3 - or 4-5-1 as it is generally played - is the way forward. Really? If you have the right players, 4-4-2 can still be very effective.

You may not be in possession of the ball as much - and you will have to work harder - but if you are fit, keep your shape, close down the space and make good use of your set-pieces, you can beat anyone. It worked well enough for England in the opening matches until they appeared to run out of steam later in the tournament.

Personally I would have used Andy Carroll up front with Wayne Rooney, and played two wingers in Stewart Downing and Theo Walcott. The one thing 4-3-3 - or 4-5-1 - lacks is width and that can be so effective, particularly on the counter attack.

For all their possession, Spain have only scored 3 more goals than England in the tournament - and 4 of them came against the Irish, the worst side in the competition - despite having, on average, 30% more possession per game.

Okay, so a long ball, or a well worked set-piece may not be as pleasing on the eye but it is ultimately what the game is all about. Scoring goals.

Yet the people who rave about Spain for their possession, criticise Arsenal for 'over-playing'. They should shoot more, they say, be more direct. Yet Arsenal usually dominates possession, only to fall to a sucker-punch - more-often-than-not caused by a long ball or a set-piece.

For all their possession in the Euros, Spain has been boring to watch. They have passed and passed but gone nowhere. Playing without a striker has meant they have had no outlet and just gone around in circles.

Yes, it has got them to the final but is it really the blueprint for good football? Greece were criticised for the way they played in winning the Euros in 2004 but at least they got the ball forward quickly.

I think we need to strike a balance. Yes, you need the ball but you also need to do something with it. An end product. Possession only gets you so far.

The good old 'long ball game' has been widely criticised but it was certainly effective. As the great Brain Clough once said 'It only takes a second to score a goal, young man.' He had clearly never seen Spain.

I want to see good, fast attacking play. Direct players who want to make things happen. Several side-ways or backwards passes may be good for the possession stats but they are not good for the paying spectator.

So let’s stop pretending possession is King. It isn't. Goals are. And until they change the rules of the game, the team who score the most goals will always win, whether they have 10% of the possession or 75. Playing two good forward passes will always be more effective than 20 square ones and, ultimately, more exciting to watch.

Possession statistics? You know what you can do with them...

Another tournament failure but perhaps the future will be a little brighter?

SO ENGLAND are not good enough. Well there's a surprise. Despite winning what appeared to be, on paper at least, a tough group, we should have known that when it came down to it, when it really mattered, we would come up short. Again.

But the truth is we probably got about as far as we could reasonably have hoped to with the squad we had. The only criticism you could aim at Roy Hodgson was that he was far too negative. Not losing appeared to be more important than winning, and it was that negativity that ultimately cost us the chance of reaching the last four.

Let's be honest, Italy were beatable. They arrived at the tournament on the back of a poor run of form, and it was only a nervy win over the Irish, the weakest side in the competition, that sent them into the quarter finals at the expense of Croatia.

Yet despite all this we went into the match with the same phlegmatic approach we had in our previous games. In fact the only time we have shown any real ambition under Hodgson was after going behind against Sweden.

Of course those tactics had worked well enough in the other matches but this was not the group stage. It was winner-takes-all, and over the 120 minutes we were clearly second best.

Despite this, however, I was confident we would win the shoot-out. All our previous exits on penalties had come after really good performances. The two semi finals defeats at the hands of the Germans - in 1990 and 1996 - were probably the best two displays I have ever seen from an England side.

We deserved to beat Argentina in 1998, while the two quarter final defeats to Portugal in 2004 and 2006 were both very unfortunate. Ironically our only shoot-out success had come after a drab 0-0 with Spain at Euro 96 so I felt perhaps history was on our side. But it was not to be.

Unlike previous exits, however, I was not upset or angry this time. No. Just disappointed. Disappointed we did not go for it a bit more.

You could tell by Hodgson's team selection, the same side that had laboured to victory over Ukraine, that he was content to sit back, trying to nick a goal on the break. But the longer the match went on the more we seemed to be simply holding on for penalties. Strange for a country with such poor a record in shoot-outs.

I don't buy into the fact that we defended particularly well either. Italy were afforded several good chances over the 120 minutes and with better finishing they would have won comfortably.

I also do not feel Hogdson utilised his squad particularly well. He simply stuck with the same players in every match, as though he did not trust the others. His insistence in perservering with James Milner and Ashley Young, despite neither having a good tournament, was baffling, especially as we had more dynamic alternatives on the bench. And Rooney? Well perhaps we would have been better keeping him at home...

But in all fairness to Hodgson, he only came into the job three weeks before the tournament started and did not have enough time to adequately prepare. He did the right thing by building from the back, making us organised and difficult to beat, so I have no doubt we will improve over the next couple of years.

Therefore I am not going be too critical. The team did as well as could be expected - even if the performances were not great - and there are several positives we can take from the whole experience.

Andy Carroll, Danny Welbeck, Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain all did their long-term prospects no harm what-so-ever, while Steven Gerrard proved himself to be a very good captain. Meanwhile, in Joe Hart we have a goalkeeper as good as any in the World.

We also have a some good players ready to burst onto the international scene. Jack Wilshere will surely be a main-stay in midfield for years to come, while others like Daniel Sturridge, Jack Rodwell and Connor Wickham offer hope for the future.

So while we looked as far away as ever from competing with the very best in Ukraine, there is at least a chink of light. Plus, in Hodgson, I believe we have the right man to take us forward. But I guess only time will tell.

Do not allow goal-line controversy to over-shadow England's success

SO England not only qualified from a group many felt we would struggle to get out of, we actually finished three points clear of France at the top.

But the euphoria of England's success has been overshadowed somewhat by the latest goal-line controversy. Having been the victims of a poor decision against Germany at the last World Cup in South Africa, England benefited from one against Ukraine this time.

Of course it is easy for Sepp Blatter to say the need for goal-line technology is now a 'necessity,' but with a fifth official standing on the goal-line, shouldn't they be spotting these things anyway? Plus, of course, he is conveniently over-looking the offside decision that was not given in the build up to the 'goal' in the first place. So perhaps Blatter would be better advised to improve the standard of his officials before he looks elsewhere?

I do not, however, agree that he is only calling for technology now it has benefited England. It has been unfortunate that two big decisions in the last two tournaments have involved our nation, but UEFA have been talking about goal-line technology for years. The more high-profile mistakes, the more likely they are to want to do something about it, whoever is on the right or wrong end of them. So lets forget any conspiracy theories.

But is technology the answer anyway? Personally I am opposed to it. Football has always been about human error, be it by players, managers, or officials. Take that away and you lose something important from the game.

The fact mistakes are made adds to the drama and makes the sport what it is. If every decision was correct then what would managers have to blame poor results on? Their own short-comings, or those of their players? Heaven forbid.

Of course it is easy to over-react when your team has suffered, but it is rarely a poor decision by the officials that proves decisive in the end. It is usually good play or a defensive mistake. Plus these things usually even themselves out eventually, as we have seen for ourselves.

The fact remains that most of these decisions are called right anyway. The first Italian goal against Ireland on Monday night, for example, was correctly given, and for every bad call there are 4 or 5 good ones.

But we should not let the controversy of John Terry's goal-line acrobatics overshadow what has been a great tournament for England thus far. A group that looked tricky on paper has been negotiated with the minimum of fuss.

We have looked solid, shown resilience and produced enough quality in the final third to suggest we could go all the way.

Winning the group has of course given us the extra bonus of avoiding World and European Champions Spain. Italy, however, will provide difficult quarter final opposition. They have a history of rising to the occasion in the big tournaments and have been solid and well organised throughout the group stage.

Without wanting to dampen your enthusiasm, it is likely to be a dour game. Both sides will sit back, looking to play on the counter attack, and Italy are past masters at that. The first goal will therefore hold the key, but I am confident it will be us going through, even it takes extra time and penalties. Yes, the Italians are even worse from 12 yards than us.

Should we get past The Azzurri we will then face the winners of the Germany Vs. Greece tie in the last four. Of course you would image that will the Germans, the only side with a 100% record in the group stage, but Greece showed they are no mugs with victory to knock out a very good Russian side last weekend.

All that, however, is for the future. So far we have achieved the minimum requirement for England at a major Championship, we have got through the group stage - only the second time we have managed it at the Euros - so we now need to show exactly what we are capable of.

But if we are to go all the way, we are going to have to make sure the ball hits the back of the net, as the next goal-line controversy will not go our way. Not if Blatter and his cronies have anything to do with it anyway.

Fixture excitement rather misplaced?

So, the fixtures for the new season have been released to a Sky Sports/tabloid press fanfare but excuse me if I cannot get too excited.

Yes, it is nice to know when you are playing who and where, but other than that what is there to get excited about? They are just fixtures, the same ones we have every season. Each team will play the others home and away and at the end of all someone will win the league, some will be promoted, while others will be relegated.

Okay, if your club have been promoted I sort of get it. Looking at the new fixtures will then have a hint of excitement about it. But does the order of those matches really matter? Of course as the season progresses it can do.

It would be an advantage, for example, to play Manchester United away the week they have several players out through injury, or suspension. But that is not known yet so how can you feel excited or disappointed? You will have to play them at some stage.

I have seen many comments on social network sites over the last 24 hours saying how excited people are to be playing Spurs away on Boxing Day or Derby County at home on February 15th. Would you not be as excited about playing those teams anyway?? And if not what difference does the date make?

The only dates that really matter are the first game and the last. The rest are simply a way of planning where you are likely to be over the nine months from August to May. A diary. Unless you happen to support a Premier League side of course, in which case most of your fixtures will be changed to a Sunday lunchtime or Monday night by Sky anyway.

That is why I find Sky's excitement a little strange. If they love the released fixtures so much why do they insist on changing them? And not for the benefit of the fans either.

Then they talk of Southampton facing a tough start to the season. Yes Sky, they will have to face some Premier League teams so of course it will be tough. They were, after all, in League One two years ago.

Having said that the promoted sides do usually start well. They have momentum and are not under as much pressure in August as they are in March when they could be fighting relegation.

So perhaps, just perhaps, playing Champions Manchester City away on the opening weekend may just prove to be a blessing in disguise. My guess is, however, that they will lose that particular fixture no matter when it is played.

And that is the point. The dates of the fixtures do not matter, it is the players who are playing in them that do. So I don't care who my team are playing on Boxing Day, or New Years Day, or October 17th. I just hope they win them all.

The season is over 38 or 46 matches, depending on which division you are in, and surely the only thing that matters is your team winning enough of them to finish as high in the table as they can?

The lost art of enjoying an England match

There have not been many occasions over the last 32 years of watching England in tournament football where I have been able to enjoy a good performance and a good result. All too often our best displays have ended in defeat - semi finals against Germany in 1990 and 1996 and quarter finals against Portugal in 2004 an 2006 for example - so last night's 3-2 victory over Sweden was particularly sweet.

Okay so it hasn't won us anything, or even got us out of the group stage, but it made a pleasant change to be able to enjoy an England match in a major tournament. In fact the last time I can recall feeling so excited watching my country was when we beat Holland 4-1 in Euro 96.

Last night's match felt very similar, in many ways, to our World Cup quarter final win over Cameroon in 1990. On that occasion we also led 1-0, went 2-1 behind in the second half before scoring twice to go through, although we needed extra time and two Gary Lineker penalties to win that night.

Of course the biggest irony of the win last night was that in the build up to the game everyone was saying how vulnerable the Swedes were to crosses into the box - the very reason Andy Carroll was selected to start in the first place - yet it was us who conceded twice from set pieces, an area where we have traditionally been so strong.

But Roy Hodgson then produced something successive England managers have failed to do - a plan B. He immediately brought on Theo Walcott for the once-again disappointing James Milner and the Arsenal winger made an immediate impression.

He appeared a little shocked that his effort from 25 yards flew straight into the net to bring us level just four minutes after his arrival - unsurprising perhaps given that he had not scored for his country in nearly four years - while it was his powerful run and cross from the right that enabled Danny Welbeck to plunder the winner twelve minutes from time.

And what an important winner it could prove to be. A draw would have meant only victory over Ukraine on Tuesday night would have been good enough to send us through to the last eight, while now we just need a point.

But qualification alone may not be enough. With Spain favourites to top Group C, the runners-up in our section will face the holders in the quarter final. For all the excitement of last night's success we do not appear good enough to beat them at the moment so it is in our best interests to try and win the group.

France currently lead by one goal - the one goal we should have scored last night with efforts from John Terry and Steven Gerrard superbly kept out by the Swedish goalkeeper- and you would expect them to beat Sweden. Therefore we would not only need to beat Ukraine but do so by at least one more goal than the French - a tough ask.

However, we should not get ahead of ourselves just yet. We still need a result against the hosts, who know only victory will be good enough for them, so we just need to concentrate on doing that and worrying about any possible quarter final opponents on Wednesday.

So as much as I enjoyed last night's success I am under no illusions. Sweden are an average, ageing side and we made hard work of beating them, hardly the form of potential European Champions. However, we showed a resilience sadly lacking from England sides in the past and we were able to find a way to win, something Manchester United have made a habit of in recent years.

Okay so we may not be able to go all the way and actually lift the trophy on July 1st, but if we can recapture a little of what we showed in the final twenty minutes last night perhaps I won't have to wait another 16 years to enjoy an England victory.

Early signings look promising, but van Persie holds the key

The signings of Lukas Podolski and Oliver Giroud, plus the possible arrival of Yann M'Vila, are encouraging signs, but are they really the type of players Arsenal need to challenge for the title next season?

Lukas Podolski, Arsenal's first summer signing.

Podolski appears to be a direct replacement for Andrey Arshavin, while Giroud, at 6ft 3in, is the obvious choice to replace Nicklas Bendtner and/or Mauranne Chamakh as back-up for Robin van Persie. However, with just 6 caps to his name, the 25 year old French striker represents something of a gamble, although his scoring record suggests he could be another shrewd investment by Arsene Wenger.

But M'Vila could prove to be the best signing of all, a defensive midfielder capable of protecting the defence. His presence would also allow Alex Song more freedom to get forward, which he loves to do, and with the likes of Mikel Arteta, Tomas Rosicky, Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshere set to return from injury, Arsenal could have a very strong midfield indeed.

The return of Jack Wilshere could prove crucial.

Behind them, however, there still appears to be problems. It has been this area of the team which has cost them in recent years, conceding at least 10 goals a season more than their title rivals, and they still do not appear to have enough strength in depth. The first choice back four of Bacary Sagna, Laurent Koscielny, Thomas Vermaelen and either Kieran Gibbs or Andre Santos, look decent enough but the back-up still appears weak. Carl Jenkinson has potential at right back but you are not going to win major honours with him playing regularly, while Francis Coquelin seems more suited to midfield role.

In the centre of defence Per Mertesaker recovered from a slow start to finally look like the international centre half he is before injury ended his season in February, but the jury is still out on Johan Djourou and Sebastian Squiallaci. Therefore the signing of another centre half this summer looks essential, someone like German Matt Hummels for example, who appears to be a perfect fit for Arsenal.

Matt Hummels, a perfect fit for Arsenal?

There is also concern over the goalkeeping situation. Wojciech Szczesny had a decent season and is going to be a very good goalkeeper, but he showed his inexperience for Poland in the opening match of Euro 12 and his replacement, Lukas Fabianski, is never going to good enough. Perhaps third choice Vito Mannone will come good after going out on loan last season, but the club need a more experienced goalkeeper to give them some solid cover.

But of course the biggest signing of all would be to tie van Persie in to a long term deal. It does not appear to be simply a matter of money for the skipper, but ambition of the club. The signings made so far are a positive step but will they be enough to convince the Dutchman he can fulfil his own ambitions in North London?

Robin van Persie, the signing of the summer?

He has clearly looked like a player with a lot on his mind in the Euros, but Holland's potential early exit would at least give the club more time to sort out his future.

While they do not have to sell as he still has a year left on his contract, Arsenal are unlikely to risk losing him on a free next summer. However, if a trophy arrives at The Emirates next season there is a very real possibility van Persie would be happy to commit his long term future then.

Having sold Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri last summer, the last thing they need is to lose another of their star players, so it may be worth the gamble of keeping the Dutchman for another year. They have recouped enough in sales over the last few years, and made a healthy profit once again, so it could be a risk worth taking if it means the club are celebrating a Premier League or Champions League success next May.

Optimistic? Perhaps, but with another 2-3 good signings in defensive areas it could be possible. Just remember where you read it first...