After playing Crystal Palace on Monday night, Kai Havertz didn’t have a particularly good or awful game, in my opinion. I make a conscious effort not to become overly protective and to try to remain grounded and objective in my basic analysis post-match because of the almost sad immediacy of the rising hostility around the summer signing.
After the final whistle, as Umar Choudhry and I were recording the post-match reaction program for The Arsenal Way, I questioned: “What did Havertz do?” I continued by saying that we might have gotten more from the team if Leandro Trossard had played the role.
I decided to replay the game and focus on Havertz in particular because I wanted to be sure that my opinion was supported. As the video continued to play, though, I began to feel increasingly guilty for having done a complete 180 and been unduly critical of Havertz rather than falling into the trap of being overly defensive of him, completely forgetting to highlight how significant his contribution to last night’s game was.
Is that my fault? Maybe.
But there’s also a sense that Havertz’s midfield role is going to go under the radar because it is subtle despite its importance. Players like Gabriel Martinelli and Bukayo Saka shine brightly with their lung-bursting runs and wing play, whilst Havertz goes about his role on and off the ball in a nonchalant manner.
The numbers from the game for those that enjoy their statistics were telling. A 91% pass accuracy, two chances created, 39 touches and the most duels won for the second game running.
However, phrases like “non-existent,” “did nothing,” or “non-factor” keep appearing. On both sides of any Arsenal argument, the word “agenda” is frequently used to promote or criticize a player or non-playing individual.
If you stand up for the player, you are working towards their agenda. A current favorite of mine is the idea that protecting only players is a “PR stunt” despite how ridiculous and absurd this allegation is.
While some allegedly harbor vendettas against players and are incapable of appreciating their efforts. Though it is impossible to persuade everyone to change their opinions, it is best to provide proof to refute those who hold the opinion that Havertz did nothing during the game.
opening of all, Havertz ought to have a helper in the opening two minutes of the game. His ability to react quickly to Tyrick Mitchell’s errant touch and spin a drive toward goal before playing a flawless pass past three Palace defenders to a completely open Gabriel Martinelli who should score underlined his off-the-ball skills.
The subsequent tackle by Havertz on Jeffrey Schlupp results in a through pass from Bukayo Saka to Eddie Nketiah. After spinning and driving towards the opposing goal, the forward had the terrible fate to strike the post.
Another instance of a fight that Havertz wins gives Arsenal a significant opportunity. Despite its significance, his part in this scene is undoubtedly underemphasized in criticism and analysis; I know this since I didn’t notice it the first time around.
I was among many who wondered why Havertz had managed to withstand all of Mikel Arteta’s substitutions. The £65 million man remained on the pitch when Gabriel Martinelli, Bukayo Saka, Martin Odegaard, and Eddie Nketiah were taken off.
However, in those waning moments, Havertz turned became an outlet for Arsenal and a target. Furthermore, he effectively eased the pressure by winning a crucial free kick from Cheick Doucoure following a Naouirou Ahamada turnover.
I initially called Havertz’s presentation “just decent.” In retrospect, that drastically undersold his effort, and if a player rating was required, a 7/10 would have been a much more accurate representation of his performance.
Since there is undoubtedly room for development, it is not higher. In the last third, I want him to be more direct and dangerous.
He made four passes into the final third, mostly lateral passes. Throughout the entire game, he only completed three forward passes compared to eight backward passes, hence the remaining 12 of his 23 passes were all lateral.
Looking at his passing links, William Saliba (5) and Takehiro Tomiyasu (10) were his most frequent connections with an even split of passes between him and the full-back. Of his fellow attacking players, he played two passes to Martinelli, four to Odegaard, one to Nketiah, and one to Saka.
These figures might have been higher if the Gunners had finished the game with 11 men, but it would still be positive to see him provide more of a danger going forward. The main factor seems to be confidence, and Arteta is giving him many opportunities.
It is safe to argue that the claim that Havertz was “non-existent” in this game is simply untrue and that his contributions were crucial to the outcome. Though more is undoubtedly required and expected of him, we only need to take a step back and begin to look for his positive path.