It’s probably a blessing in disguise for Arsene Wenger, that the recently acquired Andrey Arshavin is unlikely to be in a position to start this afternoon’s North London derby, because despite his obvious talent, it’s unclear where exactly he will be deployed.

The club website’s profile of the Russian just shows us where the potential confusion lies. For many of us, Arshavin is that superb creative second striker we saw spring into action midway through Euro 2008, but his Arsenal.com profile describes him as a midfielder. Not only that but it charts the different positions he has been used in throughout his career. He started as a right-midfielder, then to attacking central midfield, then to the second striker role most Brits know him best in.

Though if we’re trying to ascertain his best position, I would disregard the role as a right sided midfielder. A player like Arshavin should, like a Gianfranco Zola, be able to breathe his creative genius through the middle. So considering the inevitable arguments about his insufficient stature to play central midfield in this country, it seems likely he would be best deployed in the role which brought him international fame this summer.

Yet excellent as he may well prove to be in that position (just imagine letting him and van Persie off the leash), I’m not sure that such a deployment in the solution in either the short or the long term.

Currently, Arsenal’s severe attacking gaps (relevant to personnel – we all know Arsenal lack a defensive midfielder of note) are in Cesc Fabregas’ vacated midfield spot, and Theo Walcott’s right wing. Up front however, they are relatively sorted. For all Adebayor’s deficiencies, and there are many of them, he does score goals, and is especially likely to alongside the fabulously creative van Persie. The big Togolese striker is clearly not playing at his best at the moment, but that is because, with the lack of creativity behind him, people are focussing on the flaws in his all-round game. Realistically this isn’t a problem and it shouldn’t be considered one. If the rest of the Arsenal team are playing at their creative best it is simply Adebayor’s job to put the ball into the back of the net. We should not be expecting him to be applying the creative spark.

So in the short term then Arsenal’s creative problem lies behind the front two. Arsenal are not looking like a goal threat because of the lack of quick passing and invention from the midfield, when faced with an eleven man wall of defenders. In my opinion, the best way to combat this is to put your best, most experienced creative player right in the middle. While Samir Nasri will one day be that man, there is, in the absence of Fabregas, only one man that can take that role, and that’s Arshavin. Right now Arsenal don’t need two bulldozing central midfielders to score goals; they need some creativity. What is more likely to bring success, a partnership of Diaby and Song, or one or Arshavin and A.N. Other?

But that is just my solution, and one unlikely to be supported by many Arsenal fans, because as we have seen there are multiple options. Yet the problem gets even more complicated in the long term. If, and with Arsenal it’s a big if, they can actually boast a completely fit squad the placement of the Russian becomes much more difficult. Fabregas is the best choice in central midfield and partnering him with Arshavin is simply not an option.

So what then is the Russian there for? To be a versatile bit-part player, capable of covering for Nasri/Rosicky, Fabregas, Walcott or van Persie? I somewhat doubt it, but it raises the question of exactly which of those men he would be most preferable to, and where his deployment would bring the most balance.

Perhaps I’m just not used to an Arsenal side with genuine options on the bench, a side which can rotate according to the needs of the game at hand in the way Man United’s excellent squad can. But the problem is not a simple one to solve and as I said at the outset, Wenger will probably be glad he doesn’t have to make that choice right away. The more time he has to try and work out the answer, either in training or in various matches, the better. If he does appear against Tottenham it will be absolutely fascinating to see where he plays.

It’s been a busy week.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle will not be the new Health and Human Services Secretary. It was another tax issue (relating to a chauffeur), following Timothy Geithner’s ‘little mishap’. If articles like this one are to be believed, the latter got off rather lightly in his confirmation.

Two points. First, it is a considerable loss for the Obama team. They trusted Daschle. So did Congress. He has kudos in Washington, knows the issues (he recently wrote an acclaimed book on healthcare policy), and it was thought he was – from a practical point of view – one of the best possible people to lead the fight on health reform. Uniquely among Obama’s Cabinet, he was to be ‘Health Czar’ too. In each key policy area, Obama has appointed a ‘Czar’ to coordinate policy, in practice increasing the extent to which policy is directed by the White House. Daschle was unique in that he was to be both the HHS Secretary and the Health Czar. This all sounds very abstract, but, to illustrate, he would have been the only Cabinet member to have an office in the West Wing. Obama trusted him and has lost a valuable leader.

Second, Daschle messed up, but he would have been confirmed. The leader of the Senatorial committee responsible for his confirmation said he had full confidence in Daschle the night before he withdrew. Despite the mishap, it looked as if he were destined for the same outcome as Geithner – a little bad press, a slightly bumpy ride, and then confirmation. The story goes, Daschle woke up and read this New York Times editorial, then called Obama and said he felt he shouldn’t go on with the nomination process.

Ordinarily in these situations one looks for evidence that the resignation was in fact forced. I actually don’t think it was here. I think Daschle simply thought, especially after Nancy Killefer (WH Performance Director-designate) had withdrawn for tax reasons, that his presence would cause problematic distraction. He might have been wrong – the public forgets about this sort of thing after a short while.

(A little frivolity for the weekend: this brilliantly ironic campaign ad for Tom Daschle’s 1986 campaign)

—-

Meanwhile, Obama is out and about selling the stimulus package. There’s been some interesting chatter from a few sources – Peggy Noonan and Lawrence Linsey (former Director of President Bush’s National Economic Council) to name but two. Their argument: the President is on TV too much. They make slightly nuanced arguments. Noonan’s view is the office of the President is denigrated if you’re always on TV – it reduces the intrigue. What she seems to say is something like the Presidency is special and important enough for it not to benefit from constant exposure. Linsey (speaking to the quite brilliant Jon Stewart on The Daily Show) says something different: if you’re on TV all the time, you can’t be making good decisions.

Linsey’s argument is less good than Noonan’s, but both are a little off the mark. I think the real argument is this: the ‘bully pulpit’ becomes less consequential if you’re always yelling from it.

But Obama is right to be yelling now. This issue is singular in that this stimulus package will probably be the biggest piece of legislation of his first term. It needs to be gotten right, and the Senate bill that the President is now touting seems much preferable to that passed in the House. Obama believes that this situation demands bold leadership, and his strength in the campaign and since was and has been his ability to connect, to persuade the people that he’s right. And so he goes on television, and argues. His team blitzes the airwaves. He’ll be hitting the campaign trail again this week, with a couple of town hall meetings in Florida and Indiana.

I think part of the reason he’s doing it is because he’s got the tougher argument. It’s very easy, in this age of the soundbite press, for a conservative Republican to go on talk radio or cable news and say ‘this thing won’t work’, or ‘it wastes your tax dollars’, or ‘it’s a spending bill, not a stimulus’ (the response: that’s precisely what a stimulus is, you numpties). Obama’s case is harder to make, more complicated, and so he must go on the attack and make it. The whole issue is certainly more nuanced than much of the Republican commentary has made out, and so he must say so.

His charm offensive started on Thursday, with a host of interviews during the day and, most notably, this speech at the House Democrats annual retreat. I urge you to watch the video — it starts slow, but it gets there. This is why they elected Obama. This sort of performance is something we really didn’t see with Bush, at least not in the last four years (which is why his final press conference seemed so out of place). This speech was Obama at his best: impassioned, persuasive, willing to hit back hard against his detractors. It was largely positive: we need to do this to save our economy. But he was occasionally cutting, mocking the Republican talking points in an attempt to bring the public round.

It might yet work. The vote in the Senate will be at the start of this week, and then it’s back to the House for a little more wrangling. With three GOP Senators willing to support the new bill in the Senate, it could well pass as it stands.

So these Cherwell ‘spotlight’ interviews look like they might become a regular feature. The Josh one was brilliant, but Iwu says nothing of real interest. Who next? Perhaps Lawsoc pres: “we aren’t all corporate whores,” or the Union treasurer: “I’m great at getting money” oh wait…

That aside, Cherwell’s news section was solid and felt substantial. The only duff piece was on welfare provisions. That story gets run every term, never with any new information or hard stats. Oxstu’s news, while not bad, was neither ground-breaking or plentiful. Dull piece about John Denham. The “credit crunch” survey was a good idea, but failed to yield any actually interesting results. Nice pie charts though – how about transferring the design to the rest of the paper?

Oxstu had an odd debate over whether the Union need more scandal. Read: we could do with some more news please. Cherwell didn’t fare much better, giving unwarranted space to Jamie Fox.

Meryl Streep: kudos. Much better written than last week’s as well. The standard Campsfield House feature made another appearance – this time in the red top. Features writers get far too over-exicited when they realise there’s a detention centre within bus-riding distance. Oxstu’s living on a pound feature was nicely done, but the piece on interviews was a wasted opportunity. If the paper really did survey 100 interviewees, where were the stats and interesting feedback?

Oxstu’s fashion has generally been quite good this term, but this week seemed to get all confused with the re-sizing button. Cherwell’s clothes continued to disappoint – blonde girls in flowery dresses aren’t exactly a new edgy trend. 

Apart from Oxstu failing to compete on design, the two papers are neck-and-neck.