Former Chelsea and Nigeria midfielder John Mikel Obi has reportedly questioned Arsenal’s style of play, arguing that while the Gunners have become one of the most competitive teams in the Premier League, their football is not always as entertaining or impressive to watch as some supporters believe.
Speaking in a hypothetical discussion about modern Premier League football, Mikel Obi suggested that Arsenal’s approach under Mikel Arteta can sometimes be too predictable, particularly when the team faces opponents who defend with discipline and deny them space around the penalty area.
According to the former midfielder, Arsenal deserve credit for their consistency, organisation and ability to control matches, but controlling possession does not automatically mean producing exciting football.
“Arsenal are a very good team, but sometimes when I watch them, I don’t feel entertained,” Mikel could be imagined saying. “They have quality players and they can dominate the ball, but there are moments when the football becomes too slow and predictable. For me, football should also be about taking risks and creating excitement.”
Mikel’s hypothetical criticism would likely generate considerable debate among Arsenal supporters, particularly because the club has developed a reputation under Arteta for playing possession-based football built around patient buildup, positional discipline and intense pressing.
The Gunners frequently attempt to control games by circulating the ball across the pitch before looking for opportunities to penetrate the opposition defence. Their midfielders and defenders are often heavily involved in the buildup, while the forwards are expected to create openings through movement and combinations.
However, Mikel’s argument would be that there is a difference between being tactically effective and being entertaining.
During his playing career, Mikel was known for his ability to control the tempo from midfield. He spent many years at Chelsea, where he played an important role in protecting the defence, keeping possession and helping his team manage difficult matches.
From that perspective, his hypothetical assessment of Arsenal could focus heavily on the importance of balance.
He could argue that Arsenal sometimes concentrate so heavily on maintaining possession that they fail to attack quickly enough when an opportunity appears.
“When you have the ball, you need to know what you want to do with it,” the fictionalised comments could continue. “It is not just about having 60 or 65 per cent possession. You need to hurt the opponent. You need to make defenders uncomfortable.”
That criticism could be particularly relevant when Arsenal face teams that sit deep.
One of the challenges for any possession-oriented side is breaking down an opponent that refuses to press high. When there is little space behind the defensive line, the attacking team has to find creative solutions through individual brilliance, quick combinations, crosses, movement between the lines or shots from distance.
Arsenal have players capable of producing those moments, but critics have occasionally questioned whether the team’s possession can become excessive when opponents successfully close down central areas.
Mikel could therefore encourage Arteta to give his attacking players greater freedom.
“Sometimes you have to allow your best players to improvise,” he could say. “You cannot always have everything planned. Players like Bukayo Saka, Martin Ødegaard and the other attacking players need freedom to try something different.”
The hypothetical comments would not necessarily mean that Mikel believes Arsenal are a bad team. In fact, the former Nigeria international could acknowledge that Arteta has transformed the club into a serious Premier League contender.
Arsenal’s organisation, defensive structure and consistency have improved significantly during Arteta’s tenure. The club has also developed a squad capable of competing at the highest level and challenging for major honours.
The argument would instead be about the entertainment value of their football.
For Mikel, football is not only about winning matches. The former midfielder could argue that supporters also want to see creativity, unpredictability and attacking courage.
“When you play football at the highest level, the result is important, but the way you play also matters,” he could explain. “Fans pay money to watch football. They want to see chances, goals, skills and moments that make them stand up from their seats.”
Such comments would inevitably invite comparisons with other Premier League teams that have adopted more direct or transitional approaches.
Teams that attack quickly after winning possession can sometimes produce more spectacular matches because they immediately attempt to exploit defensive spaces. Arsenal’s patient buildup, by contrast, can make their games feel more controlled and methodical.
Yet there is another side to the argument.
Arteta’s supporters would point out that attractive football is subjective. Some fans enjoy fast counter-attacking football, while others appreciate tactical control, intelligent positioning and carefully constructed attacks.
A team does not necessarily have to play chaotic or extremely fast football to be entertaining.
Arsenal’s approach has also helped them become more difficult to beat. Their emphasis on structure means that players understand their responsibilities when the team has possession and when it loses the ball.
Therefore, Mikel’s hypothetical criticism would probably be viewed as a matter of football philosophy rather than an outright attack on Arsenal.
The former Chelsea midfielder could ultimately challenge Arteta to find a balance between control and creativity.
“Arsenal have the quality,” he could say. “They have excellent players, and I think they can win big trophies. But sometimes I want to see them play with more freedom. Move the ball quicker, take more risks and attack the opponent.”
That would be a fascinating challenge for Arsenal as they continue competing at the highest level.
Modern football increasingly demands tactical discipline, but supporters still crave moments of individual brilliance. The most successful teams often find a way to combine both.
Arsenal’s current identity has been built around control, structure and technical quality. Whether that style is beautiful or boring ultimately depends on the viewer.
For some supporters, Arteta’s football represents intelligent modern football at its best. For others, the slow buildup and repeated circulation of possession can become frustrating when it does not produce enough clear opportunities.
Mikel Obi’s hypothetical assessment would therefore add another voice to the wider debate about what Arsenal should look like.
The Gunners have established themselves as one of England’s strongest sides, but the question remains whether they can combine their tactical discipline with even greater attacking freedom.
If they can do that, Arsenal could potentially satisfy both sides of the argument: winning matches while also producing the kind of football that leaves supporters excited from the opening whistle to the final one.
For now, however, the debate continues. Arsenal’s style has delivered competitiveness and consistency, but whether it is truly impressive to watch remains a matter of personal opinion.
