Why Arsenal look like a Mourinho team - but must change to win like one

When former Liverpool and England defender Jamie Carragher suggested Arsenal were morphing into a "Jose Mourinho team" he meant to compliment the club's defensive resilience and set-piece prowess.

But, intentional or not, contained within his September critique was a twinge of doubt about the viability of a defence-first mantra in the modern age.

Three months on, amid accusations of overreliance on corners and squandered chances, of streamlined attacking tactics and a stodgy midfield, the Mourinho comparison feels both increasingly apt and unwanted.

Wednesday's win over rivals Tottenham, thanks in part to another one of those set-piece goals, left the Gunners four points behind Premier League leaders Liverpool to keep them right in the hunt.

But, for all the talk, how much have they actually changed this season? Is the comparison a fair one? And could it help them win the title - just as Mourinho did three times at Chelsea - or will it hinder their hopes?

This is at the very heart of those comparisons between Arteta's Arsenal and Mourinho's Chelsea, who were masters of the set-piece goal:

Either way, the headline for the current Arsenal side is unavoidable, the data stark: they need a ruthless striker to get over their set-piece dependence.

We have known this for a while, but in the past week the glare of the spotlight has intensified. We have even compiled our own list of who they could sign in January here.

Victory in the north London derby could kick-start their 2025 but, having relied upon a set-piece own goal and a Leandro Trossard strike fortuitously squirming through Spurs keeper Antonin Kinsky, the same questions remain.

Arsenal have scored two goals from 63 shots - with an expected goals (xG) of 7.83 - against Manchester United, Newcastle and Tottenham.

All three games were defined by set-piece chances and big misses, but the clearest example was against Newcastle, when Kai Havertz squandered golden opportunities while, at the other end, Alexander Isak showed the ruthlessness Arsenal lack.

The Gunners missed all six of their 'big chances'. The Magpies scored both of theirs.

It was more of the same in the FA Cup loss on penalties to Manchester United, who had Diogo Dalot sent off in the 61st minute, after which Arteta said: "In 1,000 games [like this] you lose one, and it was this one."

Perhaps that is true, but when it keeps happening you have to question whether Arsenal lack a clinical edge and composure in key moments, particularly when the cushion of an extra goal is required.

They have been a goal up in five of their seven Premier League draws this season. German Havertz, under-scoring against his xG for the fourth time in five campaigns, is not the player to finish off a game.

So, Arsenal are good at corners and they do not have Isak. That is not exactly breaking news.

But analysing the underlying data reveals there is more to Arsenal's problems than meets the eye.

The media focus on all those misses against Newcastle and Manchester United has skewed our perceptions of what has really gone on this season.

A 1-1 draw with Brighton in the previous game was more in keeping with the campaign as a whole: nine shots on goal and an xG of 0.88. The Gunners rank seventh in the Premier League for xG this season (36.5), plummeting from third in 2023-24 (77.5).

Interestingly, Arsenal's shot count is also down (17.3 per game in 2023-24, 13.8 in 2024-25) yet their conversion rate is up (13.9% to 14.1%).

Maybe the problem is not about the number nine, then, but a lack of service provided from midfield.

Certainly the numbers paint a picture of a team struggling to move the ball through the thirds with the same fluency as last year:

Martin Odegaard missing eight Premier League matches is a big factor, of course, and arguably the only significant difference.

Since his first start following his return from injury against Chelsea in November, the Norwegian has created 42 chances in all competitions, almost twice as many as any other Arsenal player (Declan Rice is next with 23).

Captain Odegaard has created 14 chances in his past two games alone (10 against Manchester United and four against Tottenham), which is as many as all of his team-mates combined (14).

Indeed, the Spurs game was a typical example of how everything filters through him - he had more touches (73) than any other player on the pitch.

But, whether or not Odegaard is fit, Arsenal clearly lack creativity on the left side of midfield, where Mikel Merino or Rice play.

Attacking variety is crucial to avoid predictability, yet Arsenal rarely manage to carve their opponent open through the middle of the park, as their assist map shows:

It is a problem that has become bigger since Merino's introduction, which has brought more sideways passes and not enough attacking dynamism, in turn limiting the pathway out to Gabriel Martinelli or Trossard on the left.

To illustrate that point, Arsenal's progressive passes per 90 minutes have dropped at a huge rate, from 55.4 in 2023-24 to 45.4 in 2024-25, while their through-balls are down from 2.74 per 90 minutes to 1.81 per 90 minutes.

It is true Arteta's transfer business has not focused on forwards. But it has not focused enough on creative number eights, either.

That has made Arsenal too stunted through the middle and reliant on playing down the right, through Bukayo Saka, who has been sidelined with a hamstring injury since December.

Their attack locations are increasingly lopsided, so much so that Arsenal now attack down the left and through the centre less than anyone else in the division:

The disappointing third-round FA Cup shootout defeat by Manchester United, with Odegaard also having a penalty saved in normal time to put his side in front, is a good example of why it is a problem.

Ruben Amorim's team were able to sit deep, double up on Arsenal's right, and spread themselves across the width of the pitch without fear of being hit through the centre.

"We didn't have the ball so much but we had control without the ball," as Amorim put it.

In other words, Arsenal were too imbalanced to pull apart a defensive shell that was typical of the defensive stance opponents adopt against them.

Another couple of factors stick out, looping us back to those Mourinho comparisons.

When defensive resolve and set-piece goals are prioritised, the margin of error becomes razor thin, hence why Odegaard's and Saka's injuries derailed Arsenal's form – and why less-than-perfect play at both ends of the pitch has cost them.

Arsenal made 18 errors leading to an opposition shot last season. They have already equalled that figure (18), explaining why those 1-0 leads do not carry Mourinho-esque certainty anymore.

At the other end, it is notable Arsenal topped the charts last season for scoring goals above their post-shot xG, at 15.5. This means Arsenal scored 15.5 more goals than would be 'expected' based on where the shot was fired onto the goalmouth.

They have not been as lucky this year, over-scoring the same metric by just 1.7. Maybe, then, there is a regression to the mean occurring in attack and a gradual slipping of standards at the back.

If that is true, then it only adds weight to the widespread theory Arsenal could do with a poacher up front; someone to turn half-chances into cushion goals that would either forgive defensive errors or relax the shoulders enough to avoid second-half mistakes altogether.

But that is not the whole story. Arsenal's attacking locations need realignment and their central midfield requires an injection of creativity - or else they risk emulating elements of Mourinho's football, but not his success.