Is Paul Scholes close to the truth about Arsenal

I often find myself defending former Manchester United players in their roles as pundits more than many other Arsenal supporters. However, as an increasing number of ex-professionals realise they can generate income independently through platforms such as YouTube, separate from major broadcasters, a potential conflict of interest emerges. It raises the question of whether audiences are hearing genuine analysis or opinions shaped for engagement and clickbait.

This week, several content creators echoed Paul Scholes’ suggestion that Arsenal could become the first Premier League winners without any attacker deserving a place in a season’s best eleven. Scholes went further, suggesting this would make the Gunners the worst English champions of the Premier League era. With 11 title medals to his name, the 51-year-old is qualified to comment and is entitled to his opinion.

Analysing the logic behind the claim

If most observers were asked to select a team of the season at this point, many would choose Rice and Gabriel, while others would opt for Saliba and Timber, with Raya also a contender for the goalkeeper position. By that logic, Arsenal may not boast the most celebrated attacking unit, but they clearly possess one of the strongest defences in the country. There have been stronger attacking sides in the English top flight, yet that does not diminish the value of defensive excellence.

If league leaders were defined by standout strikers, wingers, or number 10s, would that automatically be considered a weakness elsewhere? Defending is just as fundamental as attacking in football. When the rules of the game were established, both aspects were integral. The saying “you can’t win anything without a good defence” exists for a reason.