Well, the final didn’t end as we were hoping (especially after going ahead!) but hey, let’s just be happy and proud of what the guys have done in the league. 🏆
Arsenal is way too defensive. I guess it is what worked for Arteta this season, started to be more defensive and play less with the ball, but being honest, they have players to play better, and when you give the enemy the possibility to attack once and again your goal, they end creating opportunities, and the penalty came. When Arsenal started attacking ocassionally again, at moments of the second half and the extension time, they ended creating opportunities, the most obvious one the penalty over Madueke.
For me, that's a penalty, indeed, but also a very adjusted one, for several reasons, that is polemic to whistle. To start with, the action starts outside the area, but ends in the area, so that's the first problem. Then, besides of that... Nuno Mendes reacts first and kinda wins the position but not completely, and Madueke is able to slip through a side and go forward. This being said... Mendes had anticipated Madueke's action. It's Madueke the one that is able to slip through, but, Mendes defends on time and closes the space BEFORE Madueke slips through, just NOT WELL ENOUGH. This is key, because it's fundamental to understand the intention of the player, which is one of the reasons of why I do think the penalty is not whistled. If Nuno Mendes was completely overtaken and reacted AFTER Madueke's dribbling, and Madueke had been able to pass him without having to slip, then probably the penalty would have been whistled because the intention would be to tackle Madueke down. But no, Mendes tries to defend the space on time, Madueke slips, and it's only when, due to inertia and being imposible to stop, Mendes accidentaly takes Madueke's down. Mendes can't avoid that but not having defended and letting Madueke pass through, but the truth is that Mendes defended correctly.
On a second note, I feel that because of being one of the few Arsenal attacking actions, and in the extension time, and having in count what I just told in the previous paragraph, referee felt it wasn't fair, and that was bad for the show, to whistle that penalty, since it would be rewarding a defensive style that was not proactive in the whole match, which is not good for the show, and in one isolated attacking action in the extended time, after having the individual action more or less well defended, or at least without intention of tackling down Madueke's, it would be rewarding something that goes against the show, and punish the team that had been attacking and trying to win the whole match. It would have been rewarding the team that is doing the most boring football, and in general that's not something that either fans or the own referee's, which are also fans, let's not forget that, do like.
This doesn't mean that it is not a penalty, and if it was in the WC, for example, where teams can not train that much and a defensive style is a bit more logical, then probably it would have been whistled. But in the UCL final, with teams that train the whole season and can train more the attacking side, and having one team that proposed much more than the other, I feel that the referee felt not fair, neither good for the show, to whistle down a penalty that would have given the title to Arsenal. If Arsenal was a goal down, or had had many more offensive actions before, then probably the referee would have whistled the penalty. If Nuno Mendes had tackle down Madueke on purpose without having won the position first, then probably it had been whistled down as well. But nothing of that happened, it was a decent defence by Nuno Mendes, and Madueke tries to slip through and either reach the ball or force the penalty, and referee was not in the mood of making things so easy for Arsenal.
This being said... I WOULDN'T BE MAD, as a football fan, if the penalty had been whistled. But I think every football fan but Arsenal's (since it would be benefitial for their team) would have been a bit (only a bit) pissed off if that penalty had been whistled and Arsenal had won that way. It would have felt unfair in terms of goal chances created, etc. etc.
Also, being Arsenal always a more attack leaned team, even with the current coach, I also feel that Arsenal fans wouldn't be completely satisfied if their only UCL would have been won playing as Atlético de Madrid. Of course, you'd be happy because the first UCL is the first UCL... But I don't feel you'd be completely satisfied. Besides, let's not forget what happened with first Barcelona UCL. Since it was finally the first European success, at the maximum football level, it ended up creating an identity for Barcelona football style, and we ended up adopting posession and football style as our style and the one that would lead us to success. I don't think that most of the Arsenal fanbase want to win a UCL like that and take the risk of having that style become the one that gave you your first title.
I think you are thankfull to Arteta for bringing you back to the football elite this season, and you're happy with defensive solidness shown through the whole season, but deep in your hearts, you want this to not come in exchange of giving the ball to the enemy. You know you can do more with the ball, and I am 100% sure that this is what you want for the next season, to mix proper and solidly, the old Arteta posession leaned style with the defensive solidness shown this season. Like being able to be strong in the back, yeah, but also being able to create with the ball and press high. I think that if Arteta manages to do that the next season, you'll win the second Premier League on a row, and will be again serious contenders for the UCL again, and maybe even win it.
