On balance a positive decision.
Positives
*Attention to detail
*increased video analysis of own team performances and opposition
*more defensive discipline and awareness
*tactical flexibility (witness Europa League half-time turn-around v Liverpool)
*history of working with and improving players (Seville and Valencia)
*experience of three European Leagues, plus a Russian one
*experience of handling big egos
*used to working with director of football
*over-achieved at Seville and Valencia on a limited budget and improved league positions
*winner of three European trophies, and domestic league and cup.
Negatives
*Limited English
*lost meekly in the last two Champions League last 16 ties, with a big budget squad
*less than authoritative when faced with squad/team arguments at PSG
*been less successful abroad than in Spain.
Better choice than Arteta
Allegri was a fans’ favourite, but given where Arsenal are, Emery is a better and less risky decision than Mikel Arteta. The Independent rails against the ‘safe’ appointment, when Gazidis said it would be bold, but that’s editorial for editorial’s sake.
Gary Neville points out that the selection process has been a mess – with public rejections due to monetary differences which should have been sorted out earlier, but maybe it was a happy accident than expectations were lowered with Arteta, to be elevated with Emery. Maybe Gazidis took a leaf out of the Roman PR handbook.
Besides, by all accounts he came over best in the selection interviews with a detailed knowledge of current Arsenal players and detailed plans for the future.