[ad_pod ]

For a team whose manager publicly confessed their inability to sign players permanently, the arrival of Denis Suarez at Arsenal was greatly welcomed. A player of his calibre, having won every major domestic trophy available in Spain while representing Barcelona, will augment the experience and quality of Arsenal’s midfield. Suarez previously played under Unai Emery’s tutelage at Sevilla, which is a notable bonus, but was the 25-year-old truly the most appropriate recruit for the Gunners?

This isn’t to suggest that he is a bad signing, nor is he of insufficient quality to play for the Gunners, but perhaps the club’s focus was misplaced when opting to sign the Spaniard. As is quintessential for most Spanish players, particularly those who have represented Barcelona, Suarez is endowed with tremendous technical quality, and he has a perceptible knack of choosing the right pass. He is also capable of playing as an attacking midfielder and has even been deployed at left-wing in the past, which provides invaluable tactical and positional flexibility.

However, the Gunners weren’t particularly in need of added creativity to bolster their attacking output. While one must always seize upon the chance to improve their team, Arsenal – with limited funds – should have demonstrated guile to identify their priorities better. A total of 50 goals in 24 league games is more than acceptable, particularly when your centre-forward is the second highest goal scorer in the division. That said, a total of 33 goals conceded – an average of more than a goal conceded every game – is frankly inexcusable for a team that is expected to compete on all fronts.

Who will be the next 'Big 6' manager to be sacked? The Pl>ymaker FC squad all seem to agree on one name. Find out who in the video below...

As has been the case with several Arsenal sides in recent years, the Gunners are defensively vulnerable, and despite the presence of Granit Xhaka, Matteo Guendouzi and Lucas Torreira in midfield, there’s an argument to be had that the North London team are still in need of engine room steel to protect a fragile defensive unit. The Gunners concede an average of 12.6 shots per game; only Manchester United concede more shots per game out of the top six sides. Collectively, Bernd Leno and Petr Cech have only kept three clean sheets in the league this season, which is a disgraceful return for a club vying to qualify for the Champions League.

In fairness, Arsenal have endured injuries of late which has troubled their pursuit for continuity, but the extent of their defensive fragility is almost inexcusable. While the need for more defenders is strikingly apparent, a combative and a defensive specialist in midfield would arguably have been a better solution than Suarez.

As is widely acknowledged, the January transfer window is often a problematic period to conduct transfer business. Between vastly inflated fees and limited targets due to general reluctance to sell, it can often be challenging to complete shrewd deals. However, considering that Suarez joined on loan with an option to buy, Arsenal could have conceivably conducted a similar deal for a defensive midfielder.

Naturally, given the immense number of factors, crafting hypothetical situations is always a flawed method of comparison, but one cannot help but feel that a defensive midfielder would have been far more effectual to negate the pressing issues that Arsenal currently face. The arrival of Suarez, for all his talent and experience of success in the upper echelons of European football, is unlikely to alleviate the most significant problems that Emery has encountered this season. To put it bluntly, that's poor recruitment.