There are a million things to catch the eye from the brilliant, unexpectedly dramatic draw between Manchester City and Arsenal.
There were handbags from start to finish, from Kai Havertz giving Rodri a Richard Ashcroft shoulder-barge in the first five seconds to Erling Haaland celebratorily donking the ball off the back of Gabriel’s head as the clock ticked well into the 98th minute, with John Stones having nicked the equaliser that never looked like coming.
If City’s centre-backs were not shooting (they registered 13 between them, the majority in the second half), they were trying to put crosses into a penalty area that contained pretty much everybody but themselves. All it seemed to do was give the Arsenal players cramp.
Arsenal clearly came north to lay down a marker and prove that they have the mentality to go toe-to-toe with City, not just in a title race but over the course of 90 minutes, and in some ways, they proved the latter point despite Stones’ last-gasp goal.
City’s dramatic goals are normally reserved for the biggest matches, when they are most needed: Sergio Aguero’s title decider against Queens Park Rangers in 2012, Ilkay Gundogan’s double against Aston Villa a decade later. Normally, they have swept teams aside long before needing any heroics. Yet they needed this one and, in that moment, it felt almost as big.
In doing so, it perhaps reminded Arsenal of something, too, that no matter how well they do, City are able to just do enough to disappoint them.
And yet, for all that we can read into this game and what it means for both sides, we know from last season — when Arsenal did beat City early in the season to show their title credentials — it did not actually matter in the end. That is not a criticism of Arsenal, but of reading a little too much into one-off matches.
What we saw last season was that, despite that defeat, and even a flurry of draws afterwards, City just kept beating everybody else, and by a whisker, they got more points than Arsenal.
One of the reasons they were able to keep racking up those points, at the risk of oversimplifying matters, is because they had Rodri in the team.
For all of the chaos, tactical queries, pushes, shoves and goals, the biggest moment may have come in the 21st minute when Rodri came off injured.
At first, it looked like another off-the-ball clash. The first one with Havertz was surely a response to Rodri saying the Arsenal players did not have the mentality to come to the Etihad Stadium and beat them in this fixture last season, which ended 0-0.
But running to the near post to attack a corner, the Spaniard’s leg seemed to buckle and, after a few moments of treatment, he looked like either he had been in tears or felt sick, possibly both. Not long afterwards, as he walked off, he signalled to Pep Guardiola that he needed to be replaced.
“Rodri is a strong man,” Guardiola said afterwards. “If he leaves the pitch in this action, it is because he felt something, otherwise he would stay there.”
On the specifics of the injury, Guardiola would not be moved; he insisted he had not spoken to the doctor, as he always says in these situations. But he did talk about his importance.
“He is a presence, the best holding midfielder in the world, I would say a potential Ballon d’Or winner, he deserves it.” He then talked about the feisty nature of the game and having to handle it.
Would City have been better with him on the pitch the rest of Sunday’s game? No doubt. Not least in the second half when all they had was shots from outside the box, many of which fell to his replacement, Mateo Kovacic.
Was his withdrawal the biggest factor in Arsenal turning the first half around and taking the lead? Well, you would have to give credit to them, too; surely any team, let alone one like Arsenal, would have weathered the storm to some extent.
“We struggled in the first 20-25 minutes,” Mikel Arteta said. “After that, we started to understand better what we had to do.”
There was obviously a correlation in the fortunes of the two teams going off, although it is difficult to infer caution.
But never mind this match, with its various twists, turns and talking points, what about a good bulk of games in the coming weeks, possibly months, if that injury is serious?
We have to be very careful with these things because of the lack of information and the potential for rumours to spread in its place. There is no official suggestion that it is the most serious knee injury — an ACL — but that is often the greatest fear in these situations and, in the hours immediately after the match, those were the discussions being had inside the press rooms and pubs.
Whatever the truth, and we are bound to find out in the next day or so, not least because City are playing again on Tuesday, the biggest legacy of this match would be a Rodri lay-off of more than a few games.
Just the thought of a few games without him would have horrified City a few weeks ago.
Part of the reason City lost at Arsenal last season was because they did not have their lynchpin. Neither did they the week before that when they lost at Wolves. So they went to Arsenal trying to clog everything up and escape with a 0-0, only to be undone by a deflection. When Rodri was suspended for the trip to Villa in December, they looked poor and lost again.
The only league game they won without Rodri last season was against Luton in April. They lost the other three.
This season, it had quickly been taken for granted that they could win without him. He missed the first three matches and City won them all, not looking especially ruffled, while he came on at half-time against Brentford, with City 2-1 up, and helped them over the line.
It may be the case that they are better equipped to deal without him this season, especially with Gundogan back on the scene. But if we are searching for meaning in all of that chaos, we are probably better off waiting to see how Rodri’s knee is.
(Top photo: Carl Recine/Getty Images)
