LAST summer, Arsene Wenger lamented the dearth of traditional centre-forward types. He was talking of the target men of yesteryear, the workhorses who combined a strong physical presence, a warrior-like attitude and prolific goal-scoring.

He cited an emphasis on technical football – in part because pitches are so good at all levels – at the expense of strength and athleticism, so “we develop only midfielders now”.

“When the style is more technical and less direct, you don’t need a traditional centre-forward,” he said. “We can compensate by having scorers all over the place.”

The irony isn’t lost on anyone. Wenger complains about the lack of target men being brought on by teams full of lightweight technical players. Which is funny because that’s pretty much what he has built over the past decade. And yet, there’s a twist. He counts on precisely the kind of strong, big man up front which, supposedly, no longer exists.

Going into today’s clash with Chelsea, Olivier Giroud had scored 18 goals in all competitions. Only Everton’s Romelu Lukaku had scored more going into the weekend, except his 19 came in 350 more minutes, nearly four full games, than Giroud. What’s more, all but two of the Frenchman’s goals have come from open play. And he has come up big when it mattered. He scored that hat-trick against Olympiacos in the do-or-die Champions League match, he scored home and away against Bayern and bagged two against Liverpool a week ago.

He certainly has his critics. Some say that with Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez providing the service, a postbox could score a fair few goals. Others are frustrated by the fact that when he misses chances, he tends to really miss them (and look accordingly bad doing so).

Still others bemoaned the fact that, after Danny Welbeck’s injury in August, Wenger did not bring in an alternative at centre-forward. But the fact remains. Arsenal are top of the league and he has contributed nearly a third of the Premier League goals. What’s more, the Gunners have weathered various injury crises and the absences of Santi Cazorla, Francis Coquelin, Sanchez and Ozil (the last two are likely to return today). He’s the one cog in the machine who has kept them ticking over.

Sure, there’s still a contingent out there who believe Theo Walcott should be playing up front. Before his injury in October, Walcott had started six straight Premier League games: Arsenal won five of them, the only defeat being at Stamford Bridge in a game they might well have won. But it’s indicative that, even after Walcott returned, Wenger stuck with Giroud up front.

He has found his formula, a blueprint that works even when the creative elements are absent or misfiring. If Arsenal hang on and win the Premier League this year, much of it will be down to him.

IT’S a head-scratcher. Last Sunday, a club in free-fall who had won just twice since August and found themselves a point above the relegation zone decided to fill their vacant managerial position by appointing a 60-year-old Italian guy who had never worked outside Italy bar seven unsuccessful months at Monaco more than a decade ago. Not just that, but said manager hadn’t worked since June 2014. And the biggest club he had worked at? Bologna or Palermo, depending on your point of view.

Swansea’s decision to turn to Francesco Guidolin is thinking way outside the box. It defies convention, and raises the obvious question: if this guy is so good, why, in 25 years of management, did no big Italian club give him a shot? And there’s a corollary to it: if he’s so good, why didn’t the Pozzo family, who own both Udinese and Watford and had him for four seasons in Udine, appoint him to fill the Hornets’ managerial vacancy in the summer?

Fair points. And Guidolin himself admitted last week that he was disappointed not to get the Watford job since he had longed pine for an opportunity to work in England.

It may be a question of branding. His career has been one long over-achievement. He won four promotions, mostly with unfashionable clubs. He won a Coppa Italia with little Vicenza and guided them to the semi-finals of the old Cup-Winners’ Cup. He has nine top-eight finishes in Serie A, all with supposed minnows: four with Udinese, one each with Palermo, Vicenza, Parma and Bologna. And, in fact, he twice took Udinese to Champions League qualification.

Those achievements either earn you a shot with a big club or they pigeonhole you as a man who can’t work with superstars. With him, it has been the latter.

From any vantage point, it’s a huge gamble. His forte has long been tact-ical work of the painstaking, double-session kind, usually not favoured by English clubs. He’s entirely new to the country. And he’ll be following in the footsteps of popular “players’ coaches”.

Swansea have taken the road less travelled in the past. So maybe it makes sense for them to be counter intuitive once again. But if they get it wrong, the price to pay – relegation – will be steep.

IT’S not quite the old “Has Garry Birtles scored yet?” joke, but it’s heading that way. Since appointing Gary Neville in early December, Valencia have failed to win a single Liga game. In fact, they have only beaten two opponents: third-tier Barakaldo and Granada (home and away) in the Spanish Cup.

There have been a bunch of mitigating circumstances: an injury crisis, performances which have merited more than a share of the spoils, the natural bedding-in period you expect from any new manager. Yet there’s no escaping the fact that Valencia don’t look much better than they did when Neville was hired. And, in fact, they have slipped from eighth to 11th in the table. Fourth place was five points away when he was brought in and now it’s a distant 16.

No doubt Neville is learning plenty. But you can also feel the frustration of Valencia supporters as they face Deportivo La Coruna away today. They want their club to compete for silverware and be something more than a finishing school for ambitious young managers.