Games like these fuel the narrative. The one whereby Arsène Wenger, for all his talents, is some sort of utopian fundamentalist, too removed from football’s realpolitik to actually deliver meaningful trophies. It’s an assessment which is both unkind and un-nuanced. But faced with games like yesterday’s against Manchester United at Old Trafford, it’s a tempting conclusion to reach.

From United’s perspective, this was a similar situation to the Liverpool match a month ago. A game where the benefits of winning are outweighed by the risks of losing. And without his first-choice defensive partnership (Chris Smalling and Eric Bailly), the centre-forward who had played every minute of every league game this season (Zlatan Ibrahimovic) and Marouane Fellaini (a player not to everyone’s taste, but a fixture under Jose Mourinho), hunkering down and hoping to grab something on the break with the fleet-footed Marcus Rashford and Antony Martial made sense.

So Wenger knew the script. But, despite this, he failed to adjust. Arsenal came to epitomise the concept of sterile possession for most of the match. Alexis Sanchez, with no space behind, ran into blind alleys. And it was United with the upper hand for most of the match, forcing several difficult saves out of Petr Cech and recriminating for an Antonio Valencia penalty which could easily have been given.

“We were the best team by far… I don’t want to say they didn’t want to win, but they didn’t create chances to win,” Mourinho lamented. “They were the lucky ones, we were unlucky.”

Indeed, United’s lead may have been partly down to poor tracking by Mohamed Elneny and Theo Walcott, a superb thread-the-needle cross from Ander Herrera and an otherworldly finish from Juan Mata – but it was hugely deserved.

The fact that Wenger’s substitutes combined on the late equaliser doesn’t mean he’s a genius for making the changes, either. Throwing in Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and, especially, Olivier Giroud was a tacit admission that something different was needed. And while it was both a great cross and a superb header that gave Arsenal the point, it also left you wondering why it had to come so late.

Giroud is averaging a goal every 133 minutes since the start of the 2015-16 season. For a guy who doesn’t take penalties, that’s a very good average. It doesn’t mean he needs to start every game, but it does suggest there are situations where he can be extremely effective.

As for United and Mourinho, there is an evident uptick and not just because, Chelsea aside, they haven’t lost in the league in two months, just as they don’t tend to lose when Michael Carrick is involved.

There remains plenty to figure out. But, at least you get the sense the manager isn’t making the same mistakes over and over again.

Unlike his opposite number.

THERE’S a greater chance of Donald Trump giving Hillary Clinton a cabinet post than there is of any Fifa missive being greeted with enthusiasm by the punditocracy. You saw it with the 48-team World Cup proposal, which actually is no more than an extra ‘play-in’ round for 32 of the countries. Cue howls of derision and ridicule, though – weirdly – if Fifa he had simply said there would be more cross-confederation play-offs on neutral ground, few would have batted an eyelid.

So it’s no surprise that Gianni Infantino’s idea of an expanded Club World Cup (32 clubs, most of them from Europe or South America), to be played every few years in June, has met with a similar reaction.

Sure, there is a cynical element at play here (this is Fifa, after all). A lucrative club tournament would give Fifa an additional source of revenue and give them a tiny bit of leverage in the eternal Uefa v big clubs dispute.

And, yes, there are logistical issues. If you hold it in odd-numbered years (which you have to, to avoid the Euros and World Cup), you still clash with the Copa America, which means the likes of Lionel Messi and co will be otherwise preoccupied. Not to mention the fact that a June competition would hardly be met with enthusiastic cheers at a time when many footballers shoot off for their summer holidays. Or that, if there are concerns about disparity in quality in international play, you’d expect them to be even greater when Bayern line up against teams from Concacaf or Oceania. Or, indeed, that if our top clubs are busy in June and the season starts in August, they won’t have much time for pre-season camp and those all-important summer tours.

Yet maybe it is worth looking at. The club game, whether we like it or not, is how most fans experience the sport. The Club World Championship is a bit of a joke right now, but it doesn’t need to be. This would be a Champions League writ small – at least after the knockout round – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Plus, for all the non-European clubs, it’s a chance to measure themselves against the best.

Besides, what else are you going to do in June of off-numbered years?

FIFA have been running covert tests of the ‘video assistant referee’ system since the summer. Last Tuesday’s friendly between Germany and Italy finished scoreless, but was noteworthy because it marked the first time the VAR was openly used.

The system consists of two additional officials watching the match in a video booth, with up to 30 screens offering different angles. In key situations – goals, cards, penalties – they can advise the referee of what they see. Or, if he so chooses, the referee can ask them to check the replay.

Fifa say the test passed with flying colours and, on at least three different occasions, the VAR backed up difficult decisions made by the referee and his assistants.

The most contentious was Kevin Volland’s goal in the second half, which was disallowed by the assistant referee and, within seconds, also struck off by the VAR.

The odd thing is that, to most viewers watching at home, Volland did not appear offside, neither in real time nor in the replays shown afterwards, which were no different from those the VAR saw. Fifa’s subsequent explanation that Volland’s knee was in an offside position seemed rather dubious, too.

The impression is that, unless it’s a gross, wanton mistake, VARs won’t be overturning calls made on the pitch by the match officials. And maybe that’s not a bad thing.