Scott and Adam process Arsenal’s penalty shootout defeat to PSG in the Champions League Final, a loss that stings without feeling like an indictment of the performance.
If you are a premium subscriber, you can listen to an ad-free version through Substack or you can add to your preferred podcast app through the personal RSS feed.
If you are a regular subscriber the episode is available to be added by the RSS Feed Here (copy the link) to the podcast player of your choice or click here to listen to the episode directly in your browser, through apple, or below through Spotify:
The episode opens 24 hours on, with both hosts landing somewhere closer to proud than devastated. Adam keeps coming back to Gabriel, who skied the decisive penalty and deserved that ending less than almost anyone, and to the sense that a shootout loss tells you very little about a team. Scott frames it against the alternative: this was not Inter getting blown out in last year’s final. Arsenal were in this one. It played out almost exactly as he predicted, a tight game decided by a handful of moments, right on the knife edge, and this time the edge fell PSG’s way.
The match breakdown is the heart of the episode, and both hosts land on the same read. Arsenal made a conscious choice to cede possession, sit in a medium-low block, and use PSG’s strengths against them. It worked. Scott notes that outside the penalty, PSG managed only four chances above ten percent xG, and through 90 minutes the non-penalty xG was roughly 0.8 to 0.6 in Arsenal’s favor, with the two biggest chances of the game both falling to Havertz. The argument both hosts make is that the 72-28 possession split and lopsided shot count are not evidence of a problem, they are evidence of a plan. PSG had no central access, no zone 14 touches, and visibly ran out of ideas against a team built to deny exactly that. As Adam puts it, there is a difference between not threatening because you cannot and not threatening because you are not trying to, and that distinction is the whole game. Doing this to one of the two or three best attacks in the world is an accomplishment, not a failure.
From there the conversation turns to the officiating, which both hosts felt was unusually prominent. The referee twice blew his whistle before Arsenal could take a corner, a pointed and demonstrative call you almost never see outside a blowout, and the run of ticky-tack fouls and Saka’s yellow consistently punished whichever side was out of possession, which by design was Arsenal. On the two major decisions, they agree the Mosquera penalty was correct if soft, and that the Madueke no-call on Nuno Mendes in extra time was a far bigger miss. Scott makes the point he keeps returning to: a no-call is a call, it shaped the game in PSG’s favor just as surely as a whistle would have shaped it in Arsenal’s, and being afraid to make the call is the real failing.
The substitutions get a full airing. The Timber-for-Mosquera change at the hour was the easy one to back. Bringing Odegaard off for Gyokeres made sense for transitional speed and tired legs, but Adam thinks pulling that much technical quality out of midfield hurt Arsenal’s ability to build, a pattern they have seen before this season. The bigger sticking point is Saka. Both hosts understand the fitness logic given his calf, but Saka is the moments player, the one you want available for the four chances a game like this offers and for the shootout itself. The counterpoint is that Enrique pulled Dembele, Kvaratskhelia and Vitinha too, so both teams reached penalties without their best takers.
On the shootout, the hosts dig into the margins, from Safonov reading the scouting report to sit middle for Rice, to Eze’s hesitation-filled, twisted run-up that produced a poor strike, to the general debate over the stutter-step approach and whether it is worth the loss of balance unless you take penalties constantly like Lewandowski or Jorginho. PSG won both coin tosses, and in the end they got just enough bounces to make the game their won.
They close on the long view. It is almost 20 years to the day since the 2006 final loss, and the parallels are there, but the key difference is that 2006 marked the end of a chapter while this team is squarely in its prime. Over the next three to five years, this is a side that should be among the best in Europe with more cracks at the trophy to come. Lewis-Skelly, not yet 20, and a 24-year-old Saka anchor a group with time on its side. PSG will likely be back too, and neither host would mind another go at them.
