Juan Mata for debate

When Arsene Wenger chose to pay £12m for Lille's Gervinho during last summer's transfer window, rather than meet what he then referred to as Valencia's "dizzying" valuation of Juan Mata, there was much indignation amongst Arsenal supporters. However what was seen at the time as further evidence of the manager's continued failure to suppress his parsimonious tendencies, has perhaps with hindsight turned out to be well-founded prudence on his part.

Mata certainly has his moments, but all-in-all he strikes me as being a neat and tidy, rather than spectacular type. A player that adds to and compliments those around him, rather than single-handedly mesmerising the opposition.

So would bringing the Spaniard to the Emirates have altered the club's fortunes to any great degree this season? Would we now be challenging for the Premiership title, ahead of Man City in second place, or instead, pretty much where we stand currently anyway?

Mata may well be a degree or ten better than Gervinho in virtually every aspect of the game, (hardly the greatest commendation in football) however he's yet to string a sequence of performances together exceptional enough to justify all the eulogising that was going on about him prior to his arrival at The Bridge.

Which is both disappointing and a little perplexing. Especially when you consider the reported £23.5m paid to bring the Spaniard to the Premership would have shattered The Gunners' £15m transfer record had he moved to north, rather than west London.

Given the choice of having either Mata or the so far underwhelming Gervinho on our books, the Spaniard would be my preference by some distance. But maybe the additional £11.5m Valencia were asking over what was eventually paid to Lille, was actually money justifiably saved by Wenger in his quest for 'super-quality' value.

Because if the money saved by opting to sign the Ivorian proved the difference as to whether or not we could additionally afford Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, two would beat Juan every time.