Stop protecting Bukayo Saka — Man City defeat exposes what Arsenal fans can't ignore

Before kick-off at Wembley on Sunday, Bukayo Saka was Arsenal's most important player. He wore the armband and earned the biggest wage. 

He was the man Pep Guardiola was most afraid of, so afraid, in fact, that Rodri and Nico O'Reilly were deployed as a two-man Saka containment unit from the first whistle.

But after 90 minutes, the Gunners lost 2-0 and Saka was their worst player on the pitch. That is the conversation Arsenal can no longer avoid.

The cruelest part of Saka's afternoon came in the sixth minute before most people had settled into their seats.

Martin Zubimendi slid a brilliant through-ball into the box. James Trafford denied Kai Havertz. The rebound dropped to Saka. He hit it. 

Trafford saved it and he hit it again. Trafford saved that too, with his outstretched leg, already on the floor, having fully committed.

Analysts immediately called it the turning point of the final. Had either of those gone in, Arsenal's quadruple dream stays alive and Saka is a Wembley hero. 

Instead, City took control, Nico O'Reilly scored twice after the hour, and Arsenal never recovered.

Saka went from the man who almost won it to the man who couldn't win it, inside the same afternoon.

Three shots on target - all saved. Two big chances missed. Zero successful dribbles. One key pass. A 73% pass accuracy in a Cup final. That is not the performance of Arsenal's best player on their biggest stage of the season.

The critics on social media landed on the same conclusion. "Saka on £300K a week ghosting in a final whilst wearing the armband," one fan wrote. "He doesn't get anywhere near enough criticism."

That is a hard sentence. But the stats do not argue against it.

It would be dishonest to ignore what Guardiola built specifically around Saka. O'Reilly and Rodri doubled up every time he received the ball. 

Tactical fouls disrupted his rhythm before he could build any momentum. Several of those challenges went unpunished.

This is real context. But it is not an alibi because the elite players Saka aspires to be judged alongside find ways through those systems. On Sunday, he didn't. He attempted one dribble. He lost it.

"Madueke is more of a threat than Saka," one fan argued after the final whistle. Whether you agree or not, the fact that the sentence is being said seriously about a player on Arsenal's armband tells you everything about where the conversation has arrived.

After the final whistle, the reaction was swift and loud. "Saka can't be serious with these performances at the end of the season," one supporter wrote. "He just can't - with everything at stake."

That is fair criticism. The armband, the wage, the platform, they come with accountability. Acknowledging that Saka underperformed is not an attack on him. It is the basic expectation he signed up for.

But not everything in the backlash deserves the same weight. "Bukayo Saka is only rated because of his racial abuse at Euro 2021" - that is not football analysis. 

That is an agenda wearing the costume of football analysis. Saka's dip in form is a legitimate football conversation, and dragging his character assassination from 2021 back into it only muddies what should be a clear argument. Keep it football. The football case is damning enough on its own.

Arsenal are nine points clear at the top of the Premier League. They are still in the FA Cup and the Champions League. The season is not over.

But Saka's form since December, two goals in 16 matches across all competitions, is a pattern that Wembley just put on the biggest possible stage. 

Petty? Maybe. But the underlying anxiety it represents, that Saka's best days are behind him at 24, is something Arsenal cannot afford to dismiss.

The next eight weeks will define whether this Arsenal generation wins something historic or spends another summer explaining why they didn't.

Saka is still central to that story. But the protection has to stop. He had the armband, the moment, and the platform. He knows what was at stake. 

The honest version of the conversation acknowledges that he came up short and trusts him enough to demand better.