Arsenal haven't won the English Premier League title, but already the carping has started. They would not be worthy champions, the critics claim, because of their poor record against fellow title contenders Chelsea and Manchester United.
The Gunners lost all four of their head-to-heads against their title rivals and their superior record against the rest of the league has kept them in contention. But it is wrong-headed to claim that an Arsenal title would be devalued because they have specialised in maximising their points against the teams outside the elite.
League triumphs are prized above all others because they measure a team over an entire season, not just a few games, and so it is misguided to view Arsenal as inferior simply because they have lost big games against Chelsea and United.
It is true that in most seasons the title winners tend to be the team who have performed best in the mini-league of the top teams, but that is not always the case and nobody seemed to be complaining last season when United won the title despite winning only one of their six games against the other top-four finishers. Liverpool were the best team in the elite mini-league last season with 14 points out of 18, but they fell four points short of United because they lacked consistency against the lesser teams.
There was no groundswell of opinion then that Liverpool deserved the title more, or that United were inferior champions, and it seems unfair to denigrate Arsenal's achievement in building a challenge on the foundations of consistency and adaptability in a highly competitive league.
And we must not forget that Arsenal have had to overcome the loss of Robin van Persie to injury in November, leaving them short of options in attack. Arguably that was a key factor in three of their four defeats against Chelsea and United, whose defences might have been tested more keenly if Van Persie had been fit.