A control-freak always fears losing control.

His whole life is based on plans and being 100% in charge.

Why did Wenger take off his best forward at 1-1 with 20 minutes to go?

Why did the physiological manager take off his most creative player right after he'd made the goal that got Arsenal back into the game and gave them a chance of winning?

Because he had a minor calf strain that could put him out for a month?

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

Oxlade has tweeted to his Southampton buddies that he wasn't injured.

With AW, it's all about control. Control of everything. He thinks stability is harmony and that harmony requires a defined pecking order. We all have to know our place in the hierarchy. He hates confrontations inside the bubble we call London Colney and he lets Pat Rice be the shock-absorber who sorts out the squabbles between the players.

On Sunday, Wenger stood on the touchline and saw Walcott being totally upstaged by his understudy.

He saw Walcott sulking and bitching and he saw his pecking order being destabilised. If Oxlade had scored the winning goal, Wenger would have to pick him for every game.

That was what happened with Jack. As soon as Jack Wilshere became spinal, a core player, Wenger had to pick him for every game.

A diehard technocrat and data-analyst, Wenger plans his substitutions before the game. He's demonstrated scant ability to think on his feet in the technical area.

He doesn't win many games from the touchline. He wins them on the training pitch by producing a style of play that he takes into the stadium and sticks to all day, every day, regardless of the opposition. That worked when he had goalscorers and experienced defenders, especially those he inherited from George Graham.

PLEASE NOTE : He was trying to bring Oxlade off for two minutes before Van Persie scored. Arshavin was on the touchline ready to come on when Rooney and Rafael raced away on the counter-attack that Koscielny stopped and turned into the counter-counter-attack that made the equaliser.

But Wenger, rigid as ever, incapable of reading the game as ever, was still determined to let his laptop make the substitutions.

Unable to think on his feet, he took off the man who was giving Arsenal a chance of winning. He stopped Arsenal's momentum and enraged the crowd, who then saw Danny Welbeck score the winner 10 ten minutes later.

Right now, Oxlade is popular and Walcott is unpopular.

In the first half, Walcott was in the middle and made a pass wide that bisected Evra and Oxlade and went out of play. The ball was nearer the left back but it was such bad pass that it wrong-footed Evra, who could not reach it.

Amazingly, Walcott then threw his arms out and glared at Oxlade. He blamed the kid for his own bad pass. That was pathetic. I really hated that. There are few things that annoy me more than players who throw their arms around and glare at teammates. Why not encourage a teenager making his first Premier League start?

Theo Walcott is only a big name because he plays for Arsenal and has pace and a pretty face.

But Oxlade is improving. Every time he plays, everyone says he’s better than Walcott. More two-footed, more resourceful, more reliable.

Also : give Sir Alex more credit for reacting immediately to Wenger’s substitution. He was about to put on Scholes for Nani. When Ashavin come on, he took off right back Rafael and put on Park and switched his goalscoring winger Valencia to right back against Arshavin.

The Scot values physicality because he sees football as a series of duels. With Vermaelen defending the middle, as a centreback instinctively would, Valencia soon set up a chance that even Danny Welbeck couldn’t miss.

The Manchester United players saw the Arsenal manager take off the energetic, tricky Oxlade, a fast, chunky, bouncy winger who could zigzag past them, and bring on a lazy, enigmatic Russian. Half of them probably thought : That's the worst substitution I've ever seen!

A close-up of Robin van Persie showed him saying, "Fucking hell - no!"

Arsenal could have drawn on Sunday, or even won.

On the day, Wenger's after-match spin was a lot bolder than his tactics.

He told reporters that if the fans were angry that Oxlade was taken off, that proved that he was right to pick him to start the game! The reporters didn't buy that line. So that impertinent boast died a death.

A very sore loser, Wenger rarely gives credit to his opponents.

Having lost three in a row, he was always going to whinge. And, as usual, his sarcasm was second to none. His final remark was that he'd leave the assessments of individuals to people who were obviously far more qualified than he is. That's his default position when he's cornered and asked to own up : I'm obviously not as intelligent as you.

Those are the angry moments where he reveals a deep contempt for us that's usually well disguised by a consummate actor.

Let's get real here.

Let's not wonder why Theo doesn't show any brotherly love towards young Alex.

It's all about money. Footballers play for money and talk about money all the time. Theo Walcott is interested in Walcott's future and Walcott's next contract.

In his own mind he's an Arsenal star and he wants £85,000 a week. Fours years at 85K is £17m. It's a decadent and surreal world where someone who doesn't know the game and can't play the game can ask for £17m.

But that's English football. When Sky bought the EPL twenty years ago, Rupert Murdoch created a decadent and surreal world. And that decadent and surreal world has gradually evolved to the point where a 22-year old footballer thinks an 18-year old rival could cost him £17million.

Walcott thinks Oxlade could cost him £17m.

Fabio Capello was at the game and says he’d like to give Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain a run-out with the senior England team, prior to 2012.