It would be easy to look at Saturday’s Champions League final between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal and see it as a battle of attack versus defence, of beauty against pragmatism, of French elan against English doughtiness, as some sort of tussle for the soul of football. But it would not entirely be true. And where after all was the honour at Agincourt? In the vainglorious charges of the dashing French cavalry or the stoic defiance of the British archers arrayed, naked from the waist down, behind their defensive stakes?

On the one hand, the stats look stark. In the Champions League this season, Paris Saint-Germain have averaged 63.4% possession, higher than anybody apart from Barcelona; Arsenal’s figure is 52.6%, the 11th-highest of the 36 sides who made the league stage. PSG’s pass completion has been 89.3% to Arsenal’s 85.7% (third-highest to 14th-highest). PSG have scored 44 goals to Arsenal’s 29. But on the flipside, Arsenal have conceded six goals to PSG’s 22 and won 13.4 aerial duels per game to PSG’s 9.4 (sixth‑highest to 29th-highest).

The implication from those figures would seem to be that PSG will boss possession, that Arsenal will sit deep and look to go long. And perhaps there may be an element of that, although that was not how either leg of the semi-final between the teams last season played out: PSG shaded possession at the Emirates and Arsenal at the Parc des Princes as they chased the game. Although PSG have scored more goals from non-penalty set plays than Arsenal in the Champions League this season (eight to five), it probably is reasonable to assume that corners and free-kicks offer Arsenal’s best chance of a goal. But the biggest danger to Arsenal is probably a counterattack. Most opponents sit deep against PSG, especially in Ligue 1, but the evidence of PSG’s wins over Chelsea, Liverpool and Bayern Munich is that they are lethal in transition.

Arsenal cannot let Desiré Doué or Khvicha Kvaratskhelia get a run on whoever they have at full-back. Both are rapid, supreme dribblers and terrifyingly direct. And full‑back is a problem position for Arsenal, especially on the right. Ben White is out with a knee injury and Jurriën Timber is doubtful with a groin injury sustained against Everton in mid-March.

Martín Zubimendi started at right-back against Crystal Palace but it would seem more likely that Cristhian Mosquera operates there if Timber has not recovered, if only because he is a more natural defender. He has played on occasion at right-back this season and is relatively confident on his left foot, which may be important in checking Kvaratskhelia’s darts infield but, fundamentally, the Georgian would be playing against a player who is not a full-time full-back. That’s not the only problem on that flank for Arsenal, though. White links better with Bukayo Saka than any of Arsenal’s other full-backs and Timber is as tactically astute as any player in the squad. Unless Timber is fit, the right-back problem is likely to diminish them from a defensive and an attacking point of view.

Riccardo Calafiori has seemed Mikel Arteta’s preferred option on the left. His role will be twofold: to stop Doué and to invert into midfield, particularly out of possession, to try to prevent the counter. It may be that Myles Lewis-Skelly is used ahead of Zubimendi alongside Rice, in part because he is familiar with playing at left-back and so could help double up on Doué, or would be comfortable covering for Calafiori were he caught upfield.

Chelsea’s success against PSG in the Club World Cup final perhaps offers, if not a template, then at least inspiration for how Arsenal can hurt the defending European champions. Enzo Maresca’s approach was asymmetric, using Cole Palmer almost as an inside‑right, haunting the channel between Nuno Mendes and the left‑sided centre-back (Lucas Beraldo on that occasion but probably Willian Pacho on Saturday) while getting in behind the left-back wherever possible. That, though, required Malo Gusto to drive forward from right-back in a way that Timber may be able to replicate but Mosquera probably can’t.

On the left, Marc Cucurella regularly tucked into midfield, just as Calafiori surely will, with Pedro Neto tracking back almost as a wingback to check Achraf Hakimi’s thrusts in support of Doué. If Arteta sees things similarly, that is probably more of a job for Leandro Trossard than Eberechi Eze, who may end up on the bench if Arteta, as he surely must, prefers 4-3-3 to 4-2-3-1.

The first leg of PSG’s semi-final against Bayern was remarkably open, almost basketball-like in its end-to-end attacking. But that should not necessarily be regarded as characteristic. PSG can at times seem a little sloppy, too reliant on their attacking prowess, but their performance away to Bayern, when Fabián Ruiz returned, showed how effective PSG’s midfield can be. And that means that Arsenal either have to sit deep and accept PSG will dominate the ball or need to ensure their midfield has a destructive edge.

There is an irony in this. The stereotype of Arsenal this season has been of a defensive side reliant on set plays, but that is not entirely accurate; rather they are a side whose defensive qualities have been highlighted because of deficiencies of creativity and attacking quality. But to beat PSG, it may be that they have to embrace the narrative and be the side critics say they are.