A surprisingly interesting evening of action on Wednesday saw Liverpool assert themselves back among the big boys with a 2-0 win over Spurs that put them within touching distance of fourth; Villa and Blackburn play out a ten-goal thriller as ten-man as Martin O'Neill's men booked their place at Wembley; and Arsenal come from 2-0 down to record a 4-2 over Bolton that moves them to top of the table on goal difference.

It's fresh vindication for Arsene Wenger as his continued reluctance to spend is proven right or wrong week by week, and Paul Hayward in the Guardian is wondering whether they can now deliver the sustained brilliance they need to end their long wait for silverware.

The neutral will feel that a winter run by Arsenal was what this title race needed. Too much of the attention has been on Liverpool's decline, Manchester United's debt and Manchester City's wealth. The campaign needed a pure footballing story: a revival for the claim that Arsenal would get there in the end, even if Arsène Wenger went geriatric trying.

Two-nil down, then 4-2 winners. Top in January for the first time in two years. Here in the house of eternal promise they saw the future pay an early visit as ­Chelsea were knocked off their plinth on goals scored. These Arsenal ­graduates sense the opportunity to exploit ­instability and ­vulnerability elsewhere in the league. They have no excuse to deviate from the simple task of trying to play the best ­football in England. In this year more than any, sustained brilliance will carry a team past the faltering and the insecure. The prize for Wenger's men is a first English championship since 2004.

The concession of two first-half goals to a Bolton Wanderers side they had beaten comfortably four days earlier on northern turf showed that the dynamic has changed in Highbury and Islington. To be "written off" had its advantages. It removed the burden of expectation that was apparent when Arsenal made such a fretful start to this game and allowed Owen Coyle to put early gloss on his managerial move from Burnley to Bolton.

After their 3-0 thumping at home to Carlo Ancelotti's team at the end of November, Arsenal had demanded time and space to continue on the long path to maturity. The Champions League seemed their only major target as another title challenge fell down the well of youth and inexperience. But like the two ­under-worked thespians in Withnail and I who went on holiday "by mistake", the Gunners have surged past Chelsea and United without really planning it, with a run of seven wins in nine games.

Just when Wenger had persuaded us that the league title is not a life-defining obsession (or that any time would do), tomorrow showed up with snow on its boots. Only 16 games left for their nerve to hold.

Meanwhile, Andy Cole is discussing the Tevez-Neville business in the Independent and he feels that United were most definitely wrong to allow the Argentina forward to leave.

Manchester United would have benefited from taking up their option on Carlos Tevez last summer instead of letting him go. I know it's a view that puts me at odds with Gary Neville (sorry, Nev) and even with Sir Alex Ferguson, who ultimately made the call, but that's my opinion. And it's not just because he went to City, or because he's just put two past United (which I still very much consider to be my club) – I've voiced the same opinion since last summer.

Let's assume Tevez and his advisers had already made up their minds he wanted out of United. And let's also assume that the club thought a fee of £25m (or more) to his owners, plus more for a big contract, was pricey – I still think there might have been some better solution. Why wouldn't Tevez want to stay at the biggest club in the world's most popular league, if given the chance?

So did United, by balking at the cost, make an error? I'd never, ever dream of telling Sir Alex, the greatest manager of all time, on what basis to make a decision. But I do wonder whether part of him is regretting that they could not have found a way to keep Tevez. Fair enough if United didn't want to pay this or that sum, but looking beyond the issues of money for a second and it's a no-brainer; he is good enough for United and therefore should have stayed.

Finances at United have been high on the agenda in the past week or so, and, to be honest, a lot of the talk about numbers, balance sheets and bonds just escapes me. But I do know about players. So will they be sitting around talking about bonds and debts? My guess is not at all.