Above - The Mail, below The Mirror, labels Ozil a 'flop'.
The Star - pictures Ozil as one of the 'Glum Guns.'
After the German press had lauded 'crisis over' in the wake of his performance in the FA Cup in midweek, Mesut Ozil's adventure in Munich hardly went to plan.
He attempted just 12 first half passes before being substituted off with the score at 0-0 at half-time, with it later revealed he had a hamstring injury which Arsene Wenger described as 'quite bad', and could keep him out for weeks - certainly the Tottenham clash at the weekend.
Whether it be due to the rush to file early editions without the full picture to hand, Ozil was mercilessly torn to shreds by two papers in particular, The Mail and The Mirror.
Neil Ashton penned a stinging editorial in The Mail, titled: Lost and lazy Ozil might have cost £42.5 million but based on that performance isn't worth two-bob... and he's nicking a living
The piece acknowledges his injury, but states: 'Behind those eyes something is not right'.
Within just an hour of publication the piece had 175 comments already, and rising, and they were the ones approved which did not include those abusive or with foul-language.
John Cross in The Mirror was almost as critical, titling his analysis: Mesut Ozil looks lost at Arsenal after his lacklustre display stuck out like a sore thumb against Bayern
He described Ozil's substitution as his 'final humiliation', adding: 'Even injury cannot excuse such a lacklustre display. In short, Ozil was bitterly disappointing again.'
Now during his time on the pitch Ozil did not contribute significantly to Arsenal's cause, and the substitution was the correct decision.
Yet when a player is brought off due to an injury, which clearly would have hampered his performance - it's not the time to 'go in with two feet' from a writer's point of view. We wonder with the severity of Ozil's injury if any of the papers are regretting unjustly being quite so harsh on the German?