Re: Arsene Wenger

by Joey Schwab Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:57 pm

Gibbs, Jack, Coquelin can be added to that list I imagine.

by Michael Foster Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:03 am

A very good article here regarding losses when a goal up or other loosing our leads
Worth a read it shows our stats compared to rivals the lad took a year to amass the data.

http://www.arsenalvision.co.uk/articles/3805-the-list-of-lost-leads-a-comparative-analysis-with-our-rivals-.html

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:33 am

Another very good article, demonstrating our performance per pound spent:

bit.ly/wka7Gq

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:36 am

In essence, Arsene is still one of the best pound-for-pound managers in football. Whether those constrictions are placed upon him or enforced remains another matter altogether.

by Michael Foster Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:12 am

Blinding article chris..I was looking for something along those lines of stats...
Hence my reply regarding the 'top 5 managers' topic Wenger has a lot to be proud of and undoubtedly the king of transfers and holding on to a good financial model for a club

As for whom holds back whom.....

I don't think it's a case of the board...just Wenger refusing to spend our way out of blips

by nick koupparis Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:09 am

Great everyone the finance model is working brilliantly - three cheers for the finance model hip hip...

That finance model really makes my day.

by Callum Hind Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:03 am

Anyone who mentions spending and AW's financial record (which is overall very good I admit) has to take into account wages in recent years. The likes of Diaby, Walcott, Almunia, Squillaci, Chamakh and Arshavin are surely on about £2-3m each per year. That's around £15m on those players; does that make economic sense?

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:04 pm

Overall, yes. Because for every Denilson, there is a Fabregas and for every Almunia a Chesney, who you end up getting on the cheap (for a few years at least) wages-wise.

But it's a valid question worth exploring. As it goes, here is a brilliant and in depth article by Simon Kuper from tomorrow's Financial Times on the very topic of manager performance to wage spread.

http://t.co/Es2HXBif

Conclusion: Wenger good.

by nick koupparis Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:29 pm

What's good about selling your best players?

Surely even Harry the Twitch could sell Modric and Chimp boy bring in the best part of £100m.

Liverfool could have flogged SG for £40m years ago.

What is the point in selling your best/key players - and not being able to move on the Duds.

Especially after fans were told that moving to the Grove - would be so we could keep hold of our best players and compete with the top European clubs.

by Hisham El Mawan Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:17 pm

Callum Hind wrote:Anyone who mentions spending and AW's financial record (which is overall very good I admit) has to take into account wages in recent years. The likes of Diaby, Walcott, Almunia, Squillaci, Chamakh and Arshavin are surely on about £2-3m each per year. That's around £15m on those players; does that make economic sense?

I know he hasn't been brilliant this season, but let's not put Walcott on that list. The lad is in bad form, not completely unreliable.

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:29 pm

But he (Walcott) is very injury prone, which makes him less reliable.

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:38 pm

nick koupparis wrote:What's good about selling your best players?

Surely even Harry the Twitch could sell Modric and Chimp boy bring in the best part of £100m.

Liverfool could have flogged SG for £40m years ago.

What is the point in selling your best/key players - and not being able to move on the Duds.

Especially after fans were told that moving to the Grove - would be so we could keep hold of our best players and compete with the top European clubs.

Well, that's obviously a good question, albeit a bit of a red herring because no-one is actually saying it's good to sell your best players. Liverpool and Spurs are weird examples too because they've not really won anything.

But what's good about it is that it allows Arsenal to sustain themselves at a level above which they should be able to. Over the years, Wenger has sold Anelka, Overmars, Petit for example and uses the funds to rebuild.

It would seem that we aren't in a position to recycle all transfer receipts at the moment, so the money has gone into locking players down to long term contracts, which, let's not forget, allowed us to keep hold of the likes of Cesc as long as we did.

And yes, the stadium move was designed to allow us to compete with the top clubs in the long term. It was never going to happen overnight. And sadly, and crucially, it didn't account for the likes of Chelsea and Man City. And how could it?

by Hisham El Mawan Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:30 am

Christopher Flanagan wrote:But he (Walcott) is very injury prone, which makes him less reliable.

van Persie was injury-prone for years, but I never saw him being listed with Almunia and Denilson.

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:43 am

Haha, fair enough.

by **Christopher Flanagan** Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:43 am

You have to remember a lot of people advocated selling RVP, though. A lot.

by Zaid Derweesh Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:01 pm

I did, about a year and a half ago. He was so injury prone, and he would keep coming in and out of the team, and every time he was out we'd be like oh if RVP were fit we'd win the league. So I said hey, if we sold him and used the money to buy a reliable striker, even one not as good, we'd at least have someone we could rely on. So I thought we should sell him.

He was also pretty wasteful at the time, missing a lot of shots. It was around the time we hogged possession, had a million shots, and missed them all. We had a few games where we'd have 20 shots on target and lose 1-0. I thought RVP was to blame for this for some reason, and so I thought we ought to sell him.

I feel pretty silly now of course.

by Michael Foster Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:24 pm

nick koupparis wrote:Great everyone the finance model is working brilliantly - three cheers for the finance model hip hip...

That finance model really makes my day.

In this day and age....no financial plan = no club and no chance of anything

by Vanig Bostanian Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:20 am

Zaid Derweesh wrote:I did, about a year and a half ago. He was so injury prone, and he would keep coming in and out of the team, and every time he was out we'd be like oh if RVP were fit we'd win the league. So I said hey, if we sold him and used the money to buy a reliable striker, even one not as good, we'd at least have someone we could rely on. So I thought we should sell him.

He was also pretty wasteful at the time, missing a lot of shots. It was around the time we hogged possession, had a million shots, and missed them all. We had a few games where we'd have 20 shots on target and lose 1-0. I thought RVP was to blame for this for some reason, and so I thought we ought to sell him.

I feel pretty silly now of course.

There was a guy named Menelik Dubb in the main group who didn't rate RvP at all.

by Rima_Ikuy Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:17 am

Christopher Flanagan wrote:
Alan Dawson wrote:He doesn't study opposition. He sets his own team up his way with a disregard to whether it's United or Swansea or Bolton. If he studied opposition, like I said, he'd have pre-game alterations to the Plan A Arsenal. Even Fabregas said there are never any tactics meetings. Just the same thing every week.

And yes, when duff substitutions occur a *lot* they are continuous.

He's got it right in the majority of years? Trophy cabinet says differently.

Well no, the 'trophied era' is still longer than the trophyless era (96-05, 9 years; 05-11, 6 years). And, of course, you obfuscate the fact that Wenger has spent the square root of fuck all in that time. Obviously we don't know the extent to which that was enforced upon him, it might be all his own doing, it might not be; all we can say with any degree of certainty is that he has, objectively speaking, done well to keep us consistently in the top 4 and get us to finals given the amount of money he has spent.

As for the other stuff, as I say, the subs thing is just hyperbole. And if one of the most knowledgable men on world football doesn't 'study teams', I'll eat a decroded piece of crap. Just because he doesn't alter his formation every game doesn't mean he isn't aware of an oppositions strengths. I don't recall it being a problem in 2004, nor is it a problem for Barcelona now (or Man City if you want to take a contemporary Prem example, who always start with the the same formation regardless of opposition).

Christopher, Guardiola alters his formation. He sometimes play a 352 or 343 or 433 .... He does all sorts even against Madrid. This is one of my issues with Wenger. Sometimes he's got to change his formation. Especially when we have a lot of injuries to our first teamers. Sometimes we can alter the formation to suit the squad instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole

by **Christopher Flanagan** Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:35 am

It's all variants of a 433.

by Hisham El Mawan Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:47 am

Christopher Flanagan wrote:You have to remember a lot of people advocated selling RVP, though. A lot.

Yeah, and thank God we didn't. I'm just saying, Walcott's only 22. I feel that people sometimes forget that.

by **Christopher Flanagan** Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:01 pm

They do. In fact, during today's match, the ESPN co-commentator said 'at his age he should be more consistent'. Well, with his experience, maybe. But certainly not his age.

It's odd how people consider Danny Sturridge, who is older and just as erratic, to be a great prospect, but Walcott beyond improvement. Most queer.

by Joey Schwab Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:44 pm

Christopher Flanagan wrote:Most queer.

You sure are

by **Christopher Flanagan** Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:49 am

Only for handsome men.

by Zaid Derweesh Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:41 am

Christopher Flanagan wrote:They do. In fact, during today's match, the ESPN co-commentator said 'at his age he should be more consistent'. Well, with his experience, maybe. But certainly not his age.

It's odd how people consider Danny Sturridge, who is older and just as erratic, to be a great prospect, but Walcott beyond improvement. Most queer.

Isn't Sturridge Chelsea leading goalscorer this season?

I prefer to compare Walcott to Lennon, who is 26 or something right? I would take Walcott over Lennon any day of the way, and yet Lennon is considered quite good, and Walcott disappointing.

EDIT: my bad, Lennon is 24. I thought he was older. Still, my point stands.

by Sponsored content