Arsene Wenger

Hisham El Mawan wrote:

Alan Dawson wrote:

Hisham El Mawan wrote:

Alan Dawson wrote:

Hisham El Mawan wrote:Positive: Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

In what context is that a positive for Wenger, currently? I see the Ox as a positive for Arsenal.

My apologies, I completely forgot that Chambo was signed by a different manager than Wenger.

Oh, by that logic, negative: Park Chu Young.

I don't think you can make that kind of statement about Park since he's only played two games.

Because Oxlade has played so many…

Just like Henry said, no one will understand what Wenger gives to this club till when he leaves.

Alan Dawson wrote:

Hisham El Mawan wrote:

Alan Dawson wrote:

Hisham El Mawan wrote:

Alan Dawson wrote:

Hisham El Mawan wrote:Positive: Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

In what context is that a positive for Wenger, currently? I see the Ox as a positive for Arsenal.

My apologies, I completely forgot that Chambo was signed by a different manager than Wenger.

Oh, by that logic, negative: Park Chu Young.

I don't think you can make that kind of statement about Park since he's only played two games.

Because Oxlade has played so many…

More than Park, and he's been impressive in all but one of them.

Assuming that the board don't give Wenger the money needed to buy the players he wants, I don't think there is anyone better than Wenger who can keep us competitive for so long. Sure, there are deficiencies in his game, conceding from set pieces (which is rectified somewhat this year), not playing Arshavin against Chelsea in the FA Cup in 2009, bringing Arshavin on last Sunday, but overall, I don't think under similar circumstances, we can do better with someone else.

Van Roy Bostanian wrote:Assuming that the board don't give Wenger the money needed to buy the players he wants, I don't think there is anyone better than Wenger who can keep us competitive for so long. Sure, there are deficiencies in his game, conceding from set pieces (which is rectified somewhat this year), not playing Arshavin against Chelsea in the FA Cup in 2009, bringing Arshavin on last Sunday, but overall, I don't think under similar circumstances, we can do better with someone else.

See another thing would be ok if we wanted to replace him....
But who would want to replace him..hardly an abundance of top managers floating around out there...

Van Roy Bostanian wrote:Assuming that the board don't give Wenger the money needed to buy the players he wants, I don't think there is anyone better than Wenger who can keep us competitive for so long. Sure, there are deficiencies in his game, conceding from set pieces (which is rectified somewhat this year), not playing Arshavin against Chelsea in the FA Cup in 2009, bringing Arshavin on last Sunday, but overall, I don't think under similar circumstances, we can do better with someone else.

This.

If we had money and Wenger was refusing to spend it as he is keeping faith in the numerous mediocre players we had, then fine, get rid. By the sounds of things its the board refusing to release the money required in bringing in top quality players to take this team forward. Get rid of the board (or some of the members) first and loosen those purse strings. I admit its easier said than done, with CL qualification looking to be in doubt.

Although I still can't believe Wenger plan to bring in like for like replacements for Nasri and Cesc when it was clear they would be off last summer

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).

These stats are interesting-ish:

Arsenal's Premier League win percentage 1996-2005 was 60%. 2005-2012 it is 54%.

Arsenal's win percentage 1992 to October 1996 was 40%. From 1986 to 1992 under George Graham it was 51%

Both via Orbinho on Twitter.

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).

^^^This X10000
as for comments fabregas said...el he can fojo for all I care
Regarding money available the board has made sure that the stadium is paid for sharpish...that I do credit the club and board for
We have never been big spenders in the past..and I don't see that really changing much now or in the future...

We were quite big spenders before we moved stadia.

This is our financial data I came accross

Arsenal Comparisons -----------Players In----Players Out -----Nett Spend-----Per Season
Before Move to the Emirates £202,790,000 £132,274,000 £70,516,000 £5,036,857
After Move to the Emirates(06)£137,900,000 £187,200,000 -£49,300,000 -£8,216,667
Now although it would say we spent well before we moved it almost seams like it was the last big spend for some time

Michael Foster wrote:This is our financial data I came accross

Arsenal Comparisons -----------Players In----Players Out -----Nett Spend-----Per Season
Before Move to the Emirates £202,790,000 £132,274,000 £70,516,000 £5,036,857
After Move to the Emirates(06)£137,900,000 £187,200,000 -£49,300,000 -£8,216,667
Now although it would say we spent well before we moved it almost seams like it was the last big spend for some time

This could be the very reason why Wenger is so crippled when it comes to rebuilding the team. Not to mention our wage structure doesn't allow us to sign high calibre players.

Alan Dawson wrote:
You seem to be confusing a bad game-changing substitution to mean the exit of Oxlade. It's not (just that). It's the introduction of Arshavin.

This. We know Ox was carrying an injury, why not putting in Benayoun? Why Arshavin? I hope he won't play for us anymore. We have put up with it many times and been losing points because Arshavin couldn't give a fuck while playing.

Sam because I think if you are trying to win the game you bring Arshavin on. If you are trying to preserve the 1-1 maybe go with Benayoun.

Also, everyone seems to be implying that Ox would have not been beaten like Arshavin was... not trying to criticize him but he wasn't exactly great cover for Djourou in the first half.

I think Wenger will always give a player a huge amount of chances to shine....
Unfortunately he don't seam to know when to stop giving....

Michael Foster wrote:I think Wenger will always give a player a huge amount of chances to shine....
Unfortunately he don't seam to know when to stop giving....

If it weren't for that we wouldn't know Song as we do today.

This is true...but unlike say walcott...song has come on leaps and bounds...

"And, of course, you obfuscate the fact that Wenger has spent the square root of fuck all in that time."

Chris, shut it with the obfuscation, I have barely mentioned spending. So if anything, the bewilderment is from your end.

Michael Foster wrote:This is true...but unlike say walcott...song has come on leaps and bounds...

And Diaby

Alan Dawson wrote:

Michael Foster wrote:This is true...but unlike say walcott...song has come on leaps and bounds...

And Diaby

What he has or has not?

Alan Dawson wrote:"And, of course, you obfuscate the fact that Wenger has spent the square root of fuck all in that time."

Chris, shut it with the obfuscation, I have barely mentioned spending. So if anything, the bewilderment is from your end.

No, you are right, you have barely mentioned spending when it is quite an important factor, which is exactly my point.

And please don't be so rude, I expect better. Thanks.

Christopher Flanagan wrote:

Alan Dawson wrote:"And, of course, you obfuscate the fact that Wenger has spent the square root of fuck all in that time."

Chris, shut it with the obfuscation, I have barely mentioned spending. So if anything, the bewilderment is from your end.

No, you are right, you have barely mentioned spending when it is quite an important factor, which is exactly my point.

And please don't be so rude, I expect better. Thanks.

Because last summer was very frugal.

Don't be so sensitive. If you expect better then don't come across as patronising and arrogant. Thanks.

Anyway I have not always believed that maybe the board have shackled Wenger and his spending..it's down to his beliefs that what he has works.....and he just don't want to spend also goes back to making sure this club is sound...

When have I been patronising and arrogant (in this thread? Obviously it's quite a long list in general terms)? I really don't understand why you have got your knickers in a twist. Genuinely not sure where all the hostility and aggression is coming from. If I've somehow offended you then I apologise.

And, er, yeah, last summer was very frugal. No player purchased over, what, £12m? Fairly substantial net gain. To be honest, I find it remarkable that you can dismiss the financial factor so easily when it is so clearly relevant.

In terms of losing the dressing room, I look at the following key players who I imagine would be very grateful and respectful to Wenger:
- Arteta (given him a chance to play champions league at a time in his career where he thought he might never get the chance)
- Mertersacker (has a lot to prove)
- Koscielny
- Gervinho
- SZCZ (just has his eye on winning, not time for mutiny)
- Ramsey (looks to Wenger for support and guidance)
- TV (just signed new contract, concentrating on getting fit and playing)

These are players in the dressing room that I can't believe Wenger may have lost. And a fairly influential lot too.