Arsenal Thread 2013/14

[malg]

WOW, when was the last time we had this many Arsenal fans on here?

 

[GunnerGer]

I think you are missing the point I am making. I certainly harbour no desire to return to the old days both in terms of City or wider football. I think overall the Premier League has been a positive thing and I also believe that any suggestion that the European Cup was better or harder to win than the Champions League is preposterous, so I'm perfectly happy where we currently find ourselves and overall I like contemporary football. In that sense I differ from many City fans.

My point, was that Arsenal were at the vanguard of changing finances in football. They were a prominent force in changing the rules in the late 80's about how the TV money was divvied up and a few years later in setting up the Premier League. This was done with the express intention of enriching themselves at others' expense. They were then involved in the G14 Group of clubs which were, once again, motivated by self-interest, and most probably threatened UEFA with a breakaway scenario if their CL financial demands were not met.

It was these steps, consciously undertaken with craft and guile, that enabled what was a mid-ranking First Division club in the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's (crowds, trophies) to suddenly start gorging themselves on the Champions League money which they had, in fact, steered towards themselves. It was this money, rather than any skillfully devised real estate strategy that enabled your club to live where it does today.

I don't mind any of this, as it happens. Most organisations will be motivated by self-interest. It is the nature of human affairs.

What I take issue with is Arsenal fans viewing this strategic master-plan, as well as (as you allude to) the serendipity and happenstance of being a prominent footballing force in the early 90's, as some sort of moralistic trump card over other clubs who have followed in their club's wake - or "doing it the right way" as we hear with tiresome predictability from many of your entitled fans whose grasp of your club's history is of the pick 'n mix variety.

Ah, apologies. I understand your point fully. It is somewhat double standards when clubs moan about clubs with more money, and take the moral high ground. Theres always going to be a hierarchy in football, it just happens that clubs have taken over Arsenal in it. Of course, as you allude to, the argument is whether you do it 'naturally' with funds generated by the club, or by 'outside means'. Of course though, the so called 'traditional' clubs have positioned themselves due to their self interest to make this very hard to do, so I understand your point.

As it happens, I'm a Rangers fan first and just follow Arsenal. My club were very similar, involved in the initial setup of the champions league, monopolising the TV money etc along with Celtic. It's well documented how much this has backfired, not just for us but for Scottish football in general.

 

[City_Sean]

playing well at the moment, the fans who think they can win the league are deluded, they need a CB, Stiker, Keeper and CM. plus they need leadership, Ozil was a step in the right direction though.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think you are missing the point I am making. I certainly harbour no desire to return to the old days both in terms of City or wider football. I think overall the Premier League has been a positive thing and I also believe that any suggestion that the European Cup was better or harder to win than the Champions League is preposterous, so I'm perfectly happy where we currently find ourselves and overall I like contemporary football. In that sense I differ from many City fans.

My point, was that Arsenal were at the vanguard of changing finances in football. They were a prominent force in changing the rules in the late 80's about how the TV money was divvied up and a few years later in setting up the Premier League. This was done with the express intention of enriching themselves at others' expense. They were then involved in the G14 Group of clubs which were, once again, motivated by self-interest, and most probably threatened UEFA with a breakaway scenario if their CL financial demands were not met.

It was these steps, consciously undertaken with craft and guile, that enabled what was a mid-ranking First Division club in the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's (crowds, trophies) to suddenly start gorging themselves on the Champions League money which they had, in fact, steered towards themselves. It was this money, rather than any skillfully devised real estate strategy that enabled your club to live where it does today.

I don't mind any of this, as it happens. Most organisations will be motivated by self-interest. It is the nature of human affairs.

What I take issue with is Arsenal fans viewing this strategic master-plan, as well as (as you allude to) the serendipity and happenstance of being a prominent footballing force in the early 90's, as some sort of moralistic trump card over other clubs who have followed in their club's wake - or "doing it the right way" as we hear with tiresome predictability from many of your entitled fans whose grasp of your club's history is of the pick 'n mix variety.

Ah, apologies. I understand your point fully. It is somewhat double standards when clubs moan about clubs with more money, and take the moral high ground. Theres always going to be a hierarchy in football, it just happens that clubs have taken over Arsenal in it. Of course, as you allude to, the argument is whether you do it 'naturally' with funds generated by the club, or by 'outside means'. Of course though, the so called 'traditional' clubs have positioned themselves due to their self interest to make this very hard to do, so I understand your point.

As it happens, I'm a Rangers fan first and just follow Arsenal. My club were very similar, involved in the initial setup of the champions league, monopolising the TV money etc along with Celtic. It's well documented how much this has backfired, not just for us but for Scottish football in general.

Fair comment mate, it's always refreshing (but not unique) to see a supporter from an "establishment" club acknowledge how they've arrived at where they find themselves - be it broadly positive - Arsenal; or generally negative - Rangers.

Sport, like life, isn't fair. The key is recognising it as such and not to bitch too much when the pendulum that gave you good fortune swings the other way.

 

[NoahCity]

playing well at the moment, the fans who think they can win the league are deluded, they need a CB, Stiker, Keeper and CM. plus they need leadership, Ozil was a step in the right direction though.

I'd say they got a better shot at the league than we do atm.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I think you are missing the point I am making. I certainly harbour no desire to return to the old days both in terms of City or wider football. I think overall the Premier League has been a positive thing and I also believe that any suggestion that the European Cup was better or harder to win than the Champions League is preposterous, so I'm perfectly happy where we currently find ourselves and overall I like contemporary football. In that sense I differ from many City fans.

My point, was that Arsenal were at the vanguard of changing finances in football. They were a prominent force in changing the rules in the late 80's about how the TV money was divvied up and a few years later in setting up the Premier League. This was done with the express intention of enriching themselves at others' expense. They were then involved in the G14 Group of clubs which were, once again, motivated by self-interest, and most probably threatened UEFA with a breakaway scenario if their CL financial demands were not met.

It was these steps, consciously undertaken with craft and guile, that enabled what was a mid-ranking First Division club in the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's (crowds, trophies) to suddenly start gorging themselves on the Champions League money which they had, in fact, steered towards themselves. It was this money, rather than any skillfully devised real estate strategy that enabled your club to live where it does today.

I don't mind any of this, as it happens. Most organisations will be motivated by self-interest. It is the nature of human affairs.

What I take issue with is Arsenal fans viewing this strategic master-plan, as well as (as you allude to) the serendipity and happenstance of being a prominent footballing force in the early 90's, as some sort of moralistic trump card over other clubs who have followed in their club's wake - or "doing it the right way" as we hear with tiresome predictability from many of your entitled fans whose grasp of your club's history is of the pick 'n mix variety.

Ah, apologies. I understand your point fully. It is somewhat double standards when clubs moan about clubs with more money, and take the moral high ground. Theres always going to be a hierarchy in football, it just happens that clubs have taken over Arsenal in it. Of course, as you allude to, the argument is whether you do it 'naturally' with funds generated by the club, or by 'outside means'. Of course though, the so called 'traditional' clubs have positioned themselves due to their self interest to make this very hard to do, so I understand your point.

As it happens, I'm a Rangers fan first and just follow Arsenal. My club were very similar, involved in the initial setup of the champions league, monopolising the TV money etc along with Celtic. It's well documented how much this has backfired, not just for us but for Scottish football in general.

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

 

[Bilboblue]

playing well at the moment, the fans who think they can win the league are deluded, they need a CB, Stiker, Keeper and CM. plus they need leadership, Ozil was a step in the right direction though.

I'd say they got a better shot at the league than we do atm.

Of course they do, they have 5 points more.

 

[Marvin]

Arsenal are growing in confidence, and look favourites for the League along with City

I didn't expect the to be up there. Theweak point for them is the forward line. I really rate Giroud, but who covers for him? UnlikeChelsea they have two or three midfielders who can weigh in with goals.

OddlyOzil has been no better than average snce he joined. If he picks up, as he probably will, then we are in trouble.

Liverpool are in a false position. Chelsea and Spurs don't worry me, and Utd have a lot of problems. We have to get our act in gear soon because Arsenal are growing in confidence and I think they will spend again in January

 

[GunnerGer]

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

Not sure if the last line was a dig at me?

Anyway, I've never really thought about it that way I suppose and is a very interesting way of looking at it. I wasn't having a go when I mention 'outside means', my sentence after it explains that I see the more traditional club having too much of a stranglehold on the game, and the only way that it can be broken is from massive investment.

 

[Balti]

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

Not sure if the last line was a dig at me?

Anyway, I've never really thought about it that way I suppose and is a very interesting way of looking at it. I wasn't having a go when I mention 'outside means', my sentence after it explains that I see the more traditional club having too much of a stranglehold on the game, and the only way that it can be broken is from massive investment.

fuck off you hypocrite

 

[Bilboblue]

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

Not sure if the last line was a dig at me?

Anyway, I've never really thought about it that way I suppose and is a very interesting way of looking at it. I wasn't having a go when I mention 'outside means', my sentence after it explains that I see the more traditional club having too much of a stranglehold on the game, and the only way that it can be broken is from massive investment.

fuck off you hypocrite

No need for that Balti. Seems the gooner is just getting used to the forum, give him a chance. We could do with more Tarquins here, I'm fed up of the spuds thread!

 

[GunnerGer]

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

Not sure if the last line was a dig at me?

Anyway, I've never really thought about it that way I suppose and is a very interesting way of looking at it. I wasn't having a go when I mention 'outside means', my sentence after it explains that I see the more traditional club having too much of a stranglehold on the game, and the only way that it can be broken is from massive investment.

fuck off you hypocrite

Hypocrite? Where was I being that like?

 

[GHoddle]

Their matches in November will be pretty telling I think, I'm pretty sure they'll win their next 3 matches so they'll have 24 points after 9 games. Then they have Chelsea in the league cup, Liverpool, Dortmund, and United all in a row. Liverpool is at home, United away. If they win both those games they will be in a commanding position.

People saying their squad is too weak are just sounding dumb, their squad is already decimated but has still won 5 games in a row, they will have more players coming back than ones getting injured.

 

[ifiwasarichfan]

People keep talking about a lack of depth but it's not really the case. Bar the striker position where we need another body

GK: Szczesny, Fabianski, Viviano

RB: Sagna, Jenkinson
CB: Mertesacker, Koscielny, Vermaelen, Sagna covers as 4th option.
LB: Gibbs, Monreal

CM: Ramsey, Arteta, Flamini, Wilshere(and he can play AM, LW)
AM: Ozil, Rosicky

RW: Walcott, Chamberlain, now Gnabry
LW: Cazorla(also AM), Podolski

ST: Giroud..........Walcott/Podolski would fill in, then Bendtner.

Need another 2 quality signings to really push us on. For the most part we have two players for every position, just horrible luck with injuries so far.

This is so true.

One more Striker and a top class Keeper and I really believe they would steal it.

Out of all the players listed, I think that Jack Wilshire is massively overrated - he certainly isn't another Gazza; and how Jenkinson has an England cap is beyond me - but apart from that, its a great squad.

I am almost certain that I am the only "Bluemooner" that rates Bedtner, ( a little bit of Mario about him) as a top class player, and in Arsene; - despite the whinging, the moaning and "the I didn't see the incident"; they have the best Manager in the World. Even better than Jose,Pep,Jurgen Klopp and Mr Mancini.

If we finish above them I think we will win the Title.

A bunch of sneaky Bastards as well. They have been shit for the last three seasons and none of us have seen it coming.

 

[Matty]

People keep talking about a lack of depth but it's not really the case. Bar the striker position where we need another body

GK: Szczesny, Fabianski, Viviano

RB: Sagna, Jenkinson
CB: Mertesacker, Koscielny, Vermaelen, Sagna covers as 4th option.
LB: Gibbs, Monreal

CM: Ramsey, Arteta, Flamini, Wilshere(and he can play AM, LW)
AM: Ozil, Rosicky

RW: Walcott, Chamberlain, now Gnabry
LW: Cazorla(also AM), Podolski

ST: Giroud..........Walcott/Podolski would fill in, then Bendtner.

Need another 2 quality signings to really push us on. For the most part we have two players for every position, just horrible luck with injuries so far.

Everyone has bodies to fullfil roles, that's why the Premier League squad is a 25 man one. It's the quality of those options, and their relative abilities in those roles, that matters.

Szczesny is an ok keeper, but not of the same quality as the keepers at the other top clubs. I'd chose Hart, Cech, Lloris, De Gea and probably Mignolet ahead of him.

At Centre Back they are short a body, and the overall quality of the 3 main options isn't great.

In midfield they ahve a plethora of talented options, but they have a plethora of very, very similar options. Where's the quality ball winner? Flamini is the nearest option to this (given Diaby complete inability to stay fit for more than 5 minutes) and he's not exactly exceptional. Wilshere, Ramsey, Arteta, Ozil, Cazorla and Rosicky are very similar styles of player, short in stature, great ball players, skillful, typical Arsenal midfielders. They don't have any size, or strength, or natural defensive qualities in there. Yaya Toure would walk through that midfield brushing them off like gnats, it's just not solid enough defensively.

The one area pretty much everyone agrees is short on numbers is upfront. Giroud is a front line striker, but the other options, like Walcott and Podolski (and this Sanogo bloke) are more your support striker role. Striker is the most prominent position on the pitch, strikers tend to be the most difficult players to find, a good goalscorer is an expensive and valuable possession, to say this is Arsenal's "only" area where depth is lacking is to ignore that this is the one area where you simply can't afford to be lacking in depth. There's a reason why City has Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo and Jovetic and why United have RVP, Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez. There's also a reason why people have identified Chelsea's and Spur's forward line as their achilles heal too, a lack of quality depth.

Yes, for the most part Arsenal have 2 players for every position, but are they 2 quality players, or just 2 bodies that can fill a shirt?

 

[afc16]

People keep talking about a lack of depth but it's not really the case. Bar the striker position where we need another body

GK: Szczesny, Fabianski, Viviano

RB: Sagna, Jenkinson
CB: Mertesacker, Koscielny, Vermaelen, Sagna covers as 4th option.
LB: Gibbs, Monreal

CM: Ramsey, Arteta, Flamini, Wilshere(and he can play AM, LW)
AM: Ozil, Rosicky

RW: Walcott, Chamberlain, now Gnabry
LW: Cazorla(also AM), Podolski

ST: Giroud..........Walcott/Podolski would fill in, then Bendtner.

Need another 2 quality signings to really push us on. For the most part we have two players for every position, just horrible luck with injuries so far.

Everyone has bodies to fullfil roles, that's why the Premier League squad is a 25 man one. It's the quality of those options, and their relative abilities in those roles, that matters.

Szczesny is an ok keeper, but not of the same quality as the keepers at the other top clubs. I'd chose Hart, Cech, Lloris, De Gea and probably Mignolet ahead of him.

At Centre Back they are short a body, and the overall quality of the 3 main options isn't great.

In midfield they ahve a plethora of talented options, but they have a plethora of very, very similar options. Where's the quality ball winner? Flamini is the nearest option to this (given Diaby complete inability to stay fit for more than 5 minutes) and he's not exactly exceptional. Wilshere, Ramsey, Arteta, Ozil, Cazorla and Rosicky are very similar styles of player, short in stature, great ball players, skillful, typical Arsenal midfielders. They don't have any size, or strength, or natural defensive qualities in there. Yaya Toure would walk through that midfield brushing them off like gnats, it's just not solid enough defensively.

The one area pretty much everyone agrees is short on numbers is upfront. Giroud is a front line striker, but the other options, like Walcott and Podolski (and this Sanogo bloke) are more your support striker role. Striker is the most prominent position on the pitch, strikers tend to be the most difficult players to find, a good goalscorer is an expensive and valuable possession, to say this is Arsenal's "only" area where depth is lacking is to ignore that this is the one area where you simply can't afford to be lacking in depth. There's a reason why City has Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo and Jovetic and why United have RVP, Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez. There's also a reason why people have identified Chelsea's and Spur's forward line as their achilles heal too, a lack of quality depth.

Yes, for the most part Arsenal have 2 players for every position, but are they 2 quality players, or just 2 bodies that can fill a shirt?

im still constantly amazed as I've said in a previous post at the amount of lazy cliches and the same re-gurgitated media rubbish that comes out of some people in regards to arsenal.

firstly, regarding our defence:

everyone seems to keep making the same mistake over and over of looking at names and reputations rather then the actual player and their form. if you go by the former, then yes kompany vidic rio evra etc are better defenders. if you go by current performances/ability/form then stretching right back to the beginning of 2013 our defence has played better then anyones apart city.

you talk about us not having strength in depth yet you loose kompany and your entire defence turns to shite as witnessed this season (and also as admitted by a number of city fans on here as well). ONE player, thats all it takes. if you really had this strength in depth that everyone keeps banging on about (that arsenal supposedly don't have), then loosing just one player would not effect your team so much.

so to answer your question '2 quality players or just 2 bodies' -

left back - gibbs is one of the most in form left back in the league at the moment and monreal is a spanish international. so 2 quality players.

right back - sagna is a excellent right back and jenkinson is a very good young prospect thats played well there every time hes come into the team so certainly not just a body.

centre backs - vermalin mertesacker kos. 2 excellent right now and 1 potentially excellent if he gets his form back. seriously, how many of the top teams REALLY have 4/5 excellent centre backs?? none in my opinion. most have 1-2 excellent ones then maybe 1 or 2 very good back ups. arsenal no different in this regard. we've also got sagna whos very good as back there.

and for those that bang on about mertesacker, remember he has almost 100 caps for germany, probably the 2nd best team after spain. obviously those silly coaches just haven't realised that he's not very good, even after 100 caps.....doh.

midfield

this doesn't need any defending by me, its probably the best midfield in the league at the moment. and not many teams can stop someone like yaya, such is his power. but we have flamini/arteta/ramsey who are very strong and very switched on defensively, and good enough to deal with most players apart from the odd freaks like yaya. do chelsea or utd or spurs really have any player that can compare to or stop yaya? we are not alone in that regard. \

in previous meetings, one area where we've almost always outclassed you is midfield, despite you having yaya. and our midfield is even stronger now then it was before.

to summarise yes we do have 2 quality players for almost every position apart from striker which i do realise is one of the most important.

BUT, when your whole team is scoring goals, you are much less reliant on a striker. again, simple facts - we are one of the highest goal scorers this season and also were last season - without having a world class striker like rvp or augero.

THE BOTTOM LINE is that no arsenal fan is saying we'll definitely win the league or that we're even the best team in the league. all we are saying is please look at our team, don't just read what the papers say. as a city fan said above, we have silently been building the foundations of a excellent team, and its slowly coming together. remember, this isn't just based on a few games or a blip of good form, this is going back over a long period.

 

[afc16]

People keep talking about a lack of depth but it's not really the case. Bar the striker position where we need another body

GK: Szczesny, Fabianski, Viviano

RB: Sagna, Jenkinson
CB: Mertesacker, Koscielny, Vermaelen, Sagna covers as 4th option.
LB: Gibbs, Monreal

CM: Ramsey, Arteta, Flamini, Wilshere(and he can play AM, LW)
AM: Ozil, Rosicky

RW: Walcott, Chamberlain, now Gnabry
LW: Cazorla(also AM), Podolski

ST: Giroud..........Walcott/Podolski would fill in, then Bendtner.

Need another 2 quality signings to really push us on. For the most part we have two players for every position, just horrible luck with injuries so far.

Everyone has bodies to fullfil roles, that's why the Premier League squad is a 25 man one. It's the quality of those options, and their relative abilities in those roles, that matters.

Szczesny is an ok keeper, but not of the same quality as the keepers at the other top clubs. I'd chose Hart, Cech, Lloris, De Gea and probably Mignolet ahead of him.

At Centre Back they are short a body, and the overall quality of the 3 main options isn't great.

In midfield they ahve a plethora of talented options, but they have a plethora of very, very similar options. Where's the quality ball winner? Flamini is the nearest option to this (given Diaby complete inability to stay fit for more than 5 minutes) and he's not exactly exceptional. Wilshere, Ramsey, Arteta, Ozil, Cazorla and Rosicky are very similar styles of player, short in stature, great ball players, skillful, typical Arsenal midfielders. They don't have any size, or strength, or natural defensive qualities in there. Yaya Toure would walk through that midfield brushing them off like gnats, it's just not solid enough defensively.

The one area pretty much everyone agrees is short on numbers is upfront. Giroud is a front line striker, but the other options, like Walcott and Podolski (and this Sanogo bloke) are more your support striker role. Striker is the most prominent position on the pitch, strikers tend to be the most difficult players to find, a good goalscorer is an expensive and valuable possession, to say this is Arsenal's "only" area where depth is lacking is to ignore that this is the one area where you simply can't afford to be lacking in depth. There's a reason why City has Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo and Jovetic and why United have RVP, Rooney, Welbeck and Hernandez. There's also a reason why people have identified Chelsea's and Spur's forward line as their achilles heal too, a lack of quality depth.

Yes, for the most part Arsenal have 2 players for every position, but are they 2 quality players, or just 2 bodies that can fill a shirt?

i would also disagree that our midfield is very similar, we actually have a very good spread:

ramsey/arteta/flamini/diaby - all 4 of them are very strong, very good defensively, tough tacking midfielders with great engines, can read the game brilliantly. flamini/arteta/ramsey are all excellent ball winners.

wilshere/rosicky - more carrick like players, keeps things moving, neither are the type of players who will provide 100 assists and score 100 goals, thats not their game despite the media making them out to be that, especially with wilshere.

cazorla/ozil - pure play makers with a world class touch and ability to provide a pass or hold onto the ball.

the only thing all our midfielders DO have in common is they are all brilliant on the ball, all technically very gifted, and all very good at passing and moving.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Any club that earns a penny is earning it from outside means. Fans give the club money, TV companies give the club money, Private establishments such as UEFA and the Premier League give the club money. Foreign companies give the club money, outside investors give the club money.

Out of all that there are many, many people who a) are not fans of the club and b) have no stake in the club, paying the club a lot of money to promote themselves on the back of it, these are organisations that after 4 or 5 years can turn round, say we won't continue paying this and leave. It therefore makes it a preposterous argument to state that it is worse for the owner i.e. the man who owns 100% of the club, is invested in it on a personal and emotional level, as well as on a financial level, to invest in his own club because it's wrong but all these companies with no relation to or stake in that club are allowed to and that's the right way because they earned their money in a certain way and that owner could have earnt it any way he wants, either by the same means or different, and that is wrong, that is bad for football, that is worse than money being loaned by banks or by outside companies, that an owner should want to put a debt free investment into their own club.

If you can get your head around how stupid that sounds, football might get somewhere.

Not sure if the last line was a dig at me?

Anyway, I've never really thought about it that way I suppose and is a very interesting way of looking at it. I wasn't having a go when I mention 'outside means', my sentence after it explains that I see the more traditional club having too much of a stranglehold on the game, and the only way that it can be broken is from massive investment.

fuck off you hypocrite

Not quite sure how you've derived anything hypocritical from that post.

OTT and out of order.

 

[afc16]

don't want to keep banging on about it but forget to mention about injuries. the amount of times i've seen fans on here and a utd forum say something along the lines of -

'if they get 1 or 2 injuries there screwed'

or

'no strenth in depth, a few injuries and they'll drop off...'

over the last 2 weeks we've played (and won) games without:

arteta
roskicky
diaby
cazorla
walcott
ox
podolski

just with those players there you could probably make 2 midfields that would be amongst the best in the league, and we've got all them players OUT INJURED!

also how many teams in the league could cope with having FOUR of there 1st choice left and right wingers/midfielders (cazorla/podolski/ox/walcott) out at the same time?

yet we can still pull a player like gnarby out of the ranks - that in my opinion shows a tremendous strength in depth and an ability to cope with injuries.

 

[super_city_si]

The Ozil capture has seemingly given the whole club a huge boost and rightly so, he is an excellent player. But the form of Ramsey has astonished me the most. He is electric right now and I'd say the main catalyst for your great form.
If he can keep it up and Ozil keeps going you're going to be a serious contender.