-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
The Goon Thread
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Three days ago:
Today:
Hmmm....apparently Sanogo will be going out on loan as well...suggests that they clearing some squad room for some incomings:-k
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
That's a bit harsh :lol:
don't chelsea really only have 2 centre backs too though? and overall, they have similar numbers to arsenal in defense. its just that no-one has really got injured for chelsea and their players are of a higher calibre (which is to be expected given that they are a richer club)
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Not a lot of others. But Ivanovic is a proven very good and experienced PL centre back. Azpilicueta moving across with Filipe Luis in a left back is a very good back 4 with players playing in positions they're comfortable in.
Kurt Zouma is reportedly a massive talent at 20.
Arsenal have been one injury away from either playing full backs out of position by shifting Debuchy or Monreal to centre back, or playing the admittedly talented, but very young and inexperienced Chambers at centre back.
I really don't think the two are comparable. Mourinho is, as usual, managing well with a relatively small squad. But he has players with high fitness levels that rarely get injured apart from in a couple positions and versatile players with experience that can cover several positions. Wenger on the other hand is shooting himself in the foot.
glorygloryeze
Ian Walker
Exactly. The comparison is ridiculous
monreal and even debuchy have been more than adequete when slotting in at centre half though. far better than chambers for example. i also think theyve been better than someone like mangala too. and probably as good, if not better than last years cb cover, vermaelen. furthermore, from what ive seen, monreal's centre back performances have been superior to mertesacker's too. when you compare monreal, debuchy and even sagna at cb to some of our players like stambouli, fazio, chiriches, i really don't believe there is much difference.
the thing is, when a player plays in a different position to where he normally plays, every mistake he makes is blamed on the fact that he is playing out of position. this is the narrative that the media spins. this happened to dier too this season. when his overall performances were largely satisfactory. however when kyle walker or mertesacker make mistakes, its blamed on something else.
say arsenal had bought a centre back, does anyone really think it would have made any noticeable difference? defensively this season isnt much different to past seasons where they have had cover at cb. only deluded arsenal fans would think having a backup cb would have made much difference. mangala, chiriches, sakho, lovren, smalling, demichellis are all backup cbs for top 4 sides whos performances have been questionable at times. as much or in some cases, more so than monreal imo.
arsenal play an attacking brand of football, and their defenders will be put under massive pressure throughout games. thats fundamentally why they conceed goals. but when their attacking play is blunt like it has been this season, the team will be in trouble like this season
having a 3rd choice cb or a "proper" dcm as arsenal fans put it, wont make much difference.
the thing is, when a player plays in a different position to where he normally plays, every mistake he makes is blamed on the fact that he is playing out of position. this is the narrative that the media spins. this happened to dier too this season. when his overall performances were largely satisfactory. however when kyle walker or mertesacker make mistakes, its blamed on something else.
say arsenal had bought a centre back, does anyone really think it would have made any noticeable difference? defensively this season isnt much different to past seasons where they have had cover at cb. only deluded arsenal fans would think having a backup cb would have made much difference. mangala, chiriches, sakho, lovren, smalling, demichellis are all backup cbs for top 4 sides whos performances have been questionable at times. as much or in some cases, more so than monreal imo.
arsenal play an attacking brand of football, and their defenders will be put under massive pressure throughout games. thats fundamentally why they conceed goals. but when their attacking play is blunt like it has been this season, the team will be in trouble like this season
having a 3rd choice cb or a "proper" dcm as arsenal fans put it, wont make much difference.
Robbo
Les Ferdinand
I'm also sure at least two or three of their 600 midfielders could do a job in central defence in an emergency.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
You compared Arsenal's approach to Chelsea's... I see you have given up on that one?
You can of course list players that you think have been poor elsewhere. I fail to see how that supports your point.
Do you think Monreal will make a good, PL level centre back as a regular starter? Would he be an improvement for us over Fazio (that you mention)? Would he be an improvement for City over Demichelis?
my point was that arsenal have similar numbers to chelsea in defense. but they are overall of a lower quality. you just reaffirmed that point. isnt moving ivanovic to cb if one of chelseas cb's get injured exactly the same as what arsenal are doing? its just that arsenal are doing it with a lower calibre of player. kurt zouma might be a highly rated cb, but so is chambers.
my point was that their lack of cover at cb isnt really one of their bigger problems this year. the performances of monreal at cb have been more than adequete (especially compared to other cbs at top 4/6 sides). therefore, i was disagreeing with the view that going into the season with only 2 established cbs was a big problem. and i was backing my view up with the fact that chelsea have done the same, and also omparing performances with other cb's.
i think for the way arsenal play, hes a great option as cover. arsenal like defenders who are good on the ball and are good 1v1. he probably wouldnt be a great option for even lower half teams. but then again would mascherano? the point is, monreal suits arsenal quite well as a cente back, more so than even chambers, who i suspect would get into many sides as a centre back in the prem. hence why wenger has started monreal and debuchy over chambers in that position.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Zouma can be compared to Chambers. But to compare Ivanovich as a centre back in the Premier League to Monreal is to me rather silly. It was thought for some time that centre back would be where Ivanovich would end up. He's played there a lot, in this league and it's worked. Perhaps he's not a top level centre back, but for any club outside the top 4 he would be an automatic starter at centre back, if it wasn't for the fact that he's such a damned good right back.
That's not just a difference where Monreal is a lower calibre player. It's that he's not nearly as experienced or suited to that role.
Mascherano... Barcelona? Really? I give up!
i wasnt necessarily just comparing chambers to zouma or monreal to ivanovic. i was saying that there are some similarities between chambers and zouma. but that between chambers and monreal providing centre back cover, there are some comparisons to be made with what ivanovic provides at chelsea, and with mascherano's role at barcelona. im not comparing the players directly. ivanovic is obviously a much better defender than monreal. but arsenal have a smaller budget, so it can be expected that their interpretation of a cb cover will not be as good.
wenger has obviously gone into the season with the idea of playing monreal as a centre back. he stated this at the start of the season. hes seen something in monreal that suggests he could do the role. people, such as yourself appear have a bias against him as a centre back because he is under 6 foot and isnt particularly good in the air. but i dont think this is so much of a bad thing for an arsenal cente back. if you look at past arsenal centre backs who were weaker 1v1 but better in the air, their overall performances havent been convincing whilst playing for arsenal. mertesacker, senderos, cygan, squillaci. arsenal play a high line and leave their centre backs exposed. so mobility is far more important for an arsenal centre back than otherwise. this is why players such as toure, koscileny, gallas have been better suited for arsenal. and why monreal has been better than chambers at cb. despite the fact that chambers would probably suit most other teams far better as a cb. its also why i made the mascherano comparisons. i'm not saying monreal is as good as masherano, but that his interpetation of the position is similar. if we're being honest, no-one would have thought that mascherano could have played as a centre back 5 years ago. me included. but it just shows, different teams have different requirements from their centre backs. and my argument is that monreal suits arsenal far better than other potential options, highlighted by his decent performances whilst playing as a cb.
john terry is another example of what im trying to say. under avb, he looked finished. he just couldnt play in a system that deployed a high line. hes not fast or agile, and thus kept getting destroyed any time he was left 1v1. but once mourinho was back, and they played compact and deep, he looked world class again because he was never left isolated and his heading ability was more utilised. at arsenal, centre backs need to be mobile, thats why monreal has looked ok, and why sagna looked good last season too when covering at cb.
if arsenal want to make any noticeable difference in that position, they need to get another sol campbell. someone who is both dominant in the air and impossible to beat 1v1. unfortunately for them, there arent many of these guys around, and when they are, they certainly wont go to arsenal. thats why they either have someone good arially but poor 1v1, or vice versa.
ill say it again, monreal's performances at cb have been more than satisfactory. theres absolutely no evidence that a 3rd choice centre back would have been much better. and i dont think buying someone like a vermaelen would have made much difference. would you disagree with this? arsenal need to play better as a team this year if they want to finish higher up the table. they have had defensive problems, but i dont think the indivuals who have played at centre back are really to blame. and also, its important to note that arsenal's style of defending will always lead to some weird goals. this has been the case for the past decade. when analysing how they have performed defensively this year, its important to keep in perspective that the defense will leak a few more goals than their rivals, and so its better to compare them to past arsenal defensive performances.
the real question you have to ask yourself is, have arsenal really suffered ("shot themselves in the foot") because they have had to play monreal/debuchy at centre back? when you compare those performances to arsenal's defensive performances over the years or to when koscielny and mertesacker have played together this season, i really dont think theres much difference. arsenal will probably buy a centre back, but if their season is to take off, the team as a whole needs to be a lot better imo.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
So Wenger has gone into the season with the plan to use Monreal as a centre back, but Arsenal will probably buy a centre back. Seems like a great plan at the outset that...
Haven't watched enough of their games to know if they've actually suffered because of this avoidable lack of cover, but if not I would say it's more to do with luck than skill in that their injury problems have not been all that severe.
Yes, Arsenal play "attacking football", when it works at least. But their possession numbers are nowhere near Barcelona's (58% compared to 70%), and as such the comparison between Monreal and Mascherano collapses. Because Arsenal do a hell of a lot more traditional defending than Barcelona. And arguably their best centre back in Mertesacker is someone they have to at least to some extent compensate for by not pressing ruthlessly high. Again, the comparison between Monreal and Mascherano collapses imo. And although short, I really don't think Mascherano has ever been called lightweight. He wins 50/50 duels with players that seem twice his size, not something Monreal habitually does.
Haven't watched enough of their games to know if they've actually suffered because of this avoidable lack of cover, but if not I would say it's more to do with luck than skill in that their injury problems have not been all that severe.
Yes, Arsenal play "attacking football", when it works at least. But their possession numbers are nowhere near Barcelona's (58% compared to 70%), and as such the comparison between Monreal and Mascherano collapses. Because Arsenal do a hell of a lot more traditional defending than Barcelona. And arguably their best centre back in Mertesacker is someone they have to at least to some extent compensate for by not pressing ruthlessly high. Again, the comparison between Monreal and Mascherano collapses imo. And although short, I really don't think Mascherano has ever been called lightweight. He wins 50/50 duels with players that seem twice his size, not something Monreal habitually does.
well, if wenger wants to add numbers to his defense, its probably better to add a specialist centre back than a fullback, because they already have a lot of fullbacks. we all know wenger is very meticulous with his signings, he obviously couldnt identify the right centre back target for arsenal, therefore decided it would be better to proceed with monreal rather than overpaying for someone. i actually think this is very good management. he avoids some of the problems that managers like harry redknapp get by accumulating too many players who dont fit the profile of his teams.
is it a lack of cover though? i dont think it really is. their numbers are ok. hence they havent suffered too much(in this regard), imo.
firstly, mertesacker isnt their best centre back. and you say arsenal do a lot more "traditional" defending than barcelona, which i agree with. but, we know that defenders of the mertesacker, senderos, cygan mould do not do that great at arsenal anyways. and we've seen on numerous occasions last season that someone like sagna is more than adequete as cover. hence i think the plan to use monreal as cover is ok. like ive said before, wenger has chosen monreal and debuchy over chambers at cb on numerous occasions, showing that he doesnt neccessarily think that a more "traditional" cb is the best option for arsenal.
put simply, i think this issue is a very minor one that has been overplayed. arsenal fans are always trying to find reasons why they arent competitve with chelsea, Emirates Marketing Project etc. this issue is just one of these. the real reason why they arent as competive is much simpler. their players just arent as good overall because they dont pay their players as if they have oil reserves under their training ground.