The Goon Thread

[glorygloryeze]

if i was offered the job of wenger's publicist, id drop my tottenham allegiance in an instance



i totally disagree. in any one given season, theres enough luck/variance in football for teams to acheive beyond their means. if you look at a teams' performances over 4/5 years, almost all the time, they perform relative to their spending capacity. liverpool are worse than us imo, and will not do anything like they did last year for a long time. look at dortmund. they performed above bayern for a couple of years. but the fact that they couldnt hold onto their players (due to lacking the financial might), means that they are regressing to the mean. they got lucky with their transfers and youth team players (goetze, reus, kagawa etc) and performed well, but at the end of the day you need the financial capacity to hold on to these players, and they didnt have that. hence in the last few years their performances are closer to that of leverkusen and schalke, which is expected given their finances. thats modern football. i say "lucky" because evidently, they cannot repeat those feats.

look at us: bale, modric, berbatov, campbell etc. all world class players. they left because we didnt have the finances to hold onto them. arsenal: rpv, fabregas, nasri, song, clichy, sagna, henry. again all worldclass players who left for teams offering more money. because of this, long term a team will only perform relative to its spending capacity. despite what football fans like to think, re man management, tactics, coaching, scouting etc etc, 99% of a football teams performance is explained by its relative wealth.




arsenal can buy whoever they want. thats probably true. but for the reasons mentioned in the previous posts, it wouldnt be financially wise to do so. the problem is fans see football through sporting success only. but the board have to manage the finances too, hence the conflict. espcially in arsenal's case, where the owners seem intent on running a yearly profit.

Just to say that the Anderlecht shambles that the Gooners suffered on Tuesday renders all the above excuses you've given for Wenger and his management redundant. The financial wealth that Arsenal don't have (or in fact DO have) is nit a valid excuse for the lack of shape, balance and tactical awareness for them on that night. Yes it is only one game, but there have been many of these games in the last few years. Even though the spend has gone up considerably, what has changed?
Looking at their CL performances in this year's CL: are they doing any better than last season, particularly when they have a far easier group, being led by a Dortmund team nowhere near as good as last season? A fair question has to be asked why? Especially when they have spent a lot in the summer (and generally have much more money than most at their disposal)?

Simple answer is that Wenger is holding them back; and that frankly is what keeps Arsenal within the reach of us so long may it continue

 

[Neymar]

like you have said, the anderlecht game is just one game. chelsea, city, liverpool were no better in that same game week. i keep hearing that arsenal lack shape, tactical nouse, balance etc etc etc, but i think all of that is nonesense tbh. at the end of the day, the teams that spend more than arsenal generally finish above them, and the teams that spend less generally finish below them.

if arsenal really have so many "tactical" problems? why do they finish pretty much exactly where you would expect them to (every single year), given their finances? fwiw, mourinho is no different (in this regard) either. the supposed tactical genius does not perform above (or berlow) expectation given his financial resources.

im not really sure if arsenal are doing better or worse than last year. i dont remember how they did last year. but anyway, it doesnt matter. theyve only played 4 games. hardly a big enough sample to draw any strong conclusions. and why should they be doing significantly better anyway? are chelsea or mancity doing any better? are liverpool doing any good?

arsenal spent a lot more than past seasons. but make no mistake, they need to still spend a lot more if they want to compete long term with chelsea and city. look at van gaal's comments this week about him needing 3 years, after having already spent in excess of £100m this summer. arsenal need to spend ozil, sanchez money for many many more windows if they want to compete at the very top. supposedly arsenal have like £100m in cash reserves as the result of prudent spending over the past decade. they can spend that if they like. but all they will find is that they are still a long way away from chelsea/city, but £100m light in their pockets. basically, theres no real need for them to spend that asap. its similar to the aston vila/randy learner case. after spending big money on the likes of milner, downing, young etc etc (in an attempt to break into the top4), learner found that he was still many hundreds of millions off from reaching the top 4. so he gave up, and now runs vila on a tight budget. villa have only marginally increased their chance of relegation but have saved a lot of money by not having the likes of milner/young etc. arsenal are in the same boat.

 

[Mr_B]

Just to say that the Anderlecht shambles that the Gooners suffered on Tuesday renders all the above excuses you've given for Wenger and his management redundant. The financial wealth that Arsenal don't have (or in fact DO have) is nit a valid excuse for the lack of shape, balance and tactical awareness for them on that night. Yes it is only one game, but there have been many of these games in the last few years. Even though the spend has gone up considerably, what has changed?
Looking at their CL performances in this year's CL: are they doing any better than last season, particularly when they have a far easier group, being led by a Dortmund team nowhere near as good as last season? A fair question has to be asked why?

Especially when they have spent a lot in the summer (and generally have much more money than most at their disposal)?

Simple answer is that Wenger is holding them back; and that frankly is what keeps Arsenal within the reach of us so long may it continue

Agree whole heartedly with this, I think the **** board are "scared" about finding a replacement a la fergie moyes, better the devil you know and all that.

 

[SteveAWOL]

Another one for Brenton' to-do list...

[TWEET]531038763171192832[/TWEET]

 

[Jurgen the German]

Just to say that the Anderlecht shambles that the Gooners suffered on Tuesday renders all the above excuses you've given for Wenger and his management redundant. The financial wealth that Arsenal don't have (or in fact DO have) is nit a valid excuse for the lack of shape, balance and tactical awareness for them on that night. Yes it is only one game, but there have been many of these games in the last few years. Even though the spend has gone up considerably, what has changed?
Looking at their CL performances in this year's CL: are they doing any better than last season, particularly when they have a far easier group, being led by a Dortmund team nowhere near as good as last season? A fair question has to be asked why? Especially when they have spent a lot in the summer (and generally have much more money than most at their disposal)?

Simple answer is that Wenger is holding them back; and that frankly is what keeps Arsenal within the reach of us so long may it continue

I can't see us finishing above them whilst he is there.

 

[shaney]

He is not a well man.

http://dailypost.ng/2014/11/08/id-rather-commit-suicide-say-arsenal-title-race-wenger/

 

[Rorschach]

Bit of a thoughtless thing to say

 

[glorygloryeze]

I can't see us finishing above them whilst he is there.

Whilst he's there, he offers our best chance. If they hired a better coach they'd be much further from us and St Totteringham Day would start happening in early April again

 

[glorygloryeze]

like you have said, the anderlecht game is just one game. chelsea, city, liverpool were no better in that same game week. i keep hearing that arsenal lack shape, tactical nouse, balance etc etc etc, but i think all of that is nonesense tbh. at the end of the day, the teams that spend more than arsenal generally finish above them, and the teams that spend less generally finish below them.

if arsenal really have so many "tactical" problems? why do they finish pretty much exactly where you would expect them to (every single year), given their finances? fwiw, mourinho is no different (in this regard) either. the supposed tactical genius does not perform above (or berlow) expectation given his financial resources.

Again, This is where i mainly disagree. If it was purely down to spending, then Manure should be doing far better than they are and Arsenal would be making progress over the years in the CL (we have still won more knockout CL rounds than they have in the last 4 years...).
No it's as much about coaching and Wenger's abilities in this area are clearly on the wane.

im not really sure if arsenal are doing better or worse than last year. i dont remember how they did last year. but anyway, it doesnt matter. theyve only played 4 games. hardly a big enough sample to draw any strong conclusions. and why should they be doing significantly better anyway? are chelsea or mancity doing any better? are liverpool doing any good?

Arsenal have an easier group than last year, have spent a lot to strengthen. Chelsea are doing as always. It could be argues that Emirates Marketing Project are unfairly given tough groups even though they are the actual league winners but that's for another debate. Liverpool? Well they've been absent for 5 years so they get a pass anyway, whilst Arsenal are stalwarts and are likely to get a hard last 16 tie and probably get knocked out again. Given their spending and their years of access to CL resources, so you not think it is an underachievement that they have not won a knockout round for nearly 5 years now, often due to them underachieving in the group stages? I bet in terms of money/resources there are many teams in Europe who had better records in that time. Again, limitations from limited coaching abilities.

arsenal spent a lot more than past seasons. but make no mistake, they need to still spend a lot more if they want to compete long term with chelsea and city. look at van gaal's comments this week about him needing 3 years, after having already spent in excess of £100m this summer. arsenal need to spend ozil, sanchez money for many many more windows if they want to compete at the very top. supposedly arsenal have like £100m in cash reserves as the result of prudent spending over the past decade. they can spend that if they like. but all they will find is that they are still a long way away from chelsea/city, but £100m light in their pockets. basically, theres no real need for them to spend that asap. its similar to the aston vila/randy learner case. after spending big money on the likes of milner, downing, young etc etc (in an attempt to break into the top4), learner found that he was still many hundreds of millions off from reaching the top 4. so he gave up, and now runs vila on a tight budget. villa have only marginally increased their chance of relegation but have saved a lot of money by not having the likes of milner/young etc. arsenal are in the same boat.

Again, the fact that they decided to spend nearly 80M in two positions that were not necessary (how many ACMs do they have now) and yet not spend even a quarter on that on a bonafide defensive midfielder and another CB is not a restriction of money and wages, it's poor planning. Their squad is the most imbalanced that I can remember in the Wenger era and that is his own doing and nothing to do with the spending power of Chelski and City. Remember that their wage now outstrips Chelski, their new sponsorship deals, 1M-a-match gate receipts and FFP mean they have lots of cash that they can spend without sanction and that they charge the highest for tickets as well so the 'pauper' excuse truly doesn't wash anymore.

 

[Baleforce]

Whilst he's there, he offers our best chance. If they hired a better coach they'd be much further from us and St Totteringham Day would start happening in early April again

if they hired a better one yes, can't think of any who would take a step down though

 

[glorygloryeze]

if they hired a better one yes, can't think of any who would take a step down though

Klopp, Guardiola, De Boer, Van Gaal would have likely taken the job just to name a few.

They are so cash-rich it would be attractive to many coaches who would know all they needed was to buy a bonafide DM, another CB, less random Sanogo-type buys and they'd be challenging easily

 

[Baleforce]

Are any of them better though? The most convincing arguments could be made for Pep, who's at Munich (but has never been in a fair fight) and LVG, who's at United (and is finding that harder than he expected), likewise you have Jose who is also at a better club. Klopp and FdB would be good shouts at best, but certainly not guaranteed to keep them where they are let alone improve them.

Just look at what Wenger has done there, lets not disrespect his achievements.

 

[spursman17]

Thats made my day a little better. :lol:

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

He is bonkers.

Let's say he bought Chambers as CB and nominally RB cover. One man, two positions.

So he let Jenkinson go on loan and didn't replace Vermaelen like for like.

Then just two injuries (Debuchy and Koscielny) have him totally scuppered at the back.

Talk about a blind spot.

 

[Jordinho]

Sent Coquelin on loan to Charlton. Gives a kid from the academy a chance, but obviously doesn't trust him.

 

[Neymar]

He is bonkers.

Let's say he bought Chambers as CB and nominally RB cover. One man, two positions.

So he let Jenkinson go on loan and didn't replace Vermaelen like for like.

Then just two injuries (Debuchy and Koscielny) have him totally scuppered at the back.

Talk about a blind spot.

its not much different to chelsea.

chelsea's senior defenders are: terry, cahill, ivanovic, f.luiz, azpilicueta
arsenals are: mertesacker, koscielny, debuchy, chambers, gibbs, monreal

i dont see anyone talking about how chelsea are close to a "defensive catastrophe". basically, in football if you are winning, no one says anything. and when you are not winning (for whatever reason. in arsenal's case, because they dont have a billionaire), people point out flaws where they dont exist.

 

[Neymar]

Again, This is where i mainly disagree. If it was purely down to spending, then Manure should be doing far better than they are and Arsenal would be making progress over the years in the CL (we have still won more knockout CL rounds than they have in the last 4 years...).
No it's as much about coaching and Wenger's abilities in this area are clearly on the wane.

Man Utd are currently suffering from the fact that their spend over the past few seasons has been minimal. However their older players have moved on now (vidic, rio, schools, gigs etc). And they are obviously in a very expensive rebuilding stage. If they continue to spend like they are (and i think they will), they will move back into the top 4 and contend the title within a few years.

Manutd’s spending this year does not mean they should automatically be above arsenal. Firstly, over the course of one season, there is a lot of variance. Look at Liverpool and atletico. But also, its the ability to continually spend that makes teams like Chelsea and city uncatchable. I think man utd are showing signs that their £150m spending this summer is not a one off thing. Us and Liverpool have spent a similar amount for one window in past years (and have been static). Its not enough, thats why we’re still where we are. That also explains why arsenal haven’t moved on much despite spending big money on Alexis and Ozil.

The average football fan thinks spending 100m for a team like us, Liverpool or arsenal massively improves their chances of qualifying for top 4 or winning the league. But the reality is that this simply isn’t true. Look at the betting exchanges. They give a much more accurate picture of the reality. After this kind of spending, the above three teams only added a few percentages to their top 4 or title chances.

I remember a wenger quote from a few seasons back where he said at the top level (i think he was referring to the top 4), it costs around 100m to add roughly 3 more points over the course of the season. Thats the reality. The average football fan chats so much crap, and they have no clue on how football actually works. And it isn’t helped by rubbish pundits who perpetuate such nonsense.

Arsenal have an easier group than last year, have spent a lot to strengthen. Chelsea are doing as always. It could be argues that Emirates Marketing Project are unfairly given tough groups even though they are the actual league winners but that's for another debate. Liverpool? Well they've been absent for 5 years so they get a pass anyway, whilst Arsenal are stalwarts and are likely to get a hard last 16 tie and probably get knocked out again. Given their spending and their years of access to CL resources, so you not think it is an underachievement that they have not won a knockout round for nearly 5 years now, often due to them underachieving in the group stages? I bet in terms of money/resources there are many teams in Europe who had better records in that time. Again, limitations from limited coaching abilities.

Chelsea are doing as always? Arent arsenal doing as always too? Same with Emirates Marketing Project? Tough group or not, they aren’t doing any better are they? All your arguments applied to arsenal apply to city and Chelsea. All three have spent big money, but aren’t doing significantly better in the group stages than they have done previously. Liverpool being absent for 5 years is an excuse to be worse than Basel and be level with Ludogorets? Seems to me like youre just victimising arsenal/wenger and making all the excuses in the world for the other 3 english ucl qualifiers.

Arsenal not winning a knockout round for the last 5 seasons is obviously an underachievement. But, again the sample size is very small. And can be heavily influenced by the luck of the draw, refereeing decisions etc.

Again, the fact that they decided to spend nearly 80M in two positions that were not necessary (how many ACMs do they have now) and yet not spend even a quarter on that on a bonafide defensive midfielder and another CB is not a restriction of money and wages, it's poor planning. Their squad is the most imbalanced that I can remember in the Wenger era and that is his own doing and nothing to do with the spending power of Chelski and City. Remember that their wage now outstrips Chelski, their new sponsorship deals, 1M-a-match gate receipts and FFP mean they have lots of cash that they can spend without sanction and that they charge the highest for tickets as well so the 'pauper' excuse truly doesn't wash anymore.

That arsenal have spent their resources poorly is your opinion. I disagree. Look at other top teams, they have just an abundance of ACMs. Willian, schurrle, Salah hardly ever get a game at Chelsea for example.

Arsenal could have added an extra DCM but that may have meant that they couldn’t add an ACM. Or maybe there just wasn’t one worth getting in Wenger’s eyes. Its not that easy to get a DCM that would fit into arsenal’s philosophy that is clearly an upgrade on arteta, flamini, (Wheelchair, ramsey). Especially considering the fact that arsenal are working within a budget (transfer fee and wages).

The fact that arsenal have improved their sponsorship deals is largely irrelevant. Mansour and Abramovic are clearly willing to fund their clubs to such an extent that an improved £30m puma deal looks like peanuts.

I’ve always thought that Chelsea’s wage bill being smaller than Arsenal’s was a bit fishy. So i looked into it, and made a post on it. *its post number 315 in this thread

And i ask again. If Arsenal’s squad is so imbalanced (and has been for a few seasons), why do they finish exactly where you would expect them to given their financial capacity? The answer is simple. Arsenal play in an unorthodox way. Where some of the things they do badly seem so apparent to us (given our footballing education). But there must be things that arsenal really benefit from playing with unorthodox tactics that aren’t so obvious to us.

 

[Jordinho]

its not much different to chelsea.

chelsea's senior defenders are: terry, cahill, ivanovic, f.luiz, azpilicueta
arsenals are: mertesacker, koscielny, debuchy, chambers, gibbs, monreal

i dont see anyone talking about how chelsea are close to a "defensive catastrophe". basically, in football if you are winning, no one says anything. and when you are not winning (for whatever reason. in arsenal's case, because they dont have a billionaire), people point out flaws where they dont exist.

Arsenal have got a huge cash reserve. Much good that is doing them.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

its not much different to chelsea.

chelsea's senior defenders are: terry, cahill, ivanovic, f.luiz, azpilicueta
arsenals are: mertesacker, koscielny, debuchy, chambers, gibbs, monreal

i dont see anyone talking about how chelsea are close to a "defensive catastrophe". basically, in football if you are winning, no one says anything. and when you are not winning (for whatever reason. in arsenal's case, because they dont have a billionaire), people point out flaws where they dont exist.

Maybe, but whatever arsenal's reason for not winning is, it's not because they don't have a billionaire.

 

[Neymar]

Arsenal have got a huge cash reserve. Much good that is doing them.

so do chelsea. and in footballing terms, theirs is basically an infinite cash reserve.

also the question you have to ask is if arsenal spent that cash reserve, would it be recouped if they spent it on players? im talking financially. if not, it probably doesnt make sense for them to spend it