Random Arsenal Shit (When it's not worth starting a thread)

[GP]

The ball was behind him and he did what he he could to send it towards goal. A one in a million effort but definitely intentional.

One thing I like about Giroud is that he has the audacity to try things most players wouldn’t, his thought process is completely different. You could argue that’s also a flaw but he has done some spectacular things for us, acrobatic goals, flicks and clever crosses to combine for goals, awkward headers etc. He’s not a great goalscorer but more a scorer of great goals.

He's scored some amazing goals. He's definitely got that in his locker.

Did you see the one he scored for France against Sweden (I think?)

[Cripps]

Chesney basically confirming what we all knew. Wengers coaching is shite

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-a3660406.html

[Özim]

Chesney basically confirming what we all knew. Wengers coaching is shite

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-a3660406.html

No surprise there, so many players have come out and said this. What kind of football club doesn't bother coaching it's players properly.

[Blink 1nce Quince 2wice]

I don't think that kind of goal can be intentional, he reached out for it but there's no way he reached it and was aiming for the goal, he just caught it and it went in it wasn't planned that way.

With all due respect to him, he's no Zidane and even if someone like Zidane did it you'd have to question whether he meant it.

If he isn't aiming the ball for goal what is he aiming it for....the stands? In that kind of position and with that body shape with the ball behind you, the only sensible thing would be to try and aim it towards goal (albeit instinctively) as anything else would be even more complicated to execute...and he is so close to goal that he may as well go for it.

[Özim]

If he isn't aiming the ball for goal what is he aiming it for....the stands? In that kind of position and with that body shape with the ball behind you, the only sensible thing would be to try and aim it towards goal (albeit instinctively) as anything else would be even more complicated to execute...and he is so close to goal that he may as well go for it.

He's trying to get to the ball that's clear, as for actually aiming it at goal not a chance IMO, it's pot luck, you touch it and hope it goes in, there's not even any thought in that, there's a difference between aiming at goal and taking a shot and touching a ball and it going in and meaning it.

If the ball is behind you and you flick it, you're not aiming at all, it's hit and hope.

If you pick up the ball from outside the area and shoot you're clearly aiming at goal, if you it when it's behind you there's no aiming involved, you stretch for it to try and get it and hope.

I just don't think those kind of goals are skill as such, it's more down to luck because you can't aim those kind of efforts.

[Letters]

I'd say it's a combination of luck and skill.

EDIT: Had this exact conversation with someone in the wake of Nayim from the half way line. The conclusion was it was a combination of luck and skill. The skill part is that if you or I tried it we'd be there all day and not do it. The luck part is it's still a one in a hundred shot.

[Özim]

To be fair Nayim saw the keeper off the line and decided to have a go (definitely some luck involved), it was an intentional action. Girouds goal is just a reaction, the ball came he flicked it, never really having any control of where it was going and it went it, he didn't have time to think, couldn't really aim and wasn't make a caclulated decision.

[Letters]

It was more instinctive but he was trying to score, he admits himself there was a fair slice of luck though.

[Cripps]

Giroud's biggest problem is his lack of pace. If he had just a tiny turn of pace it would add another dimension to his game and he'd be viewed in the same bracket as the top strikers.

[Özim]

Rarely seems to score when he starts, he's basically a sub, could never be top class on that basis.