With the exception of Chilwell and Enzo Fernandes I’d take almost all of our players over ChelseasOriginally Posted by 21_GOONER_SALUTE
Kante is old, Silva is ridiculously old, Azpilicueta is old, Sterling is a busted flush. Their goalkeepers are average. This Chelsea side if properly managed should be top six, but better than us player for player? Not for me.
Our central midfield is shit but even then I’d take Partey over Kante
Silva is so ridiculously old that he made a calm classy goal line clearance that any lover of defending would have knocked one out to.
Anyway, wouldn't want to get into the forever youth project debate and say, because we have young talent they can only improve...we had more than two decades of doing that under AW and we all saw how great the Jeffers, Denilsons, Senderoses and Lord Bendtners improved under our careful tutelage.
Its better this is kept as a would you take me "as I am" debate to keep it practical and less discriminatory (at least for the ageist among us anyway).
And as a side comment....with the way experienced hands transformed this team this season ( i e. Jesus, Zin, Jorginho and Trossard) I would have thought most of us would have gotten over our fascination for all things young.
It was only a matter of time before Saka went the way of all our other "wonderkids" like Walcott or Wilshere or countless other so much promise ultimately fading to nothing.
Zinchenko has transformed our season alright
Plus we aren’t talking about players in their mid to late twenties we are talking about players well in their thirties.
Plus Fofana is young and is a rubbish defender
With the greatest of respect you’ve gone from blaming Arteta to the players not being great. We’ve got a good squad of players, it’s not City’s level but it’s better than most of the other teams around us.
TBH I've given up trying to second guess Arteta, though I'm not sure I ever started because I was kind of getting out of football around the time he came in. I wanted him in before Dick wasted everyones time. But wasn't much bothered after that. What I'm mainly focused on is the difference between Arsenal last yer and this year. And it has dawned on me - fuck, I wouldn't have had the first clue where to begin to get last year's absolute shit-kickers to where they are now. I suppose Arteta could have been lucky, or the players stepped up after decades of not being arsed. But it's more likely Arteta has been getting a lot right, even if he hasn't nailed everything yet.
Let's just say I'd rather he was in charge than me. He's delivered something I couldn't hope to so I defer to his results. And results are the only thing that matter to me, not speculation, or excuses, or whatever.
That preface is to explain why I see more in Martinelli than Saka. There was a moment in that chav match where Martinelli picked up the ball, controlled it without thought (while simultaneously assessing his options) and then dipped a shoulder and set off towards the opposition goal. Really reminded me of a young Giggs. I hate Giggs but he was a hell of a player. Martinelli has that same ambition now backed with the talent to deliver - the one thing he couldn't do to save his life last season. I don't see the same believe in Saka, yet. He seems more conservative on the ball which often robs him of the opportunity to express his talent.
I found myself urging, "Come on, give it a go!", when watching Saka, while it was, "Unlucky lad, good effort!" when watching Martinelli. What I mean is Saka often doesn't get into the places where Martinelli goes so a like for like comparison can be made.
It's a purely observational thing and related to enjoyment of watching the two players, rather than a coaches analysis which is becoming increasingly clear I'm not qualified to make. I have my opinions for sure, like any fan should. But beyond that I actually find myself enjoying watching Saka and Martinelli play and (I didn't believe it could happen) intrigued as to whether Arteta can take this further. I hope the fans don't jump on the latter too hard if we have a few dips along the way. This really is the first progress I've seen in almost 2 decades.
So I think we are talking different things. And, like I said, I've watched around 20% of the games, if that. Based on what I have seen Martinelli is the player who might become the next thing. He has the attributes. Of course we'll sell him on the cheap but that's another issue.
Für eure Sicherheit
To think you are the first person to respond to posters by complaining they are thinking to binary.
I have been consistent, never really rating our players as the best in the League. Saka and Partey are the only standouts that I know every team will be willing to give a contract and I have been consistent on that.
As for Arteta, I criticise him for not doing more, panicking (or staying frozen), and making obvious mistakes that IMO a more experienced hand would not make. However I have always lauded a system that overnight turns a bunch of decent players into League challengers and initially fixed nagging problems we'd carried for decades
I believe I have been watching sport for too long to discern that the team with the best players doesn't necessarily win a competition.. PSG have had the best squad for the past 4 years or so and are yet to win the CL , same could be said for Citeh under Pep. When Barca were at their pomp with the trinity of Xavi, Iniesta and Messi they only had like 2 CLs or so. Leicester won the league without the best group of players and both Liverpool and Man U have managed to snatch a league title from City and Chelsea who usually have the best players.
Its a team sport, and if I don't include Real Madrid, most teams win competitions on how effective the team is as a unit. Cohesion is the key word here. You could ask Bayern what they are going through in the bundesliga right now.
Could we win the league with this set of players who gave such brilliant early performances and showed the kind of cohesion and fight ingspirit needed? Of course. If we get better players next season will that give us a better chance? Well maybe, it all depends if he can get the cohesion right again and other teams don't improve that drastically (something we cannot control so should not really be considered if you ask me).
Finally, I am not sure any gooner is old enough to say there was a time where Arsena undoubtedlyl had better players than the teams we competed against. People forget that even the Invincibles had a naive Kolo Toure (who had achieved nothing, was only in his 2nd season and was a makeshift CB that AW created), an average player called Freddie who played his heart out and gave scintillating performance week in and out. We also had at that time probably the dullest and most unBrazillian like player ever, Gilberto, who would later be heralded as genius as more people came to understand the "disruptor" role better and it benefits. This kind of role would soon be replicated and coveted in almost every top team. And Bergkamp, well he had passed his prime but class remained solid. In short, our players were not the best set of players that year and that's my opinion.
Even if you don't agree about the Invincibles, would you say all the other times we won the league and other competitions in the past 50 years we had the best set of players?
Coney or Letters, could you help us settle this last part.
IMO, if Man Citeh win the treble this year, its not because they had the best players, they've had that for ages. It will be because of the cohesion that Pep created in the squad that allows them to play their brand of football on all fronts while still being able to deal with setbacks adequately.
Yeah, another post of yours I can't argue much with.
If i was rating players mentally, Martinelli is easily the winner among all our young players. I've felt like that for ages, he sometimes reminds me of Bendtner who I mentioned earlier but without the arrogance, thank God, and the will to graft. But on pure talent, I must say I've seen little things Saka does that astound me. Its very probable that he might not reach his best, but I am pretty certain that only a career threatening injury could stop Martinelli from trying and trying to improve.
But just like people argue about Messi and Ronaldo, having that talent is a plus for any player and makes things easier. Wilshere still remains the best young talent I think we've ever had but look how it went when he couldn't get over the injuries and focus on his game anymore. He just stopped improving and kept relying the same God given talent...if anyone could follow that path, it'll be more likely Saka than Martinelli.
Another thing is when I watch Martinelli get the ball, its like he has something to prove every single time, its kind of admirable trait for young lad nowadays, but it also cuts both ways....at a point, you just need to trust your talent, its a bit difficult to explain, but it like you either got it or not.
And I know I am going back and forward, but I just remembered a game we played with Barca in the CL, as usual they were beating us and our whole team was panicking and playing crap, but Jack came in and played the most natural game I have ever seen an Arsenal player play against Barca. No crazy flicks, no crazy tricks, just plain old Jack playing Barca like he was having a kickabout with Leyton Orient....he just let his class show and even the Barca players were shocked to see someone not overawed by the occasion and playing so brilliantly in what was one of our pathetic teams.
Man their is just something about talent.
PSG don’t have the best squad not even close
And yes I generally believe the club with the best at the very least first XI win the prizes in the league, in a knockout competition that’s less of a certainty because you can win every game up to the semi final but if you have one off game you’re out all the same.
Arsenal are 2nd in my view as a result of having a better squad than the 18 teams below us yes. Chelsea have a squad full of decent players but mainly ageing players who aren’t performing….the situation the club is in is down to a mixture of Boehly and players who are just not performing (I believe Chelsea should be top six with their squad)
I think the power we ascribe to managers/coaches to affect results is vastly overstated. It’s hard to guage how good a manager Pep is because he’s throughout his managerial career always had the best material to work with. You could argue he’s underperformed with Bayern and in Europe with City.
Obviously a club like Man City will want a coach like Guardiola over say Frank Lampard, but when you have the squad they have it’s still 5-10% at most of the difference.
They have top quality in every position and depth. We have good quality in almost every position and less quality in depth
Sometimes you do get a manager that can get more out of a team than they appear capable of, and in that regard you’d have to look to Eddie Howe…they have a good spine of Isak, Guimares, Botman and Pope as well as players like Almiron. But they have been set up to be compact and devastating on the break. Most pundits make them favourites to beat us on Sunday but I absolutely do not believe they have a better team/squad than us and that will be borne out by the fact that we will finish above them at the end of the season.
Despite the fact that I think recruitment in central midfield has been lacking, we have very good players. Yes I think Saliba, Partey, Martinelli, Saka and Odegaard would get into almost any other side….the system helps but it doesn’t change the fact that these are good, capable players better than most others in the premier league currently (with the exception of Man City)
I'll ask again...
Can anyone actually tell me these games Saka has been anything special?
Just 3 or 4 games, man.
I can tell you the games he got a couple of goals in but his general contribution was shite. I have next to no time for the nonsense that the 'assist' stat has become, so the games in which his general play has been "great".
Just a few games, man.
I'll wait.
Again.
Yeah, PSG are probably not close to having the best players in the world. I mean how can they when they only have the most expensive player in the world playing for them. Or what about the 2nd most expensive player in the world, oh he plays for them too. Eff it, maybe we need to find out who the best player at the last World Cup was, darn it, he plays for them too. What about their last game, I mean their last starting lineup....no, again it only contained 3 WC semi finalist and 2 QF, surley some team on this earth must have fielded only WC winners last week? No?
Alright lets get serious, to closely equate where you finish in the league to the quality of players you have available in a squad is a bit lazy if you ask me. I mean lets use us an example; we added Jesus, Zin, Viera, Saliba , Jorginho, Trossard and recently Kiwor to our 1st team this season. According to you, none of them are among the truly exceptional players that are better than most of what the opposition have except Saliba. So largely our success this season has been achieved with the same set of players we had last season who finished an uncompetitive 5th. So are we saying our league position last season misrepresented the quality of our players seeing as the same set of players are suddenly better than everyone else except Man City?
Its confusing and gets more confusing considering the fact that Chelsea spent an extra £600m+ to ensure their team remained better than us, who they finished ahead of last season. Yes you point out that they have ageing players, but they stayed and £600m worth of EXTRA talent was added.... should that probably not to a neutral person suggest they have a better squad of players than they did last season when they finished ahead of us?
And then we have the "anomaly" of the same Chelsea, a top six side according to you, being considerably below the likes of Fulham, Brentford, Villa and Brighton (non top 6 side)... surely if the quality of players is so closely linked to League position, the variance should not be this much?
I mean is not safer and probably more accurate to err on the side of history that shows a teams performance can fluctuate even with the same set of players. Can't we simply say players can under/over perfom in a particular season without that necessarily affecting their quality. Xhaka is playing great now, but any poll of Gooners would definitely still sell him off and get someone else doing his job. Maybe it because we've watched him for 10 years, so we recognise an anomaly when we see it. Or it could just be prejudice, though I still feel its the former.
Now getting back to the power we ascribe to managers, I could not disagree with you more. I could use Chelsea again as an example but lets look at Villa . Gerard left this season with almost a 1/3 of their games played and only a point above the relegation zone. With just over 20 games under Emery they are already chasing Europe. Gerard's Villa played 12 games and only had 2 wins....Emery, using the same team has played 21 games and mastered 13 wins ( his 1st win was his first game against Man U BTW). Gerrard used a year to get 13 wins in 40 games, Emery has matched it in 5 months! He has used the same set of players only adding 2 players this January at the combined cost of less than 20m. Villa are scoring in every game and defending better than they ever had. (showing that be learnt from his mistakes with us). Coaches make significant differences and they don't need the best players to do this, or are we really going to say the Villa players given to Emery are better than what Lampard was given with Chelsea?
It all matters, and I am certain if you give Lampard :cough: sorry, I mean a poor manager the Citeh team, he would not come close to winning the league this year, even if he had Messi on the bench.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote