Is Wenger right about Walcott?

[IBK]

I've read the Sp*rs reaction thread, and while some comments are well made, I'm not sure the Wenger ones are so on point. FWIW I was OK with yesterday's result. Spurs were at full strength and this is their game of the season. The match was well set up for them to do what Pochettino does best - press with his more athletic players - and they dominated midfield. But we still fought back even though our performance generally was below par, and their goal came from our mistake. It happens.

In the circumstances I thought Wenger did the best he could with a decimated squad, and after all his substitution worked.

What concerns me more, I think, is how key Walcott's injury has been in our last few games. Looking at the season as a whole, I think that Wenger has tried to address the big problem from last year - our inability to break defences down - and I think that if Walcott had been on the pitch yesterday we would have won that game even with most of our team looking jaded. Playing Walcott more centrally has been more effective than having him on the right because he both creates spaces and has a goal threat in that position, and IMO, Wenger has seen this and planned a different approach around the player - and we have seen how effective this can be. While aerial balls into the box created our chances yesterday, our cutting edge has looked a lot sharper in those games where Walcott has been used - and I don't think this has been any coincidence.

But I wonder whether the Walcott issue encapsulates what is looking like our main problem this season - injuries to key players rather than inflexibility of our approach/team balance or quality which has been a problem in the past. We have seen evidence that Wenger was right to promote Walcott to striker based on his ability/attributes. But is/was he right to rely on his new team approach on a player who seems to be a perennial crock.

Thoughts?

[fakeyank]

I wouldnt depend on Walcott to walk 10 meters without getting injured. It was wrong to depend on Walcott, just like it was wrong to depend on the Rosicky's and Diaby's of Arsenal.

Btw, I do agree (for a change) that Wenger did the best with a decimated squad yesterday.

[IBK]

I wouldnt depend on Walcott to walk 10 meters without getting injured. It was wrong to depend on Walcott, just like it was wrong to depend on the Rosicky's and Diaby's of Arsenal.

Btw, I do agree (for a change) that Wenger did the best with a decimated squad yesterday.

Yes - I think its fair to mention Rosicky and Diaby - not to mention Wilshere. I suppose the difference, though, is that Walcott is an even bigger risk because of Wenger's obsession with collecting midfield players - but shortage of strikers. I'm really torn on this one, because I think Wenger's teams have always relied on understanding and 'telepathy' because of the technical nature of our passing game. So this requires consistency of personnel and I can see why players like Walcott are long-term projects. What I honestly can't understand though is the manager's pernennial gamble taking with fragile players.

[Globalgunner]

Anybody who relies on Walcott for anything, walk run, score goals, needs his head examined. Only at Arsenal will an anaemic, goal shy, striker, even be considered an option. He will most likely retire on the treatment table before 30.

[Power n Glory]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top. Injuries have hampered us and I think if he's to be taken to task, it's for the lack of signings, preparation and it seems like he hasn't done enough to get a firm grasp on the constant injuries we have. Way too much finger pointing instead of looking at what he's doing in training and match day.

But on to Walcott. He's been missed and I've said for a long time on here that he should be playing as striker. It's his best position and even when not scoring you can see the positive effect he adds to our game compared to when he's stuck on the right. You only have to compare the two Bayern games to see how he's been missed. Against Spurs, before the game, I felt like Sanchez, Giroud and Campbell would struggle. On a counter attack, Giroud makes slow ponderous runs looking for a cross to the back or front post rather than helping our wingers with a quick one two and then rushing to the box. You can already see how Sanchez's form has fallen off since playing with Giroud. It feels like Giroud needs wingers that stay wide and whip in crosses rather than inverted winger because the link up play isn't working and maybe that's because he's looking to get into more goal scoring positions this season. He can't do both and that's why we need a more pacey player.

Also, I'm sure the lack of pace up front is forcing us to try and make the pitch smaller with our backline playing higher so there isn't massive gaps between the defence, midfield and strikers. With a pacey striker like Walcott, we can play deeper and not worry about the front three making up the ground. I really feel as though we should have been playing Walcott as a striker a couple of seasons ago or at least towards the end of last season. If he had doubts about Walcott then he should have at least given Sanchez more of a shot there. Giroud just isn't the type of striker that should be first team for us. Putting aside his quality and the chances he misses like we saw yesterday, he isn't the sort of striker that fits into our philosophy of attack. He'd thrive off crosses and we're not that sort of team. We don't play it long and from wide positions. He's a plan B striker for us. Not plan A. I would have thought Wenger would have figured that out but he hasn't. He either has to change our attacking philosophy or change Giroud for a more pacey striker. I don't why Wenger has moved away from Henry and Anelka type strikers but he needs to get back to it.

[Kano]

They've changed medical staff, changed how they do pre-season (no more Austria) and no doubt turned over every stone possible trying to figure out why this keeps happening.

You have that Dutch (?) coach who has had a go at Wenger's training methods. Fabregas had a lot of hamstring problems with us but I'm not sure he has since he left. A lot of the players that pick up these injuries seem to be the 'high energy' sort. Walcott, Ox, Ramsey, Rosicky Wilshere. Maybe this is the first of many for Bellerin. Diaby is one of the few I'd excuse because he was never the same after that Sunderland fucker shattered his ankle.

There are arguments to put forward on both sides. The bottom line is if the club doesn't know, we sure has hell don't. So all that matters from my point of view is who can and cannot be relied upon.

Theo isn't one of them and I've banged in about it since the start of the season. He'll always pick up injuries, which goes back as long as you can remember. They have ruined his development meaning he'll always be behind where he needs to be as a player and never teach his potential. Wilshere is the other other priority to get rid off and if Ox carries on underperforming on the pitch and overperforming in the medical room, then he can follow.

[Letters]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top.
There you go again, defending Wenger at every opportunity :sulk:



:run:

[Power n Glory]

There you go again, defending Wenger at every opportunity :sulk:



:run:

:lol: Even I’ll admit it’s been a bit OTT over the last couple of fixtures.

[IBK]

I think the reaction to Wenger over the Bayern and Spurs games are a bit over the top. Injuries have hampered us and I think if he's to be taken to task, it's for the lack of signings, preparation and it seems like he hasn't done enough to get a firm grasp on the constant injuries we have. Way too much finger pointing instead of looking at what he's doing in training and match day.

But on to Walcott. He's been missed and I've said for a long time on here that he should be playing as striker. It's his best position and even when not scoring you can see the positive effect he adds to our game compared to when he's stuck on the right. You only have to compare the two Bayern games to see how he's been missed. Against Spurs, before the game, I felt like Sanchez, Giroud and Campbell would struggle. On a counter attack, Giroud makes slow ponderous runs looking for a cross to the back or front post rather than helping our wingers with a quick one two and then rushing to the box. You can already see how Sanchez's form has fallen off since playing with Giroud. It feels like Giroud needs wingers that stay wide and whip in crosses rather than inverted winger because the link up play isn't working and maybe that's because he's looking to get into more goal scoring positions this season. He can't do both and that's why we need a more pacey player.

Also, I'm sure the lack of pace up front is forcing us to try and make the pitch smaller with our backline playing higher so there isn't massive gaps between the defence, midfield and strikers. With a pacey striker like Walcott, we can play deeper and not worry about the front three making up the ground. I really feel as though we should have been playing Walcott as a striker a couple of seasons ago or at least towards the end of last season. If he had doubts about Walcott then he should have at least given Sanchez more of a shot there. Giroud just isn't the type of striker that should be first team for us. Putting aside his quality and the chances he misses like we saw yesterday, he isn't the sort of striker that fits into our philosophy of attack. He'd thrive off crosses and we're not that sort of team. We don't play it long and from wide positions. He's a plan B striker for us. Not plan A. I would have thought Wenger would have figured that out but he hasn't. He either has to change our attacking philosophy or change Giroud for a more pacey striker. I don't why Wenger has moved away from Henry and Anelka type strikers but he needs to get back to it.

:gp:

My thoughts exactly - and I like the point re the higher backline.

The problem is that while I think Wenger's tactics have evolved with Walcott - his risk taking/blind spot re depending on players' injuries haven't.

Do you think that we should be looking to buy an attacking player with pace in January? I'm beginning to think so - even if another injury prone player - Welbeck - might be back by then. Because IMO its not even Walcott's goals that are the most important - its the spaces that direct pace provides. I'm fond of Giroud, but its too easy for well-organised physical pressing teams to nullify us when he is our starting striker.

[IBK]

They've changed medical staff, changed how they do pre-season (no more Austria) and no doubt turned over every stone possible trying to figure out why this keeps happening.

You have that Dutch (?) coach who has had a go at Wenger's training methods. Fabregas had a lot of hamstring problems with us but I'm not sure he has since he left. A lot of the players that pick up these injuries seem to be the 'high energy' sort. Walcott, Ox, Ramsey, Rosicky Wilshere. Maybe this is the first of many for Bellerin. Diaby is one of the few I'd excuse because he was never the same after that Sunderland fucker shattered his ankle.

There are arguments to put forward on both sides. The bottom line is if the club doesn't know, we sure has hell don't. So all that matters from my point of view is who can and cannot be relied upon.

Theo isn't one of them and I've banged in about it since the start of the season. He'll always pick up injuries, which goes back as long as you can remember. They have ruined his development meaning he'll always be behind where he needs to be as a player and never teach his potential. Wilshere is the other other priority to get rid off and if Ox carries on underperforming on the pitch and overperforming in the medical room, then he can follow.

Its a mystery of the highest order that Wenger seems unable to address our recurring nightmare. Stubbornness?

[Power n Glory]

:gp:

My thoughts exactly - and I like the point re the higher backline.

The problem is that while I think Wenger's tactics have evolved with Walcott - his risk taking/blind spot re depending on players' injuries haven't.

Do you think that we should be looking to buy an attacking player with pace in January? I'm beginning to think so - even if another injury prone player - Welbeck - might be back by then. Because IMO its not even Walcott's goals that are the most important - its the spaces that direct pace provides. I'm fond of Giroud, but its too easy for well-organised physical pressing teams to nullify us when he is our starting striker.

I think we need to buy in January. The injuries are racking up. I forgot Welbeck will be back fit but I have no faith in him as striker. Was very disappointed with his run up front when he first signed. The lack of goals is one thing but he didn't change the way we attacked either. Ponderous runs like Giroud but without the end product. He wasn't a threat and he really struggled. He has pace but it's not explosive enough to really change how we play. If we can't find a striker, we need to at least find a winger.

[Kano]

Its a mystery of the highest order that Wenger seems unable to address our recurring nightmare. Stubbornness?

That's why I pointed out both sides. Changes have been made and others I'm sure we're not aware of. But then you have outsiders criticising him and obviously the same sort of player falling out. I'm out of ideas and the discussion is so far done the line, none of us will ever know. The bottom line is now what do we do with the crocks.

[Letters]

I think we need to buy in January. The injuries are racking up. I forgot Welbeck will be back fit but I have no faith in him as striker. Was very disappointed with his run up front when he first signed. The lack of goals is one thing but he didn't change the way we attacked either. Ponderous runs like Giroud but without the end product. He wasn't a threat and he really struggled. He has pace but it's not explosive enough to really change how we play. If we can't find a striker, we need to at least find a winger.

Agree. IMO we've got a great chance of the title this year but the squad is already getting stretched thin, drop into the Europa league and it'll be very difficult to sustain a challenge.
I don't think we will sign anyone of note in January but if we do it could spur us on to the title this season.

[Bumble]

Decimated???? From a first choice team we were missing Bellerin and Ramsey. That was it. Otherwise the rest have started most or a lot of games. We are missing a lot of players from one position so hardly a crisis in the bigger scheme of things. Did we do well to get a point from Spurs. Of course not. With are regular involved in the CL we probably have a budget twice the size of Spurs.

We didn't play well and Spurs did. They are a decent side but we were home. We got lucky to get a point. We have a great opportunity to win the league. There are no excuses. We have to push on, City aren't as dominating when they win the league as Chelsea or United were, where is just seemed inevitable they would win. City can get sloppy at times and drop stupid points. We can buy players like City buy them, just choose not to. We also have players on the bench earning 10,000s so we have the squad. City only have two strikers after all and we have 3.

Can we do it?

Yes we can. No excuses.

[IBK]

Decimated???? From a first choice team we were missing Bellerin and Ramsey. That was it. Otherwise the rest have started most or a lot of games. We are missing a lot of players from one position so hardly a crisis in the bigger scheme of things. Did we do well to get a point from Spurs. Of course not. With are regular involved in the CL we probably have a budget twice the size of Spurs.

We didn't play well and Spurs did. They are a decent side but we were home. We got lucky to get a point. We have a great opportunity to win the league. There are no excuses. We have to push on, City aren't as dominating when they win the league as Chelsea or United were, where is just seemed inevitable they would win. City can get sloppy at times and drop stupid points. We can buy players like City buy them, just choose not to. We also have players on the bench earning 10,000s so we have the squad. City only have two strikers after all and we have 3.

Can we do it?

Yes we can. No excuses.

We were missing 8 1st team players IIRC. But most importantly we were missing Walcott and Bellerin - the 2 players who more than any others have given our team dynamism this season - and had noone obvious on the bench to shake thigs up. It was the bench that spoke most eloquently as to our lack of depth. The likes of Ramsey and the Ox were missing players who could have made a difference going forwards but they were, as usual, crocked. Let's not even go there with Wilshere, or Welbeck!

As ever with Wenger's teams its that elusive balance that seems to make the difference between potential league winners and also rans. The fact that these key players are serial injury doubts is the problem - as is our over reliance on Ozil and Sanchez who are being worked into the ground.

[IBK]

Yes - and I don;t think we would need to sign a worldy either - our MF should be able to score goals if a player with explosive pace is used to create some space and allow us to play properly on the break. Do you think with some game time Campbell could fit the bill?

[dostoy]

This is not going to happen so I might as well not even say it but.

I would like to see us buy Huntelaar from Schalke in January.

He is 32, very experienced and a proven goalscorer wherever he has played.

If we need a striker and January is a very difficult time to buy top players, then he is the player.

Of course it won't happen.

[mastermind84]

I don't why Wenger has moved away from Henry and Anelka type strikers but he needs to get back to it.

he didnt move away from it. we couldnt afford those players after Adebayor lost his head and van Persie left.

Even Theo isnt the best solution up front.

He tried to get Suarez and Liverpool decided not to honor Suarez's contract and Arsenal/Suarez did not take him to court.

[mastermind84]

This is not going to happen so I might as well not even say it but.

I would like to see us buy Huntelaar from Schalke in January.

He is 32, very experienced and a proven goalscorer wherever he has played.

If we need a striker and January is a very difficult time to buy top players, then he is the player.

Of course it won't happen.

if you complain about a slow and lumbering Giroud, you will HATE Huntelaar.

[fakeyank]

I really have faith in Welbeck. I see this man having everything to become the perfect striker in the PL (except brain cells). May be his time away with injuries will lead him to develop some brain cells. I really see a big future for him as a striker IF he can add some intelligence to his game.

[mastermind84]

I really have faith in Welbeck. I see this man having everything to become the perfect striker in the PL (except brain cells). May be his time away with injuries will lead him to develop some brain cells. I really see a big future for him as a striker IF he can add some intelligence to his game.

gonna need to improve his touch and finishing as well

He is about to be 25. I just wouldnt hold my breathe, thats all.

[Power n Glory]

he didnt move away from it. we couldnt afford those players after Adebayor lost his head and van Persie left.

Even Theo isnt the best solution up front.

He tried to get Suarez and Liverpool decided not to honor Suarez's contract and Arsenal/Suarez did not take him to court.

I disagree with that one. We signed Henry and Anelka before they made a name for themselves. Before the massive price tags. I don't think there are many players that are out there now of that quality but we had our chance. Suarez went to Liverpool for £22m the season we had brought in Chamakh for free but had Ade's transfer fee still in the bank.

Aubameyang was playing in France before he moved to Dortmund. Not sure how we missed him. Same goes for Lewandowski.

We don't even need someone with superstar quality in that position to be effective. Walcott is proving that. In fact, if we are going for grade B strikers, Giroud is the wrong type. I'd rather we took a punt on some of the players that have gone to the mid table clubs like Benteke, Bony, Ba..etc. Iffy players but they had a little more pace up front. Or converted a winger into a striker. Anything but putting the type of striker up front that totally alters our game and approach.

[mastermind84]

I disagree with that one. We signed Henry and Anelka before they made a name for themselves. Before the massive price tags. I don't think there are many players that are out there now of that quality but we had our chance. Suarez went to Liverpool for £22m the season we had brought in Chamakh for free but had Ade's transfer fee still in the bank.

Aubameyang was playing in France before he moved to Dortmund. Not sure how we missed him. Same goes for Lewandowski.

We don't even need someone with superstar quality in that position to be effective. Walcott is proving that. In fact, if we are going for grade B strikers, Giroud is the wrong type. I'd rather we took a punt on some of the players that have gone to the mid table clubs like Benteke, Bony, Ba..etc. Iffy players but they had a little more pace up front. Or converted a winger into a striker. Anything but putting the type of striker up front that totally alters our game and approach.

Henry was France's leading scorer in the World Cup winning side and had just won Euros and cost £10.5 million which is probably £20-25 million in football terms in the late aughts. Not super expensive but not what Arsenal was willing to pay, considering Wenger spent the same fee on Eduardo from Zagreb. Up until Ozil, the club's highest transfer fee was on Arshavin at 17 million. The money wasnt there.

Anelka was basically Theo at the same age (much better player).

Aubameyang flamed out at Milan and has hit the ground running this year but was shaky before at Dortmund.

We cant play the hindsight game without understanding what the particulars were at that moment.

And no, we need to aim at the next cusp players but a Ba, Bony, Benteke are really no different than Giroud in footballing levels.


But like I said before, the striker you want cost a lot of money. Speed has high value.

Id rather we scour the world for a guy who is on the brink versus taking chances on guys who arent that much better than what we have. I will say this, I do think our scouting department has fallen off. May be down to money, idk. But its not what it used to be.

[Penguin]

Bottom line is that Giroud isn't good enough. It's not just his pace, it's his overall lack of ability. Somehow, despite his lack of pace, movement or footballing intelligence we manage to put chances on a plate for him only for him to fuck them up like he did on Sunday. He's average.

[mastermind84]

Bottom line is that Giroud isn't good enough. It's not just his pace, it's his overall lack of ability. Somehow, despite his lack of pace, movement or footballing intelligence we manage to put chances on a plate for him only for him to fuck them up like he did on Sunday. He's average.

it means he has good footballing ability.

Giroud's only problem is his speed.

[GP]

We paid like £10m for Giroud.

People need to remember that. He's paid it back in spades. He's been a really good signing.

[Power n Glory]

Henry was France's leading scorer in the World Cup winning side and had just won Euros and cost £10.5 million which is probably £20-25 million in football terms in the late aughts. Not super expensive but not what Arsenal was willing to pay, considering Wenger spent the same fee on Eduardo from Zagreb. Up until Ozil, the club's highest transfer fee was on Arshavin at 17 million. The money wasnt there.

Anelka was basically Theo at the same age (much better player).

Aubameyang flamed out at Milan and has hit the ground running this year but was shaky before at Dortmund.

We cant play the hindsight game without understanding what the particulars were at that moment.

And no, we need to aim at the next cusp players but a Ba, Bony, Benteke are really no different than Giroud in footballing levels.


But like I said before, the striker you want cost a lot of money. Speed has high value.

Id rather we scour the world for a guy who is on the brink versus taking chances on guys who arent that much better than what we have. I will say this, I do think our scouting department has fallen off. May be down to money, idk. But its not what it used to be.

Henry was a snip. Man Utd were paying £19m for Ruud and £30m for Veron. Crespo had gone from Parma to Inter for £35m. Fees were starting to get silly. We paid £10m for Henry but we also paid £13m for Wiltord who was our record signing for ages. But not by much. Overmars was £7m. Lauren cost £7m. Van Bronkhurst cost £8m...what we paid for Henry wasn't a lot compared to what we were paying for internationals and really cheap compared to our rivals.

But the fees is a whole other debate. It's a side matter that's more a distraction. We didn't go for players like Chamakh and Giroud because we were priced out of the market for speedy players. It was a tactical decision. Wenger wanted a more physical team player up top to hold up the ball, be a team player and assist the small attacking midfielders we had around him. The idea was to have everyone scoring from all areas and not depending on just the striker. You hear him say this a lot and he's a fan of that sort of unselfish play. It was all to aid the tippy tappy style and being able to hold the ball in our opponents half. There were plenty of pacy strikers around.

The striker I'm talking about wouldn't have cost a lot of money either. I'm not talking about finding just a superstar. I'm talking about finding a player with pace that can get in behind defenders and mobile enough to help our build up play. Obafemi Martins was around for a while and we never moved for him. Jermaine Defoe is another one. These weren't expensive players. Not grade A players but they were solid players with pace. I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm thinking of Remy and already mentioned more in my previous post.

Giroud is probably the same level of player as them but the difference is the pace and how he slots into our team. He was bought to support that tippy tappy style and as a result we can't play a lightening fast counter attacking game. I'm comparing style and attributes more than anything else.

[mastermind84]

Obafemi Martins was around for a while and we never moved for him. Jermaine Defoe is another one.

Giroud is better than both those guys.

He better than Remy too.


Wenger wants a pacy striker that is actually good. He wants a guy that can also help in our buildup. He dont want wastemen.

[Power n Glory]

You're missing the point Mastermind. Who is better is debatable but I will say I remember having a very similar discussion with you and others about Walcott and you've seen the difference his pace and runs have made to how we can approach games. He's not a Henry but at least has the pace which means we can get back to fast counter attacking football. It only took a few games for people to see how our game shifted tactically with him in the squad.

Now look at Giroud and how he shifts things tactically for us. It goes back to what I was saying about him a part of the tippy tappy set up where we pin our opponents back in their own half and keep the ball. Giroud is far from a Henry also so start asking yourself why we bought him and how we've shifted tactically. Yes, there weren't players similar to Henry on the market or if they were they were pricey. So a player like Giourd who has a totally different game to what we're used to was the next best option? Or a Chamakh? Think about it.

[Letters]

I really have faith in Welbeck. I see this man having everything to become the perfect striker in the PL (except brain cells). May be his time away with injuries will lead him to develop some brain cells. I really see a big future for him as a striker IF he can add some intelligence to his game.

Really?! :lol:

I don't think brain cells are a requirement in PL football. I think he's OK, he'll chip in here and there, but he's not THE ANSWER. We need better if we're going to push on.
I still think our squad as is has a chance - Giroud is not average but he's no Aguero. But with people like Ozil and Sanchez around we should be getting plenty of goals. Possibly Ramsey too if he can sort himself out. The concern is they're getting too stretched, particularly if we do drop into the Europa League. They're already looking tired, as the games pile up we could be too stretched.

[Niall_Quinn]

Whether Giroud is good or not, or cheap or not, or can win us a title or not - he can't be missing chances like he did on Sunday. We'd have been better off calling Heskey out of retirement, even he would have bagged at least one of those chances. And he's faster than Giroud. It was a terrible performance in a big match and that's a problem. Two or three more games like that and he'll kill us off.

[IBK]

Really?! :lol:

I don't think brain cells are a requirement in PL football. I think he's OK, he'll chip in here and there, but he's not THE ANSWER. We need better if we're going to push on.
I still think our squad as is has a chance - Giroud is not average but he's no Aguero. But with people like Ozil and Sanchez around we should be getting plenty of goals. Possibly Ramsey too if he can sort himself out. The concern is they're getting too stretched, particularly if we do drop into the Europa League. They're already looking tired, as the games pile up we could be too stretched.

I share your view on Welbeck - if (when) we don't buy, I'd back Campbell to become a better option than him in Walcott's absence. This main thing for me is that we don't need an Aguero in order to make this team tick - Walcott's no Aguero, yet playing centrally he has moved our team forward in terms of its effectiveness. Giroud is a decent striker, but he is not a player around whom our A game should be based - we have seen ample evidence of this. If he will stay, however, he is incredibly effective as a plan B - and IMHO gets far too much stick for his missed chances. Vardy and Aguero apert - which striker has a better than 1 in 5 or 6 conversion rate? Giroud's stats are decent. His versatility isn't.

[Niall_Quinn]

Have we really seen enough of Walcott to make any solid judgements? He's played well in a few games, but that's all we've had from him because he's injured most of the time. Will we ever get a season out of him, or enough of a season to make a difference? He needs to have a RVC recovery and get a season under his belt. If he can't do that we need to be looking for a player who can. However good Theo is or isn't, makes no odds if he's not on the pitch.

[Power n Glory]

I really have faith in Welbeck. I see this man having everything to become the perfect striker in the PL (except brain cells). May be his time away with injuries will lead him to develop some brain cells. I really see a big future for him as a striker IF he can add some intelligence to his game.

Why? What has he shown to warrant such faith?

[Niall_Quinn]

Welbeck? Good team player. Solid, dependable, bags of energy. Will take on a man and cause opposition defences problems. But not a striker either. We are overloaded with these types of player. Now injury prone too. Welcome to Arsenal.

[Power n Glory]

Have we really seen enough of Walcott to make any solid judgements? He's played well in a few games, but that's all we've had from him because he's injured most of the time. Will we ever get a season out of him, or enough of a season to make a difference? He needs to have a RVC recovery and get a season under his belt. If he can't do that we need to be looking for a player who can. However good Theo is or isn't, makes no odds if he's not on the pitch.

I think Theo has shown a glimmer of what’s possible. He’s still learning the role and growing in confidence. I think the Munich and Utd wins show his potential and that’s without him on the score sheet. The Munich game away and the Spurs game show how slow and laboured we can look without him. If he can’t stay fit then we need to look for another solution but we should be looking for someone with bags of pace. We need to value pace over someone that’s a team player. I’d say it’s easier to integrate that sort of player into our game over bulky target man type.

[fakeyank]

Why? What has he shown to warrant such faith?

Physically he has every attribute to be a top striker- Quick, good header, strong and good dribbling skills. What he doesnt have is positional sense or the ability to make good runs.

[mastermind84]

You're missing the point Mastermind. Who is better is debatable but I will say I remember having a very similar discussion with you and others about Walcott and you've seen the difference his pace and runs have made to how we can approach games. He's not a Henry but at least has the pace which means we can get back to fast counter attacking football. It only took a few games for people to see how our game shifted tactically with him in the squad.

Now look at Giroud and how he shifts things tactically for us. It goes back to what I was saying about him a part of the tippy tappy set up where we pin our opponents back in their own half and keep the ball. Giroud is far from a Henry also so start asking yourself why we bought him and how we've shifted tactically. Yes, there weren't players similar to Henry on the market or if they were they were pricey. So a player like Giourd who has a totally different game to what we're used to was the next best option? Or a Chamakh? Think about it.

i didnt say Giroud should be our main guy, but IM also not gonna shit on him either. He has been very prolific for us.

The point I am making is I dont think Wenger decided to not buy fast strikers (well its not really fast strikers, but players with great movement). Those strikers cost a lot of money and the club could not afford them in the period prior to Giroud.

A player like Bony and Ba are not that pacy and play similar to Giroud. Remy just isnt that good.

The closest we got was Suarez, and we got him until Liverpool decided not to honor his contract.

[Power n Glory]

i didnt say Giroud should be our main guy, but IM also not gonna shit on him either. He has been very prolific for us.

The point I am making is I dont think Wenger decided to not buy fast strikers (well its not really fast strikers, but players with great movement). Those strikers cost a lot of money and the club could not afford them in the period prior to Giroud.

A player like Bony and Ba are not that pacy and play similar to Giroud. Remy just isnt that good.

The closest we got was Suarez, and we got him until Liverpool decided not to honor his contract.

I don’t believe quick mobile players weren’t available in the market at the time. World Class players that were quick and mobile…yes I’d agree there weren’t many around for cheap but I think we’re really stretching things if you Giroud was the fastest player we could find at that price and quality. I already mentioned the Dortmund players and Suarez at Ajax.

It also goes back further to when we signed Chamakh. It’s partly born out of circumstance but I believe it’s tactical because Wenger was reluctant to play short strikers on their own up front. We bought Vela as a striker but Wenger wouldn’t play him through the middle on his own. Pushed him wide when we were playing 4-3-3. He did the same to Eduardo and we’ve had Walcott here for years and he’d never give him games through the middle. I believe Wenger wanted a striker that could complement our style and keep the pressure in our opponents half. A striker that can hold the ball in our opponents half.

You’ve made the argument yourself against Walcott saying he couldn’t hold the ball up to save his life. He may not be able to hold the ball up like Giroud but I believe that strategy slows us down, leaves us vulnerable to counters and we don’t have the players or movement up front to break down a compact defence. The eye of the needle pass stuff is boring and risky. I get we’d be just as vulnerable if we have a small striker that gets bullied off the ball constantly but I think we’ve seen a glimpse of how it should be done recently. As I said ages ago, a small striker doesn’t need to match a defender physically to keep the ball in our opponents half.

[mastermind84]

I don’t believe quick mobile players weren’t available in the market at the time. World Class players that were quick and mobile…yes I’d agree there weren’t many around for cheap but I think we’re really stretching things if you Giroud was the fastest player we could find at that price and quality. I already mentioned the Dortmund players and Suarez at Ajax.
I never said the bolded

And Suarez cost 22 million. When Suarez signed, Arshavin was our most expensive purchase at 17 million. I dont think we had the money during that period.

Aubamayang flamed out at Milan and there wasnt that much evidence he was that good. He made the move to Dortmund in 2013. He is a very inconsisent finisher, but he seems to have found it this year.

Lewandowski is you hindsighting. You never heard of him but are mad that we didnt get him once he looked good. I do think our scouting sucks, but no one else in Europe went after him except Blackburn bizarrely.


It also goes back further to when we signed Chamakh. It’s partly born out of circumstance but I believe it’s tactical because Wenger was reluctant to play short strikers on their own up front. We bought Vela as a striker but Wenger wouldn’t play him through the middle on his own. Pushed him wide when we were playing 4-3-3. He did the same to Eduardo and we’ve had Walcott here for years and he’d never give him games through the middle. I believe Wenger wanted a striker that could complement our style and keep the pressure in our opponents half. A striker that can hold the ball in our opponents half.

You’ve made the argument yourself against Walcott saying he couldn’t hold the ball up to save his life. He may not be able to hold the ball up like Giroud but I believe that strategy slows us down, leaves us vulnerable to counters and we don’t have the players or movement up front to break down a compact defence. The eye of the needle pass stuff is boring and risky. I get we’d be just as vulnerable if we have a small striker that gets bullied off the ball constantly but I think we’ve seen a glimpse of how it should be done recently. As I said ages ago, a small striker doesn’t need to match a defender physically to keep the ball in our opponents half.
Our midfielders get in on goal because our CF can hold the ball up. Its a big reason why the fall of Adebayor was probably the biggest blunder we've had the last 10 years. He was that plus he could get behind defenses. Adebayor is the player Wenger wants up there but Adebayor talent is rare. I do think Wenger wants bigger guys up front, but I disagree completely about him not wanting speed.

[Power n Glory]

I'm not saying he doesn't want speed. But it's clear he has priotised physical size and hold up play over speed. My hindsight over certain players is irrelevant. It's Wenger and the scouts that should be aware of these players. Not me and just further proves the point that there were players available and could very well be more out there now.

As for Suarez, we sold Ade for £25m and that sat in the bank for a while. I don't believe we'd have gone bust with that signing. £5m more than our record signing.

I think the players we've bought reflects on our unbalanced team. Too heavy at the top but very light in midfield. Wenger trying to find another Adebayor hasn't helped up. You only have to look at his words on Chamakh when we signed him to see the strategy at play. I just think it was wrong.

[mastermind84]

As for Suarez, we sold Ade for £25m and that sat in the bank for a while. I don't believe we'd have gone bust with that signing. £5m more than our record signing.

not bust, but Arsenal is not a club that can sign expensive flops. Particularly in that period. Its damaging. IT was damaging when we couldnt get bums like Bendtner off the books.

[Power n Glory]

not bust, but Arsenal is not a club that can sign expensive flops. Particularly in that period. Its damaging. IT was damaging when we couldnt get bums like Bendtner off the books.

Suarez wouldn't have been an expensive flop. Like David Villa at Valencia or Aguero at Atletico it shouldn't take a genius to see these players were worth the money.

We can't afford expensive flops and £22m isn't cheap. But you can't compare Suarez and Bendy in that regard. Two totally different risks being taken but we'll take the expensive gamble on bums like Bendy and pay £10m here another £10m there and £2m here and that's your £22m on flops.

Suarez moved to Liverpool in the January 2011 window. In the summer 2011 window we spent around £50m.

£12m on Ox,
£10m on Gervinho,
£10m Arteta
£8m Merts
£6m on Santos,
£3m on Park Chu Young
£1m on Campbell
£500k on Eisfield

Only two of those players are regular starters, Campbell was eligible to play because of his work permit, you've already said your piece on Ox, Gervinho, Santos and Park were flops already gone. That's what I deem expensive and risky over signing someone like Suarez. I don't understand why we were shopping in bargain basements and taking risks on players nobody ever heard of over proven players just destined for a move to a big club. Senseless stuff. Not wanting to take the risk resulted in the trophyless years and players leaving. Instead of investing the money from sales of players like Henry, Ade, RVP we'd go for the above type players. The ones on other top club would bid for.

[IBK]

Have we really seen enough of Walcott to make any solid judgements? He's played well in a few games, but that's all we've had from him because he's injured most of the time. Will we ever get a season out of him, or enough of a season to make a difference? He needs to have a RVC recovery and get a season under his belt. If he can't do that we need to be looking for a player who can. However good Theo is or isn't, makes no odds if he's not on the pitch.

Good question - but given that he's not had the striker's role for very long - the team has made a step change in terms of balance. He gives Ozil and Sanchez some space to work in, and we have seen the greater opportunities the team has had going forwards as a result. As you rightly say, however, can he stay on the pitch to make the new approach mean something for us.

[Kano]

If people are being honest with themselves then we already know the answer to that - no he can't. He'll score goals, put in some good performances but if by this age he is still getting injured so much then it will remain that way for the rest of his career. Walcott is not a player we can rely on to build a strategy around.

[Power n Glory]

First you were saying he can't play as striker and that he doesn't score goals and now the crystal ball is saying he'll never stay fit.

[mastermind84]

Suarez wouldn't have been an expensive flop. Like David Villa at Valencia or Aguero at Atletico it shouldn't take a genius to see these players were worth the money.

We can't afford expensive flops and £22m isn't cheap. But you can't compare Suarez and Bendy in that regard. Two totally different risks being taken but we'll take the expensive gamble on bums like Bendy and pay £10m here another £10m there and £2m here and that's your £22m on flops.
I didnt compare Suarez to Bendtner.

I mentioned Bendtner because we had bad contracts on the books like Bendtner's. Like Denislon's (who I loved as a player and really feel he got a raw deal). Like Diaby. Like Rosicky.

And if I told you a 23 year old striker, who is a proven nutcase, was scoring goals in Holland for fun, a lot of people would say "but its Holland?" Do not compare that situation to La Liga.

I do agree about nickel and diming that Wenger and Co did which either lead to talents like a Nasri and Koscielny, or bums like Gervinho. Its a tricky game.



Suarez moved to Liverpool in the January 2011 window. In the summer 2011 window we spent around £50m.

£12m on Ox,
£10m on Gervinho,
£10m Arteta
£8m Merts
£6m on Santos,
£3m on Park Chu Young
£1m on Campbell
£500k on Eisfield

Only two of those players are regular starters, Campbell was eligible to play because of his work permit, you've already said your piece on Ox, Gervinho, Santos and Park were flops already gone. That's what I deem expensive and risky over signing someone like Suarez. I don't understand why we were shopping in bargain basements and taking risks on players nobody ever heard of over proven players just destined for a move to a big club. Senseless stuff. Not wanting to take the risk resulted in the trophyless years and players leaving. Instead of investing the money from sales of players like Henry, Ade, RVP we'd go for the above type players. The ones on other top club would bid for.
I dont disagree with you entirely, but this summer we lost Fabregas and Nasri. Those monies were basically from those sales. Wenger may have felt its best to spread the quality instead of making the big huge signing. TBF, he had done that many times before and it was shown to be successful. (in 1999, we sold Anelka and signed Henry, Sukur, and Slyvinho)

He had just flopped with that summer's signings because I still feel he thought he could keep Nasri and Fabregas.

I dont know how that summer relates to Suarez though since we sold neither during that period.

[Power n Glory]

I know you're not comparing Bendy and Suarez as players but it's a bad comparison in terms of transfer risks. That should be obvious.

Again, fan perception of a potential signing and what league they play in is totally irrelevant. That's for the scouts and manager to make a call on. Also we bought Giroud, Gervinho, Park and Chamakh from the French league. Clubs that have no history of a producing great talent like Ajax. That's a another bad point you've made. Santos came from the Turkish league. Jenkinson and Ox came from the Championship. If we as fans accepted them, I seriosuly doubt there would have been strong objections from fans because a player came from Ajax with that sort of record. You only had to watch a couple of games of him to see what sort of player he was. He had a very sketchy history, it got worse at Liverpool but it makes no sense that we moved in after he had gone to Liverpool and lead astray by those northern, feral, racists. :lol:

But back to the original point. You say there were no players on the market we could afford at that time. I say you're wrong because I'm using Suarez's move to Liverpool as one example and also, the same year Liverpool bought Suarez, we bought Ox and Gervinho. That's the funds for that deal. £22m identified and we bought those two players early in the summer without having to sell. Gazidis also kept saying we had funds in the bank so I don't know how much more evidence you need. Can't always defend the indefensible. We just had a bad strategy.

[Kano]

First you were saying he can't play as striker and that he doesn't score goals and now the crystal ball is saying he'll never stay fit.

I don't think you need to be Derren Brown to see what a fuck up this boy is. 26 (closer to 27) and established as a legend in the medical industry and nothing more than another vanity project for Wenger.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think you need to be Derren Brown to see what a fuck up this boy is. 26 (closer to 27) and established as a legend in the medical industry and nothing more than another vanity project for Wenger.

Again, I remember you saying he doesn't contribute to this club and isn't good enough to be a striker for us. That's I find it comical. Keep those knives out for him. :lol:

[Kano]

This is too easy.

[Letters]

This is too easy.

Like your mum?



:woohoo:

:run:

[Kano]

If you like dead people sure, can't get easier than that.

[Power n Glory]

Letters, once again, digs himself into hole. :run:

[GP]

Well, that would be the first step.

[IBK]

If people are being honest with themselves then we already know the answer to that - no he can't. He'll score goals, put in some good performances but if by this age he is still getting injured so much then it will remain that way for the rest of his career. Walcott is not a player we can rely on to build a strategy around.

And this is the crux of it - Wenger has altered his approach, but his perennial gambles with crocked players, and inactivity with transfers as a result is likely to sabotage it.

[mastermind84]

I know you're not comparing Bendy and Suarez as players but it's a bad comparison in terms of transfer risks. That should be obvious.
I will say it once again, I was not making a comparison.

The point I was making is that Bendtner's contract, and the other bad contracts that were signed, may have impeded Arsenal going at Suarez. The money that could go for a Suarez was being spent elsewhere.


Again, fan perception of a potential signing and what league they play in is totally irrelevant. That's for the scouts and manager to make a call on. Also we bought Giroud, Gervinho, Park and Chamakh from the French league. Clubs that have no history of a producing great talent like Ajax. That's a another bad point you've made. Santos came from the Turkish league. Jenkinson and Ox came from the Championship. If we as fans accepted them, I seriosuly doubt there would have been strong objections from fans because a player came from Ajax with that sort of record. You only had to watch a couple of games of him to see what sort of player he was. He had a very sketchy history, it got worse at Liverpool but it makes no sense that we moved in after he had gone to Liverpool and lead astray by those northern, feral, racists. :lol:
thats a bad point.

Ligue 1 has a proven record of providing the Premier League with talent the last 10-15 years. Suarez is the only attacker from the Eredivsie to light up England since... I wouldnt count van Persie since he was a kid. What Ajax did in the 80s and 90s has nothing to do with today.

We seeing a great product from PSV struggle at United right now. PSV has a great history of producing players as well, right?

Suarez was the goods, but if someone was apprehensive at spending 20 million+ on him I would get it.


But back to the original point. You say there were no players on the market we could afford at that time. I say you're wrong because I'm using Suarez's move to Liverpool as one example and also, the same year Liverpool bought Suarez, we bought Ox and Gervinho. That's the funds for that deal. £22m identified and we bought those two players early in the summer without having to sell. Gazidis also kept saying we had funds in the bank so I don't know how much more evidence you need. Can't always defend the indefensible. We just had a bad strategy.
Dont believe everything the club said. Actions speak louder than words and Wenger and Gazidis are now saying that there are more funds available than before.

The way you are talking, you think Suarez was a slam dunk in 2011 to be great. He wasnt. I think the club scouted poorly and has for a while, but I understand the Suarez apprehension.

[Power n Glory]

Ligue 1 has a proven record of providing the Premier League with talent the last 10-15 years. Suarez is the only attacker from the Eredivsie to light up England since... I wouldnt count van Persie since he was a kid. What Ajax did in the 80s and 90s has nothing to do with today.


Well this is getting silly. :lol: We bought Park from a relegated Monaco in the French league. Giroud used to play in Ligue 2 for a while. Santos came from the Turkish league. Ox was playing in the Championship and he had very little experience in that league as well. Yet you understand the apprehension to buying Suarez because he played for Ajax? You’d be making perfect sense if we weren’t a club that took risks on players, but as said, Gervinho and Ox alone totalled up to £22m. Maybe we dropped the ball on some players but we can’t make lame excuses for them.

[mastermind84]

Yet you understand the apprehension to buying Suarez because he played for Ajax?
no, I understand anyone having an apprehension of paying 22 million for an attacker from the Eredivsie back when 22 million was a huge sum. Thats what I have said over and over.


Giroud lead Ligue 1 in goals. Park was a nonsense signing that I never liked. Santos was a Brazilian international. Chamberlain had big English clubs chasing him.

[Power n Glory]

no, I understand anyone having an apprehension of paying 22 million for an attacker from the Eredivsie back when 22 million was a huge sum. Thats what I have said over and over.


Giroud lead Ligue 1 in goals. Park was a nonsense signing that I never liked. Santos was a Brazilian international. Chamberlain had big English clubs chasing him.

Santos a Brazilian International. :lol:

Suarez was a top goal scorer too. How do you miss a guy that scored 49 goals from 48 in 09/10?

Again, the excuses are silly. Let’s just say we had RVP and weren’t looking for a striker at the time. That makes more sense. But to try and discredit the Dutch league when we’re buying guys from the Championship division and Turkish league is quite remarkable. £22m is a risk but so is spending that combined total on a teenager who hasn’t developed as quickly as you’d like and a winger in the French league that you could see was a very flawed player from his days in France.

And Suarez wasn't an international?

[mastermind84]

Suarez was a top goal scorer too.

In the Eredivisie.

Jozy Altidore scored 23 goals there.

Alfonso Alves scored like 100 goals in Holland and then was shit in Middlesborough. There is a track record of Eredivise attackers being terrible in England.

[Power n Glory]

In the Eredivisie.

Jozy Altidore scored 23 goals there.

Alfonso Alves scored like 100 goals in Holland and then was shit in Middlesborough. There is a track record of Eredivise attackers being terrible in England.

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

[mastermind84]

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:
for 8 million, DUDE!

The point I was making, and what you keep ignoring, is that Suarez cost 22 million in 2011. This club didnt have that much money and hedged the money they did have on bad contracts.

You are speaking with hindsight instead of remembering 2011.


What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud.
none of them cost 22 million.


It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.
were the club ever in for any of those players, minus Mata? And Mata isnt really hot stuff anyway.

The Xabi Alonso stuff seems like it was made up. Once Liverpool couldnt get Gareth Barry, Alonso was going nowhere. Villa and Silva were not serious.

[Power n Glory]

The point I was making, and what you keep ignoring, is that Suarez cost 22 million in 2011. This club didnt have that much money and hedged the money they did have on bad contracts.

I’m not ignoring the fee. I totally understand that £22m isn’t cheap. But when you take £10m and another £12m, spend it on two lesser players it equates to the same fee. Is that hard to understand? And we’re talking about a very flawed player from the French league and a kid that’s never played in the Premier League. Does that make sense?

[mastermind84]

I’m not ignoring the fee. I totally understand that £22m isn’t cheap. But when you take £10m and another £12m, spend it on two lesser players it equates to the same fee. Is that hard to understand? And we’re talking about a very flawed player from the French league and a kid that’s never played in the Premier League. Does that make sense?
and the thing i will repeat again, is that Wenger has done this before and the fans lauded him for it when those players turned into an Henry or Fabregas or Adebayor or RVP. He messed up with the players he bought for those fees but I get why he did it. Also the club needed more bodies, more depth. It turned out to be completely wrong and we needed a magician like Suarez but I get what the thinking was.

And Giroud is not a very flawed player. Thats crap. He is limited due to his lack of speed, but very flawed he is not. The wastemen you wanted earlier like Ba and Bony are flawed.

edit: I will amend this, Bony is not a wasteman. Remy is though.

[Power n Glory]

The flawed player I was referring to was Gervinho. The more depth argument doesn't work if you're combining the fees of Ox, Campbell, and Park with Gervinho's. Gervinho was a first team regular and the rest barely or never featured to help our season. We might have well spent £20m+ on a player that would feature and contribute.

What Wenger has done before and what he was lauded for is a different matter. He got it wrong but that's different to the players and money not being there. It's not a valid excuse. He was trying to make £20m stretch over 2 or 3 players and we just ended up diluting the quality of player. Yes, he messed up and that is the point I've been making from the start. I don't believe the type of player we needed was never available.

[Özil's Panoramic View]

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

:gp:

[IBK]

We bought Eduardo from the Croatian league after selling Henry!! Dude! :lol:

We’re really shifting goal posts here. What happened to quality strikers not being on the market? I think we have a serious scouting problem if they dismissed Suarez but had no problem going for players like Chamkah, Gervinho, Podolski and Giroud. Putting aside goal scoring records, stats and club rep, they have eyes. It should be clear as day which of the punch suits our style and who doesn’t. Dribbling ability, pace, stamina and intensity, handling pressure…Suarez is one example of many. It’s like us missing out on top keepers whilst we had Almunia, missing out on David Silva, Mata, David Villa..Xabi Alonso….it’s quite incredible. We had a flawed transfer strategy and I really don’t know how and why you’re making excuses for it. Especially when you can see where the money was spent.

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

[Power n Glory]

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

I agree with Wenger persisting with players and being stubborn but I don't think that's the case with Theo playing as striker or the striker position in general. Theo's had to really fight his way past the crowd for that position. This wasn't planned. If Wenger had his way, Sanogo would be his second striker from the bench. If Welbeck hadn't gotten injured, I doubt Theo would have had a long run either.

Theo playing as striker reminds me of how Flamini and Song emerged as DM's. If you recall, Wenger had Flamini pegged as a wingback and Song as a CB. If it weren't for injuries, neither player would have played in their preferred position. That's the case for Theo. He was a striker when we bought him, Wenger thinks otherwise and he's stubbornly played on the wing most of his career.

We've seen a few changes in personnel up front but Wenger has consistently valued height and power over pace and mobility. Adebayor, Bendy, Chamakh, Giroud, Sanogo...he's given more games and chances to these sorts of players over short, quick and nimble strikers. Maybe it's a fear of the shorter players being bullied off the ball but I think yesterday showed the weakness in having someone to slow to lose his marker and gets caught up in the physical battles.

We've had plenty of opportunities to move away from this sort of striker, as said, it goes as far back as Adebayor, but it's been an age since we bought a striker with pace. I just don't think Wenger has been looking for that sort if striker. When speaking of Martial moving to Utd, he said he saw him more as a wide player and not a striker.

As for building a castle on sand, I think we're building that if we continue on with Wenger. Regardless of who we buy or the type of player we need, he'll find a way to crock them. I thing his actions of the weekend proves the point I've been saying for a while. Sanchez imo would be the ideal candidate to convert into a striker. He's perfect for it. But he's just been crocked so we end up at square one again.

[Niall_Quinn]

The manager needs to buy more quality in the key positions and then learn how to rotate the squad so he can keep players fresh. Plenty of opportunity for Theo, Bif and A.N.Other if Wenger was sensible with his selection policies. As it is, his version of rotation is to change the whole team when he doesn't care about the result. Rest of the time the same players get run to death. Going back to buying quality in depth, he won't ever do that so everything else is a non-starter.

[selassie]

IMO our flaws in the transfer market have more to do with Wenger's desire to be proven right than anything else. He persists with players that he has developed rather than cashing in his chips and moving on - when more pragmatic managers would either accept that they are perennial crocks or that they will never fulfill their promise. Which brings us back to the question that I posed originally. With Walcott, I don't think the problem is the manager's vision for the player and what he brings to the team, I think it is that his castle may be built on sand - because there's no point building the team's new approach on a striker who looks like never being there for a whole season. We have Giroud who has shown consistently that he can't do the business over a period of time, and his alternative that is usually crocked. Wenger seems to insist on shooting himself in the foot.

I agree with both you and PnG, in terms of the squad, I think Wenger has mismanaged transfer windows for a good few seasons now, of course he bought well in Cech, Sanchez & Ozil but they really were no brainers and were brought in to improve our first XI which they all have and significantly. Where Wenger falls over is consistently leaving the squad short of quality and consistent back up players, I agree with you in as much as he does it to prove a point. The fact that he has to come out with statements like "Quality isn't linked to price" and stuff like that tells me all I need to know about his approach and stance on the transfer window. I'm more than happy with him to persist with players assuming they remain fit, the problem we have is that every single season we have half our players out crocked, the likes of Arteta and Rosicky are pretty much worthless to us now because they are never fit! They are essentially clogging up squad space.

I do agree with P'n'G in as much as we should have pace up front, the team seems to function better that way, some of our performances have been explosive with Theo up top, he might not be the solution but an alternative with pace would be better suited to the team than Giroud. Giroud is an OK player, he scores goals...but his lack of consistency and lack of pace lets him down.

Finally and I know I have banged on about this a bit, the problem for me is Wenger, he will always do enough to keep most of us satisfied but he will never do enough to move us forward. He needs to go now, we need a new man in who is a little more pragmatic and who is focused on moving the football team forward at all costs.

[IBK]

3 thoughtful posts, so I will do my best to give a considered reply.


PnG - I agree wholeheartedly with you about the principle of Walcott. As with so much about our manager, his promotion represented a lot that is good about Wenger. I think that he realises that with Ozil as a prime playmaker and Sanchez capable of drawing defences out of position, Walcott was a key link in a team evolving to deal with teams deling with our technical ability and close passing skills by having the discipline and patience to sit deep and catch us on the break. I think you also made the point some time ago that using Walcott's pace means that we don't have to play so high up the pitch and are therefore less vulnerable to the sucker punch. And the frustrating thing is that it was working extremely well - and Walcott was performing betters as a striker than many thought he was capable of. Earlier
this season we were looking like we had proper team balance and that was making a real difference to the way that we were able to impose ourselves upon teams rather than simply keeping possession and desperately looking for individual brilliance from a star player to do something exceptional to score.


But we have seen this fresh approach falter for the simplest of reasons. Walcott can't stay fit. And unlike our other brilliant players in this category - Rosicky and Wilshere - we have no replacement.


So we come to NQ's point. We don't have adequate back up. I think that if we didn't have the long long history of Wenger's key players being out long enough each season to kill us as far as the league is concerned we would give him more of the benefit of the doubt. But as it is, the Walcott situation more than any other recently illustrates something that I think most of us feel deep down. As Selassie says, it feels like he is Wenger is doing the bare minimum to give the illusion that we can still compete for trophies. The problem with Walcott is not the principle, it's the execution. The team works with him in it but winning the league relying on Walcott is a gamble, with more of a chance of it failing than succeeding when the player is absent as usual for months on end.


So I guess the real question is - is Wenger right to gamble with building a team around Walcott. As usual, the manager could say that this is justified. However a pragmatist - and the manager of one of Europe's top teams would say no - that this variable is something that can't be tolerated if the team is going to have the best chance of winning. in this sense I think we could say that Walcott sums up where we are as a team - an incomplete solution - and a player whose fitness issues will ultimately prevent us from winning the league.

[Power n Glory]

I wouldn't even suggest Wenger built the team around Walcott this season. I wouldn't go that far. He was on the bench for our opening 3 games and we looked just as lifeless in those games as we do right now. I'm really not sure what Wenger had planned for this season. It's way too early to say we got it wrong with Walcott. He could come back and fingers crossed, stay fit for the rest of the season. But then it comes back to injuries and fitness again. Sanchez is looking at roughly the same amount of time out as Walcott and that could set us back offensively. Cazorla may be out for a while and if Ozil picks up an injury it's curtains and we end up with a situation where we have a quick striker cause trouble but none of the service. All very hypothetical but the way things are with our injuries are going, I'm expecting more problems to unbalance the team.

[IBK]

I wouldn't even suggest Wenger built the team around Walcott this season. I wouldn't go that far. He was on the bench for our opening 3 games and we looked just as lifeless in those games as we do right now. I'm really not sure what Wenger had planned for this season. It's way too early to say we got it wrong with Walcott. He could come back and fingers crossed, stay fit for the rest of the season. But then it comes back to injuries and fitness again. Sanchez is looking at roughly the same amount of time out as Walcott and that could set us back offensively. Cazorla may be out for a while and if Ozil picks up an injury it's curtains and we end up with a situation where we have a quick striker cause trouble but none of the service. All very hypothetical but the way things are with our injuries are going, I'm expecting more problems to unbalance the team.

Hmmm - perhaps not 'built around' but I'm going to give Wenger the credit for having a plan to address our lack of penetration both last season and early this season. No point in having a plan (Walcott) - only for the player to be absent, though. As for Theo staying fit after he comes back - like all our other serial crocks, a betting man would stay well away. Only our manager would back this. And that's the problem!

[Kano]

What is the point of this guy? He's either out injured or a waste of space on the pitch. The little shit needs selling in the summer. I'm sure Liverpool would spend £30m on him.

[Marc Overmars]

The 10 years tribute - laughable.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I want rid of him.

Ten years of hoping he'll come good.

Fuck off.

[Power n Glory]

It might be time to move him on. He has to play through the middle as striker or nothing at all.


But considering we had 10 men and Wenger's tactics and instructions were unclear for this game, I'm not reacting off this game.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Wenger's tactics are suspect if they exist at all, but I doubt they involve telling Theo to run into offside positions whenever we are on the attack.

[Power n Glory]

The tactic was to get in behind their defenders and hit them on the counter. Sometimes it doesn't work out and were weren't creating much today. The passing was off today.

My main gripe with Theo and the tactics was him still playing on the left after Giroud went off. Senseless.

[Kano]

Wenger's tactics are suspect if they exist at all, but I doubt they involve telling Theo to run into offside positions whenever we are on the attack.

He threw back the years with today's performance on his decade anniversary. Played just like a 16-year-old.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Playing him is senseless. End of story.

Ten fucking years of next to nothing from him.

[fakeyank]

He cannot control the ball to save his life. That should be a basic minimum for someone playing professional football. It is even worse when you are on the wing and he is just atrocious.

[Marc Overmars]

I've been a supporter of his in the past and I do think he can be a useful option, but it's no good being useful 1 in 10 games. If that.

He's so limited and if we're not going to extract what use he does have (running in behind) out of him then there's no point of him being on the pitch.

[Power n Glory]

He has to be a striker or nothing at all. He has zero going for him on the wing. Zero.

[Xhaka Can’t]

He has to be a striker or nothing at all. He has zero going for him on the wing. Zero.

He truly excels at that.

[selassie]

I'd drop him to the bench for Alexis next game. His recent performances from the wing have been shameful. He can take his mate Ramsey with him too, both of them have been stinking up the joint.

[Master Splinter]

Walcunt.

[Niall_Quinn]

Walcunt.

Cunt for short

[IBK]

The tactic was to get in behind their defenders and hit them on the counter. Sometimes it doesn't work out and were weren't creating much today. The passing was off today.

My main gripe with Theo and the tactics was him still playing on the left after Giroud went off. Senseless.

This. At the time, I thought that given Chelsea's susceptibility to pace this season, sacrificing Giroud when Mertesacker went was understandable. The fact that we then conceded anyway, and allowed a Chelsea team to sit back, get bodies behind the ball and simply play long balls through on the break meant that Walcott was nullified. Because he does not have Giroud's ability to find the net when under pressure in a crowded penalty area. Walcott suits a particular style of play that is more open and counter-attacking. Did we play a high line because we don't have the MF solidity to sit back and play more on the counter? The choice of personnel and the playing style are just not joining up for us lately, and I think Theo is a victim of this.

[Niall_Quinn]

This. At the time, I thought that given Chelsea's susceptibility to pace this season, sacrificing Giroud when Mertesacker went was understandable. The fact that we then conceded anyway, and allowed a Chelsea team to sit back, get bodies behind the ball and simply play long balls through on the break meant that Walcott was nullified. Because he does not have Giroud's ability to find the net when under pressure in a crowded penalty area. Walcott suits a particular style of play that is more open and counter-attacking. Did we play a high line because we don't have the MF solidity to sit back and play more on the counter? The choice of personnel and the playing style are just not joining up for us lately, and I think Theo is a victim of this.

Agree with that to some extent. Any player would have a hard time making sense of Wenger's bizarre selections, tactics and formations. But even so, Walcott has been badly off form, of late he can't kick a ball without fucking up. He's back to his bad old days with a vengeance. He was never going to do anything today. At least with Giroud, pace or not, you have a sniff. A corner, a free kick, one of those scrambles in the box, we'd have been much better off with Bif than the hapless Theo. But Wenger won't have figured that out. For all the games he claims to watch he doesn't seem to see any of them.

[IBK]

Agree with that to some extent. Any player would have a hard time making sense of Wenger's bizarre selections, tactics and formations. But even so, Walcott has been badly off form, of late he can't kick a ball without fucking up. He's back to his bad old days with a vengeance. He was never going to do anything today. At least with Giroud, pace or not, you have a sniff. A corner, a free kick, one of those scrambles in the box, we'd have been much better off with Bif than the hapless Theo. But Wenger won't have figured that out. For all the games he claims to watch he doesn't seem to see any of them.

Its a real shame for me that we have not been able to play effectively on the counter without the likes of Coquelin to shield our back four, and Carzola to help Ozil out creativity wise. It would have been good to see what Walcott could do centrally with the right set up - but now his confidence is low. As is the Ox's, and Ramsey's.

[Power n Glory]

Well, it's pretty clear playing on the left with this set up isn't working. I'm not sure why after going down to 10 men Wenger kept him playing there? Why wasn't there anyone up top? Why not swith to 4-4-1 instead of playing a the same formation we play but just without a striker?

But IBK is right about that goal we conceded. Allowed Chelsea to sit back and that was it for counter attack strategy.

[Niall_Quinn]

Its a real shame for me that we have not been able to play effectively on the counter without the likes of Coquelin to shield our back four, and Carzola to help Ozil out creativity wise. It would have been good to see what Walcott could do centrally with the right set up - but now his confidence is low. As is the Ox's, and Ramsey's.

Wenger's fault again. Vidal, $17mill or thereabouts, £90kpw. But no, Coquelin (the chance find based on injuries to others) is invincible and will never get injured, so set off on a 60 game season as prepared as we always are under Wenger. Chambers can play there after all. Can't he? And Cazorla is reaching the end of the road. Ox can play there. Can't he? We'll never get a balanced team while Monsieur Le Fuckup is ramming square pegs into round holes while sitting on his chequebook.

It all points back to one man.

[selassie]

Wenger's fault again. Vidal, $17mill or thereabouts, £90kpw. But no, Coquelin (the chance find based on injuries to others) is invincible and will never get injured, so set off on a 60 game season as prepared as we always are under Wenger. Chambers can play there after all. Can't he? And Cazorla is reaching the end of the road. Ox can play there. Can't he? We'll never get a balanced team while Monsieur Le Fuckup is ramming square pegs into round holes while sitting on his chequebook.

It all points back to one man.

:gp:

I said after the window shut in the summer that Wenger had screwed up Midfield, we have the numbers...not the quality, the likes of Arteta, Flamini & to a lesser extent Rosicky are just there for the head count. Ramsey doesn't really play centrally anymore unless we have some sort of Midfield crisis and we're seeing now that he's just not got the game for a place in Central Midfield, so we're left with Caz & Coq and Wilshere who is always injured! Vidal was a no-brainer, cheap as chips and on fairly low wages yet we didn't move for him because he's not an improvement on what we have? :lol:

[IBK]

Wenger's fault again. Vidal, $17mill or thereabouts, £90kpw. But no, Coquelin (the chance find based on injuries to others) is invincible and will never get injured, so set off on a 60 game season as prepared as we always are under Wenger. Chambers can play there after all. Can't he? And Cazorla is reaching the end of the road. Ox can play there. Can't he? We'll never get a balanced team while Monsieur Le Fuckup is ramming square pegs into round holes while sitting on his chequebook.

It all points back to one man.

I agree that its a double whammy, really. Wenger's ongoing risk taking with injuries and refusal to accept that most players have a best position and are not multi-positional means that we are forever unbalanced.