Tony Adams: Graham was a better coach than Wenger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

I hate to date myself but 1-0 to Arsenal was a song way before George Graham was manager.

---

Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

I think Graham was undoubtably the better defensive coach.
Those figures are deceptive because they don't account for the fact that we're a much better side than we ever were under Graham. Our defence in terms of goals conceded is actually one of the best in the PL right now. But it's the worst in the top 4 and there's the point. We're now comparing ourselves with the best in the country and are found wanting.
Plus the way we concede goals show bad defensive organisation and coaching. We concede far too many from set pieces or long straight balls, situations which a Graham defence would cope with all day.
If we were 1-0 up in a tight game with 10 minutes to go and under the cosh under Graham then you could guarantee that more often than not we'd see it out and win the game.
These days if it's 1-0 with 10 minutes to go then even if we're not under the cosh (and we rarely are these days) there's a constant worry that we'll cock it up. And we do with depressing frequency.
In the Graham days, especially near the end, we were fairly mid-table and our goals conceded was still one of the best in the country. It wasn't pretty but we were pretty tight at the back.
Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.
And that's because for all his faults, for all the frustrations, Wenger is at a completely different level to Graham as a manager.

---

I'd argue that in 90-91 we may well have been better than this side to be honest, we were superb that year and had some flair as well, we were devastating going forward too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.

---

I'd have taken 6-5 to the Arsenal in the match up at St James' Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarzan

I'd have taken 6-5 to the Arsenal in the match up at St James' Park.

---

Should have finished the game at half time to be honest, there should be a rule that if you score 4 before half time then the game ends then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.

---

But 6-5 win is worth the same number of points as a 1-0 win.

Graham's Arsenal may have given "substance" to the song but the stats do not give it as much credence as people might think. One comparison I did not put up there is that in 15 seasons, Wenger's Arsenal have lost 10 or more games only once, whereas the Graham Arsenal did that in 5 of the 9 seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

But 6-5 win is worth the same number of points as a 1-0 win.

Graham's Arsenal may have given "substance" to the song but the stats do not give it as much credence as people might think. One comparison I did not put up there is that in 15 seasons, Wenger's Arsenal have lost 10 or more games only once, whereas the Graham Arsenal did that in 5 of the 9 seasons.

---

Did you see the players he had though?

There's no doubt the talent wasn't really there, we had Limpar who was as good as anything we have now and of course Wright apart from that though not a huge amount.

Graham's Arsenal were far superior defensively there's no question about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

I'd argue that in 90-91 we may well have been better than this side to be honest, we were superb that year and had some flair as well, we were devastating going forward too.

---

I'd give you that. But you're comparing our best season under Graham with our worst under Wenger.
Overall we've been a much better side under Wenger than Graham, that's pretty much impossible to dispute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

I'd give you that. But you're comparing our best season under Graham with our worst under Wenger.
Overall we've been a much better side under Wenger than Graham, that's pretty much impossible to dispute.

---

Yes true but you did say

Quote:

---

Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.

---

Wenger has built much better sides yes, in his earlier days those sides were amazing, last 6 years or so though there's not been too much of that. Those sides have not got the basics right and I've said many times I haven't really enjoyed watching them very often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

Did you see the players he had though?

There's no doubt the talent wasn't really there, we had Limpar who was as good as anything we have now and of course Wright apart from that though not a huge amount.

Graham's Arsenal were far superior defensively there's no question about that.

---

I think that the analysis I posted here would cause most people to question the assertion "far superior defensively". Better maybe, but far superior is a stretch.

For example, if we take the last 6 Wenger seasons, the Graham Arsenal beat the goals against total (which I think can be considered a bit of a benchmark for defensive capability) in just 2 of the 9 seasons.

TG:good:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

I think that the analysis I posted here would cause most people to question the assertion "far superior defensively". Better maybe, but far superior is a stretch.

For example, if we take the last 6 Wenger seasons, the Graham Arsenal beat the goals against total (which I think can be considered a bit of a benchmark for defensive capability) in just 2 of the 9 seasons.

---

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.

---

The counter argument to that could be that our midfield makes enough errors and do not protect the defense sufficiently. I think those days we were better as a defensive unit, but then we didn't score as freely either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunsofashburtongrove

The counter argument to that could be that our midfield makes enough errors and do not protect the defense sufficiently. I think those days we were better as a defensive unit, but then we didn't score as freely either.

---

That's true it does, but again because the opposition have less of the ball they have less opportunity to score. In the Graham days we didn't have too much possession, not on the deck anyway :lol:

The famous back 5 (6 if you include Bould who was a great defender) were phenomenal much much better than the defence now, it's really not comparable despite the stats.

It's a bit like comparing the best Wenger attacking teams with the average attacking Graham teams, simply no comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Graham laid the foundations without which I doubt Wenger would have achieved what he has. For example, Wenger inherited the back 5, so his lack of defensive coaching ability didn't affect us. However, now that Wenger himself has had to construct a defence, we've seen the consequences. Various reports suggest that Wenger barely works on defensive organisation (not just with the back 4, but in terms of midfielders tracking back and coordinating efforts etc) and the repercussions of this is clear whenever you see us concede silly goals through a lack of defensive solidity.
Wenger is very good at the technical side of coaching (in terms of developing a pass and move game, ensuring players are at peak fitness, their diets are optimal etc etc) but he does seem lacking when it comes to the "bread and butter" so to speak. It must also be said that, in recent years, even his much famed ability to develop players has to be questioned. Has he really been able to improve players like Diaby, Denilson, Bendtner, etc as he promised?

---

I agree with your post mate.

However I always laugh when people say Wenger came in and changed the fitness and diets of athletes in football. Wenger for one is not a personal trainer nor is he a nutritionist. Did he tell players that he doesnt want them to drink, he probably did but thats down to common sense not being revolutionary when it comes to fitness and training.

the ironic thing is that both rice and primorac were defenders whilst graham was an attacking midfielder

The defenders that we had back then were classical stoppers (I rate Bould above Keown :)), The only good defender that Wenger has bought in that mould is Campbel. The others including the current lot are more of sweeper backs if anything with good ability on the ball etc. This suits the present system which is more attack oriented as the old defense suited the old system which was based on a solid defense. Personally i would pick Arsene's teams over Grahams, largely due to the style of play. I might not like the possession football that much, but in full flow the team plays some crisp passing game The most balanced teams that we had was during 1999 to 2005 which had most of Grahams defensive line up for at least a few years, but Wenger did get some more than decent replacements in Sol,Cole and Lauren.

BTW was Keown used often by Graham. Thought he was loaned out for long spells. Any way i remember him only after Arsene took over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.

---

Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunsofashburtongrove

The defenders that we had back then were classical stoppers (I rate Bould above Keown :)), The only good defender that Wenger has bought in that mould is Campbel. The others including the current lot are more of sweeper backs if anything with good ability on the ball etc. This suits the present system which is more attack oriented as the old defense suited the old system which was based on a solid defense. Personally i would pick Arsene's teams over Grahams, largely due to the style of play. I might not like the possession football that much, but in full flow the team plays some crisp passing game The most balanced teams that we had was during 1999 to 2005 which had most of Grahams defensive line up for at least a few years, but Wenger did get some more than decent replacements in Sol,Cole and Lauren.

BTW was Keown used often by Graham. Thought he was loaned out for long spells. Any way i remember him only after Arsene took over

---

graham rarely used him at first and bought him back from everton for his last two years at the club so im not sure how much credit he can take for being part of that defence.

gus ceaser and o'leary were used a lot, the latter was there before graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

---

I think you're onto a loser there, rose-tinted spectacles always flat out beat logic and statistics.

I understand what Zim is saying. We are one of the best teams in the league now so naturally you think we would be conceding less than a team who finished midtable on a few occasions like the Graham's did. So I agree with our attack being the best form of defence now, which doesn't reflect the actual ability of our defence IMO, it shows what an effective attacking outlet we are compared to the team in the 90's.

Our defence was statistically better than United's before we hit the self destruct button last season. At no point though did I think we were a more drilled defensive unit than them.

I don't recall anything pre 1995, but did Graham's team ever consistently let leads slip to the extent we see today and in such an explosive manner? The way I picture it, is that we simply weren't a very good team back then, no one approached us with any fear and were more inclined to have a go. Today we are a good outfit and most teams come to the Emirates with little intention of troubling us thus making it easier to defend, however when placed under any sort of remote pressure we turn into an absolute wreck and I'm not entirely sure that can be said of the famous back line, and that right there is where I see the difference IMO. They didn't gain the reputation for being a robust defensive unit for nothing just how the team today isn't heavily criticised for nothing for being a soft touch at the back.

As for Adams, I don't think he's said anything radical anyway. Well maybe the "technical ability" thing, but I reckon he has a different meaning for that to what we have.

Quote:

---

“Good back four, everyone behind the ball, good at set plays, very George Graham. No disrespect to Arsene, but George’s coaching ability, defensive structure and technical ability, for me, is far better.

“No injustice to Arsene, but it’s his strength, and that was George’s particular strength.They say coaches are the best thieves and I think he stole it off Terry Venables.

“I think Arsene Wenger is a magnificent physiologist and psychologist. Those are the areas where he excels. He’s a lovely man and he has the respect of all the players he’s ever worked with.

---

Sounds like fair comments from someone who has first hand experience of the management style he played under, I don't think I'm going to question that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

Better defensive coach, obviously.
But who would I rather have as manager between Graham and Wenger?
Wenger every day of the week and twice on Sundays ##

---

Right now?

I'd take a defensive coach any day of the week. You have to start off by being organized, well structured and difficult to beat, before you play the pretty stuff. Once that foundation is there, you can mix it, especially in a league like the Prem. This is not South America or Spain, where technical stuff, passing and possession is the priority, and where you get time on the ball. The fast paced and physical nature of the premiership should be taken into account.

Trying to outscore the opposition with the purest form of attacking football you'll ever see with a 'you score 3 we score 4' attitude is a failure, when you can't do simple things like defending setpieces, or having the well trained discipline to defend as a team.

Wenger is trying to emulate Barca, but without the hard work that goes with it on the training pitch. Watch their workrate off the ball, and then watch ours :banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

I understand what Zim is saying. We are one of the best teams in the league now so naturally you think we would be conceding less than a team who finished midtable on a few occasions like the Graham's did. So I agree with our attack being the best form of defence now, which doesn't reflect the actual ability of our defence IMO, it shows what an effective attacking outlet we are compared to the team in the 90's.

Our defence was statistically better than United's before we hit the self destruct button last season. At no point though did I think we were a more drilled defensive unit than them.

I don't recall anything pre 1995, but did Graham's team ever consistently let leads slip to the extent we see today and in such an explosive manner? The way I picture it, is that we simply weren't a very good team back then, no one approached us with any fear and were more inclined to have a go. Today we are a good outfit and most teams come to the Emirates with little intention of troubling us thus making it easier to defend, however when placed under any sort of remote pressure we turn into an absolute wreck and I'm not entirely sure that can be said of the famous back line, and that right there is where I see the difference IMO. They didn't gain the reputation for being a robust defensive unit for nothing just how the team today isn't heavily criticised for nothing for being a soft touch at the back.

As for Adams, I don't think he's said anything radical anyway. Well maybe the "technical ability" thing, but I reckon he has a different meaning for that to what we have.

Sounds like fair comments from someone who has first hand experience of the management style he played under, I don't think I'm going to question that.

---

Great post and to be honest it's a joke we're even comparing the two defences because one was rock solid whilst the other is a complete shambles and makes errors consistently.

Put this defence in a team who doesn't control the ball as much as we do and they'd probably not be far off relegation, just look at the amount of basic errors they make.

How many defences give away 4 goal leads after all, or even lose after being 2-0 up (in one season as well)

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams...992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams...992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.

---

Can't really disagree with any of that, I'd have Wenger of his earlier years with his counter attacking teams though :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams...992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.

---

As I said earlier, I was not trying to prove that Wenger's defensive capabilities were better than Graham's; just that the much vaunted Graham defence was not the all dominant group that some keep promoting. In all honesty, the defence of Graham's defence comes across as being as blinkered as those defenders of Wenger who are now derisively called AKBs. [Puns intended.]

Anyway, it is interesting that you chose 1992/93 because in that season Arsenal lost 5 home games 1-0; won only 1 home game 1-0; lost 3 away games 1-0; and won 3 away games 1-0.

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKBapologist

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..

---

Sorry, I did not see your earlier attempt. I am glad that I can be of assistance in making the point.

Not sure any point has been made.

Letters post shows why such comparisons are meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

As I said earlier, I was not trying to prove that Wenger's defensive capabilities were better than Graham's; just that the much vaunted Graham defence was not the all dominant group that some keep promoting. In all honesty, the defence of Graham's defence comes across as being as blinkered as those defenders of Wenger who are now derisively called AKBs. [Puns intended.]

Anyway, it is interesting that you chose 1992/93 because in that season Arsenal lost 5 home games 1-0; won only 1 home game 1-0; lost 3 away games 1-0; and won 3 away games 1-0.

---

Not really, Graham's defence really was that good, they're not remembered as one of the best defences around for nothing, like I said we many times upset the odds through the ability to defend narrow leads.....that requires a great defensive unit. We won trophies due to our ability to keep superior attacking teams at bay.

This current lot are average, you don't give away 4-0 leads without there being something seriously wrong.

Incidentally you seem to have completely ignored Letter's post which clearly shows why your analysis is flawed, if you had put the current defence in that team from 92-93 we'd have been relegated IMO.

The difference between the two defences is huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKBapologist

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..

---

There's a very good reason for that though, simply because that Graham defence was amazing, I watched them enough times to be able to see how good they were...it doesn't take a genius to see that this Wenger defence is average at best.

You can simply thump a ball over the defence and beat it, you can stick a high ball in the air give it loads of problems, it makes basic errors fairly regularly and it doesn't play as a unit at all.

It really isn't very good at all, the evidence from this season just adds further strength to the argument.

With some decent coaching it cold be a lot better of course, as it does have a couple players at least who have ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boss

Not sure any point has been made.

Letters post shows why such comparisons are meaningless.

---

There is another reason is is meaningless and that is because the opposition we faced in Graham's era is not the same as we are facing now and have been in the last few years - the game has changed considerably. Graham did not have to face Ferguson's manu which, I hate to say, is the strongest team overall for the last 10+ years. Also, the way refereeing is done these days, a lot of the hard play of the Graham squad would have resulted in lots of red cards - again, the comparison is not possible to make for certain.

All you can say is that in Graham's era the team was reasonably successful in the environment of that time and the Invincibles were successful in their era. How Graham would have faired in these times is impossible to be certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarzan

There is another reason is is meaningless and that is because the opposition we faced in Graham's era is not the same as we are facing now and have been in the last few years - the game has changed considerably. Graham did not have to face Ferguson's manu which, I hate to say, is the strongest team overall for the last 10+ years. Also, the way refereeing is done these days, a lot of the hard play of the Graham squad would have resulted in lots of red cards - again, the comparison is not possible to make for certain.

All you can say is that in Graham's era the team was reasonably successful in the environment of that time and the Invincibles were successful in their era. How Graham would have faired in these times is impossible to be certain.

---

Yes true but we're purely talking about Graham's defence, this was around for a while whilst Wenger was manager and they were top notch then too (Adams retired in 2002).

Man U of 99 were exceptional, they had top quality players and won the treble of course, Man U were weaker for a spell in when they won nothing for 3 years and this year when they've looked average despite winning the title, the rest of the time they've been top quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

---

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.

---

Most of this I agree with though I do not think AW is completely dumb.. what I think is AW's problem is his stubborn nature. He took up this whole youth policy and wanted to prove to the world that he can win titles with them. Project youth is a FAIL and if he can get his head out of his arse, I think he can do a decent job. I do not think any incompetent coach couldve won the title without having lost a game the entire season. He is an academic and he definitely knows the problems that Arsenal face on the football field... question IMO is, is AW going to accept that project youth failed and move on?

Like a mad scientist, he's trying to convince the world that his theory works in practice. This job will tip him over the edge if he keeps this up. Maybe he's just a masochist and enjoys the torture. When asked about what it takes to be manager, his response was 'you have to be prepared to suffer and sacrifice everything'. That's a bleak outlook. He thinks about football 24/7 so he knows what is what but he's stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.

---

Thanks for the balanced and reasoned response to the discussion. As I said, I was trying to show that Graham's defence were not the all conquering gods that people make them out to be.

No one thought they were all conquering gods, just better than the "unit" we have today.

I was exaggerating for dramatic emphasis.

But what struck me upon re-reading the original articles was the following:
We won the League in 1989 and 1991 but we should have done so much more – we under-achieved with that squad.

It would seem that Arsenal as a club has a tendency to under-achieve irrespective of the manager.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toronto Gooner

Thanks for the balanced and reasoned response to the discussion. As I said, I was trying to show that Graham's defence were not the all conquering gods that people make them out to be.

---

I'm sorry, was I supposed to say that Wenger is a competent defensive coach? A good or great coach even? Okay, I'll do it but only if you can provide a shred of evidence it's true. As far as "balanced" and "reasoned" goes, who was saying Graham's defence consisted of all-conquering gods? Anyway, Graham has gone and Wenger's in the hot seat now. Statistically it can be misleadingly argued he's competent at organising and coaching the defence. I told you why the stats are lying but you decided that was unreasonable. Shame, maybe it was a mistake to base my argument on the facts and what we have been watching week-in, week-out. Want to beat Arsenal, just lump it over the middle and out-muscle the defence, or rack up the set pieces. It's not difficult, everyone's doing it. Upshot is that's not the signature of a good defence and neither is it the mark of a good coach. Graham wouldn't have allowed it in a million years. For Wenger it is normal. Where's the comparison? There isn't one.

BTW, I didn't say Wenger was a bad manager, I said he was an incompetent coach and if you look at his terrible substitutions, his inability to change the play, his insistence on having players out of position, his blind faith in mediocre players, his total failure to correct the mistakes that have cost us time and again it underlines the case against him. You can't level any of these charges at Graham, he was the superior coach beyond a shadow of doubt. On the other hand, it turned out he didn't have Wenger's character. It's also doubtful he could have brought the squad to the higher levels Wenger achieved in his early years, mainly through the acquisition of big, pacey and talented players perfectly suited to the league (a policy now abandoned). So in some areas Wenger's been the better manager. But a better coach? No way, it's not even close.

Looks like ol' Tony's back on the sauce again if he thinks Grahams a better coach than Wenger, but then again Adams is a shit thick fuckwit.