Originally Posted by
IBK
I read it. And I have 2 problems with the article's arguments. First, while I accept both that football is a team game where a superstar can make less of a difference than, say basketball, and that Arsenal's main issues for years have been in defence, it is nonsense to suggest effectively that a world class football player cannot achieve great things individually. Look at Ronaldo in the World Cup, or the difference that the likes of de Bruyne; Salah; Hazard; Kane make to their respective teams - not just as team players but in their own right. There is a reason why strikers and forward players are the best paid in any team - their individual skills lead to goals, and generally speaking, the better they are the more goals they score/create.
Second, the article effectively exonerates Ozil from responsibility in an underperforming team. I too am frustrated by the 'too good for Arsenal' argument. Even our most vociferous detractors would struggle to argue that we do not have good players. We may have slipped out of the top four, but we are hardly a championship team, and I refuse to accept that the team is preventing our best paid player from shining. The wages Ozil commands mean that we should rightly expect more from him. Yes his assists recors is impressive, but does he, and has he lived up to his reputation? The answer is clearly no. We have simply not seen enough star quality from him consistently, and while I am prepared to give him a chance under a new manager, the current evidence is that he is not the game-changing player that we are paying for. It is perfectly reasonable to expect this of him whatever our shambolic situation at the back.
