Tony Adams: Graham was a better coach than Wenger

[Özim]

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.

[gunsofashburtongrove]

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.

[Özim]

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

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.

[Mr. Lahey]

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.

[Kano]

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

[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

[Toronto Gooner]

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.

[Kano]

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

[Darth Vela]

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.

[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.

“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.