Tony Adams: Graham was a better coach than Wenger

[Tipsychubbs]

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

[Özim]

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)

[Letters]

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.

[Özim]

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

[Toronto Gooner]

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.

[AKBapologist]

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

[Toronto Gooner]

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.

[Boss]

Not sure any point has been made.

Letters post shows why such comparisons are meaningless.

[Özim]

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.

[Özim]

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.