Not just internet warriors, you included. When Wenger and Fergie were going head to head, were you so quick to say Fergie was the better manager? The fact that we'll all admit that Fergie is better, casually like it's nothing, is saying a lot. Back after the Invincible win we'd have all said Wenger was destined to stand side by side or even above Fergie as an all-time great.Originally Posted by Letters
He's hardly managed since he left, did quite well at Leeds and Spurs though, didn't get long however.Yet you fawn over Graham who has achieved virtually nothing since he left Arsenal.
He was great back in the day. Football has caught up with his methods and now with silly money being thrown around and a combination of factors (one being his own damn stubbornness) he's no longer able to compete. That doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to belittle his past achievements.
He was great when he had an advantage over others and inherited some real leaders and was able to complement those with good signings.
When it comes to building a team off his own back though, he's shown that he's failed miserably, tactically, in terms of coaching and an ability to put together the right blend of players.
He's too rigid, too stubborn and unable to adapt.
Last edited by Özim; 22-01-2013 at 02:27 PM.
I think it's fair enough to lament the fact that Wenger might have been an all time great and probably isn't now.
But some bend over backwards to dismiss his achievements - someone even said something about the Invincibles not being a Wenger team because it had Bergkamp in it
The Invincibles was entirely his team bar Bergkamp. He didn't inherit Vieira who gave us the leadership on the pitch back then.
After the 'no Plan B' era we have always opted to have 1 big man in the squad to at least give us the threat at crosses.
At the time we passed on Samaras and Zigic, plumped for Adebayor instead, and since then have had Bendtner, Chamakh and now Giroud.
The problem isn't so much with the style itself (though our crossing is such that plan B was never that effective), it's that with the lack of options now in the squad, the plan A we had with the Dutchman no longer exists.
Plan B1 (bigman holdup), B2 (fastman, ball in behind) and B3 (dribblyman, pulls wide) all have only functioned this season to varying degrees.
The one guy in our squad who potentially could play the false 9 role (Podolski) is never played in this way.
Your style of play is fundamentally informed by the abilities of the players at your disposal, so either we buy a forward to fit the style we want to play, or change or style. Giroud can be made to be an effective forward, but it may not be as an out-and-out goalscorer. It may be as a buffer and a wall for the 3 attacking midfielders behind him to play off and score the goals. A more selfless workhorse type forward who uses his physicality to move defences around.
In short, he could be our Emile Heskey.
How can be an all-time great back then but not considered one now? Why do you say that?I think it's fair enough to lament the fact that Wenger might have been an all time great and probably isn't now.
But some bend over backwards to dismiss his achievements - someone even said something about the Invincibles not being a Wenger team because it had Bergkamp in it
I said he might have been one. It obviously depended on what he went on to do and while keeping us in the top 4 in this era shouldn't be dismissed he hasn't continued the success he started, partly because of things outside his control like the billionaire owners, but he certainly could have done more and has failed to adapt to the current footballing climate.
I agree with that. I think Giroud could be decent playing with a strike partner or if we had better quality wingers that caused havoc. In this current set up, I doubt he'll flourish.
Speaking of Ade, the one thing he had other the other big men we've bought is pace and work rate. He used to drift all over the field and the more mobile he was, the harder he was to mark and keep a hold of. I remember Rio saying he hated playing against him because he was so busy. The rest lack that movement and that's why they get pinned down so easily. Bendy was slightly different because he'd have lazy games but could also have games where he'd drop deep and try to run at defenders as well. He wasn't super slow and static, which is why he probably ranks above Chamakh and Giroud in terms of usefulness. Some people will disagree with that but whatever.
Well yes.
He had the vision to change the way that football was played in this country into fast, counter attacking footbll. Now plenty of other teams have adopted some of these characteristics which is paying off.
Our play has become slow, laboured and at times, downright boring, and if we carry on at this rate, we'll back in mid table again.
I would say thats pretty ironic.
A tad bit disingenuous there, I'd say. Bordering on wumming, tbh.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote