Arsenal on the slide?

[Slacker]

Losing at home to Newcastle, WBA, Villa & Spurs: -12
Not losing at home to Man U and Chelsea, but winning instead: +6
Not losing at home to Man City, but drawing instead: +1
Beating Man City away after two crushing defeats in previous seasons: +3
Turning good wins against Liverpool, Wigan and Newcastle into losing draws: -6
Capitulating against shitkickers like Stoke & Blackburn without so much as a squeak: -6
Drawing at home with shitkickers Blackburn and Sunderland: -4
Losing to relegated Birmingham City in the Carling Cup final: -3
Fucking up the CL by sending substandard teams to away games: -6
Losing away in the CL to teams we stuffed 6-0 and 5-1 at home: -6
Coming 2nd in the CL group stages as a result.
Despite buying 2 new CD's, the central defence did not improve.
Despite buying a new centre forward, the forward line did not improve.
Despite being 2nd for 50% of the season & 4th for 4 weeks, still managed to come 4th.

The stats don't lie. Arsenal are in decline.

The worrying thing for me about AW is he would sooner we shelled out good money on average French players than average GHEL's. Surely a punt on someone like Roger Johnson at the end of last season would have been far better than spending rakes of cash on a player, albeit a France international, who has never encountered hoofball or shitkicking or GHEL culture in his career.

After watching his teams consistently fucking up against the likes of Stoke, Bolton, Blackburn, Hull, Sunderland and various others over the years I have to tip my hat to Arsene, because he keeps going back and getting his ass whipped and doesn't learn a fucking thing. That for me shows he really truly honestly doesn't "know".

Other than that I still hold some kind of belief. Why, I don't know...

[Toronto Gooner]

The stats don't lie. Arsenal are in decline.

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

[Boss]

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

You're beginning to look very silly with your constant tactic of deliberately missing the point and ignoring explanations to try and continue a futile argument.

Pls stop, ty.

[V-Pig]

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

Ooh, ooh! I know why!

[selassie]

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

George Graham's Championship winning defence or his mid table defence?

[Özim]

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

Because in the nicest possible way it was a ridiculous point, you only had to actually have watched them to see the difference.

With regards the information posted above, we watched the whole season....the stats just back up what we saw, a complete collapse and some embarrassing results (probably more than any other season I can remember)

[Letters]

The funny is that when I showed, using stats, that the George Graham defence was not substantially better than the Arsene Wenger defence, the cry was "stats mean nothing". I wonder why that is?

Did you actually read my posts in response to your stats? Please do, then we'll talk.
It's not that stats mean nothing, it's that they can be misused. You have misused them to try and make a point which is clearly wrong. I've explained why several times.
In response to Slacker I don't know what stat shows we're in decline. Did we get fewer points last year than the year before? Yes. But if you look at the points we got from 2003/4 on:

90
83
67
68
83
72
75
68

There are two years of clear decline and then a fairly flat line. There's no clear downward or upward trend. What there is is stagnation.

[Coney]

Did you actually read my posts in response to your stats? Please do, then we'll talk.
It's not that stats mean nothing, it's that they can be misused. You have misused them to try and make a point which is clearly wrong. I've explained why several times.
In response to Slacker I don't know what stat shows we're in decline. Did we get fewer points last year than the year before? Yes. But if you look at the points we got from 2003/4 on:

90
83
67
68
83
72
75
68

There are two years of clear decline and then a fairly flat line. There's no clear downward or upward trend. What there is is stagnation.

If you plot that alongside the average of, say, the top 4 sides each season, it will take into account (partially) how good the opposition in the league was in that year. The 'points scored' on it's own means less than some think. If several of the lower clubs had a shit year and we scored more points, it does not mean we played better than a year where the lower clubs played well and we scored fewer points. Factoring in how the other top sides did helps to take that effect into account.

[LDG]

We're not in decline.

We're just a bit shit at the moment. Emd of. Nothing that a few changes won't correct.

[Coney]

We're not in decline.

We're just a bit shit at the moment. Emd of. Nothing that a few changes won't correct.

(tm)