When do we start to believe ?

[Ollie the Optimist]

in the last two years, chelsea finished behind us and then 2 points ahead last season. how can they be a much better team in terms of a title challenge? the evidence is there that we are dam close to them. it says a lot about chelsea that if you take lukakus goals from last season and this (25) its more then all of chelseas strikers combined in that time (16)

city's away form is abysmal. 2nd away win of the season for them was won in decemeber. thats not title challenging form at all and they haven't had tricky away games ether. cardiff, sunderland, villa, stoke. their hardest away game has been chelsea. everyone says that when city get their away form together, they will be the side to beat. why are they the side to beat? why aren't the team who have been the best side in 2013 (we have the most points in this year) the side to beat?

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Walcott has barely come back. If resting players is that important then having someone like Theo who has barely played, for the second half of the season can only be of benefit. Or doesn't it work like that?

I'm not basing the discussion on Jesus Navas by stats, solely by incosistent performances and that's not a huge slide against him, it's unfair to expect consistency from somebody if they aren't consistently playing. Anyway two of those goals came against Tottenham which is not to be churlish enough to take them away from him but like you say, you can point to 1 or 2 games.

I don't think Man City's squad is as good as it was in 2011/2012. Tottenham have shown that spending money doesn't neccesarily equate to a squad ready to take good results week after week but nobody seems to want to challenge that perception for Chelsea and Man City.

We only had congested areas to play through because Everton pressed us so well. Players do have poor games from time to time, you said that about Jesus Navas not long ago and you're not attributing those games of his due to tiredness and I understand that's because he hasn't played as many minutes but this whole tiredness excuse is becoming so easy to wheel out, I wonder what the point is in coaching players to do anything else other than have physical endurance.

I don't know what rest means. How long for when a player is truly rested? Ramsey just had two weeks off internationals, five games after that he's now physically struggling supposedly. My instinct for Özil is that no, he won't need it. I said Mourinho very often picked which obviously suggests he is fairly robust enough.

Well no, it doesn't work like that. We're talking about now, not the future. If Theo is fit to start then he should play, there's no point holding him back then unleashing him in the second half of the season hoping that it'll benefit us then, we might be 10 points behind come April, our run of tough fixtures start now. And as I mentioned earlier, he has played enough to gain fitness and start a game. If I remember correctly he came back for the Southampton game. He also featured in Marseille, Cardiff and Hull. He is near full fitness so why didn't he start? If we aren't going to rotate our squad at key moments of the season, when will we?

Everton pressed us well but the best way to counter those type of tactics is to use expansion football. Use wingers to draw their players out, then create angles to work around them. We did none of that yesterday because we tried the tippy tappy stuff through the middle. In the end, it didn't work and we were left frustrated because they blocked our efforts. With someone like Walcott in the team you have instant width, drawing their players out and creating more space to get in behind.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Well no, it doesn't work like that. We're talking about now, not the future. If Theo is fit to start then he should play, there's no point holding him back then unleashing him in the second half of the season hoping that it'll benefit us then, we might be 10 points behind come April, our run of tough fixtures start now. And as I mentioned earlier, he has played enough to gain fitness and start a game. If I remember correctly he came back for the Southampton game. He also featured in Marseille, Cardiff and Hull. He is near full fitness so why didn't he start? If we aren't going to rotate our squad at key moments of the season, when will we?

Everton pressed us well but the best way to counter those type of tactics is to use expansion football. Use wingers to draw their players out, then create angles to work around them. We did none of that yesterday because we tried the tippy tappy stuff through the middle. In the end, it didn't work and we were left frustrated because they blocked our efforts. With someone like Walcott in the team you have instant width, drawing their players out and creating more space to get in behind.

I'm not suggesting that's indeed what we're doing, I just find it a little odd that there is clamouring for Theo when by the rationale given to all other players, in a couple of weeks he'll be in need of a rest. I agree that Theo should be playing, if he makes our team better and if that's the case then I hope he does as much as possible.

However the very idea of resting players is always thinking about the future game, so I don't think you can say we're talking about the here and now because that's not what resting players is attempting to achieve - resting players is really in opposition to 'taking one game as it comes'. Also, we have been rotating and I am certain Theo will start on Wednesday.

The introduction of Theo has seemingly sparked discussion as to 'why he didn't start'. Why is it a bad thing that we had subs that came on and changed the game (well for a bit)? Isn't that what we're aiming for? If not then having a big squad is pointles because nobody will ever be comfortable with players coming off from the bench.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

I'm not suggesting that's indeed what we're doing, I just find it a little odd that there is clamouring for Theo when by the rationale given to all other players, in a couple of weeks he'll be in need of a rest. I agree that Theo should be playing, if he makes our team better and if that's the case then I hope he does as much as possible.

However the very idea of resting players is always thinking about the future game, so I don't think you can say we're talking about the here and now because that's not what resting players is attempting to achieve - resting players is really in opposition to 'taking one game as it comes'. Also, we have been rotating and I am certain Theo will start on Wednesday.

The introduction of Theo has seemingly sparked discussion as to 'why he didn't start'. Why is it a bad thing that we had subs that came on and changed the game (well for a bit)? Isn't that what we're aiming for? If not then having a big squad is pointles because nobody will ever be comfortable with players coming off from the bench.

I also think Theo will start on Wednesday but my discussion is more concerned with the league. Theo has come back from injury and slowly built his minutes up, to a point where he could have started against Everton. In my view, it would have enhanced our possibility of scoring goals and winning, rather than giving Everton the incentive to steam roll us.

As for the questions in your last paragraph, it isn't necessarily a bad thing but if we aren't going to maximise the use of our squad at important points of the season, what's the point? Ramsey and Ozil have played a lot and while I'm not suggesting both should have been rested, a fresh Theo coming back from injury would have been more dangerous than a tired Ramsey, for instance. Wenger goes on about this 'red zone' analysis regarding player fatigue and injury, well Ramsey, Ozil and Giroud must surely be in the black zone now.

Anyway, we'll see what happens after these run of games and where we are in the new year. I hope we don't come back to this discussion in January, because if we do, it means fatigue has indeed set in and we've slipped down the table.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I also think Theo will start on Wednesday but my discussion is more concerned with the league. Theo has come back from injury and slowly built his minutes up, to a point where he could have started against Everton. In my view, it would have enhanced our possibility of scoring goals and winning, rather than giving Everton the incentive to steam roll us.

As for the questions in your last paragraph, it isn't necessarily a bad thing but if we aren't going to maximise the use of our squad at important points of the season, what's the point? Ramsey and Ozil have played a lot and while I'm not suggesting both should have been rested, a fresh Theo coming back from injury would have been more dangerous than a tired Ramsey, for instance. Wenger goes on about this 'red zone' analysis regarding player fatigue and injury, well Ramsey, Ozil and Giroud must surely be in the black zone now.

Anyway, we'll see what happens after these run of games and where we are in the new year. I hope we don't come back to this discussion in January, because if we do, it means fatigue has indeed set in and we've slipped down the table.

I feel like Theo should start against Man City but if he does start against Napoli then that means somebody else doesn't, which would mean somebody has been rested.

Of course they've played a lot, they've been our best performing and most productive forward players this season - just like Hazard for Chelsea, or Aguero for Man City, they start most games. If they were past the red zone, they'd be injured. Some players are just that more robust than others. For somebody like Wilshere it makes more sense to make sure he doesn't play too many games in a week because of the inflammation his ankle is likely to suffer. Giroud didn't play against Hull so he had six full days off but I can't say his performance against Everton was particularly good, so what benefit to him did it give? I'd say, not much. How much rest are players supposed to get before they can go again, a week? And how many times does that have to occur?

If fatigue sets in by January then we don't have a hope in hell of winning the league, no amount of rotation would see them last the course until May. If you look at recent challengers to the Champions League, it's not until March they really faltered and in Villa's case they were in Europe that season too. There are other reasons for poor form than merely tiredness, otherwise it makes tactical management and discussion thereof rather pointless.

Teams like Newcastle and West Ham haven't had Europe to consider but going by the points put forward that it doesn't really matter if you play a large amount of games in a short space of time, which in this period is the case for all sides means they are just as likely to suffer 'fatigue' in upcoming games against us as you seem to think we will against them.

[AFC Leveller]

I understand why people doubt our credentials, a lot has happened in the past 8 years to create that perception of doubt, but I don't get why City and Chelsea are made out to be so much more legit. They've had some dire results but nothing seems to be said, you can bet your bottom dollar the next bad result we have will be held up as proof of our inability to challenge.

Chelsea haven't challenged for the league in years. This 'Mourinho factor' is bollocks, his 04/05 team was lightyears ahead of this crop.

City fluked it the other year but were nowhere to be seen last season.

Both have a lot of improving to do as well and the basis of what we've seen so far, we're the only side who have actually improved.

I agree with that.

City have lost 4 (i think) away from hone and drew to Saints so there is obviously a flaw there yet they are favourties because they have a big squad? Chelsea have also been outplayed and beaten by mediocre sides too so how come they arent singled out? Squad depth will be a slight advantage come March/April but who says we dont have depth? Vermaelen, Nacho and jenks have all proved to a certain extent they can come in and do a good job, the midfield has 2 playerw for every position (Theo/Gnabs, Pod/Ox, Rosicky/Ozil/Cazorla, Ramsey/Jack, Flams/Arteta etc). Its just upfront where we really do lack cover and we should dip into the market in January to avoid repeating the same mistakes we made in 2008.

[Özim]

I understand why people doubt our credentials, a lot has happened in the past 8 years to create that perception of doubt, but I don't get why City and Chelsea are made out to be so much more legit. They've had some dire results but nothing seems to be said, you can bet your bottom dollar the next bad result we have will be held up as proof of our inability to challenge.

Chelsea haven't challenged for the league in years. This 'Mourinho factor' is bollocks, his 04/05 team was lightyears ahead of this crop.

City fluked it the other year but were nowhere to be seen last season.

Both have a lot of improving to do as well and the basis of what we've seen so far, we're the only side who have actually improved.

Yeah they have had some dire results I agree but I can see both sides coming good in the 2nd half of the season, they haven't been great so far. I'm not convinced we can last the distance, I still think the squad looks a tad lightweight and will run out of steam when we get more injuries and players get tired, the other teams have a much deeper squad to pick from. If we made a signing or two in January that might convince me otherwise, but I can't see that happening to be honest.

[Letters]

Yeah they have had some dire results I agree but I can see both sides coming good in the 2nd half of the season, they haven't been great so far. I'm not convinced we can last the distance, I still think the squad looks a tad lightweight and will run out of steam when we get more injuries and players get tired, the other teams have a much deeper squad to pick from. If we made a signing or two in January that might convince me otherwise, but I can't see that happening to be honest.

I generally agree although if we get decent results in the next 2 games then I'll start to take us more seriously as contenders.
I don't think winning the title should be the benchmark for success this season though, given where we were last year.

[Özim]

I generally agree although if we get decent results in the next 2 games then I'll start to take us more seriously as contenders.
I don't think winning the title should be the benchmark for success this season though, given where we were last year.

Yes next couple games are big games and could convince me otherwise as well, it's true but given our position at the moment we probably won't get a better chance to win it for a while.

[Ollie the Optimist]

given the amount of injuries we've already had this season, using it as a reason why we won't the league to me just seems lazy. a lot of the reasons I've seen given as to why we won't win the league are based on things that happened years ago and no one can be bothered to change their views.

using the excuse we can't cope with injuries was true a few years ago, when you look at how many injuries we have had so far this season and how many of them together, we were still winning games. we have spent most of this season playing with no wingers because they are all injured and one striker with bentdner as back up because of injures yet are top by 5 points. its the same with squad depth, for all of chelseas supposed squad depth, they finished 2 points ahead last season and four behind the season before.

chelsea and city rotate their squads easily with their squad depth but it makes no difference if they can do that, if the players who come in then lose the game. if they need to bring in the reserve players and they keep losing as they have done most of the season in the so called easy games, then they can't rotate because they can't afford to lose.

there are some valid reasons why we might not win the league and as letters says, given where we were last year, we have already shown significant improvement but when talking about our title challenge, it bores me to keep reading outdated views such as arsenal can't cope with injuries, have no leaders, can't defend etc. everyone looks at what happened in 2008 not what Arsenal have done in 2013