Arsenal Thread

There is something very interesting in Arseblog about Oxlade-Chamberlain. Worth a read: http://arseblog.com/2012/02/boss-and-rvp-love-the-ox-but-aw-has-warning/

Wenger goes on about players enjoying themselves and being comfortable on the pitch, and even comparing Ox to Rooney and Fabregas when they were teenagers. That's exactly what I think, Ox just looks natural on the pitch. He's the record signing at Arsenal, he was brought on against United when we were massacred (baptism of fire?). But he didn't let any of this get to him. When RVP says he is a guy who focuses on the positives, that makes even more sense.
Let's hope the hype machine and the demands of international duty won't get to him either.


As for Arshavin, he played as a lone striker in Arsenal's attack 2 years ago, when we were short of CFs. Needless to say, a guy of his size won't thrive in a center forward position in the Premier League.
I still think he is best suited to be a second striker behind RVP, going back to a 4-4-2. His vertical passes to RVP are great, just watch his latest assists. Arshavin has that classic midfielder "no.10 type of vision". In this formation, Walcott could be used in the flanks doing what he does best. Gervinho and Ox could be either strikers or wide players.
 
Don't get me wrong, I would love us to try that formation and see if players play well like that. If we can get the Arshavin back that first signed for us I would try anything.

I think overall though Arshavin is a luxury player, one that drifts in and out of games and concentrates on what they do without much consideration for the rest of the areas of the team.

Arsenal in the last couple of years didn't have the luxary of having a luxary player. We needed players to do more, defend more and help the team more.

I also think it is Arshavins attitude/mentality that has hindered him aswell.

Basically there are lots of issues why I think Arshavin has not been successful the last couple of years, most to do with Arshavin himself but ofcourse how Wenger has dealt with him aswell.
 
Some will just say Arsenal dont pan out w/ players that came in on a high transfer pr£ce tag. As for Ox I like him , but wont get ahead from that performance. I'm not sure how Jack will turn out missing in action for so long.
 
We can slate Arshavin for his performances last 2 seasons or so but in no way as a player in a full career is it fair to compare him to pennant or walcott.

He has captianed Russia and done the business on the big international torunraments and in European games...Wlactoo maybe coudl replicate that but Id doubt it..Pennant never did any off that.
 
YouTube - theo walcott hattrick england vs croatia

This is why people think that Walcott is shit at the moment, because he isn't doing this week in week out and showed so much promise (Which I still think he does)

He showed alot of promise and when he scored this hatrick people were tlking about him like he is the next best thing. He is still 22 and can become better with more experience and by learning more.

Hopefully The Ox's star shines alot longer and with more consistancy and hopefully alot brighter.

But there is no doubt in my mind there is much more to come from both players.
 
Bobby, Walcott ALREADY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE...yes hes only 22 but been in the league since he was 16! thats more than enough to improve... You can clearly see that hes potential have already reach a peak! A football player gain experience and ability during their twenties but other than pacey assist and goal coming from running straight ahead on the wing, there is no magic from Walcott, he do the basic thing with the only GREAT ability he posses; pace. At 25-26year Walcott will be the exact same player with a decrease in pace. Yes maybe he will improve hes psychological game but I think he already reached hes footballing skill and potential.
 
Last edited:
lazyForken said:
Bobby, Walcott ALREADY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE...yes hes only 22 but been in the league since he was 16! thats more than enough to improve... You can clearly see that hes potential have already reach a peak! A football player gain experience and ability during their twenties but other than pacey assist and goal coming from running straight ahead on the wing, there is no magic from Walcott, he do the basic thing with the only GREAT ability he posses; pace. At 25-26year Walcott will be the exact same player with a decrease in pace =p ahah
Click to expand...

To say he has already reached his peak is a bit premature if you ask me. He may well have done but that is yet to be seen. But that is your opinion that he has reached his peak and will not improve, but it definately isn't mine.

Players still usually reach their peaks around 27-28 this is when they have been in the game for a long while, seen many many competitions come and go and can assess situatations better from their previous encounters.

Just because you have players like Fabregas and Rooney that were so good at such a young age and have kept that consistancy, doesn't mean every player that has great performances at 18 will continue to have that influence on games. Because they are learning every game and building their intelligence etc

Rooney, Fabregas and others that are world class at a young age are the exception and not the rule. Many players won't reach their footballing maturity until mid to late twenties.

Walcott in my eyes is still to reach his peak, just because he has played alot, doesn't mean he has all the experiences he needs to grow as a player.

hopefully The Ox can keep consistency and be a player like Fab/Rooney, but I fully expect him to have shit periods to his early career and hopefully people don't write him off so quickly.
 
So a player who is playing on a high level since his 16th is written off as a 22 year because he didn't turn out to be the next Messi or the next Henry.

So i'm gonna ask the same thing as with the Ox. When Arsenal bought Walcott, what expectations did you people had. And i'll give the same reference points as last time.

2 Walcott (obviously not, because most people are disappointed by the current Theo Walcott)
3 Waddle (a very important player for a CL winner)
4 Rooney (the best English player)
5 Henry (the best EPL player and among the 3 best players in Europe)
6 Messi, not only the best current player of the world, but a legend...


What where the people that are disappointed expected from Walcott.

Oh and i would say: 1 a good EPL player.
So he did better than i thought since he turned out to be 2, Theo Walcott, one of the best English players (if Walcott was a foreigner most people would not have been disappointed and Sven should never have selected him for a WC when he was 16).

I'm looking forward to your answers.
 
gerd said:
So a player who is playing on a high level since his 16th is written off as a 22 year because he didn't turn out to be the next Messi or the next Henry.

So i'm gonna ask the same thing as with the Ox. When Arsenal bought Walcott, what expectations did you people had. And i'll give the same reference points as last time.

2 Walcott (obviously not, because most people are disappointed by the current Theo Walcott)
3 Waddle (a very important player for a CL winner)
4 Rooney (the best English player)
5 Henry (the best EPL player and among the 3 best players in Europe)
6 Messi, not only the best current player of the world, but a legend...


What where the people that are disappointed expected from Walcott.

Oh and i would say: 1 a good EPL player.
So he did better than i thought since he turned out to be 2, Theo Walcott, one of the best English players (if Walcott was a foreigner most people would not have been disappointed and Sven should never have selected him for a WC when he was 16).

I'm looking forward to your answers.
Click to expand...

Henry was shit when he was 22 by the way. He started to become a legend when he joined arsenal at 24 was it?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
 
Walcott is likely to improve, of course, he's only 22, BUT... from my experience of watching young footballers, he won't be what people want him to be. By now we would have seen it already in him. His game relies pretty much on his pace and unfortunately I think he won't stay for more than 5 or 6 years more at Arsenal. When he begins to loose his legs, that will be it for him.
Pundits say he doesn't have a footballing brain and I'll say that's rather harsh. He knows what to do, it's just that his game is limited. That's why I say he's a 2 dimensional player.

As for Ox, when he was bought he was sort of an unknown quantity for most of us. But seeing him playing in the EPL, we see he has a lot in his repertoire, meaning he is more versatile. When he gets past 30's I can imagine him still being a good player, unlike Walcott.

As I'm writing this, I just saw Gary Neville saying how Ox never panics, that he has all those qualities and he's incredible for his age. From now on there's no turning back, the hype machine is in motion! Which is natural when a young player looks this promising and exciting. Now Wenger and the player himself will just have to deal with it the best way possible.

They have just put him in the English starting XI for Brazil 2014! :D
But from what I see of him, I definitely put my money on this kid.
 
C ronaldo was 18 when man utf bought him..within 2 years he was a top 10 or top 5 preimerhsip player

Fat ROnaldo was 18 when he went to PSv. by 20 he was a top 5 WORLD player

Giggs was a top premeirship and european player by time he was 20.

Walcott nearly 23? NO way hes goona be a legend

Ox...well Many of the best players in history have already been top international players by the time they were 18-20.

Some players mature better later but these are usually not pacey/skillful/dribblers but thinkers/passers/tactical players...
 
pes4lyfe said:
C ronaldo was 18 when man utf bought him..within 2 years he was a top 10 or top 5 preimerhsip player

Fat ROnaldo was 18 when he went to PSv. by 20 he was a top 5 WORLD player

Giggs was a top premeirship and european player by time he was 20.

Walcott nearly 23? NO way hes goona be a legend

Ox...well Many of the best players in history have already been top international players by the time they were 18-20.

Some players mature better later but these are usually not pacey/skillful/dribblers but thinkers/passers/tactical players...
Click to expand...

Yep there are many players that have had success from a young age, but it doesn't mean that every player that catches the eye early on will be great straight away. Some players take time.

I don't think Walcott will be a legend, but he doesn't have to be to be good for Arsenal and be part of a successful Arsenal team. I think this is what Gerd is trying to point out. He can be a good player for us and a good player to have for Arsenal and can help us achieve things. Don't be obsessed about him being a legend or a Fantastic player.

Anyway, you may be right, but you may be wrong :))
 
BobbyBox said:
Yep there are many players that have had success from a young age, but it doesn't mean that every player that catches the eye early on will be great straight away. Some players take time.

I don't think Walcott will be a legend, but he doesn't have to be to be good for Arsenal and be part of a successful Arsenal team. I think this is what Gerd is trying to point out. He can be a good player for us and a good player to have for Arsenal and can help us achieve things. Don't be obsessed about him being a legend or a Fantastic player.

Anyway, you may be right, but you may be wrong :))
Click to expand...

Sure we had players like ray parlour...We dont need 11 thierry henrys...just 1 or 2 per sqaud.

However, when you pay crazy money for a teenager

PEnnant
Walcott
OX

you expect/hope one of them becomes a top class player not just a good player.
 
gerd said:
So a player who is playing on a high level since his 16th is written off as a 22 year because he didn't turn out to be the next Messi or the next Henry.

So i'm gonna ask the same thing as with the Ox. When Arsenal bought Walcott, what expectations did you people had. And i'll give the same reference points as last time.

2 Walcott (obviously not, because most people are disappointed by the current Theo Walcott)
3 Waddle (a very important player for a CL winner)
4 Rooney (the best English player)
5 Henry (the best EPL player and among the 3 best players in Europe)
6 Messi, not only the best current player of the world, but a legend...


What where the people that are disappointed expected from Walcott.

Oh and i would say: 1 a good EPL player.
So he did better than i thought since he turned out to be 2, Theo Walcott, one of the best English players (if Walcott was a foreigner most people would not have been disappointed and Sven should never have selected him for a WC when he was 16).

I'm looking forward to your answers.
Click to expand...


Sven selected him cause he has talent and was promising! nothing else!

Now at 22...6 years in the league! He is NOT what people thought he Would have become!

Like I have said earlier, IMO he reached his peak! There is no sign that he will improve hes SKILLS. YES hes 22 and by 27-28 He will reach what I call is MEN CONFIDENCE, PSYCHOLOGICAL LIFT whatever but in term of SKILLS, he reached his PEAK.

Like you said , he is a very solid EPL player.

My point now with OX , is that that same Age, OX is showing MORE MEN CONFIDENCES and SKILLS than Theo Walcott at the very same age. Like Wenger said earlier this week , he play natural.

You can def see how Walcott is a stressed and anxious men when he play hes football and I began to think he was average when I saw how average he was at the u-21 euros.

Theres alot of player that didnt have the chance to play in the EPL at 16! And its definatly not because they were not good enough but werent given the chance! Wenger gave walcott the chance and yet 6 years later and a world cup still a 50/50 england international
 
pes4lyfe said:
C ronaldo was 18 when man utf bought him..within 2 years he was a top 10 or top 5 preimerhsip player

Fat ROnaldo was 18 when he went to PSv. by 20 he was a top 5 WORLD player

Giggs was a top premeirship and european player by time he was 20.

Walcott nearly 23? NO way hes goona be a legend

Ox...well Many of the best players in history have already been top international players by the time they were 18-20.

Some players mature better later but these are usually not pacey/skillful/dribblers but thinkers/passers/tactical players...
Click to expand...

Robbie Rensenbrink was a talented but unproven player in 1970, yet in 1978 he was the best player of the world. For every example you give to prove your point, i can give you other examples to contradict you.
Some players are very early, very good. For others it takes time...
 
gerd said:
Robbie Rensenbrink was a talented but unproven player in 1970, yet in 1978 he was the best player of the world. For every example you give to prove your point, i can give you other examples to contradict you.
Some players are very early, very good. For others it takes time...
Click to expand...

sure but pacey/skillful wingers usually peak early...usually, well they dont get faster with age moreso slower. Wlacott seems to rely on pace more than skill or intelligence, maybe those facotrs can improve even if his speed declines I guess?

plus as others say about wlacott hes been a 1st team player since 16 yers old.

If he only broke into the team at 20 like say Beckham then you would not expect him to get better for a few more seasons.

But he has had what? 6 seasons in 1st team at Southampton+Arsenal.


Now Ox, is fresh out the box...a box of oxo to sprinkle on your mince lol...anyway he can improve loads
 
Last edited:
pes4lyfe said:
sure but pacey/skillful wingers usually peak early...usually,
Click to expand...


That is exactly the kind of player Robbie Rensenbrink was.

The thing is that when getting older most people loose pace, but they have more experience and better placement and movement. This is perhaps even more important than pace...now i got to concede that IMO Walcott's weak point is his decision making...
 
gerd said:
That is exactly the kind of player Robbie Rensenbrink was.

The thing is that when getting older most people loose pace, but they have more experience and better placement and movement. This is perhaps even more important than pace...now i got to concede that IMO Walcott's weak point is his decision making...
Click to expand...

yeh thats what I said...hes awarness and know what and when to do things will imporve even if his pace drops.

Look at Giggs has he slowed down? Still going strong in his 30s and he was all about speed and dribbling skills
 
Well IMO you cant compare giggs skills and touch to a guy like Walcott...If a player like OX and coquelin keep breaking into the team I wont be suprise that Arsenal dont renew walcott contract
 
Especially If Walcott asks for 100k a week in his renewal, which would be joke really, as he knows what Fabregas earned (90k) was the limit.

Another intriguing thing about Ox is that he doesn't have the face of a teenager, more like a man near his 40s :LOL:
ox460_12-460x250.jpg
 
Rentboy said:
Especially If Walcott asks for 100k a week in his renewal, which would be joke really, as he knows what Fabregas earned (90k) was the limit.

Another intriguing thing about Ox is that he doesn't have the face of a teenager, more like a man near his 40s :LOL:
ox460_12-460x250.jpg
Click to expand...

ahahah a 40 year old with no facial hair =p
 
Rentboy said:
Here's a rather interesting read about Kroenke ownership:
http://goonertalk.com/2012/02/06/silent-stan-its-all-about-the-money/#more-8899
Click to expand...

Well, to me it is mostly a lot of bollocks, based on what people think and heresay, which is just silly.

Some of the statements are just ridiculous, including his justification of Usmanov because some of our players did wrong. His comment about not going to Nigeria because they should 'spend their money on the starving people and the local markets?!' just pure drivel.

Also the lines about how he thinks Stan won't watch Arsenal because he has other interests like four ranches to fish and hunt or to visit his vineyard?!

the two letters you can probably find letters for any club from disgruntled fans about many situations.

This guy is the last guy you want to take any notice of when reading blogs. He sounds desperate.

I am not saying Stan is great or anything, but that's just it, I don't know what he plans to do and so does nobody else (which is a problem at the moment and is why we get these silly posts from people).
 
BobbyBox said:
Well, to me it is mostly a lot of bollocks, based on what people think and heresay, which is just silly.

Some of the statements are just ridiculous, including his justification of Usmanov because some of our players did wrong. His comment about not going to Nigeria because they should 'spend their money on the starving people and the local markets?!' just pure drivel.

Also the lines about how he thinks Stan won't watch Arsenal because he has other interests like four ranches to fish and hunt or to visit his vineyard?!

the two letters you can probably find letters for any club from disgruntled fans about many situations.

This guy is the last guy you want to take any notice of when reading blogs. He sounds desperate.

I am not saying Stan is great or anything, but that's just it, I don't know what he plans to do and so does nobody else (which is a problem at the moment and is why we get these silly posts from people).
Click to expand...

I know, his opinion about going to Nigeria is naive to say the least, and most stuff he says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Usmanov only looks interesting to some people because he has shown intent on spending heavy, this is a very attractive scenario for fans screaming to see our squad strengthened.

But it does raise some interesting questions about his intended model of ownership and especially Kroenke's quotes about the Glazers. Dammit, if Arsenal is responsibly run, then we don't need no ownership centered in one man... but if you're having this kind of ownership, your owner will be either the type who throws a lot of money from his own pocket, or the type who takes money from the club and into his own pocket.

That blogger may sound cheap and stupid sometimes when questioning why Kroenke had his travel and stay at the expense of the club... but it does raise the question of where did the money from previous seasons + Fab/Nasri transfers went to. To cover our debt? Or is it still available for Wenger to use?

I don't like the looks of Silent Stan...
 
Rentboy said:
I know, his opinion about going to Nigeria is naive to say the least, and most stuff he says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Usmanov only looks interesting to some people because he has shown intent on spending heavy, this is a very attractive scenario for fans screaming to see our squad strengthened.

But it does raise some interesting questions about his intended model of ownership and especially Kroenke's quotes about the Glazers. Dammit, if Arsenal is responsibly run, then we don't need no ownership centered in one man... but if you're having this kind of ownership, your owner will be either the type who throws a lot of money from his own pocket, or the type who takes money from the club and into his own pocket.

That blogger may sound cheap and stupid sometimes when questioning why Kroenke had his travel and stay at the expense of the club... but it does raise the question of where did the money from previous seasons + Fab/Nasri transfers went to. To cover our debt? Or is it still available for Wenger to use?

I don't like the looks of Silent Stan...
Click to expand...

I think we need to give the guy a chance he has barely taken the majority over and to be fare we were spending like this (or not spending) way before he was on the scene.

Stan seems to have done quite a bit for other teams he owns, from what I have read and has had success, so I wouldn't right him off too soon.

The bit about not buying in Janaury for a left back etc, was mainly because there were no decent left backs about (and we have two decent ones already). Also were there any decent attackers around to buy in Janaury? nobody knows, you cant just say you want to buy an attacker and then get any person you want. I think this was the fundamental reason why we didn't spend in January.

Also the remark about Winterburn saying we haven't got the money available. I know he was a past player (I loved the bloke) but to think Arsenal call up all of their old players and tell them how they are doing financial is silly. He is probably just guessing from what he has heard.

Also at the end of the day the club is a business and I can't blame the guy for wanting some money back from all of the money he used to buy the club. We were very lucky to have a board for so many years that supported the club and loved it, but now football is becoming more and more businesslike with the money invloved in the premiership especially and we have to accept it.

We spent money in the summer does nobody remember?! (12mil on Arteta, 11mil on Merts, 13 mil on Gervinho, 14 mil on The Ox, 7 mil on Santos, Park 3.4mil, Jenkinson 1.4mil....roughly around 60mill!) people keep asking where the money went, we spent quite a bit in the summer and I am sure wee have more to spend, but not until the summer when players are available.
 
Renttboy that's a bit rich ...from your end .What do you know of Stan? Most gooner blogs are poorly advised not many speak w a cup full to undergo such theory not your blogger of choice but also many others. Fans want trophies and gloaty rights by ANY means. Their interest is selfish like a pretty women that wants a constant make-over.

Iceman said the board lockout finishes in April. The board gave Stan the nod only until the board can get their monies from cousin benson all jokes a side.Stan has never had control of the clyb, when he does he will bring his own ppl in the board. look at his other sporting franchise .He not a rich bloke that looks to make a .buck n run
 
Of course only time will tell how it is, after he completes the takeover in April. But I don't like the idea of the club being owned by one guy, especially one who owns lots of other sporting franchises, meaning that Arsenal will be only one more investment. Whereas our board was previously comprised of individuals who dedicated a lot to the club and where very much involved with Arsenal, now it will be owned by one guy who will see it merely as one of his many investments. It's fair to say we can't be expecting that his heart's really in it...

How many statements has Kroenke released since increasing his shares and signalling his intent on taking over the club? This is only a first sign, and not a good one.

As for not buying in January, this is not his fault. It's more down to Wenger isn't it? We didn't necessarily need a dubious left back, I agree. But they received word from the medical staff that Jack Wilshere won't be back anytime soon. So what do they do? Buy the kid Eisfeld who, BTW, came injured already!

Much of the lack of activity in transfer windows must be down to Wenger. It was a good when he could bargain his way through the market, but this isn't possible anymore. Now the rich clubs are using Wenger's failed attempts as their own scouting system. AW cannot afford to have failed bids anymore these days: he was playing hardball with Valencia for Juan Mata, remember? Offering £15m when they wanted £20m... Chelsea sees it and goes "hummm, this Mata fella must be good, here take £25m!"
Now we're allegedly doing the same with Podolski. Koln only accepts letting him go in the summer... but now everybody knows we went for him. I very much doubt Arsenal will end up landing him.

Kroenke's stance so far looks like one of an absent owner, who will be rather passive regarding those issues. I just don't see things changing for better. They will stay the same as before, but this time around we will be in the pockets of a big sports tycoon. We will be much more dependant of one man and I'm not sure I like this.
 
Well, you seem strong by your conviction will see I personally don't want a owner at the grounds everyday showing hus cock power or picking what players to pick either. Whether its too much of a bite to chew is somthing will just wait n see.. I for the life of me dont get your theory on buying players .Wenger wants a player and when it leaks out everyone else out bids us. I dont agree how do we know Chelseas plan? to say they wanted Mata only after us and did Wenger really wanted Mata? We got gervinho . Wenger never mention until the deal is done so all thoses from a reliable source means Wenger was window shoppIng I know a few mutd feel mancity scouting is from mutd but its not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom