Arsenal Thread

[bebo]

out of the top 4 and deservedly so! Sell the club to a mega rich! We`re the new Liverpool! but w/ a big stadium.

 

[Sabatasso]

This could have gone either way, and if you had won you wouldn't look so gloomy upon the situation. I think Wenger did some smart and surprising substitutes, and only panicked Spurs defending at the end denied you a point.

 

[gerd]

This could have gone either way, and if you had won you wouldn't look so gloomy upon the situation. I think Wenger did some smart and surprising substitutes, and only panicked Spurs defending at the end denied you a point.

I agree, for large parts Arsenal were dominating the game, it's in those games that you see that Spurs still haven't a winner's mentality...

 

[Rantboy]

Quite an even game really, just really awful defending for the two goals.

It is actually way beyond awful defending, because there were warning signs before those two goals, where Spurs tried exactly the same things and they nearly paid off. But our defence decided to pay no attention and let the score two goals in the same way in a matter of minutes. It's just comes down to pure stupidity imo they just don't seem to learn.

It doesn't matter if we have the best players in the world in midfield and attack, if we defend like that, we are going to always lose games.

We have given ourselves a real up hill challenge to take over one of Spurs or Chelsea. We need one of them to slip up badly to get in front and I just have no sign from Arsenal we can win our next 10 games in a row, so the chances are very slim.

Looks like it will be our first season in many years without the Champs league.....unless something great happens.

This was exactly the problem we'd been discussing here before. We don't adjust to neutralise our opposition's strengths. It's more like, "oh, Spurs have fast players like Bale and Lennon? So what! We'll just hold our back four line high up the pitch and see what happens".

You're right there had been warning signs before. Hell, the first goal was a warning sign in itself. How can we concede the 2nd immediately after that, is quite moronic!
The defenders were stupid to fall for that twice in quick succession, but the manager's at fault too.
Any manager worth their salt would have fixed that defence line in time before the second goal. And give those guys a proper bollocking.

All in all, I didn't see many encouraging signs of Arsenal on the ball, creating chances and all that. It seems the players wanted it, the desire was there, but the limitations were technical.

That Ramsey wasted chance sums us up in a way. Very frustrating to see that. One would think Arsenal players don't practice shots at goal at all.
There are some fundamentals missing, and I don't think they're being worked on the training ground. And Ramsey is a guy who gets deployed as a right winger sometimes! How can his finishing never get better? What's missing?

Now we've made life very difficult for ourselves indeed. The pressure is well and truly on.

 

[BobbyBox]

This was exactly the problem we'd been discussing here before. We don't adjust to neutralise our opposition's strengths. It's more like, "oh, Spurs have fast players like Bale and Lennon? So what! We'll just hold our back four line high up the pitch and see what happens".

You're right there had been warning signs before. Hell, the first goal was a warning sign in itself. How can we concede the 2nd immediately after that, is quite moronic!
The defenders were stupid to fall for that twice in quick succession, but the manager's at fault too.
Any manager worth their salt would have fixed that defence line in time before the second goal. And give those guys a proper bollocking.

All in all, I didn't see many encouraging signs of Arsenal on the ball, creating chances and all that. It seems the players wanted it, the desire was there, but the limitations were technical.

That Ramsey wasted chance sums us up in a way. Very frustrating to see that. One would think Arsenal players don't practice shots at goal at all.
There are some fundamentals missing, and I don't think they're being worked on the training ground. And Ramsey is a guy who gets deployed as a right winger sometimes! How can his finishing never get better? What's missing?

Now we've made life very difficult for ourselves indeed. The pressure is well and truly on.

The defensive mistakes were the defence not working together so that is Wenger and Boulds fault. They need to communicate more.

But Wenger can't be at fault for the goals themselves, if our defenders actually looked around and showed some awareness of the players around them, then the two chances would have been nulified. Sometimes it just looks like they don't know what they are doing?! they looked lost.

Bould an Wenger need to just concentrate on the basics of defending and drill it into their heads. A Defender needs to use their experience and their own ability in situations and the defenders didn't do any of that for the two goals.

you said 'Any manager worth their salt would have fixed that defence line in time before the second goal. And give those guys a proper bollocking'

That is a bit harsh how can Wenger bollock the team and sort out the defensive line when he can't get on to the pitch and sort it out. Also with the fact it happened within a couple of minutes from each other. The defenders need to not let that happen again and they didn't.

I'm all up for criticising where it is due but to say Wenger should have done that is just going over the top.

Anyway I saw encouraging signs. It was a close game away against a team everybody is creaming themselves over, we were in control for large parts especially up until their goals. Then we had some good periods in the second, but we exposed ourselves while going up to try and score more.

The major thing is letting in goals and our defensive frailty, it needs to be addressed. It should be priority number one. We were in control of that match and then it all slipped away in a couple of minutes, it really is shocking to see it happen again and again.

But saying that apparently we had the best defensive record in away games before this match (not sure now)

I thought Ramsey was one of our better players, he gave it all and got stuck in. He was unlucky from the shot he missed (If it is the one you are talking about?) the defender got back well and it deflected off of his leg and out? It wasn't a bad miss at all. He's versatile and can do a job anywhere on the pitch if needs be.

 

[Sabatasso]

I agree, for large parts Arsenal were dominating the game, it's in those games that you see that Spurs still haven't a winner's mentality...

Yeah, clearly. Both Sigurdsson and Bale missed 100% sitters that should have buried the game beyond hope for Arsenal.

I hope Adebayor isn't seriously injured but Defoe is twice the striker really. He nearly got one straight after coming on, and he need like 2.5 inches of space to pull off a shot. I love Defoe, I really do. Adebayor has started to fight and work, which is good but it also means he never is where he's supposed to be which is vital for a lone striker.


PS. I also thought Ramsey did a good job today. He did get a lot of space as a right back, seems Ekotto believes himself a center back or something.. and it isn't the first time he's been consistently leaving his flank wide open. I hope we buy Ansaldi to be honest, and get rid of Ekotto once and for all.

 

[The_Special_One]

But saying that apparently we had the best defensive record in away games before this match (not sure now)

That's weird. Tbh, Pistorius has a more convincing defence than Arsenal.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Bobby now do u believe wenger should be sacked now?

 

[Rantboy]

The defensive mistakes were the defence not working together so that is Wenger and Boulds fault. They need to communicate more.

But Wenger can't be at fault for the goals themselves, if our defenders actually looked around and showed some awareness of the players around them, then the two chances would have been nulified. Sometimes it just looks like they don't know what they are doing?! they looked lost.

Bould an Wenger need to just concentrate on the basics of defending and drill it into their heads. A Defender needs to use their experience and their own ability in situations and the defenders didn't do any of that for the two goals.

you said 'Any manager worth their salt would have fixed that defence line in time before the second goal. And give those guys a proper bollocking'

That is a bit harsh how can Wenger bollock the team and sort out the defensive line when he can't get on to the pitch and sort it out. Also with the fact it happened within a couple of minutes from each other. The defenders need to not let that happen again and they didn't.

I'm all up for criticising where it is due but to say Wenger should have done that is just going over the top.

Anyway I saw encouraging signs. It was a close game away against a team everybody is creaming themselves over, we were in control for large parts especially up until their goals. Then we had some good periods in the second, but we exposed ourselves while going up to try and score more.

The major thing is letting in goals and our defensive frailty, it needs to be addressed. It should be priority number one. We were in control of that match and then it all slipped away in a couple of minutes, it really is shocking to see it happen again and again.

But saying that apparently we had the best defensive record in away games before this match (not sure now)

I thought Ramsey was one of our better players, he gave it all and got stuck in. He was unlucky from the shot he missed (If it is the one you are talking about?) the defender got back well and it deflected off of his leg and out? It wasn't a bad miss at all. He's versatile and can do a job anywhere on the pitch if needs be.

Ramsey did a pretty solid job overall, I agree. But what I'm criticising is the miss (and the apparent lack of shooting practice at London Colney). If you watch that replay from the angle behind goal, you will see that it was a poor hit and it was going out wide even without the deflection. And as a professional football player, you'll want to be at least hitting it on target from a position like that.

I'm not singling out Ramsey for that one. I know that Gervinho, for instance, could have done even worse there, and that's symptomatic of the whole team, not just one guy. We're not efficient enough in positions where we should be.

As for the defence positioning and Wenger not reacting about it, it does sound harsh what I said, but think about it - you see many managers going absolutely livid when something goes terribly wrong and many would bark orders immediately. There was a space of 2 or 3 minutes between the goals where Wenger could have given a message to his defence. Those diagonal runs from Bale and Lennon were going on for a while by that point, and Wenger and Bould should have seen it. It was almost half time, so I don't know, do something, tell your defence to drop further back to deny that space. Any through ball could cut us like butter there, and it took them too long to react. I think they only fixed at half time.
Wenger and Bould should have told the defence and midfield to position themselves deeper and they should have taken this action immediately after the 1st goal at least IMO. It was a temporary solution for that problem, and then they could sort it out in another way at half time talk.

But inaction has cost us dearly again. I'm a bit fed up with this approach of not changing our style to anyone. It's archaic, stupid or arrogant, your choice.
Powerful teams (such as Chelsea or City) would have dealt with that situation differently, with a bigger focus on defending. Why can't Arsenal?

 

[BobbyBox]

Ramsey did a pretty solid job overall, I agree. But what I'm criticising is the miss (and the apparent lack of shooting practice at London Colney). If you watch that replay from the angle behind goal, you will see that it was a poor hit and it was going out wide even without the deflection. And as a professional football player, you'll want to be at least hitting it on target from a position like that.

I'm not singling out Ramsey for that one. I know that Gervinho, for instance, could have done even worse there, and that's symptomatic of the whole team, not just one guy. We're not efficient enough in positions where we should be.

As for the defence positioning and Wenger not reacting about it, it does sound harsh what I said, but think about it - you see many managers going absolutely livid when something goes terribly wrong and many would bark orders immediately. There was a space of 2 or 3 minutes between the goals where Wenger could have given a message to his defence. Those diagonal runs from Bale and Lennon were going on for a while by that point, and Wenger and Bould should have seen it. It was almost half time, so I don't know, do something, tell your defence to drop further back to deny that space. Any through ball could cut us like butter there, and it took them too long to react. I think they only fixed at half time.
Wenger and Bould should have told the defence and midfield to position themselves deeper and they should have taken this action immediately after the 1st goal at least IMO. It was a temporary solution for that problem, and then they could sort it out in another way at half time talk.

But inaction has cost us dearly again. I'm a bit fed up with this approach of not changing our style to anyone. It's archaic, stupid or arrogant, your choice.
Powerful teams (such as Chelsea or City) would have dealt with that situation differently, with a bigger focus on defending. Why can't Arsenal?

If it was a clean shot from Ramsey, then yes get it on target, but I have seen many top strikers get put off by a defender sliding into them. Many defenders hope for the ball, but them chasing and harrying and sliding across is also there to put pressure on the player and to put them off. I also think it is really hard to tell if it was going off before the defender touched it. Also if it was going off, it wasn't by much and he was aiming for the far bottom corner, where he should have been, whats the point of getting it on target if it is straight at the keeper?

I don't think the shooting is that much of a problem really, the players tasked with scoring have done a pretty good job this year Giroud, Podolski, Walcott, Cazorla. They are all getting the goals and assisting. To say that we need more shooting practice because of that Ramsey miss and mentioning Gervinho is again harsh.

I think our defensive situation as a whole is down to Wenger and the frailties that they have, but I wouldn't blame Wenger for the second goal. The players were not focused on their jobs and that was it for the second, they were realing from the first goal and just didn't do what they were supposed to do.

I don't think not changing our style is that much of a problem really, we were in control of the match. He brought in Ramsey to try and give a bit more steel and fight in the team and he made positive subs trying to go for the win.

It all comes down to the defending, we wouldn't have to change our style if we could defend better and had a defence that we can trust.

Our main problem for me is the weakness at the back any club feels confident that they can score against us and it shouldn't be that way.

 

[Sabatasso]

That's a very strange post. "Arsenal played the least attractive football in European top football" A few days ago you said pre-Wenger Arsenal were "anonymous" in terms of European football, yet now you judging them in the context of "top European football".

It's not a strange post at all. I said Arsenal were anonymous in the sense that they weren't the popular club to support in other countries. They played "Wimbledon football" although a little more successfully. By European Top Football I simply mean the top leagues in Europe, admittedly I could have articulated that differently to avoid misunderstandings.

Clearly I've struck a nerve on you...

You say they played the least attractive football in Europe, I think you are judging European football from the 1990s against the standards of today. The game has changed a lot since then in many ways, for instance the back-pass rule was introduced in 1992/3 prior to this teams could aimlessly pass the ball between defenders and goalkeeper and the keeper could then pick it up as and when he pleased, killing any opposition attack. You also saw man marking decline as a concept in the mid/early 1990s, prior to this teams would be set up with as many as 5-6 of the players merely there to negate the oppositions attackers, it meant games were a lot more defensive.

You're either too young to have seen many games from that era, or you simply have no clue. What you're explaining here fits todays football just as well. Some teams play defensively, some play offensively. Football haven't changed that much since the 1990's. The man marking vs zonal discussion is irrelevant in this discussion. Norway were probably the first team that successfully turned zonal marking into a winning defensive strategy, but it also require more of the defenders "intellectually". Most English teams stuck franticly to man marking almost 5 years after the rest of the world moved on to zonal, so you can't really pinpoint exactly when it affected the game in Premier League. English teams, including the national team struggled to break these defenses down but the rest of the world coped in a much better manner.

A 5 man defense in the 90's employed just as offensive backs as we see today, yet different teams have different strategies so you can't really say "they played like this in the 90's!". The main difference is the pace of the game, which has increased slowly but steady since the dawn of football and have stabilized itself more or less in the 2000's.

If anything, offside traps has increased at the same rate that the use of sweeper has declined.

This post is very irrelevant. I thought we were talking about trophies and being successful, not about being entertaining. "Boring Arsenal" won the domestic league in 89 and 91, and the Cup Winners Cup in 94. Wenger arrived in 96.

I was under the impression that massive support worldwide was very relevant for the club. It has made the club into what it is today, new stadium which is probably the nicest in the whole country, and every football interested person in the world knows that Arsenal stands for positive, innovative football.

Why did Arsenal sack Graham if they were, in your opinion, so successful under his command? Arsenal didn't shake their "boring" trademark until Alan Smith retired in 1995 and Wenger took over in 1996. Maybe in Arsenal's mind they did shake it, but Arsenal played a consistent "long pass, down the flanks and hoof it into the box where a tall striker were to get his head on it" type of football. That is all Graham know, but it can be effective... it just isn't the football that neutral fans adore.
The massive worldwide support boom came under Wenger, and rightly so. What you Gunners fans seem to forget is that you compete against teams that have better spending power than several countries, yet you demand to beat those teams consistently when there is no realistic way in hell that you could.

 

[BobbyBox]

It's not a strange post at all. I said Arsenal were anonymous in the sense that they weren't the popular club to support in other countries. They played "Wimbledon football" although a little more successfully. By European Top Football I simply mean the top leagues in Europe, admittedly I could have articulated that differently to avoid misunderstandings.

Clearly I've struck a nerve on you...



You're either too young to have seen many games from that era, or you simply have no clue. What you're explaining here fits todays football just as well. Some teams play defensively, some play offensively. Football haven't changed that much since the 1990's. The man marking vs zonal discussion is irrelevant in this discussion. Norway were probably the first team that successfully turned zonal marking into a winning defensive strategy, but it also require more of the defenders "intellectually". Most English teams stuck franticly to man marking almost 5 years after the rest of the world moved on to zonal, so you can't really pinpoint exactly when it affected the game in Premier League. English teams, including the national team struggled to break these defenses down but the rest of the world coped in a much better manner.

A 5 man defense in the 90's employed just as offensive backs as we see today, yet different teams have different strategies so you can't really say "they played like this in the 90's!". The main difference is the pace of the game, which has increased slowly but steady since the dawn of football and have stabilized itself more or less in the 2000's.

If anything, offside traps has increased at the same rate that the use of sweeper has declined.



I was under the impression that massive support worldwide was very relevant for the club. It has made the club into what it is today, new stadium which is probably the nicest in the whole country, and every football interested person in the world knows that Arsenal stands for positive, innovative football.

Why did Arsenal sack Graham if they were, in your opinion, so successful under his command? Arsenal didn't shake their "boring" trademark until Alan Smith retired in 1995 and Wenger took over in 1996. Maybe in Arsenal's mind they did shake it, but Arsenal played a consistent "long pass, down the flanks and hoof it into the box where a tall striker were to get his head on it" type of football. That is all Graham know, but it can be effective... it just isn't the football that neutral fans adore.
The massive worldwide support boom came under Wenger, and rightly so. What you Gunners fans seem to forget is that you compete against teams that have better spending power than several countries, yet you demand to beat those teams consistently when there is no realistic way in hell that you could.

George Graham was sacked because he accepted a bung, he would have still been with Arsenal if that didn't happen. I remember when I heard about it and I was very shocked and thought that we would never replace him, then we signed Wenger and everybody was like 'Who the fuck is this?!'

We were labelled boring Arsenal, but it was more to do with our over realiance on defending than just hoofing long balls forward and looking for a tall striker etc

I think you are doing George Graham a big disservice when you say that we played like that. We didn't play exciting football all of the time, but it was far from Wimbledon and just hoofing the ball up.

But I agree with you, worldwide our standing under Wenger is somewhere where it probably wouldn't have been without him (Hard to say definitely, but you can be pretty sure). We have many more fans with our success with foreign players as well and our long standing in the Champs League competition. I've heard quite a few fans say, I started to support Arsenal because of Henry, Ljundberg, Pires, Bergkamp etc etc at one point Wenger was criticised heavily for our foreigners and now every body is doing it!

I don't think anybody can really deny Wenger has brought Arsenal onto another level. But we were still a very successful club before and it wasn't as much of a step up than you are describing imo.

 

[Milanista]

I heard an interesting factoid while watching the London derby on Sky Italia yesterday - at Arsenal, Wenger is the person in charge of almost all the footballing duties of the club - meaning he's responsible for transfers, youth development and training. Where as most big clubs have directors for sport, youth, transfer etc. to do all this stuff.

They were asking whether all this responsibility Wenger has could take away from Wenger's main job - tactical and training with the first team.

Anyway - thought it was an interesting point.

 

[cfdh_edmundo]

They played "Wimbledon football" although a little more successfully. By European Top Football I simply mean the top leagues in Europe, admittedly I could have articulated that differently to avoid misunderstandings..

I dont think you can say they played "Wimbledon football", implying that they just hoofed the ball out from the center backs up to big, tall physical strikers. If you look at some of the midfielders who played for Arsenal in the early 1990s you can see that this simply isnt the case. How would creative players like Limpar, Merson and Parlour have made it at the club if it was simply a long ball team. If Arsenal were just hitting long balls from defence to attack how come Merson (neither a defender nor a striker, so peripheral to the long ball game) was able to score 13 league goals in 1990-91? And 12 the season after.

You're either too young to have seen many games from that era, or you simply have no clue.

Ah yes, the resort of those failing to win an arguement, "You're too young", "you're too stupid". I don't really see how age is that relevant, but you can see I've been on this site for over 10 years so that might have given you a clue that I'm well out of my 20s.

What you're explaining here fits todays football just as well. Some teams play defensively, some play offensively. Football haven't changed that much since the 1990's. The man marking vs zonal discussion is irrelevant in this discussion. Norway were probably the first team that successfully turned zonal marking into a winning defensive strategy, but it also require more of the defenders "intellectually".

I wouldn't use Norway in the mid 1990s as a benchmark for sucessful football strategy. They were nowhere near qualification for Euro 92. They qualified for WC 94 and got of to a reasonable start, beating Mexico, but then they lost to Italy so had to win in their last match against Ireland but only drew, finishing bottom of the group and so went home. They finished 3rd in Euro 96 qualification and didn't even make the playoffs for that (they could only tke 2 points from 12 aginst the Czechs and Dutch and shipped 5 goals in the 2 away games). I wouldnt really define getting to one tournament and going out at the first stage as a winning defensive strategy. Scotland (92) and Greece (94) also got to one tournament in that time frame, and a lot of other countries got to two (Swiss (94,96) Bulgaria (94,96), Romania (94,96)). You also critise George Graham's Arsenal for being boring and one dimensional (which is wrong in my opinion) but then you hold Norway up as some sporting tactical paragon, yet all the boring, one dimensional stuff you say about Arsenal in the 1990s can be levelled at Norway from that era too, so its a very convoluted line of thought.

Why did Arsenal sack Graham if they were, in your opinion, so successful under his command? Arsenal didn't shake their "boring" trademark until Alan Smith retired in 1995 and Wenger took over in 1996. Maybe in Arsenal's mind they did shake it, but Arsenal played a consistent "long pass, down the flanks and hoof it into the box where a tall striker were to get his head on it" type of football. That is all Graham know, but it can be effective... it just isn't the football that neutral fans adore.

As Bobby said Graham was sacked for taking a bung. He was payed almost half a million pounds to sign players from Rune Hauge, a Norwegian football agent. The club simply couldnt keep him after doing something like that - the decision had nothing to do with football style or sucess. George Graham was actually banned from football for one year. If you're going to accuse other posters of, "simply having no clue" you might want to get at least the very basic facts of your arguement correct.

This idea that Arsenal got rid of Graham and had Wenger lined up to play pretty football and grow the brand is absurd and further more totally wrong. After Graham left the board dithered for months and had Stewart Houston (his assitant in charge for months) for the tail end of 1994/5 and then got Bruce Rioch (who was actually the manager who signed Bergkamp and Platt) for year before getting Houston again for a few months.

You keep saying stuff like Arsenal played, "long pass ... hoof it to the box", football but if that is the case why did they have some very creative players at the club in the early/mid 1990s like Merson, Parlour, Limpar, Michael Thomas? How did one of the most attacking full-backs in the league at the time (Dixon) emerge if the team were just playing hoofball from central defence to attack? Why were there quick-footed strikers like Ian Wright and Campbell in the team when they just needed a lumbering tall target-man to hold the ball up (you do know George Graham actually sold Niall Quinn)?

 

[Godotelli]

They were defensive/rigid/negative/safe tactically ("1-nil to the arsenal") but I don't recall Arsenal being the epitome of hoof ball, certainly not akin to Wimbledon. They were, like almost all English teams in the 80's-early 90's, about quickly getting the ball wide to the wingers.

With regards to Arsenal's global appeal, of course players like Henry and Bergkamp help but I think it has less to do with playstyle or (alleged) integrity etc. and more to do with global economics, particularly the growth in wealth seen in and around China, and the investment of SKY. Whoever happened to be successful in the last 10-15 years would have seen an increasing 'global brand'. Arsenal's attractive football would have helped somewhat but to pin too much emphasis on this aspect is, in my view, a mistake. There have been many attractive foreign teams but have simply not registered globally in a financial sense. Also, look at Chelsea. They have seen a huge increase in their ' global brand' despite not really playing a super attractive brand of football under Jose et al.

Success, access and economics trumps all

 

[gomito#10]

sabataswindbag got OWNED! facts are tricky eh!

 

[gerd]

Godotelli, i don't know if you are English, for the sake of my argument i hope you are.
Here in Belgium Arsenal = Wenger = attractive football. And this long before Vermaelen played for Arsenal.

Before that Arsenal = rather succesfull but very boring.

I agree with you about the global appeal of Mourinho's Chelsea (and Fergusons Man Utd at times) having global appeal without playing attractive football. But Arsenal is seen as a team that plays good and attractive football and this in a country that is the home country of SK Beveren (Belgian people have lotsd of reasons for not liking Arsenal, yet they do because of their brand of football).

It is rarely that a club is associated with a particular style of football (Ajax, Barcelona, the old Real Madrid and Liverpool until the 90's come to my mind). Arsenal is unique because it went from boring Arsenal to exciting Arsenal...

 

[cfdh_edmundo]

The thing is the "one nil to the Arsenal" chant is a bit of a mismoner, when you actually look at the league games the team played under Graham, 1-0 wasnt the most common result. Across both the 1990-1 and 1991-2 seasons Arsenal had 7 1-0 wins - (in 1990/1 Man Utd A, Sunderland H, Man City A, Everton H, Liverpool A and in 1991/2 Notts County A, Coventry H). Seven 1-0s in getting on for 80 games isn't particularly frequent, for instance they had 10 2-0s in that time, and had 15 times when they scored 4 (or more) goals. In 1992/3 and 1993/4 they had 11 1-0s in about 80 games, but actually they lost 0-1 more times than this (13), this 1-0 thing under George Graham was/is a bit over exaggerated.

 

[Godotelli]

Godotelli, i don't know if you are English, for the sake of my argument i hope you are.
Here in Belgium Arsenal = Wenger = attractive football. And this long before Vermaelen played for Arsenal.

Before that Arsenal = rather succesfull but very boring.

I agree with you about the global appeal of Mourinho's Chelsea (and Fergusons Man Utd at times) having global appeal without playing attractive football. But Arsenal is seen as a team that plays good and attractive football and this in a country that is the home country of SK Beveren (Belgian people have lotsd of reasons for not liking Arsenal, yet they do because of their brand of football).

It is rarely that a club is associated with a particular style of football (Ajax, Barcelona, the old Real Madrid and Liverpool until the 90's come to my mind). Arsenal is unique because it went from boring Arsenal to exciting Arsenal...

Yea, I like(d) Arsenal (still the only opposition club who I have applauded conceding a goal to), just as I liked Villereal a few years back and Bilbao more recently, but when talking about recent huge increases in global appeal - specifically finances - we need to look at emerging markets. Asia has been a huge driving force since adopting a more open market approach to economics and the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea have benefited from being successful during this period. Studies have been done on global fanbase numbers and it is estimated that Chelsea have a healthy lead over Arsenal in this regard (10's of millions more) despite playstyles etc.
Arsenal probably have many more admirers but fans spend the £££

I am English, aye

 

[BobbyBox]

Yea, I like(d) Arsenal (still the only opposition club who I have applauded conceding a goal to), just as I liked Villereal a few years back and Bilbao more recently, but when talking about recent huge increases in global appeal - specifically finances - we need to look at emerging markets. Asia has been a huge driving force since adopting a more open market approach to economics and the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea have benefited from being successful during this period. Studies have been done on global fanbase numbers and it is estimated that Chelsea have a healthy lead over Arsenal in this regard (10's of millions more) despite playstyles etc.
Arsenal probably have many more admirers but fans spend the £££

I am English, aye

Are those studies findings on the net? It would be interesting to see them?

 

[Godotelli]

Yea, some german company iirc. I read it about a year or so ago

Will post it if I find it.

 

[Rantboy]

I'm not in anyway taking away Wenger's merits here, but please people, bear in mind that the English League wasn't popular as it is today! In the mid 90's it was nothing like it is today. It's unfair to compare two very different eras, because from the 2000's on, the English League became a phenomenon worldwide, today it's the richest and considered by many, the most important in the world.

Just take a look at some teams that never finish in the top 4, how they go touring Asia and have even Asian brands sponsoring their shirts. The worldwide appeal is totally different now.

Having said that, Wenger's influence, the team's playing philosophy, and stellar players like Bergkamp, Henry, Pires, Vieira, Ljungberg, Suker, Kanu, Overmars, et al, helped a lot with popularity overseas too.
To me, it was all factors together, and Arsenal was fortunate enough to be nothing short of brilliant when the Premier League became the most exciting in the world. That Invincible season made the club very famous, not only because it was the suff of genius, but also because the whole world could watch that, so to speak.

Godotelli does have a point here, talking about the recent years playing a big part in this.

 

[gerd]

Edmundo, "boring Arsenal" and "Arsenal score" is referring to a time long before George Graham...
That is even more amazing that Arsenal under Wenger could change an image that existed for 30 odd years or even longer...

 

[Sabatasso]

Long post.

I mentioned Norway in connection with zonal defending, you know the way they consistently humiliated England both home and away during the 90's. When you speak about resorting to cheap tricks when "losing a discussion" I would call what you did there exactly that. Taking parts of what I say and twist it to seem like I was saying something different.

Since you're such an expert on Norway and one dimensional football, how come statistics say they used an average of three long passes per half when they used Jostein Flo as a target man? Does it smell an awful lot like "long ball" strategy to you? In that first generation of Egil Olsen, Norway played counter attacking football and very much with success for a team that is comprised of players from a nation with only 5% of the player pool that England has.

Back to Arsenal, you all got what I meant by saying what I said. I didn't explain in detail how Arsenal played because I figured you all already knew that. The point is, that the phrase "boring Arsenal" came from somewhere and it was hard to shake. Graham's records after Arsenal more or less proves that he mainly won football matches due to superior squads and cynical tactics, as his cynical tactics alone brought him next to nothing with other clubs. His only achievement was a League Cup trophy with Spurs, and he didn't even lead us to the final.

Lastly, Ian Wright may have been small but Campbell were very much a power striker with his stature at 188cm and full of muscles.

 

[cfdh_edmundo]

I mentioned Norway in connection with zonal defending, you know the way they consistently humiliated England both home and away during the 90's. When you speak about resorting to cheap tricks when "losing a discussion" I would call what you did there exactly that. Taking parts of what I say and twist it to seem like I was saying something different.

I'm not sure they consistently humiliated England home and away during the 1990s. I don't really follow either team, I'm neither English nor Norweigian, but a cursory glance at results between the two nations in the 1990s gives the following:

14 Oct 1992 England v Norway 1-1 WC Q
02 Jun 1993 Norway v England 2-0 WC Q
22 May 1994 England v Norway 0-0 Int
11 Oct 1995 Norway v England 0-0 Int

One win and three turgid draws is doesnt really equate to "complete humiliation". What exactly are you trying to say about Norwegian football anyway, and what is the relevance of it anyway? That their zonal defending was excellent? Well getting to one tournament (and exiting at the first stage) in the mid 1990s suggests otherwisel, after a decent opening game they were tactically "found out" in USA 94. Are we to laud Greek and Scottish football in the mid 1990s as they also had defences that got to them to one tournament in that timeframe?

Since you're such an expert on Norway and one dimensional football, how come statistics say they used an average of three long passes per half when they used Jostein Flo as a target man? Does it smell an awful lot like "long ball" strategy to you? In that first generation of Egil Olsen, Norway played counter attacking football and very much with success for a team that is comprised of players from a nation with only 5% of the player pool that England has.

I'm not an expert on Norwegian football at all and would never wish to be. But it's pretty easy for someone to challenge your assertion that Norway were highly sucessfull in the early-to-mid 1990s as you can see this simply isn't borne out in the results, but you'll have to read my "long post" to see this. It's very interesting that you bring up Jostein Flo as a crucible of dyanmic short passing attacking football. He is one of the few footballers to had a term coined about him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostein_Flo The "Flo Pass" is described as:

Playing a characteristic 4-5-1 formation, the left back would often hit long crosses to Flo, who in turn would head the ball to either one of the central midfielders or to the striker. This was known as the Flo Pass, and the Norwegian national team garnered much criticism for its perceived long-ball approach.

Norway might have a smaller playing pool than England, but other countries with far, far smaller playing pools have done at least as well as, if not better than Norway. Croatia and Slovenia have smaller populations than Norway, and have been independant football teams for around 20 years. Croatia, which has a population about 10% smaller than Norway has been to 3 World Cups (2006, 2002, 1998) and 4 Euros (96, 04, 08, 12). Slovenia have well under half the population of Norway and have been to two World Cups (02, 10) and one Euros (2000). Again I'm not sure what your point is going off on this Norwegian tangent, yes they've done well for a fairly small country, but then other smaller countries have done much better, either way I dont see how Norway is relevant to the discussion about Arsenal in the early/mid 1990s.

Back to Arsenal, you all got what I meant by saying what I said. I didn't explain in detail how Arsenal played because I figured you all already knew that. The point is, that the phrase "boring Arsenal" came from somewhere and it was hard to shake. Graham's records after Arsenal more or less proves that he mainly won football matches due to superior squads and cynical tactics, as his cynical tactics alone brought him next to nothing with other clubs. His only achievement was a League Cup trophy with Spurs, and he didn't even lead us to the final..

All this stuff about "boring Arsenal", well when exactly were Arsenal boring? I've already shown how this "1-0" stuff isnt borne out by statistics under Graham. People have said it was from before Graham's time? When exactly ? Because in the 1980s and 1970s they had creative skillfull players like Liam Brady, Charlie Nicholas
and Charlie George at the center of the team. And if you go back before that you had the Herbert Chapman era with players like Cliff Bastien, Ted Drake and Alex James.

You seem to assert that George Graham did nothing post Arsenal, yet he got Spurs their only trophy in almost a 20 year spell (1991-2009). You say he "didnt lead Spurs to the final", which is pretty misleading. He joined on 1st/2nd October 1998, so apart from Round two win over Brentford (Spurs as a PL club skipped Round 1) which had David Pleat as a caretaker, Graham was in charge for all the other matches. It was Graham's team who beat Liverpool (away) and Man Utd (home) 3-1 both times, and then won the semi and the final.

Lastly, Ian Wright may have been small but Campbell were very much a power striker with his stature at 188cm and full of muscles.

He's hardly a "power striker" (I assume you mean some sort of target man) suited to the long ball game and calling him muscular is an exaguration, he doesnt even look that muscular next to Ashley Cole

188cm is hardly a huge target man, he'd be pretty small compared to Andy Carroll, Nial Quinn, Carsten Jancker, Jan Koller, Peter Crouch and also Jostein Flo.

 

[Sabatasso]

Obviously wikipedia is equivalent to scientific facts in your opinion. The "Flo pass" usage is exaggerated and the numbers I mention, three each half in average are accurate. It's a typical case comparable to situations when your wife accuse you of "always peeing on the toilet seat" when it in fact only happened once in a while when drunk or very sleepy. A grave exaggeration in other words.

By humiliating England I simply meant that the ZONAL MARKING worked, as they made England seem like a team stripped of attacking talent. England should be able to beat a team like Norway 9 out of 10 times, but in all fairness England is probably the national team in the world least capable of getting something out of its potential. Anyway. here you did it again, interpreting stuff I said completely out of context. NORWAY = ZONAL MARKING, I never mentioned attack or short passing in that context. Counter attack is not short passing or tiki taka, although seeing how completely off the rest of your assessment is in this discussion, I see how you can make the mistake, excuse my bluntness.

PS. Norway qualified for WC 1998 and Euro 2000 as well. In 1994 Norway were instrumental in keeping England out of the WC, and they even won the group. This was mainly due to their defensive capabilities, they did not park the bus but played organized zonal defense with two box-to-box midfielders, two wingers and a central playmaker in the midfield.

 

[beachryan]

Am so confused... Chavez is dead...

Did Ramsey score in training or something?!

 

[dplane]

Looks like this guy is cheering for Arsenal tomorrow. English football needs a decent result tomorrow. Make us proud Gunners!

 

[Sabatasso]

Yup, good luck. The match is 12th or 13th of march, not tomorrow.

 

[bebo]

Yup, good luck. The match is 12th or 13th of march, not tomorrow.

chavez is dead

He's been dead for awhile , the family needed time to steal money and get out of dodge!