Are Arsenal the new Spurs? (8/10)

[gooner.ed]

http://www.onlinegooner.com/exclusive/index.php?id=779

usual thread starter… Certainly, the idea that Man Utd won the 95/96 title with a team largely consisting of young players is something of a myth. They fielded a young team in their opening game against Villa and were beaten 3-0 leading to Hansen’s infamous quote. then the injured old pros gradually returned.

At Arsenal today, there is a danger of style meaning a bit too much compared with substance. The team needs more grit. There were signs we had it early last season with Flamini in the midfield. Now, it seems like there are too many nice guys to me. That is why Alonso would have been a good signing. Good player with a cynical streak. Without grit, our chances of success are entirely dependent on getting lucky in the cups, a bit like… Spurs.

[Sammy Mooner]

Spurs league record in the 80's and 90's bears no resemblance to Arsenal's current league record - Scum's league positions were:
1980's 10, 4, 20, 17, 3, 10, 3, 13, 6,
1990's 3, 11, 15, 8, 15, 7, 8, 10, 14, 11
An average of about 10th place

[Seven Kings Gooner 1]

We certainly are a much better run club than the Spuds, 8 managers to our one in the last 12 years. However we are now geared up to playing attractive football rather than geared up to winning trophies.
The reserves are geared up to play attractive football and watching the last 2 games (Villa & Stoke) both of these opponents got in our face, harried us all over the pitch and Stoke in particular left their foot in enough times to hurt us and get one of their players sent off.
As Ed says we lack grit but more worrying for me because of this we are starting to get hurt in tackles. (I do not mean the Eduardo or Diaby tackles) Trouble was when we did compete we seemed to get more red cards than any other teams so it is about finding a balance because it is the physical side of our game that is becoming a real weakness.

[QuartzGooner]

We are not really comparable to Spurs as the article suggests.

They had a reputation for playing attractive football, so do we, but that is as far as the comparison goes.

They failed to build on their Cup success, and were mismanaged in the board room...leaving them in large unstructured debt.

We are with a large but structured ebt, caused not by mismanagement but by building a new stadium that has provided a higher matchday and commercial revenue...Spurs did not have that to the extent we do.

We have a very young team, who even if they do not improve, still will have re sale value.

Spurs chopped and changed mangers regularly.

We have managerial stability.

[donaldo]

I have heard some Gooners say they would settle for the FA cup this season.That is defeatism.A club the size of ours should be winning MAJOR trophies.And when are we ever going to be successful in Europe?.We are not Spurs but at this present time we are falling further behind Man Utd and Chelsea,who continue to buy big while we are still counting the pennies.

Wenger is now set in his ways of not spending even a quarter of our rivals yet expects us to compete with them.Can you imagine Fergie or Scholari going into the season without a commanding CH and a DM like Wenger did?

[dm7198]

I wrote the article and admittedly the title is to catch the eye. I agree that our record is still better than 80s/90s Spurs but the general point is valid, that attractive football is coming before winning football. Hopefully, we can marry the two. How to explain the Sunderland game though, which was neither?