Wenger is a nearly man and it is not about the money

[kgw129]

I read an awful lot on this forum from those described as "rosetinters" generally pro Wenger and from those described as "realists" generally anti Wenger. I should point out that I fall into the later group. The "rosetinters" main defence of Wenger appears to be that he does fantastically well to "challenge" and be "successful" year after year in the major honours and maintain a top four place and hence a Champions League place on a very limited budget.

Putting aside the debate over whether the achievements (or lack of them) since 2005 constitute a "challenge" or being "successful" do the "rosetinters" ever question why it is that throughout Wenger's managerial history he has always but always been a nearly man and continues to be so with us? I remember when Wenger first joined Arsenal and noticed his record as manager of Monaco. Do not quote me on this but it read something like:

French League
Champions 1
Runners Up 5

French Cup
Winners 1
Runners Up 2

Uefa Cup Winners Cup Winners
Runners Up 1

By my count that is 2 trophies and 8 runners up positions. His average is slightly better with us with 7 trophies and 10 runners up positions but only 4 wins from 9 finals. I remember thinking at the time that it was slightly odd. However now having had Wenger as manager for nearly 15 years it is abundantly clear why this is. In my opinion it is not to do with how much he does or does not spend. With the players at his disposal this season Wenger should have won a league cup and should win the league championship (although it could be argued that improvement in the league is down to others not performing as well) which I fear he may not if past experience is anything to go by. The fact that he does not and may not win these things is down to his "philosophy" if you want to call it that and not down to the players at his disposal. I accept that there is scope for improvement in some areas, notably at centre back and defensive midfield and perhaps a new goalkeeper although Szczesny looks a good prospect (although Wenger is doing his best to ruin his confidence by not organising the defence in front of him which led to the Carling Cup Final disaster reminiscent of Gus Caesar). With improvement in these areas more still should be achieved.

Wenger’s "philosophy" includes but is by means limited to: Not practicing set pieces, Not having a proper captain, Not motivating the players, Not organising the defence, Not worrying about the opposition ("we concentrate on our own game" and low and behold Messi gets 4 goals for Barcelona against us last season because "we concentrated on our own game" and did not worry about the threat from Messi!), Not having defenders playing in the defensive positions (Clichy springs to mind). I could go on but the failings in Wenger's "philosophy" are embarrassingly obvious to everybody in the game (just take a look at Match Of The Day after one of our embarrassing defeats). These failings make all the difference at the crucial times like the last minute of the Carling Cup Final for example. It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four from lower division sides that did not cost a fortune but they were well organised to operate as an effective unit) who provided these qualities but since they have departed these qualities have not been replaced. Of course Wenger added the gifted attacking players to this but Wenger is guilty of not recognising what made him successful when he first joined Arsenal.

It is not clear whether these failings are obvious to Wenger but if they are then he is guilty of extreme negligence in not dealing with them (no money is required as it can be dealt with on the training ground and any one of the old back four could do the job) and if they are not then he is guilty of not being up to the job. What is the “rosetintersâ€

[goonersid]

I can't be bothered to look, but I'm sure if my memory serves me correctly, that his record in Japan is similar, with initial success followed by decline into mediocrity.

[Reg Niseth]

Good piece. One tactic that has always bugs me is defending corners. Every player trots back into the area leaving no-one available when/if the ball is cleared.

Someone like Theo close to the centre circle, ready to pounce and drawing the oppo towards him. But no. what usually happens, if the 'keeper doesn't collect, is we clear it to one of their players, we're slow to push out, the ball gets put back in and we're under unnecessary pressure.

Tactically I don't recall him ever changing a game.

[QuartzGooner]

Agree.

I think he does motivate the players though, but I think they are not equipped with the full set of tools to do the job.

Namely, poor defensive coaching.

[goonersid]

Good piece. One tactic that has always bugs me is defending corners. Every player trots back into the area leaving no-one available when/if the ball is cleared.

Someone like Theo close to the centre circle, ready to pounce and drawing the oppo towards him. But no. what usually happens, if the 'keeper doesn't collect, is we clear it to one of their players, we're slow to push out, the ball gets put back in and we're under unnecessary pressure.

Tactically I don't recall him ever changing a game.

He has to an extent, but only in the most obvious of situations, where he has the likes of Cecs, RVP and Walcott etc on the bench and they come on to replace the likes of Denilson, Bendtner and Rosicky.
Hardly a real tactical change, more of a personnel change.

[rolypoly]

kgw

you wrote

[quote]It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

[flash gunner]

Agree.

I think he does motivate the players though, but I think they are not equipped with the full set of tools to do the job.

Namely, poor defensive coaching.

I think he did motivate players but its gone stale and his words arent having the same impact, couple that with no tactics, plan B or defensive know how and here we are losing 4 goal half time leads to middle of the road teams and 2-0 laeds to our most hated rivals and thats without going into the last 2 weeks capitulations

[SteveO 35]

Good piece. One tactic that has always bugs me is defending corners. Every player trots back into the area leaving no-one available when/if the ball is cleared.

Someone like Theo close to the centre circle, ready to pounce and drawing the oppo towards him. But no. what usually happens, if the 'keeper doesn't collect, is we clear it to one of their players, we're slow to push out, the ball gets put back in and we're under unnecessary pressure.

Tactically I don't recall him ever changing a game.

I agree with the point about defending set plays, but I also think that our attacking set plays are equally woeful; it's almost as if this is an element of the game that doesn't fit with his purist's approach but like it or not set plays for and against have always had a significant bearing on the game.

Unless its RvP with a decent angle to shoot left footed (and even his success rate has dropped remarkably) then when we get a corner of free kick I almost feel like looking away, whilst under GG this was an area where I felt we would always have a decent chance of scoring.

The amount of games where Cesc is allowed to take every free kick which normally results in a floated chip that's easily nodded clear amazes me. Perhaps the stats masters out there will prove me wrong but I would think that our potency from attacking set plays is amongst the lowest in the league

[Henry Norris 1913]

kgw

you wrote

It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

I think our best team was the one that won the league 3 years in a row (33, 34, 35) either that or the double winning side of '71 or '02

[mikeyb772001]

kgw

you wrote

It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

I think our best team was the one that won the league 3 years in a row (33, 34, 35) either that or the double winning side of '71 or '02

Or the Emirates cup winning teams of 2008 and 2010

[Barriecuda]

kgw

you wrote

It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

I think our best team was the one that won the league 3 years in a row (33, 34, 35) either that or the double winning side of '71 or '02

It's a whole other topic of discussion but the teams of the 30s and modern footballers are completely uncomparable. I'd argue even teams of the 70s can't be compared to the teams of today.

Onto the thread topic:

You can't assess a manager simply by his titles, runner-up medals or otherwise. He revolutionized Monaco and pulled off unprecedented results with Tokyo Grampus 8. He also brought Arsenal consistent success, or at least challenged for titles, for many years (and still does, although he hasn't won one in a while). I do believe he's starting to lose the grip of the players for two reasons; one, because he hasn't won a title in a long time, and two, because he constantly makes poor personnel choices and fails to demand better from poor players (Denilson, Diaby, Rosicky, Almunia etc etc etc).

[kgw129]

kgw

you wrote

It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

Martin Keown was still in the squad, although not a regular, was hugely influential (Remember the Van Nistelrooy incident that year? Hard to imagine Denilson doing the same!) and Ray Parlour who was also involved in that incident, was still at the club. Sol Campbell was another George Graham player from Spurs although not one of the old back four as such. Also the "attitude" that I mentioned was still at the club and had been passed on to the likes of Ashley Cole another English player and the vast majority of the foreign players had all joined Arsenal and been introduced to the Arsenal "attitude" by the old back four.

[kgw129]

kgw

you wrote

It is no coincidence that Wenger’s most successful teams had players that he inherited from the George Graham era (mostly the old back four



my brain cells are going .remind me which of these featured in arsenal`s best team of all time -the invincibles

I think our best team was the one that won the league 3 years in a row (33, 34, 35) either that or the double winning side of '71 or '02

It's a whole other topic of discussion but the teams of the 30s and modern footballers are completely uncomparable. I'd argue even teams of the 70s can't be compared to the teams of today.

Onto the thread topic:

You can't assess a manager simply by his titles, runner-up medals or otherwise. He revolutionized Monaco and pulled off unprecedented results with Tokyo Grampus 8. He also brought Arsenal consistent success, or at least challenged for titles, for many years (and still does, although he hasn't won one in a while). I do believe he's starting to lose the grip of the players for two reasons; one, because he hasn't won a title in a long time, and two, because he constantly makes poor personnel choices and fails to demand better from poor players (Denilson, Diaby, Rosicky, Almunia etc etc etc).

I disagree. Trophies on the sideboard is THE ONLY true barometer with which to assess a manager or a coach. Any "revolutions" in diets / fitness / ways of playing etc are all a matter for personal opinion and are a means to end where the end is to try and win a trophy and without the end being achieved they are all rendered meaningless. I do not get out the old videos to replay or relive the glory of "revolutions" in diets / fitness / ways of playing etc as I do Anfield 1989 for example. The "revolution" theory is simply used as a justification for failure in my opinion.

[USMartin]

More Fox-News level History at work here.

I can't be bothered to look, but I'm sure if my memory serves me correctly, that his record in Japan is similar, with initial success followed by decline into mediocrity.

Yes all two years he was there (in fact 18 months) during which his teams won the Emperor’s cup and rose from the bottom to runners-up. Maybe that’s why you couldn’t be bothered to look. Good thing I could then.

Sol Campbell was another George Graham player from Spurs although not one of the old back four as such. .

Excuse me but George Graham took over at white hart lane in the summer of 1998 and by that time Sol Campbell not only was regular in the England Defence but had captained the National Team, while Mr. Graham was still decorating the manager’s office, Campbell was staring all four World Cup matches for England before his first training session with Mr. Graham.


There are plenty of questions to be ask the Mr. Wenger's match management particulalrly. The problem is most of those(the poor set-piece play at either end of the pitch over time, the predictable timing and nature of substitutions and perhaps most infamously the lack of a Plan B) all go all the way back to his earliest days at Arsenal, but you just don't notice them as much when you invest more in keepting your best players and in providing more proven players around tham. Hell fatfuckwalrusjowlyfacedcuntferguscuntblowjobgivingtwat Allardyce had us sussed out by 2001-2002, and they still never beat us till 2006 oddly enough.

Anyway this is what I mean by justifying change for change's sake.

[g88ner]

I disagree. Trophies on the sideboard is THE ONLY true barometer with which to assess a manager or a coach.

Really?

But surely whether you win a trophy or not is also down to the financial resources at your disposal and the quality/financial resources of your rivals? - it's not just based on the quality of the manager - not by a long shot!

Look around at any major league, be it Italy, England, France, Germany, Spain, etc. and you find in the vast majority of cases that the most successful clubs are the wealthiest... I'd say that is more significant than the quality of the coach, to be honest.

The Wenger debate will roll and roll, but for the money invested, he's done an incredible job considering the financial might of our rivals - question is whether Wenger is managing the club with one hand tied behind his back or whether he's refusing to spend the money made available to him. We just don't know, and that's what pisses most people off!