i get your point saftcm, i just don't think that the fact that our last league title came without losing a match is the reason why people are still backing wenger when the club clearly should have gone for another person for some time now. i think it's because we were becoming worse, were at midtable, and he turned things around wonderfully, and in eight years won us two doubles, another league, and another two fa cups. we became a common sight at the champions league, usually going to the knockout stages. new stadium, new training ground, buying many our best players ever, etc.safcftm wrote:Personally I think you're slightly missing his point (I might be wrong though). His point isnt that going unbeaten all season isnt an amazing, unique in the modern game achievement, it obviously is, but the article is focussed purely on Wenger and the way some (AKB's as you'd call them) have elevated him to an unreasonable level beyond what he has actually achieved. The Invincibles season was stunning but his point is simply that a lot of AKB's seem to attach much more significance to it and seem to think that it tells them much more about Wenger's ability than it really does.I Hate Hleb wrote:Decent article but the bit that lets him down is this....
'After all, during the following season Chelsea lost one game and yet ended up with five more points and then lost five and ended up with one point more. So how earth-shattering was that 90-point season really? It depends on how you want to view it....'
Being the first club in over 100 years to go unbeaten, in an era when there are more teams and stiffer competition, and doing something NONE of the other great sides in English football history has achieved is, was and deserves always to be considered 'earth shattering'.
In terms of points (which is a better way of judging how "good" a side is since you could, technically, go unbeaten all season and still get relegated), it was a very good haul but not the best ever- does Wenger deserve more praise for being unbeaten (obviously with luck along the way as any great achievement needs) on 90 points than someone who loses one game and gets 95? Personally I dont think so. I think it will be remembered more by the fans, but I dont think it proves him to be the better manager than the bloke who lost a game but got more points, especially when the other bloke managed to retain the title and has won european trophies in his career.
It certainly wasnt a good enough achievement to mean he can win fuck all else and not be questioned. The Invincibles were amazing but they didnt win back to back titles, Wenger has never brought the Champions League to London, he had a great side which, ultimately, could be argued to have underperformed in terms of trophies and titles won and when it disbanded he has been unable to replace it adequately. He is a very good manager, but all the author of the article is saying is that some Arsenal fans have built him up far too much because of the style of play (which initially was effective) and because of the "freak" of going unbeaten all season. I think most on here agree with that tbh, most cant stand the AKB's, most dont want the admittedly great achievement of the Invincibles to mean that Wenger can win fuck all and tread water for years without being under pressure. Its not a dig at the achievement, its a dig at the way the achievement has been seen by some to prove more about Wenger's ability as a manager than it really does, and its a fair point imo
i think that we gave arsène too much power because he indeed lifted the club's stature in the football world. when i heard that bergkamp signed for The Arsenal, my first thought was "arsenal? now that's a proper name for a football club, i'll check what they're about". now i see kids, 6, 7, 8 years old and they know about arsenal, van persie, henry...
it's fucking obvious that the akb are living in the past and that arsène has so much power and stability to do his job because of the past, but saying that's because of the invincibles is naive. very naive.
nobody is trying to say that winning the champions league is smaller than winning the league unbeaten, i'm trying to say that football is about being special, unique, doing something that your best rivals, in their best moment, couldn't do. even that shitty liverpool team won the CL last decade. english teams won the CL several times. only one won the league unbeaten (in modern times).
see where i'm getting? it's about it being special, not about what title is the most important.
ok mate, i will. to be honest, i think the discussion with our mackem friend was pretty healthy and interesting, but i will respect your request and leave the thread.
