The modern day consensus seems to be that Arsene Wenger is the greatest manager that the club have ever had. A lot of that is due to his early success and of course the incredible 'Invincibles' season. However, there are some gooners - including myself - that still find it difficult to accept this, especially given all the weakness that we think the frenchman has shown in his managerial make-up. So, trying to think about this dispassionately, what should be the criteria for fairly judging who has indeed been the best manager in Arsenal's history?
There are the obvious ones like trophies won/achievements; successful signings; tactical acumen, etc, but are there other things that should also be taken into consideration like:
improvement in the club's position relative to when they took over;
the trophies won in relation to the time period in charge;
Players brought through;
relationship with the fans;
style of football;
fulfillment of task given the tools/finances at the manager's disposal and in terms of what they could/should have achieved given the prevailing conditions;
their lasting Legacy and maybe the state they left the team/club in when they finished?
Having come up with the above rough list of 10 things on which to judge the custodial merits of Chapman, Graham and Wenger (sorry Bertie!!

Now although I consider myself to be a reasonable and rational person (most of the time, anyway), perhaps I've subconsciously let personal feelings get in the way of some of my marks and maybe also the criterion used. So any other suggestions of other things that should be taken into consideration that I've omitted?