frankbutcher wrote:T.S wrote:After a performance like that, criticism of Vermalen is completely justified. However - what I don't understand is the would-be football pundits on here who seem to think that there is some kind of correlation between Vermalen bombing forward and scoring a couple of decent goals and him making a couple of mistakes at the back. Was he at fault at the weekend because he was too late running back having tried to score a goal? Of course not. To suggest that Vermalen is some kind of liability defensively because he's scored a few goals this season is the laziest piece of faux-analysis I've heard on here for a long time.
Vermalen tries to score a goal sometimes + Vermalen makes two mistakes at the back =
A bad performance, not doubt. But one (or, admittedly two or three this season) bad performance doesn't make a bad player - just in the same way that certain 'realists' who reckon that they know oh-so-much about
everything correctly suggest that one good run of form doesn't mean that this team has fully turned the corner. You'll all be singing his praises again after a few good performances. That I can guarantee.
Song on the other hand fucking winds me up.
TS - We will never get along.

However, there is a clear correlation between Vermaelen bombing forward and us conceding. When he bombs forward, the full-backs have to tuck in and we are too narrow. The opposition's wingers can break quickly down the flanks and thus put us under massive pressure. Whilst you may not have seen Vermaelen out of position for either goal on Saturday, the inability for the defence to sit and defend stretches play that creates space elsewhere. The result is normally goals against us.
TS - I don't think you can read a game. Simply looking at individual pieces of play is extremely lazy analysis. Make sure you join up all the "dots" that you can see. It creates a picture of an ill-disciplined team that is stretched to the point that it concedes at will.
Thank you for the speedy reply, Frank. Your detective work in inferring that I was alluding to you is top-notch. As for you saying that we'll 'never get along' - that's a true shame. I do worry about the size of my cyber-stable of friends sometimes

.
Now - a disclaimer. I did not watch the game on Saturday. Alas, I had prior engagements. So, I will bow to your having watched it ahead of my having only seen the highlights. And perhaps I can't read the game. But I've been going to The Arsenal long enough to (at least think I) have some kind of idea of how it works. Sure, I don't have the years of professional football playing and coaching time under my belt that you do. But I've seen a football game or two down the years, so I think I've got some idea of how it works.
You are correct about the need for the rest of the defence to reorganize itself whenever Vermalen bombs forward, but I would argue that;
1) That was not the problem on Saturday - unless you're arguing that Vermalen goes forward so much that the defence has just got itself in to a routine of over compensating for his poor positioning, which means that their positioning is poor whether Vermalen is there or not. If that is your argument, then I'm afraid that's rubbish.
2) If Vermalen bombs forward for a winner and the defence has to reorganize itself as a result, so what? You and I may differ here, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I like to see players who will take a chance and try to force something to happen. If the defence has to re-shuffle, then so be it. That is the 'gamble' (I know football pundits like you like to use that phrase) you have to take when trying to make things happen.
I suppose another part where you and I differ (surprise, surprise) is, I don't think Vermalen goes forward an abnormal amount. Now, again, I did not see the full game on Saturday, so if he was getting forward too much, then I stand corrected. But, I don't think it is a problem. In fact, I think that it does more good than bad. I'm sure we can both agree that there are far bigger problems in this team than Thomas Vermalen.