Is Gibbs good enough

[barnetgooner]

I'm glad we've cleared up the left back thing.

Yeah got a little off topic....

Back to Welbeck - definitely missed him yesterday

[Chippy]

Split this from the Welbeck thread.

[flash gunner]

and the answer is .... NO

[GranadaJoe]

I think Gibbs has played well this year. In fact him and Debuchy are both good. Kos and BFG at set pieces are a calamity waiting to happen, but I believe that the four of them together are good enough, but don't work as a unit and that has to be AW's fault.

[SteveO 35]

There are very few left backs I'd take over him - certainly not the hugely overrated and overweight Luke Shaw.

Not an area of the team that needs addressing in anywhere near the same level of priority as the central spine

[Supagoon]

Its not a priority concern at the moment, he has a lot to improve on, but with GK, CB, DM, and Striker positions far more important.

Gibbs is still better defensively than Debuchy, notice how many opponent attacks go through our right side.

[Rosie_titters]

Really!!!, what do you want Santos back at LB?

[StuartL]

I think a lot of our defensive frailties could be made better by not letting both fullbacks attack at the same time - thus leaving them hideously exposed when we lose the ball. (time after time)

Given that Gibbs cannot cross and has no right foot at all, you have to question the value of him pushing forward so much in any case. I'd rather he stayed back and let Santi / Sanchez or whoever else is in the team take responsibility for our attacking options than him, keeping us a bit more solid and better team shape.

[StuartL]

Double, double, double Sol Campbell has won the double,
and the scum form the lane have won fuck all again
but Sol Campbell has won the double.

[northbank123]

I think a lot of our defensive frailties could be made better by not letting both fullbacks attack at the same time - thus leaving them hideously exposed when we lose the ball. (time after time)

Given that Gibbs cannot cross and has no right foot at all, you have to question the value of him pushing forward so much in any case. I'd rather he stayed back and let Santi / Sanchez or whoever else is in the team take responsibility for our attacking options than him, keeping us a bit more solid and better team shape.

Agreed. The insulting irony behind the demolition at Stamford Bridge in particular was that the two full-backs who were recklessly bombing forward without a care in the world contribute the square route of fuck all. The misuse of our full-backs has been a huge factor in our defensive instability in the last 6 or 7 years.

On a related note I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised by Debuchy. I was wary when we signed him but the bloke has actually really impressed me. He's dynamic and purposeful when he goes forward and can pose a genuine threat - could anyone imagine Sagna helping set up the second goal at the Shammers with that sort of sharp attacking play?

I also have to say that I just don't see why everybody was so quick to be convinced that Chambers should be a cb. His huge flaws and inexperience there are to be expected but I just don't see why he is supposedly destined to play there.

[arseofacrow]

I think a lot of our defensive frailties could be made better by not letting both fullbacks attack at the same time - thus leaving them hideously exposed when we lose the ball. (time after time)

Given that Gibbs cannot cross and has no right foot at all, you have to question the value of him pushing forward so much in any case. I'd rather he stayed back and let Santi / Sanchez or whoever else is in the team take responsibility for our attacking options than him, keeping us a bit more solid and better team shape.

Agreed. The insulting irony behind the demolition at Stamford Bridge in particular was that the two full-backs who were recklessly bombing forward without a care in the world contribute the square route of fuck all. The misuse of our full-backs has been a huge factor in our defensive instability in the last 6 or 7 years.

On a related note I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised by Debuchy. I was wary when we signed him but the bloke has actually really impressed me. He's dynamic and purposeful when he goes forward and can pose a genuine threat - could anyone imagine Sagna helping set up the second goal at the Shammers with that sort of sharp attacking play?

I also have to say that I just don't see why everybody was so quick to be convinced that Chambers should be a cb. His huge flaws and inexperience there are to be expected but I just don't see why he is supposedly destined to play there.

I think that Debuchy's defending is not all it's cracked up to be. Mostly ok, can be easily pressuried.

Very much in keeping with Arsenal's MO.

[OneBardGooner]

and the answer is .... NO

a Definite NO.

[Sam59]

I've always thought that Gibbs was a left sided midfielder masquerading as a FB, but for me he's good enough for this Arsenal team but wouldn't get into any other top side as a first choice FB. He leaves acres of space when he bombs forward at every opportunity - don't know if he's told to do this, or given free rein so thinks it's a good idea. Positionally suspect too. But better than he used to be, and probably could be a far better FB given proper defensive coaching. Even Clichy improved remarkably at City.
Debuchy is in his first season with us, and is coming back from injury, so give him some leeway guys. He's at least first choice FB for France, who have a decent side. (what a shame the Fool passed up on the opportunity to sign Lloris when he could have).

[LizLeGooner]

He's the best English LB in the league imo. I don't want to hear about that fraud Baines.

[northbank123]

He's the best English LB in the league imo. I don't want to hear about that fraud Baines.

Baines is overrated but I dont think Gibbs is particularly more reliable defensively and undoubtedly offers less going forward. At internatiinal level Baines isnt good enough to utilise thisbut at club level its an asset.