As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
QuartzGooner wrote:Paul Hayward wrote this in The Daily Telegraph, they might not employ much in the way of sub-editors these days but this article will resonate, so I will paste it in full.
TBH, it says nothing we all don't know and post on here regularly. Wenger doesn't do tactics. He can't think on his feet and adapt accordingly the way most managers do. He repeatedly fails to react to on pitch problems.
I remember Vieira and Petit being asked after the 98 Double season what influence Wenger brings to bear in the changing room at half time (ie was he calm, was he a screamer?). And they both kind of shrugged and said he didn't say much beyond, "play your game". I remember thinking "That's fucking odd. What manager does that?"
I think we were obviously more accepting of Wenger's "style" whilst it was delivering Double's, FA Cups and Invincible seasons. And TBH I can't help but think most (well, alot anyway) of that success was down to a huge element of luck or divine providence in that he inheritted the best Back Four in the history of the game and then had the right players (TH14, DB10, PV4, etc) in place at the right time, at the right stage of most of their careers, to win those trophies with little guidance.
But then that ability to pick players in itself could be called a (admittedly limited) skill in itself. Unfortunately, that particular ability seems to have totally deserted him - if it was ever really there, beyond luck, to begin with.
in hindsight much of the Wenger success is a myth.
the double was won in 98 because he inherited the best back 4 in the country.
there then followed 3 years of failure with points totals of 78, 73 and 70 (not any better than these days - last season we got 79 points) it is just that it was disguised because we always finished 2nd.
yes there was a golden couple of years 2002-2004 because we had the best player in the world and a few other world class players played in their correct positions but even in those days we routinely failed on the european stage. the last 10 years has been an era of mediocrity where Wenger could claim he had no money to spend because of the new stadium. utter crap if you consider the huge wages he paid some players. he is only now being found out because now he is spending the money it is not making the slightest difference to the performance of the team.
Gunner Rob wrote:in hindsight much of the Wenger success is a myth.
the double was won in 98 because he inherited the best back 4 in the country.
there then followed 3 years of failure with points totals of 78, 73 and 70 (not any better than these days - last season we got 79 points) it is just that it was disguised because we always finished 2nd.
yes there was a golden couple of years 2002-2004 because we had the best player in the world and a few other world class players played in their correct positions but even in those days we routinely failed on the european stage. the last 10 years has been an era of mediocrity where Wenger could claim he had no money to spend because of the new stadium. utter crap if you consider the huge wages he paid some players. he is only now being found out because now he is spending the money it is not making the slightest difference to the performance of the team.
Gunner Rob wrote:in hindsight much of the Wenger success is a myth.
the double was won in 98 because he inherited the best back 4 in the country.
there then followed 3 years of failure with points totals of 78, 73 and 70 (not any better than these days - last season we got 79 points) it is just that it was disguised because we always finished 2nd.
yes there was a golden couple of years 2002-2004 because we had the best player in the world and a few other world class players played in their correct positions but even in those days we routinely failed on the european stage. the last 10 years has been an era of mediocrity where Wenger could claim he had no money to spend because of the new stadium. utter crap if you consider the huge wages he paid some players. he is only now being found out because now he is spending the money it is not making the slightest difference to the performance of the team.
For me that is partially true - le cock's early success was almost entirely built on the players he inherited (as DB10 says). Midway through that first double season we looked like a team in real trouble but it was TA6 and the experienced back 4 who got the team into a meeting and pointed out what they as a team were doing wrong - this was surely the managers job to do but it was the senior players who proposed the tactical changes whilst wenker did fcuk all. I am not belittling the contributions that PV4, overmars, petit and (to a lesser degree) anelka made to that success, but that team and their success was very much built around GG's team and le cock has received all the plaudits for it.
Every supporter of their team would like their team to play wonderful skilful football with pace and be successful at the same time and I do wonder if that clouds the judgement of how most Gooners reflect on those successes. Even if you focus on just the first half of le cock's reign, trophy wise it is only slightly better than GG's and he had a longer reign. Even now I look back on those early wenker years and am baffled that we never won a European trophy under him - even if we forget about the champs league, it was shocking that we couldn't even win the uefa cup the year that we lost to the turks. That leads me back to my original point/question........why is wenker revered more than GG ? For me the only plausible reason is that wenker's teams played (mostly) great football but does that mean if he had of won playing the GG way the love for him wouldn't really be any better than the love for GG ? It shames me to say it, but there are far too many Gooners now who are no better than scum fans - for years they had no success and their only claim was that they played "beautiful football" but while that was going on we were winning trophies. Now a lot of our fans brag about our mythical style of football (which in reality is no more) and that seems to be enough to keep them satisfied just like it was the scum fans
I agree with augie on this. Whilst playing attractive football is nice, for me it's a bonus. I'd rather be winning trophies playing shite than be winning fuck all playing nice pretty football. But even that thing of "but we play such nice football" is a bit of a myth now. We don't. We (mostly) play slow tippy tappy tepid inneffective football that is often extremely dull and frustrating to watch. Justifying being losers with the addage "we play attractive football" and somehow thinking that gives one the moral high ground is the mindset of losers like the scum.
Having said that, whatever influence Arsene did have, there is no denying that in 98, 02 and 04 we won trophies playing the best football ANY English club ever played. We were simply stunning.
On the GG front, most of us older fans that experienced those days do give GG the credit he deserves. But GG's tenure will probably always be tainted with the "boring Arsenal" tag (even though we were fucking spectacular to watch in 1991) and the whole sorry bung episode. A shame really. I'll always love GG for bringing the pride back to The Arsenal and for giving me some of the best football times and celebratory piss ups in my life.
Excellent post Augie, spot on. I'll just add to that that apart from dividing Arsenal fans, one of Lord A-hole's biggest sins is to turn the club into a pseudo-Spud joke, absolutely lacking in bottle and spineless. Those are no Arsenal traits. Even when we were average, teams didn't enjoy coming to Highbury cos even if the footie wasn't free-flowing you knew you were in for a tough afternoon and a scrap. A team is a reflection of it's manager and it sickens me that Wenker's cowardice now runs through the team. Remember when we constantly got red cards for putting our foot in? Look at it now. It's a joke. All lovely boys, nobody makes tactical fouls, no one scraps for the cause and gets sent off because no one cares enough. No one takes responsibility which is hardly surprising even le Muppet blames refs, money and Hayley's comet for his incompetence.
GG is a better tactical manager than Le Twat, his success and adaptability on Europe is proof enough. Honest to God just look at those Anderlecht games etc. the tactical suicide of over committing in attack etc.
Yet unbelievably many of our fans cry about how other teams "foul us" and kick us etc. We used to dish it out but now the DNA of Le club is to never raise ur voice, pick up your huge wages and never be accountable so long as you are mediocre enough to get 4th. And that stems from the top.
A lot of Wenger's success was enhanced by the fact he took on and beat Ferguson, refs and the FA. Whatever our feelings about him now back then we were delighted with a top six and UEFA Cup place. I would accept that his initial success was based on who he inherited at the back. His own ideas at that time regarding stretching and diet were revolutionary , he added flair going forward with the solid defence to back it up. Yet the 97-98 Double may not have happened if we had not lost to Blackburn in November/December 97 . It was then that the leader on the pitch stood up and was counted. There was where Wenger got lucky , and that is where we are lacking now. There is no leader.
The years between the two doubles, 98-99 apart, were dreary. There were players signed that I cannot remember .
I would give Wenger credit for the achievements of 98 to 04. I think he gave up all too easily when Chelsea became rich. He was presented with a chance to accept failure and I am not saying that was his intention but he accepted that chance too readily. It was as if Chelsea's new found wealth allowed Wenger to take some high moral ground on financial doping. The decline began then. In 2005 we finished second, six points ahead of Man Utd despite referees handing them six points against us. In two years United were champions and we were happy to get into Champions League . This was Wenger's greatest failing. We as a club stopped competing , and the malaise set in that is still there today.
Wenger as a manager has to take full responsibility for all his years at Arsenal, so despite giving him credit for his first seven or so years his failures, on so many fronts , since then has to mark his tenure as a failure also.
Last edited by Bradywasking on Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Two contrasting managers: Klopp competes v Bayern, commercially richest club in the world, forever destabilising his players and the league. Klopp continuously says that even though it's difficult to compete with Bayern, he relishes the challenge of finding a way to beat them. He's done brilliantly over past 3 years (despite current league form).
Other hand, Le Joke. Chelsea turn up and he waves the white flag. Presents him with perfect opportunity to cry murder, and just not bother trying to compete. It's oh so unfair. 4th place is just super.
That's why I want Klopp to manage us. Not this old money-grabbing has-been.
Ikechukwu1 wrote:Two contrasting managers: Klopp competes v Bayern, commercially richest club in the world, forever destabilising his players and the league. Klopp continuously says that even though it's difficult to compete with Bayern, he relishes the challenge of finding a way to beat them. He's done brilliantly over past 3 years (despite current league form).
Other hand, Le Joke. Chelsea turn up and he waves the white flag. Presents him with perfect opportunity to cry murder, and just not bother trying to compete. It's oh so unfair. 4th place is just super.
That's why I want Klopp to manage us. Not this old money-grabbing has-been.
I think someone at ath Madrid would be a better comparison - he is competing with the two richest clubs in world football but is still succeeding
Ikechukwu1 wrote:Two contrasting managers: Klopp competes v Bayern, commercially richest club in the world, forever destabilising his players and the league. Klopp continuously says that even though it's difficult to compete with Bayern, he relishes the challenge of finding a way to beat them. He's done brilliantly over past 3 years (despite current league form).
Other hand, Le Joke. Chelsea turn up and he waves the white flag. Presents him with perfect opportunity to cry murder, and just not bother trying to compete. It's oh so unfair. 4th place is just super.
That's why I want Klopp to manage us. Not this old money-grabbing has-been.
I think someone at ath Madrid would be a better comparison - he is competing with the two richest clubs in world football but is still succeeding
That word " competing" is almost as important as succeeding.
Ikechukwu1 wrote:Two contrasting managers: Klopp competes v Bayern, commercially richest club in the world, forever destabilising his players and the league. Klopp continuously says that even though it's difficult to compete with Bayern, he relishes the challenge of finding a way to beat them. He's done brilliantly over past 3 years (despite current league form).
Other hand, Le Joke. Chelsea turn up and he waves the white flag. Presents him with perfect opportunity to cry murder, and just not bother trying to compete. It's oh so unfair. 4th place is just super.
That's why I want Klopp to manage us. Not this old money-grabbing has-been.
I think someone at ath Madrid would be a better comparison - he is competing with the two richest clubs in world football but is still succeeding
That word " competing" is almost as important as succeeding.
Klopp is just further in to the cycle in that the quality squad and team he built has mostly been dismantled by the big boys, that has only just started at Atletico as last season was their first major success against Real and Barca. And the fact neither of those clubs can remotely compete on a financial level whereas we have a much better chance financially means I could see both managers being at least tempted by us if the opportunity should arise.
DB10GOONER wrote:I've a feeling Arsene might have a plaque at home (or maybe even a tattoo somewhere!!) that says;
"It's not the winning that matters, it's the taking part!"
..it matches his "be careful what you wish for " plaque or tattoo.
There is a difference between taking part and competing., you cannot always win but you must always compete.
My old man used to say something similar; "You can't always win, but the ONLY time you should accept defeat is after you've given absolutely everything and the other guy (or team) was just better on the day".
Ikechukwu1 wrote:Two contrasting managers: Klopp competes v Bayern, commercially richest club in the world, forever destabilising his players and the league. Klopp continuously says that even though it's difficult to compete with Bayern, he relishes the challenge of finding a way to beat them. He's done brilliantly over past 3 years (despite current league form).
Other hand, Le Joke. Chelsea turn up and he waves the white flag. Presents him with perfect opportunity to cry murder, and just not bother trying to compete. It's oh so unfair. 4th place is just super.
That's why I want Klopp to manage us. Not this old money-grabbing has-been.
I think someone at ath Madrid would be a better comparison - he is competing with the two richest clubs in world football but is still succeeding
Completely correct. I rate Simeome v highly and what he's doing (on a wage bill lower than QPR) is a perfect example rubbishing the AKB argument of Le Joke achieving "par". One thing I'd say on him though is that his players like Koke and Godin are on record as saying that his inspirational team talks and man management style are his major strengths. He also played at Atletico so had their respect already. He's clearly amazing, but just worry that his lack of English wouldn't help. He can learn it of course but conveying that inspiration isn't the same when you're trying to get the message through to thickos like Gibbs and Chesney. Klopp was v good at Mainz, and even better at Dortmund. His strength is tactics along with man management and his English is perfect. Tactically Simeone is excellent but his strength is his players at Atletico would die for him. Would it work as well elsewhere? It's a chance I'd happily take btw...
