THE WENGER THREAD

[the playing mantis]

wengers title wins were pure luck...nothing more
inherited nucleus of great team
made 2 good signings and 8 shit ones in 96
then a no brainer in overmars

lucked out with henry and lehman

wenger mate, on yer bike

Utter nonsense.

You're either too young to remember those years or you're brain damaged. Either way, you're just wrong.

For someone so big on respect, pretty disgraceful comment tbf...

Chucky defending Wenger? What has the world come to?

no baba is having a go at g88ner i do believe re his brain damage remark. even baba wont defend wenger against such ridiculous comments

[the playing mantis]

wyltord was a v useful player. he had pace and fitted in well with the quality around him, and didnt score as many goals as he might as he aoften played on the wing as someone mentioned.

he was a regualr starter for a v good france team at the time too.

not the greatest but a 'good' player fior a big 4 club. starting 50% of time and coming on as sub 50% of time imo

comparisons to giroud fall short i think even if giroud was playing with quality around him. giroud is bang average. a slow carthorse who would disrupt fast play, and can only play in one position

[DB10GOONER]

wyltord was a v useful player. he had pace and fitted in well with the quality around him, and didnt score as many goals as he might as he aoften played on the wing as someone mentioned.

he was a regualr starter for a v good france team at the time too.

not the greatest but a 'good' player fior a big 4 club. starting 50% of time and coming on as sub 50% of time imo

comparisons to giroud fall short i think even if giroud was playing with quality around him. giroud is bang average. a slow carthorse who would disrupt fast play, and can only play in one position

Reasonable comment but I wouldn't agree Wiltord fitted in well with the quality around him - those players were lightyears better than him. He did ok, but wasn't a key player. I'd also counter that Wiltord's touch was bang average on a good day, his passing and inter-play were often very poor. He was very frustrating to watch a lot of the time. I'd agree with augie that Wiltord's finishing was ok most of the time in that he took his chances. I'd say Giroud is a better footballer, with a better touch and better eye for a pass, and that Wiltord was faster with a better finish. Neither are/were top quality, in my opinion anyway.

[arseofacrow]

Was being a bit facetious.

Again, I'd say Wiltord was average tbh. He did ok in the PL but was not top class, a bit like Giroud. The difference of course was that team Wiltord played in did have a top class striker (TH14) and a top top class striker/Number 10 (DB10) and top class midfielders chipping in with goals (Freddie, Bobby, Romford etc) and all playing in a system that suited most of their abilities. The pressure wasn't on Wiltord whereas the pressure is on Giroud and he has been found wanting. I think if you put Wiltord at his best in the current squad you'd get similar results as we do with Giroud.

Numb nuts

I went to almost every game during that period and the work of the ball was very good from Wiltord, making it easier for the more talented around him.

My contention is that you would not get Wiltord's contribution from Giroud in that team. Wiltord played out of position for most of that time and still came up with goods, many times when we really needed it as well. Wiltord wasn't a great but no failure and more than that. He had a great understanding and awareness.

[markyp]

bit gobmsmacked ,just posted my displeasure at the current state of affairs on the Arsenal facebook page and it hasnt yet been removed,been there an hour too

[OneBardGooner]

bit gobmsmacked ,just posted my displeasure at the current state of affairs on the Arsenal facebook page and it hasnt yet been removed,been there an hour too

They're just lulling you into a false sense of achievement - a bit like what the old clueless git has done to all the AKB's

[Blade]

were all great when they arrived and became worse, disinterested or dropped after 6 months

Actually this statement is true.What is the training regime that makes the regress?

And we are the only team the players get injured BEFORE/AFTER games.

[Blade]

Missed one of many,many....Sanogo.

[DB10GOONER]

Was being a bit facetious.

Again, I'd say Wiltord was average tbh. He did ok in the PL but was not top class, a bit like Giroud. The difference of course was that team Wiltord played in did have a top class striker (TH14) and a top top class striker/Number 10 (DB10) and top class midfielders chipping in with goals (Freddie, Bobby, Romford etc) and all playing in a system that suited most of their abilities. The pressure wasn't on Wiltord whereas the pressure is on Giroud and he has been found wanting. I think if you put Wiltord at his best in the current squad you'd get similar results as we do with Giroud.

Numb nuts

I went to almost every game during that period and the work of the ball was very good from Wiltord, making it easier for the more talented around him.

My contention is that you would not get Wiltord's contribution from Giroud in that team. Wiltord played out of position for most of that time and still came up with goods, many times when we really needed it as well. Wiltord wasn't a great but no failure and more than that. He had a great understanding and awareness.

Sorry, spazzer.

I also went to a helluvalot of games in that period. I just don't agree he was that good. I didn't say he was a failure, not sure where you got that from, I just think he was bang average. I thought his finishing was ok but one area I absolutely don't agree with you was his movement off the ball. I would concede he was more mobile than Giroud (YOU are, ffs! ) but Wiltord's runs were often into the wrong area or channel. I think it was the vision and ability of the likes of DB10 and Henry etc adapting and making the passes to him that made the fatter and less intelligent amongst us think it was Wiltord's "great understanding and awareness" that got him onto the ball.

[Blade]

Rivals had mainstays at the sharp end Yorke,Cole,Drogba,Shearer,Owen etc.

We has a succession of also-rans on beta testing.

Jay Simpson also had an a try...

[arseofacrow]

Was being a bit facetious.

Again, I'd say Wiltord was average tbh. He did ok in the PL but was not top class, a bit like Giroud. The difference of course was that team Wiltord played in did have a top class striker (TH14) and a top top class striker/Number 10 (DB10) and top class midfielders chipping in with goals (Freddie, Bobby, Romford etc) and all playing in a system that suited most of their abilities. The pressure wasn't on Wiltord whereas the pressure is on Giroud and he has been found wanting. I think if you put Wiltord at his best in the current squad you'd get similar results as we do with Giroud.

Numb nuts

I went to almost every game during that period and the work of the ball was very good from Wiltord, making it easier for the more talented around him.

My contention is that you would not get Wiltord's contribution from Giroud in that team. Wiltord played out of position for most of that time and still came up with goods, many times when we really needed it as well. Wiltord wasn't a great but no failure and more than that. He had a great understanding and awareness.

Sorry, spazzer.

I also went to a helluvalot of games in that period. I just don't agree he was that good. I didn't say he was a failure, not sure where you got that from, I just think he was bang average. I thought his finishing was ok but one area I absolutely don't agree with you was his movement off the ball. I would concede he was more mobile than Giroud (YOU are, ffs! ) but Wiltord's runs were often into the wrong area or channel. I think it was the vision and ability of the likes of DB10 and Henry etc adapting and making the passes to him that made the fatter and less intelligent amongst us think it was Wiltord's "great understanding and awareness" that got him onto the ball.

Sometimes one is just wrong and mate, this is one of those for you

I think you can't quantify, like Ray Parlour, how a guy fits with the others. It doesn't look right but it fits. That was Wiltord. It's a massive disservice to put him him down. Wiltords runs allowed for others and fuck knows what you were watching. He did the dirty work that allowed other to shine. While still scoring key goals (come one, you're taking apart Old Trafford? I just prefer to remember the goal I celebrated in the champions section of old trafford) Not everything has to be dissected.

[Blade]

So overall he was crap.Can you imagine what the team could have achieved with someone who was actually good ..

[OneBardGooner]

Wenker Out!

[DB10GOONER]

So overall he was crap.Can you imagine what the team could have achieved with someone who was actually good ..

hmmm... like what? Maybe the champion's league? Still there are people on here that will tell you Henry didn't bottle every final he played in for us.

[DB10GOONER]

Was being a bit facetious.

Again, I'd say Wiltord was average tbh. He did ok in the PL but was not top class, a bit like Giroud. The difference of course was that team Wiltord played in did have a top class striker (TH14) and a top top class striker/Number 10 (DB10) and top class midfielders chipping in with goals (Freddie, Bobby, Romford etc) and all playing in a system that suited most of their abilities. The pressure wasn't on Wiltord whereas the pressure is on Giroud and he has been found wanting. I think if you put Wiltord at his best in the current squad you'd get similar results as we do with Giroud.

Numb nuts

I went to almost every game during that period and the work of the ball was very good from Wiltord, making it easier for the more talented around him.

My contention is that you would not get Wiltord's contribution from Giroud in that team. Wiltord played out of position for most of that time and still came up with goods, many times when we really needed it as well. Wiltord wasn't a great but no failure and more than that. He had a great understanding and awareness.

Sorry, spazzer.

I also went to a helluvalot of games in that period. I just don't agree he was that good. I didn't say he was a failure, not sure where you got that from, I just think he was bang average. I thought his finishing was ok but one area I absolutely don't agree with you was his movement off the ball. I would concede he was more mobile than Giroud (YOU are, ffs! ) but Wiltord's runs were often into the wrong area or channel. I think it was the vision and ability of the likes of DB10 and Henry etc adapting and making the passes to him that made the fatter and less intelligent amongst us think it was Wiltord's "great understanding and awareness" that got him onto the ball.

Sometimes one is just wrong and mate, this is one of those for you

I think you can't quantify, like Ray Parlour, how a guy fits with the others. It doesn't look right but it fits. That was Wiltord. It's a massive disservice to put him him down. Wiltords runs allowed for others and fuck knows what you were watching. He did the dirty work that allowed other to shine. While still scoring key goals (come one, you're taking apart Old Trafford? I just prefer to remember the goal I celebrated in the champions section of old trafford) Not everything has to be dissected.

Apology accepted - it's fine for you to be wrong. And par for the course!

I think you'll find though the idea behind a public football forum is to dissect the main topics, like football and players' abilities etc... no?

I agree he did the dirty work but that doesn't make him a top striker. I stand by what I said; he was average and on some days he was muck.