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.
Herd wrote:I think Giroud would be fine as 50 pct of a striking duo but on his own non
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Herd wrote:I think Giroud would be fine as 50 pct of a striking duo but on his own non
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Neither of them had a lazy fucking clumsy slug up front though did they. If you play 4-4-2 you need your forward players to work that much harder out of possession and Giroud's work rate has completely plummeted.
The Spurs away game this year summed him up. For 70 minutes a half-fit Danny Welbeck ran his bollocks off and despite being limited he got on the end of hopeful balls, won corners, throwins and free-kicks and pressured defenders every time they got it. Giroud came on with 20-odd minutes left when we had 10 men and he fucking sauntered about like it was a charity match.
Oh and I don't know if I mentioned he's a fucking bang average striker.
I'm beginning think that Arsenal must be getting some commission from all these players that we make a bid for who then get a bumper new contract with their club.
Herd wrote:I think Giroud would be fine as 50 pct of a striking duo but on his own non
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Neither of them had a lazy fucking clumsy slug up front though did they. If you play 4-4-2 you need your forward players to work that much harder out of possession and Giroud's work rate has completely plummeted.
The Spurs away game this year summed him up. For 70 minutes a half-fit Danny Welbeck ran his bollocks off and despite being limited he got on the end of hopeful balls, won corners, throwins and free-kicks and pressured defenders every time they got it. Giroud came on with 20-odd minutes left when we had 10 men and he fucking sauntered about like it was a charity match.
Oh and I don't know if I mentioned he's a fucking bang average striker.
No you don't. A proper 4-4-2 only needs one striker to drop off and work the midfield whilst out of possession, temporarily converting to a 4-5-1. But then that would require a manager that understands flexible formations and tactics.... I've played as a striker in both 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 and 4-4-2 is by far the easier to play in, a lot less work than in a 4-5-1, especially if you are set up right and the drop-off striker is disciplined and knows his job - and doesn't do stupid stuff like getting pulled back too deep.
But tbh, as much as I've said we would get more from Giroud in a 4-4-2, there is no guarantee that we would. If we did switch to 4-4-2 and bring in another better striker then who would be the one to drop off? The new guy? Then when we win back possession we are left with Giroud still temporarily isolated up front until we get back in formation and his pace is useless to us. If it's Giroud that drops back then his current work rate makes me think he wouldn't work hard enough as that extra man in midfield.
For me Giroud would only be useful in a 4-4-2 whilst in possession, as his link up play and ability to lay off and interlink passes is quite good in and around the box, but out of possession? I'm not so convinced...
Herd wrote:I think Giroud would be fine as 50 pct of a striking duo but on his own non
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Exactly. Okazaki was brilliant for dropping off to work the midfield. Also, Ancelotti won the CL playing (mostly) a flexible 4-4-2 at Real. Iceland used a flexible 4-4-2 in the Euros as well. It's a modernist myth that 4-5-1 has now replaced 4-4-2 as the most effective formation. Very few teams have that top quality lone striker to play 4-5-1 effectively and successfully. Most modern centre halves now struggle with defending against 4-4-2 because they are used to double-teaming the lone striker in a 4-5-1.
Herd wrote:I think Giroud would be fine as 50 pct of a striking duo but on his own non
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Neither of them had a lazy fucking clumsy slug up front though did they. If you play 4-4-2 you need your forward players to work that much harder out of possession and Giroud's work rate has completely plummeted.
The Spurs away game this year summed him up. For 70 minutes a half-fit Danny Welbeck ran his bollocks off and despite being limited he got on the end of hopeful balls, won corners, throwins and free-kicks and pressured defenders every time they got it. Giroud came on with 20-odd minutes left when we had 10 men and he fucking sauntered about like it was a charity match.
Oh and I don't know if I mentioned he's a fucking bang average striker.
No you don't. A proper 4-4-2 only needs one striker to drop off and work the midfield whilst out of possession, temporarily converting to a 4-5-1. But then that would require a manager that understands flexible formations and tactics.... I've played as a striker in both 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 and 4-4-2 is by far the easier to play in, a lot less work than in a 4-5-1, especially if you are set up right and the drop-off striker is disciplined and knows his job - and doesn't do stupid stuff like getting pulled back too deep.
But tbh, as much as I've said we would get more from Giroud in a 4-4-2, there is no guarantee that we would. If we did switch to 4-4-2 and bring in another better striker then who would be the one to drop off? The new guy? Then when we win back possession we are left with Giroud still temporarily isolated up front until we get back in formation and his pace is useless to us. If it's Giroud that drops back then his current work rate makes me think he wouldn't work hard enough as that extra man in midfield.
For me Giroud would only be useful in a 4-4-2 whilst in possession, as his link up play and ability to lay off and interlink passes is quite good in and around the box, but out of possession? I'm not so convinced...
Get. The. Fcuk - isnt there some sort of height restrictions for playing as a striker ?
Agreed. Not even our Nat's bangers can save it now
They might, I'm prepared to give them a chance
Don't tempt me
Back to Giroud, yes he played well in a 442 formation......against Iceland and Romania. For the rest of the tournament, bar the Albania game where he had 50 chances and couldn't score (sound familiar), he was gash.
Giroud will always be what Giroud is - good for a hat-trick at home to Villa but he'll never get you the winner at the swap, OT or the bridge.
nut flush gooner wrote:
I think Giroud would be ok getting on the first train out of Arsenal tube station and never coming back.
Playing Giroud as part of a 442 formation means we have to build the team to suit his deficiencies, you don't get away with that in the PL, and 442 is dead in the water these days especially with our non combative midfield.
Leicester won the league playing 4-4-2 last season. Athletico Madrid got to champions league final playing 4-4-2 last season
Neither of them had a lazy fucking clumsy slug up front though did they. If you play 4-4-2 you need your forward players to work that much harder out of possession and Giroud's work rate has completely plummeted.
The Spurs away game this year summed him up. For 70 minutes a half-fit Danny Welbeck ran his bollocks off and despite being limited he got on the end of hopeful balls, won corners, throwins and free-kicks and pressured defenders every time they got it. Giroud came on with 20-odd minutes left when we had 10 men and he fucking sauntered about like it was a charity match.
Oh and I don't know if I mentioned he's a fucking bang average striker.
No you don't. A proper 4-4-2 only needs one striker to drop off and work the midfield whilst out of possession, temporarily converting to a 4-5-1. But then that would require a manager that understands flexible formations and tactics.... I've played as a striker in both 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 and 4-4-2 is by far the easier to play in, a lot less work than in a 4-5-1, especially if you are set up right and the drop-off striker is disciplined and knows his job - and doesn't do stupid stuff like getting pulled back too deep.
But tbh, as much as I've said we would get more from Giroud in a 4-4-2, there is no guarantee that we would. If we did switch to 4-4-2 and bring in another better striker then who would be the one to drop off? The new guy? Then when we win back possession we are left with Giroud still temporarily isolated up front until we get back in formation and his pace is useless to us. If it's Giroud that drops back then his current work rate makes me think he wouldn't work hard enough as that extra man in midfield.
For me Giroud would only be useful in a 4-4-2 whilst in possession, as his link up play and ability to lay off and interlink passes is quite good in and around the box, but out of possession? I'm not so convinced...
Get. The. Fcuk - isnt there some sort of height restrictions for playing as a striker ?
In a perfect world there would be a restriction against bald bastards hitting the post from 2 yards out.
Agreed. Not even our Nat's bangers can save it now
They might, I'm prepared to give them a chance
Don't tempt me
Back to Giroud, yes he played well in a 442 formation......against Iceland and Romania. For the rest of the tournament, bar the Albania game where he had 50 chances and couldn't score (sound familiar), he was gash.
Giroud will always be what Giroud is - good for a hat-trick at home to Villa but he'll never get you the winner at the swap, OT or the bridge.
Although it is certainly indicative of a striker that can't deliver on the bigger stages, TBH I wouldn't care that much about those kind of goals across a whole season. In a well trained and set up side you'd have another striker and at least 2 or 3 midfielders that might score those winners at the swamp and old shatford etc. What concerns me more is that Giroud can't hit 20+ PL goals a season. You simply cannot have a lone striker that hits 11 - 15 PL goals a season and hope to win the PL.
I've played as a striker in both 4-5-1 and 4-4-2 and 4-4-2 is by far the easier to play in, a lot less work than in a 4-5-1, especially if you are set up right and the drop-off striker is disciplined and knows his job - and doesn't do stupid stuff like getting pulled back too deep. 
