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.
BFG4 wrote:Arguing about whether Giroud is better than anyone is pointless. If we played a system that accommodated two up front, then having Giroud would be fine, but under the current system, an average striker with a bit of pace is better than having a guy with zero pace, but the ability to hold up the ball. I know if anyone asked Ozil what type of player he would prefer up front, it would be anyone but Giroud. That's not saying Sturridge is the answer, but persisting with a guy who went missing for four months last season is ridiculous for a supposed big club.
Lacazette is averaging a goal every 37 minutes!!!
You could play 433, 442, 451, 352, 4131, 532 and any other combination that adds up to ten and Giroud would still be shit.
Using our formation as an excuse for a striker not having a very good goals to games ratio, is just avoiding the real issue about the players many weaknesses.
BFG4 wrote:Arguing about whether Giroud is better than anyone is pointless. If we played a system that accommodated two up front, then having Giroud would be fine, but under the current system, an average striker with a bit of pace is better than having a guy with zero pace, but the ability to hold up the ball. I know if anyone asked Ozil what type of player he would prefer up front, it would be anyone but Giroud. That's not saying Sturridge is the answer, but persisting with a guy who went missing for four months last season is ridiculous for a supposed big club.
Lacazette is averaging a goal every 37 minutes!!!
You could play 433, 442, 451, 352, 4131, 532 and any other combination that adds up to ten and Giroud would still be shit.
Using our formation as an excuse for a striker not having a very good goals to games ratio, is just avoiding the real issue about the players many weaknesses.
northbank123 wrote:Sturridge is better than any of the strikers we have.
No. He simply is not. His PL goal record speaks for itself. Even Giroud is better, and has scored far more goals than Sturridge year after year after year, (bar 2014) even though Giroud is playing in a shit 4-5-1 system that does not play to his limited strengths. Sturridge has only ever managed double figures 3 times in 10 years! And one of those was seriously swayed by Suarez. Giroud has hit double figures every season with us.
Ultimately "double figures" is not good enough though, and Giroud is bog average, but Sturridge is not even that good. He also lacks Giroud's ability to link the play in the box. Honestly, no offence meant here, mate - but it looks like your well documented hatred of Giroud is influencing your post here.
Now I understand why you hate it when people base their arguments on statistics
Giroud has been here four seasons. In that time he has scored 57 goals in 135 PL games - that's 0.42/game.
Sturridge has been at Liverpool four seasons. In that time he has scored 43 goals in 69 PL games - that's 0.62/game.
How many goals he scored as a 17-year old at Man City isn't really relevant, and Liverpool and Arsenal are pretty fair comparators in terms of chances created etc. It doesn't make him a better all-around player but he is a better finisher, more of a predator and a better goal scorer than Giroud. When he isn't nobbled.
And that's why I hate the stats argument. .42 this .61 that.
Okay, let's limit it to just their times at Arsenal and Liverpool - it makes Sturridge look worse if anything!! The thing is, Sturridge's stats are hugely swayed by that one season that Suarez gifted him 20+. Sturridge has never gotten anywhere near that total before or since. Giroud hits somewhere around 14-16 PL goals a season, season after season, which is PL average, so he is consistent in his average-ness, whereas Sturridge (without Suarez) hits around 8-10 which is PL gash.
BFG4 wrote:Arguing about whether Giroud is better than anyone is pointless. If we played a system that accommodated two up front, then having Giroud would be fine, but under the current system, an average striker with a bit of pace is better than having a guy with zero pace, but the ability to hold up the ball. I know if anyone asked Ozil what type of player he would prefer up front, it would be anyone but Giroud. That's not saying Sturridge is the answer, but persisting with a guy who went missing for four months last season is ridiculous for a supposed big club.
Lacazette is averaging a goal every 37 minutes!!!
You could play 433, 442, 451, 352, 4131, 532 and any other combination that adds up to ten and Giroud would still be shit.
Using our formation as an excuse for a striker not having a very good goals to games ratio, is just avoiding the real issue about the players many weaknesses.
Of course it's not avoiding it. What an odd thing to say. You do know there are two types of striker right? First striker and second striker? That's usually what you try for in a 4-4-2. Giroud would be fine in a 4-4-2 as second striker. His problem is he is not mobile enough or clinical enough to play first striker or lone striker, which is what he is trying to do in our shit inept 4-5-1. Basic stuff, mate.
northbank123 wrote:Sturridge is better than any of the strikers we have.
No. He simply is not. His PL goal record speaks for itself. Even Giroud is better, and has scored far more goals than Sturridge year after year after year, (bar 2014) even though Giroud is playing in a shit 4-5-1 system that does not play to his limited strengths. Sturridge has only ever managed double figures 3 times in 10 years! And one of those was seriously swayed by Suarez. Giroud has hit double figures every season with us.
Ultimately "double figures" is not good enough though, and Giroud is bog average, but Sturridge is not even that good. He also lacks Giroud's ability to link the play in the box. Honestly, no offence meant here, mate - but it looks like your well documented hatred of Giroud is influencing your post here.
Now I understand why you hate it when people base their arguments on statistics
Giroud has been here four seasons. In that time he has scored 57 goals in 135 PL games - that's 0.42/game.
Sturridge has been at Liverpool four seasons. In that time he has scored 43 goals in 69 PL games - that's 0.62/game.
How many goals he scored as a 17-year old at Man City isn't really relevant, and Liverpool and Arsenal are pretty fair comparators in terms of chances created etc. It doesn't make him a better all-around player but he is a better finisher, more of a predator and a better goal scorer than Giroud. When he isn't nobbled.
And that's why I hate the stats argument. .42 this .61 that.
Okay, let's limit it to just their times at Arsenal and Liverpool - it makes Sturridge look worse if anything!! The thing is, Sturridge's stats are hugely swayed by that one season that Suarez gifted him 20+. Sturridge has never gotten anywhere near that total before or since. Giroud hits somewhere around 14-16 PL goals a season, season after season, which is PL average, so he is consistent in his average-ness, whereas Sturridge (without Suarez) hits around 8-10 which is PL gash.
Sturridge scores that many because he only plays about 15 PL games...
...Which is his biggest problem and a reason in itself why clubs should stay well clear.
I rate Sturridge as the best English striker, better than Kane and Vardy. But I wouldn't want him at Arsenal. His injury record, his primadona attitude and his lack of team ethic would simply distrupt the team. Giroud is a good striker not a top, top striker and he helps the team. I still would like to see Sanchez and Giroud play through the middle as both players looked better playing as a front two in their respective national teams, with Ozil sat in behind them. Using a 4-3-1-2 formation.
DB10GOONER wrote:Arguing about if Giroud is better than Sturridge is a bit like arguing over whether it is better to drink piss or eat shit really. Yes drinking piss is better than eating shit, but that does not mean it's good per se!
storrmin571 wrote:Jack to go out on loan to get first team football. Bit of a surprise, thought he was the chosen one.
Top heavy with centre midfielders and I honestly believe that wilshere will have forced the issue after losing his engerland place - just a few months ago we thought/hoped that wally would also push to leave after not being selected for the euro's, but now that le cock has reinstalled him to the team, we will never get rid of the c.unt
BFG4 wrote:Arguing about whether Giroud is better than anyone is pointless. If we played a system that accommodated two up front, then having Giroud would be fine, but under the current system, an average striker with a bit of pace is better than having a guy with zero pace, but the ability to hold up the ball. I know if anyone asked Ozil what type of player he would prefer up front, it would be anyone but Giroud. That's not saying Sturridge is the answer, but persisting with a guy who went missing for four months last season is ridiculous for a supposed big club.
Lacazette is averaging a goal every 37 minutes!!!
You could play 433, 442, 451, 352, 4131, 532 and any other combination that adds up to ten and Giroud would still be shit.
Using our formation as an excuse for a striker not having a very good goals to games ratio, is just avoiding the real issue about the players many weaknesses.
Of course it's not avoiding it. What an odd thing to say. You do know there are two types of striker right? First striker and second striker? That's usually what you try for in a 4-4-2. Giroud would be fine in a 4-4-2 as second striker. His problem is he is not mobile enough or clinical enough to play first striker or lone striker, which is what he is trying to do in our shit inept 4-5-1. Basic stuff, mate.
It's an even more odd thing to say giroud should play as a second striker! In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible for providing as many goals as he can score. To do this he needs pace, power and vision (remember Dennis?). Giroud has no pace or vision, he can't see a pass he can't move and arguably he has the power of a poodle.
Giroud would be shit in any formation I am sorry. The 433 that we currently play is probably best for him because all he has to do is comb his hair in the middle and wait for the ball.
Edit: Some great number 10s down the years. Cruyff, Platini, Gullitt, Bergkamp fuck even Merse was a better second striker than Giroud.
BFG4 wrote:Arguing about whether Giroud is better than anyone is pointless. If we played a system that accommodated two up front, then having Giroud would be fine, but under the current system, an average striker with a bit of pace is better than having a guy with zero pace, but the ability to hold up the ball. I know if anyone asked Ozil what type of player he would prefer up front, it would be anyone but Giroud. That's not saying Sturridge is the answer, but persisting with a guy who went missing for four months last season is ridiculous for a supposed big club.
Lacazette is averaging a goal every 37 minutes!!!
You could play 433, 442, 451, 352, 4131, 532 and any other combination that adds up to ten and Giroud would still be shit.
Using our formation as an excuse for a striker not having a very good goals to games ratio, is just avoiding the real issue about the players many weaknesses.
Of course it's not avoiding it. What an odd thing to say. You do know there are two types of striker right? First striker and second striker? That's usually what you try for in a 4-4-2. Giroud would be fine in a 4-4-2 as second striker. His problem is he is not mobile enough or clinical enough to play first striker or lone striker, which is what he is trying to do in our shit inept 4-5-1. Basic stuff, mate.
It's an even more odd thing to say giroud should play as a second striker! In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score. To do this he needs pace, power and vision (remember Dennis?). Giroud has no pace or vision, he can't see a pass he can't move and arguably he has the power of a poodle.
Giroud would be shit in any formation I am sorry. The 433 that we currently play is probably best for him because all he has to do is comb his hair in the middle and wait for the ball.
Sorry, but that is just not correct. Firstly, Dennis was not a prolific goal scorer - few second strikers are, or need to be. His best season for us only netted him 16 goals. Most seasons he scored less than 10. A big part of the second striker role is to link the play into the first striker (NOW do you remember Dennis?). Pace (whilst an advantage) is not needed for a second striker as a lot of what he'll do is with his back to goal or winning headers in the air to knock down to a pacey first striker.
Your silly hair combing comment shows clearly that you just dislike him and that is clouding comments like "Giroud has no pace or vision, he can't see a pass he can't move and arguably he has the power of a poodle." You need to actually watch him play, mate, rather than obsess over his ear cupping arrogance and his appearance. He is quite effective at passing and linking the play, and wins more in the air than he loses - it's two of the few things he is good at. He's not great, can be utter gash, but can be effective if used correctly. Unfortunately for the sweeping straw man argument "Giroud is shit" he isn't "shit" and that is the actual reality.
Also we really don't play 4-3-3. We are not mobile enough. It may look like 4-3-3 to you, but within 10 minutes of kick off we have degenerated into 4-5-1 with (usually) Giroud isolated up front whilst our 5 midfielders get bogged down in tippy tappy stuff in the middle of the park.
I wouldn't lose my shit over this Wilshere situation if I were you. Players who get crocked when out on loan are immediately returned to their parent club so expect Jack to be back at Colney by Friday evening.
His PL goal record speaks for itself. Even Giroud is better, and has scored far more goals than Sturridge year after year after year, (bar 2014) even though Giroud is playing in a shit 4-5-1 system that does not play to his limited strengths. Sturridge has only ever managed double figures 3 times in 10 years! And one of those was seriously swayed by Suarez. Giroud has hit double figures every season with us. 
