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.
Rugby Gooner wrote:
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.
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
Last edited by nut flush gooner on Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
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 agree he is an injury-prone crock, but if you look at his only other "full" season (for Chelsea) he played 30 PL games and only scored 11 goals. Obviously not having Suarez to gift him 15 tap-ins had an impact there, huh? Being a striker is about consistency, so I don't get how you and others are saying Sturridge is the best English striker etc and better than anything we have when the facts dictate otherwise. He is not consistent. Without Suarez beside him he has never demonstrated an ability to score regularly.
nut flush gooner wrote:
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.
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
DB10GOONER wrote:
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.
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
Ehhhh ???? I think you are getting a bit muddled up here. The number ten generally plays in the hole behind the striker, so of course he isn't expected to carry the lion share of the goals. Confusion city this morning in interpretations.
With regards to the players I have listed, don't forget when we where are Highbury we signed some very good established players Overmars, Henry, Bergkamp, Petit, Campbell the list goes on. That coupled with the ability to source some of the best up and coming world stars eg Anelka, RVP etc made us a force in English/European football.
Today we are swimming in money, yet our benchmark is the likes of Giroud or even Perez? I cannot and will not accept that.
If David Dein was still at the club, we wouldn't be looking for a 4th or 5th choice striker we would have signed Griezmann, Higuain or Lacazette early on in the window, with minimal fuss. Despite spending £100m this summer, I don't feel the buzz I used to when some of the signings I have listed above where made.
nut flush gooner wrote:
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.
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
Ehhhh ???? I think you are getting a bit muddled up here. The number ten generally plays in the hole behind the striker, so of course he isn't expected to carry the lion share of the goals. Confusion city this morning in interpretations.
With regards to the players I have listed, don't forget when we where are Highbury we signed some very good established players Overmars, Henry, Bergkamp, Petit, Campbell the list goes on. That coupled with the ability to source some of the best up and coming world stars eg Anelka, RVP etc made us a force in English/European football.
Today we are swimming in money, yet our benchmark is the likes of Giroud or even Perez? I cannot and will not accept that.
If David Dein was still at the club, we wouldn't be looking for a 4th or 5th choice striker we would have signed Griezmann, Higuain or Lacazette early on in the window, with minimal fuss. Despite spending £100m this summer, I don't feel the buzz I used to when some of the signings I have listed above where made.
In a flexible 4-4-2 the second striker doesn't automatically have to be the classic number 10.
I absolutely agree about the club's ambition but that's a separate discussion really. I'm quite pragmatic in these things. We have Giroud. For whatever reason, Wenger has and will persist with him. My only points in this discussion are he is not totally shit - he is at best average, at worst gash - but we should be using him more effectively.
The quality and intelligence of the players is more important than the system.
The old Back 4 could play 4-4-2 but they were just as effective when George played 3 centre halves in 3-5-2 or 5-3-2. And that was because they were all great defenders, they understood the dark arts, they trained hard together and they had a huge will to win.
Likewise the Invincibles. They could have played any number of systems because they were all top class, intelligent footballers.
The current squad struggle because too many of them just aren't good enough and because Wenger is shit at in game management.
Jumpers For Goalposts wrote:The quality and intelligence of the players is more important than the system.
The old Back 4 could play 4-4-2 but they were just as effective when George played 3 centre halves in 3-5-2 or 5-3-2. And that was because they were all great defenders, they understood the dark arts, they trained hard together and they had a huge will to win.
Likewise the Invincibles. They could have played any number of systems because they were all top class, intelligent footballers.
The current squad struggle because too many of them just aren't good enough and because Wenger is shit at in game management.
All good and pertinent points and I agree to a certain extent, but we can't dismiss the huge impact the system has. If the players aren't good enough then the system used becomes far more important and relevant. Wenger is obsessed and intractable with his 4-5-1. And no matter how some try to dress it up as 4-3-3, it is really 4-5-1 that we play. Wenger has tried to wedge so many players into that system and a lot of those players were played out of position or were not good or flexible or intelligent enough to play it.
A pragmatic manager would look at the players he has, look at their strengths and weaknesses and then build the system/formation around what he has, to get the best from the most players he can. Wenger, away in Barca Worship Land, just wedges players into his idea of a tippy tappy 4-5-1.
DB10GOONER wrote:
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.
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
Ehhhh ???? I think you are getting a bit muddled up here. The number ten generally plays in the hole behind the striker, so of course he isn't expected to carry the lion share of the goals. Confusion city this morning in interpretations.
With regards to the players I have listed, don't forget when we where are Highbury we signed some very good established players Overmars, Henry, Bergkamp, Petit, Campbell the list goes on. That coupled with the ability to source some of the best up and coming world stars eg Anelka, RVP etc made us a force in English/European football.
Today we are swimming in money, yet our benchmark is the likes of Giroud or even Perez? I cannot and will not accept that.
If David Dein was still at the club, we wouldn't be looking for a 4th or 5th choice striker we would have signed Griezmann, Higuain or Lacazette early on in the window, with minimal fuss. Despite spending £100m this summer, I don't feel the buzz I used to when some of the signings I have listed above where made.
In a flexible 4-4-2 the second striker doesn't automatically have to be the classic number 10.
I absolutely agree about the club's ambition but that's a separate discussion really. I'm quite pragmatic in these things. We have Giroud. For whatever reason, Wenger has and will persist with him. My only points in this discussion are he is not totally shit - he is at best average, at worst gash - but we should be using him more effectively.
Ahh flexible 442 you mean the one that reverts to 433 or 451 as and when the players feel like it . Seriously though the reason 442 became defunct is because teams started playing 5 in midfield causing an issue with numbers.
Also for 442 to survive you need 2 central midfielders that can play and get stuck in, we had that in the past. Today there is not one player in our squad (and I include le coq and elneny) that seriously knows how to look after themselves and their team mates.
nut flush gooner wrote:
That's my point, the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer BUT what they do not contribute in goals they add with assists in abundance. All of the players I have listed are top draw number 10's, you are suggesting that because Giroud does not score as many goals as a top draw striker that he should play as a second striker, well if Wenger was stupid enough to put him in this role not only would he score less but he wouldn't provide enough assists to make up for the loss of an already poor goals to games ratio.
Every player I have listed has something special in their locker that made them a number 10, be that either to spot a killer pass, dribbling ability or scoring goals that we still talk about years after (Van Basten 88 EC or Bergy 98 WC). Giroud has none of those qualities.
My comment about Giroud's hair is symptomatic of his general attitude. He went 15 games without a goal last season and when he assisted Wellbeck in a goal he went to the north bank and cupped his ears as if to say who the fuck are you, I am the dogs bollocks. Let's face it he isn't, and therefore the reason he get's stick from Gooners is because he isn't an Arsenal quality number 10, 9 or any other position. With regards to formation. I generally go to home games and from where I sit I see a Central Striker flanked on the left and right wing when we attack so yes it is a 433. I am sure we probably play 451 away from home but you need a quick mobile striker in that formation.
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
Ehhhh ???? I think you are getting a bit muddled up here. The number ten generally plays in the hole behind the striker, so of course he isn't expected to carry the lion share of the goals. Confusion city this morning in interpretations.
With regards to the players I have listed, don't forget when we where are Highbury we signed some very good established players Overmars, Henry, Bergkamp, Petit, Campbell the list goes on. That coupled with the ability to source some of the best up and coming world stars eg Anelka, RVP etc made us a force in English/European football.
Today we are swimming in money, yet our benchmark is the likes of Giroud or even Perez? I cannot and will not accept that.
If David Dein was still at the club, we wouldn't be looking for a 4th or 5th choice striker we would have signed Griezmann, Higuain or Lacazette early on in the window, with minimal fuss. Despite spending £100m this summer, I don't feel the buzz I used to when some of the signings I have listed above where made.
In a flexible 4-4-2 the second striker doesn't automatically have to be the classic number 10.
I absolutely agree about the club's ambition but that's a separate discussion really. I'm quite pragmatic in these things. We have Giroud. For whatever reason, Wenger has and will persist with him. My only points in this discussion are he is not totally shit - he is at best average, at worst gash - but we should be using him more effectively.
Ahh flexible 442 you mean the one that reverts to 433 or 451 as and when the players feel like it . Seriously though the reason 442 became defunct is because teams started playing 5 in midfield causing an issue with numbers.
Also for 442 to survive you need 2 central midfielders that can play and get stuck in, we had that in the past. Today there is not one player in our squad (and I include le coq and elneny) that seriously knows how to look after themselves and their team mates.
Yep. The best flexible 4-4-2's do just that, but only when the situation calls for it, not just when the players feel like it. It has to be disciplined as well as flexible. Being able to drop a player back into midfield (or indeed a defender forward into midfield) easily negates the "4-5-1 gets over-run in midfield" theory. Look at Leicester, Watford, Athletico Madrid, Iceland, for recent examples of what a well-drilled, flexible 4-4-2 can achieve.
I don't agree we haven't got the players to play it. We don't have a manager or coaching staff that can coach the discipline and flexibility into the players.
DB10GOONER wrote:
You've just contradicted yourself there, mate! You said; "In a 442 system the number 10 is responsible t for providing as many goals as he can score". And now you're saying "the number 10 is NOT generally a prolific goalscorer".
RE the bit in red; That is not what I said in any form. My point is the other way round; Giroud is a second striker. We are trying to play him as a first striker. He is effective at linking the play, he wins more balls in the air than he loses, the season Ramsey had his purple patch alot of that was down to Giroud linking so well with him. If you are saying he can't do that then tbh either you have not watched him at all or you are being deliberately facetious.
Comparing ANY second striker to Bergkamp and Van Basten is ludicrous. It's not realistic to set the bar that high. It's basically saying if we can't get the best in the world then we shouldn't bother. There are no number 10's currently playing that are consistently at that level. You might as well look at every position that way; should we sell Bellerin because he's not as good as Roberto Carlos?
Unfortunately, we are stuck with Giroud, so I think we should be using him in a more effective way than as first choice lone striker. Second striker in a flexible 4-4-2 with Ozil in the space behind would be what I'd try.
Ehhhh ???? I think you are getting a bit muddled up here. The number ten generally plays in the hole behind the striker, so of course he isn't expected to carry the lion share of the goals. Confusion city this morning in interpretations.
With regards to the players I have listed, don't forget when we where are Highbury we signed some very good established players Overmars, Henry, Bergkamp, Petit, Campbell the list goes on. That coupled with the ability to source some of the best up and coming world stars eg Anelka, RVP etc made us a force in English/European football.
Today we are swimming in money, yet our benchmark is the likes of Giroud or even Perez? I cannot and will not accept that.
If David Dein was still at the club, we wouldn't be looking for a 4th or 5th choice striker we would have signed Griezmann, Higuain or Lacazette early on in the window, with minimal fuss. Despite spending £100m this summer, I don't feel the buzz I used to when some of the signings I have listed above where made.
In a flexible 4-4-2 the second striker doesn't automatically have to be the classic number 10.
I absolutely agree about the club's ambition but that's a separate discussion really. I'm quite pragmatic in these things. We have Giroud. For whatever reason, Wenger has and will persist with him. My only points in this discussion are he is not totally shit - he is at best average, at worst gash - but we should be using him more effectively.
Ahh flexible 442 you mean the one that reverts to 433 or 451 as and when the players feel like it . Seriously though the reason 442 became defunct is because teams started playing 5 in midfield causing an issue with numbers.
Also for 442 to survive you need 2 central midfielders that can play and get stuck in, we had that in the past. Today there is not one player in our squad (and I include le coq and elneny) that seriously knows how to look after themselves and their team mates.
Yep. The best flexible 4-4-2's do just that, but only when the situation calls for it, not just when the players feel like it. It has to be disciplined as well as flexible. Being able to drop a player back into midfield (or indeed a defender forward into midfield) easily negates the "4-5-1 gets over-run in midfield" theory. Look at Leicester, Watford, Athletico Madrid, Iceland, for recent examples of what a well-drilled, flexible 4-4-2 can achieve.
I don't agree we haven't got the players to play it. We don't have a manager or coaching staff that can coach the discipline and flexibility into the players.
Leicester had Kante/Drinkwater, Athletico you know what you are getting with Simeone and his preferences for Central Midfielders the same with Watford and Iceland they play a brand of football that AW will never consider. Someone like Pogba would be good in a 442, we have no one that fits the bill and we would get spit roasted with any combination of our current available Central Midfielders playing that formation.
On Twitter last night, the amount of fans who lost their shit over Wilshere going on loan, really surprised me. The guy brings new meaning to the phrase 'injury prone'. Had he stayed, it would be inevitable he would pick up some sort of season ending injury.
BFG4 wrote:On Twitter last night, the amount of fans who lost their shit over Wilshere going on loan, really surprised me. The guy brings new meaning to the phrase 'injury prone'. Had he stayed, it would be inevitable he would pick up some sort of season ending injury.
I can see Wilshere signing for worst ham tbh. They are the club he supports.
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. 
