The Arsenal Society VIII

Walcotts has improved loads no doubt about it. But hey, hater gonna hate.

Reply 21

Ar5enal Fan

10

I think that's exactly why Walcott is so valuable. We've got loads of technically gifted players that love to keep passing but at times we can become one dimensional and the other team just has to defend in numbers to stop us. With Walcott we've always got the option to play it in behind knowing he will run for it and depending how good the ball is he probably will get to it. His biggest hinderance though is his injuries, he has good games like these but then inevitably he gets injured then has to spend another few months getting back to full fitness. If him and Van Persie can stay fit over the next month or so we should find ourselves in a really good position in the table with easier fixtures left than all our rivals.

Reply 22

wacky9873

Nasri played brilliantly yesterday - great to see.

and Walcott's tackle for the third goal was excellent.

Really pleased about the match, lets just hope we can keep it up.

Reply 23

JK.

OP

Agreed wrt Theo, after his pre-season I thought this year might be the first time he started to show some consistent quality for us, the injury was a worry but he seems to have pulled through and was superb last night.

Original post by Ar5enal Fan

He made Ashley Cole, supposedly one of, if not the best, left back in the world, look ordinary yesterday.

Less than ordinary, tbh. From where I sit, behind the left side of the goal, you get a great view of the left back position and watching Theo vs Cashley off the ball last night was just hilarious. Cole seemed terrified of Theo, at times the ball was the other side of the pitch and being passed around by our defence, but Cole just seemed scared ****less that at any moment a wonderball would be played over the top and Theo would be through. From what I'm saying it may just sound like Cole was just being fairly cautious but to watch it was more like obsession than caution. To have that effect on one of the best lbs in the world is great, tbh. Even if his finishing wasn't as good, the fear he's putting in players through the smarter moves he seems to be making is a huge benefit to the side.

Reply 24

rajandkwameali

2

Original post by Colonel.

Yeah, people can no longer say that Walcott isn't a very good player.

He always was, but hasn't lived up to his much talked about potential.

Reply 25

People need to stop getting excited about yesterdays result.

Chelsea were absolute ****e. Beating them this time round doesn't prove anything, except we can beat ****e teams.

Reply 26

Captain92

Original post by TommyWannabe

People need to stop getting excited about yesterdays result.

Chelsea were absolute ****e. Beating them this time round doesn't prove anything, except we can beat ****e teams.

Personally I find it more exciting that we got the 3 points, than that we beat Chelsea... it's overall points that matter, not how you get them, we just have the bonus of generally playing very attractive football.

Reply 27

Overmars

He has never been a good 'footballing' footballer. I don't think he is now. But anyone who has watched Arsenal before Henry will know that pace is all you need to become a danger, and if you can finish on top of that, you will be a very effective player that can get a lot of goals. My namesake was never technically brilliant (although he could take on players much better than Walcott) but with Bergkamp feeding through the right balls, he would get into goalscoring positions. Walcott can do the same. Ljungberg's another -- he had less pace but worked harder on the defensive side of the game. The way Walcott intercepted for the 3rd goal should encourage him to do that more.

I don't know why people are so quick to put him down. Hansen, Gerrard, Waddle etc. especially. He has been given a raw deal by England. It wasn't his fault he was picked for the World Cup squad at 17 and he has never been controversial or said anything that'd annoy anyone. The 'hype' thing's a complete myth -- even when he was starting out, all anyone said was that he was ****in' quick. He made a big improvement in his second season but ever since he has been hit with injuries. If he doesn't become a very good player (at least in productivity) it'll be because of that IMO.

Wenger should be starting Theo over Arshavin now. Especially if Theo's going to track back as well as he did yesterday, he won't offer any less than Arshavin has been. Arshavin is capable of playing much better but his goals have dried up recently and without that he can be pointless. People can point to the number of appearances he has made but a LOT of them have been sub appearances; in games when we're chasing a goal and the opposition have 10 men behind the ball. It's more difficult to make an impact. He is not an 'impact sub' because he rarely makes an impact. When he starts, he plays a lot better. He has only scored once when brought on as a sub but he has 8 goals in 7 starts this season -- Wenger, being a fan of stats, has probably figured out he needs to be starting.

Reply 28

Ar5enal Fan

10

Original post by TommyWannabe

People need to stop getting excited about yesterdays result.

Chelsea were absolute ****e. Beating them this time round doesn't prove anything, except we can beat ****e teams.

Well it looks like we couldn't do anything right yesterday then. If we had lost then it would just be Arsenal failing to beat the top teams yet again, yet when we win it's just because the other team was awful. United were awful 2 weeks ago but so were we and we ended up losing. Chelsea had a very strong team out, and they'd had a 2 week break to get over their slump in form yet they didn't trouble us. If we play like we did last night throughout the season we'll win the league, it's just a case of whether our players will put that same energy in against the lesser teams because up to now they haven't.

The Wigan match tomorrow is quite worrying, playing away there just 2 days after playing Chelsea is going to be tough. Also Cesc is suspended, it will be interesting to see what team Wenger puts out considering we have Birmingham away on the weekend as well, and we've definitely struggled in that fixture in recent years. I'd imagine Rosicky, Chamakh and Arshavin will come in with Walcott and Van Persie rested, Squillaci might come in as well although I'd prefer Djourou to retain his place.

Reply 29

Original post by Ar5enal Fan

Well it looks like we couldn't do anything right yesterday then. If we had lost then it would just be Arsenal failing to beat the top teams yet again, yet when we win it's just because the other team was awful. United were awful 2 weeks ago but so were we and we ended up losing. Chelsea had a very strong team out, and they'd had a 2 week break to get over their slump in form yet they didn't trouble us. If we play like we did last night throughout the season we'll win the league, it's just a case of whether our players will put that same energy in against the lesser teams because up to now they haven't.

The Wigan match tomorrow is quite worrying, playing away there just 2 days after playing Chelsea is going to be tough. Also Cesc is suspended, it will be interesting to see what team Wenger puts out considering we have Birmingham away on the weekend as well, and we've definitely struggled in that fixture in recent years. I'd imagine Rosicky, Chamakh and Arshavin will come in with Walcott and Van Persie rested, Squillaci might come in as well although I'd prefer Djourou to retain his place.

We did win because the other team were awful, how can you possibly argue any different? Every pundit in the country agrees.

3 points are always good to have, but it doesn't mean we've overcome the problems we have with top teams (as Chelsea weren't even a mid-table team yesterday), and it doesn't mean that this is some revelation in Arsenal's season.

Walcott and Van Persie shouldn't be rested. RVP has appeared in 10 games this season, mostly subbed, and Walcott has appeared in 16, mostly subbed.

If you can't play 2 matches in 3 days you shouldn't be a football player.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 30

RobbieC

15

Original post by TommyWannabe

We did win because the other team were awful, how can you possibly argue any different? Every pundit in the country agrees.

3 points are always good to have, but it doesn't mean we've overcome the problems we have with top teams (as Chelsea weren't even a mid-table team yesterday), and it doesn't mean that this is some revelation in Arsenal's season.

Walcott and Van Persie shouldn't be rested. RVP has appeared in 10 games this season, mostly subbed, and Walcott has appeared in 16, mostly subbed.

If you can't play 2 matches in 3 days you shouldn't be a football player.

Man United beat us because we played like a mid-table team for that match (and therefore were a mid-table team, based on the accepted logic). Oh, and they got exceptionally lucky with a deflected face goal in off the post...

I feel better now.

Reply 31

Ar5enal Fan

10

Original post by TommyWannabe

We did win because the other team were awful, how can you possibly argue any different? Every pundit in the country agrees.

3 points are always good to have, but it doesn't mean we've overcome the problems we have with top teams (as Chelsea weren't even a mid-table team yesterday), and it doesn't mean that this is some revelation in Arsenal's season.

Walcott and Van Persie shouldn't be rested. RVP has appeared in 10 games this season, mostly subbed, and Walcott has appeared in 16, mostly subbed.

If you can't play 2 matches in 3 days you shouldn't be a football player.

I agree Chelsea were terrible, but there's been times over the last few years where we've played very well against them and still ended up losing. That quite easily could've happened yesterday but the whole performance from the team, including the closing down, was excellent and Wenger finally decided that Chamkh and Arshavin don't have to start all the time.

I agree the result isn't some revelation though, 2 or 3 years ago we beat United home then went and lost a few games, then we beat Chelsea away and followed that up with a few losses. It's only if we manage to go on a run of wins now, especially before we play Barca because if we get knocked out by them, we'll probably lose a lot of confidence. With regards to the top teams, we don't have to play Chelsea again now and we've got City and United at home, I think the Chelsea result will help our players believe they can win those games.

Also, you're talking about Walcott and Van Persie, two of the most injury prone players we have. If they're ready for it then they should play, but are they going to be able to play 3 games in 6 days? I'd rather see them rested tomorrow and start against Birmingham than risk getting injured.

Reply 32

Original post by Ar5enal Fan

Also, you're talking about Walcott and Van Persie, two of the most injury prone players we have. If they're ready for it then they should play, but are they going to be able to play 3 games in 6 days? I'd rather see them rested tomorrow and start against Birmingham than risk getting injured.

I reall don't give a fudge if they're injury prone. If they're not playing matches they're no good, and they need to be offloaded.

You can't play your best players once every 2 matches because you're afraid they're going to snap in half, especially if that means Arshavin and Chamakh will be playing, who have both proved to be useless.

Reply 33

Original post by RobbieC

Man United beat us because we played like a mid-table team for that match (and therefore were a mid-table team, based on the accepted logic). Oh, and they got exceptionally lucky with a deflected face goal in off the post...

I feel better now.

I'm not really bothered what United are doing. You win your own matches.

Reply 34

Overmars

I know some people might say that’s because they are ordinary but they were double winners last season and despite the slump in form they’re going through nobody was casting too many aspersions on them pre-game. The team selection was brave. Arshavin consigned to the bench, Nasri shifted from the right and Walcott brought in, van Persie up front with Chamakh rested. At the back Djourou played at the expense of Squillaci. I thought it would be in place of Koscielny but there you go.

And from the very start it was obvious Arsenal were up for this. There was no sign of the Old Trafford lethargy. We snapped into tackles, competed, harrassed and chased Chelsea, allowing them no time to settle...

....

It’s lazy to write off Chelsea as rubbish, lazy to suggest the champions aren’t all that because they miss Ray ***in' Wilkins. I won’t hear any of that because it takes away from what was an tremendously good Arsenal performance.

http://arseblog.com/

I mostly agree with that. I thought Chelsea weren't really allowed to play well. It was a changed approach; especially with Wenger giving Walcott a start when he hadn't done for quite a while. Usually, Arshavin starts the big games. He also gave Djourou a start despite Kos-Squillaci being the default pairing when Vermaelen's out. Against a technically better team, our defence would've been tested more but the reason they weren't tested was because Song, Cesc and Wilshere played very well; didn't get over-powered and were first to win any 50/50.

But there few opinions that I take note of. I don't give a **** what Wenger has to say after any game -- he'll say we were brilliant/unlucky after every performance. Likewise, I don't give a **** what certain people have to say because they'll say we're crap after every game (and the opposition were poor when we do, clearly, dominate a good team). The lack of middle ground on here is terrible.

Reply 35

Louis.

16

Saying you stopped Chelsea playing would have more credibility if they hadn't been playing ****e for weeks now. Not saying you didn't play well but if (haven't read through all the reaction) anyone has been saying it proves you can beat the very best in the league etc then the Chelsea game isn't the best evidence of that.

Reply 36

Overmars

Original post by Louis.

Saying you stopped Chelsea playing would have more credibility if they hadn't been playing ****e for weeks now.

It has credibility because that's what happened. They would've been harder to stop if they were on top form, obviously, but as with everything, there's middle ground that some people would be stupid not to recognise. When Arsenal played them at Stamford Bridge, when Chelsea were top of the table, it was a tight game where Arsenal missed good chances and were punished for it. Some mistakes were corrected -- this time, chances were taken, and, most importantly, the pressing was much better throughout. To suggest this had little significance is plain wrong because the extra effort wouldn't have been visible if Chelsea weren't contesting well for 50/50s. Nobody is saying that if Arsenal always play like that, they can beat top teams all the time because football doesn't work that way. But Arsenal have a better chance they had been if they keep that same level of intensity and that clinical in front of goal. That's all.

There doesn't need to be proof that we can beat the best. Football isn't played on paper. A good side can beat a better one and neither side necessarily has to be poor for that to happen.

Reply 37

RobbieC

15

To beat the best in the league we'd have to play ourselves. Not likely.

So we'll just have to beat whatever turns up in front of us.

Reply 38

Mastermind`