This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Arsenal Society VIII

Scroll to see replies

I would like a new keeper. A 20 year old probably shouldn't be starting for a supposed title challenging club with 6 months top league experience.

Casillas, Lloris, Neuer, Adler et al would suggest otherwise.

419

How are people certain that Szcn is going to be no1 for next season. I've just got a sneaky feeling that Wenger will give it to Fab.

This point is more valid. Wenger did say a couple of weeks ago that Szczesny was No. 1 now, so I hope he sticks to that opinion. I think the only fear was that Szczesny isn't experienced enough to play in the PL - I would say his performances have shown he's capable enough, and Wenger has said Szczesny will eventually be first choice since he (Szczesny) was 15, so...

Reply 8081

JK.

L18 - you're missing the point. Us in favour of Szcz are saying that playing him isn't a risk, he's a quality keeper, just because he can get better it doesn't mean he isn't good enough atm. There's no point risking his progress needlessly whilst spending silly money at the same time to get a keeper who's not gonna to make a big difference, won't have the potential to get much better and can't potentially be our keeper for the next 20 years.

Reply 8082

ahq

Original post by Hantheman

So everyone here is saying they wouldn't take Reina (for example), who is proven class, if we could get him?

I don't know about everyone else, but that's exactly what I'm saying. :yep:

Reply 8083

Economist

Original post by L18

I have to agree. Your goalkeeper is one position you can't afford to take chances. Especially after this season, it should be blatantly obvious that you need a top keeper to win the title.

What do you mean 'especially after this season'? Only Chelsea and City have conceded less than us. We had our GK troubles for the first couple of months with Almunia then Fabianski but Fabianski played himself into some great form, the only bad error he made for the months before he got injured was the Carroll goal yet saved us a number of points with some class GKing. And Szsz did a good job when he came in (5 clean sheets in 8 games)

Splashing out 20m+ on Reina would be a waste of money, far better uses for it

Reply 8084

L18

This pleases me.

Hopefully Wenger feels the same.

Reply 8085

jit987

We don't need a replacement GK. Simples.

Reply 8086

Hantheman

There are more pressing issues with the team, but I wouldn't be crying if we improved our GK.

Reply 8087

Kevmeister

Better options than Reina? Jokes. Fair enough saying Chesney is good enough and you don't want his progress to stall but saying there are better options than Reina is a complete joke.

Besides, Arsenal don't have £25m to spend, the property is nearly gone and a loss was posted only a few months ago.

Reply 8088

T.Adams VI

Original post by L18

This pleases me.

Hopefully Wenger feels the same.

Just cause you know nothing abouut szezny, don't assume everyone else doesn't either. Most proper Arsenal fans have known of his ability for years, Wenger has rated this player since he was 16. It's not a risk to have him in goal, if you are looking at it from our point of view.

3 years ago, most arsenal fans in this thread said Wilshere would become a top player for us. Hence it wasn't a risk to us, when Wenger threw him into the first 11 at the start od the season. Opposing fans like you felt differently though (and have been proven to be wrong).

Scezny is quality, and all we need to do now is find decent cover for him.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8089

Ar5enal Fan

Fabianski is decent cover, the problem I have is that I think Wenger still sees him as No.1. He was our first choice goalkeeper until he got injured so Wenger most probably sees him as the No.1. Fabianski isn't a terrible goalkeeper, and he did show he has improved, but really Wenger should support Szczesny and put him as the first choice as overall he is definitely our best keeper.

Reply 8090

L18

Original post by T.Adams VI

I meant it pleases me in that, the only place I can see Reina leaving for is Arsenal.

Chill dude.

And I definetly never felt it was too early to throw Wilshire in, considering his performances for bolton the year before.

Reply 8091

rhinger

Original post by jit987

We don't need a replacement GK. Simples.

Is this Wenger in disguise, or have you lived in a cave for the past four years?

I trust Szczesny fully, and Fabianski to an extent, but Almunia?

A big and resounding no. We need a decent replacement of a GK.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8092

Psychotic546

Original post by rhinger

Well I'd say our number 1 and 2 GK are easily good enough. A 3rd choice GK rarely plays for any length of time (I know this season but still...) and we'll have Mannone. Is it really a pressing concern? Compare Mannone to other 3rd choice GK's out there and then say we could really have a significantly better one.

Reply 8093

jit987

Original post by rhinger

3rd GK is not necessary.

Reply 8094

The Question

Original post by Hantheman

There are always exceptions. But most train at slightly lower level, then make the step up. Look at De Gea, he's class, but he's had a few years to develop and get experience before what will amost certainly be a transfer to Man Utd's first team.

Szchez is a good keeper, but Arsenal aren't in a position to let mistakes concede too many goals considering how fragile our defence and confidence is anyway.

De Gea's at Atletico IIRC. Number one for a La Liga side isn't really a minor thing, nowhere near. being no 1 for Brentford. There's still pressure on him to do well and he's styill playing against the best sides in Spain.

Reply 8095

R-KAM

Original post by jit987

3rd GK is not necessary.

You would have said that at the start of this season too. First and second choice are out, so we'd need a decent 3rd goalkeeper too, it's probably more than likely it'll happen against next season :sigh:

Reply 8096

username358506

Original post by jit987

3rd GK is not necessary.

In that case, please, enlighten us: what would we have done when we had no other choice but to resort to Szczesny?

Reply 8097

Nasri08

We don't need to buy a new keeper if Szczesny is our first choice next season. Will he be though? The only reason he played this year was due to injuries so I hope he keeps his place. Our priority should be a decent striker and replacing Cesc (if he leaves). Defence aswell obviously but I give up hope there.

Reply 8098

jit987

Why would we need to splash on a GK (presumably 3rd choice) when they are other key areas we need to strengthen on. The GK's often comes into the question because of a fragile defence, so it makes more sense of buying a solid experienced defender rather then a experienced GK.(Whether or not Wenger buys a defender is a different question which only he knows) After fixing the defensive area, the next priority should be to strengthen the strike force with a player who can score week in-week out. If this means selling Bendtner and/or Vela for the extra cash then so be it.

Reply 8099

T.Adams VI

I think we should sign an experienced keeper, so Scezny can learn in training. The likes of Casillas/Neuer/Adler/Lloris all had experienced GKs around them when they burst on the scene. It's scary to think Scezny has Almunia as his role model.

£3-5m on a 33-36 year old should do. It will also provide competition for Scezny, allowing no room for complacency. I also don't feel Fabianski is a good enough 2nd choice. The money we get from Almunia, should fund the deal. :yy: