It still backs up my point, why is it all 'ifs' with arsenal when as you have just down the risk of injury in our key weak areas are the same....
Because your point is essentially that Costa gets injured just as much as Giroud (and even then Chelsea have better backup in Remy).
That's ignoring Terry having an impeccable record while Kosc missed 14 games through injury, same for Ivanovic while Debuchy missed most of the season, same for Fabregas while Ramsey missed 17, etc. Maybe you don't consider those players getting injured as important as if Giroud or Coq did, but they're still going to have a huge effect on your season as we see every year.
Because your point is essentially that Costa gets injured just as much as Giroud (and even then Chelsea have better backup in Remy).
That's ignoring Terry having an impeccable record while Kosc missed 14 games through injury, same for Ivanovic while Debuchy missed most of the season, same for Fabregas while Ramsey missed 17, etc. Maybe you don't consider those players getting injured as important as if Giroud or Coq did, but they're still going to have a huge effect on your season as we see every year.
But i wasn't ignoring it, that wasn't what the original comment was about, it was about the big if of coq getting injured and us having no back up. I replied pointing out that there was also issues in Chelsea's squad with poor depth, using Costa and matic as examples of easy comparison.
Not commenting on other areas because they were IRRELEVANT to the point being raised isn't ignoring them, it's just not wasting time topping something that isn't relevant to the point being made.
It really shows our strength in central midfield that Wilshere is injured and it doesn't really matter, Rambo, Ozil, Cazorla and Chambo all capable in those central areas
But i wasn't ignoring it, that wasn't what the original comment was about, it was about the big if of coq getting injured and us having no back up. I replied pointing out that there was also issues in Chelsea's squad with poor depth, using Costa and matic as examples of easy comparison.
Not commenting on other areas because they were IRRELEVANT to the point being raised isn't ignoring them, it's just not wasting time topping something that isn't relevant to the point being made.
Oh and for what it's worth Walcott>Remy
I was just replying to your most recent comment of "why is it all 'ifs' with arsenal when as you have just down the risk of injury in our key weak areas are the same". Yes the risk of injury in key areas is about the same, but you can't just ignore the other 9 positions in the team when considering the effect of injury on a title challenge.
I was just replying to your most recent comment of "why is it all 'ifs' with arsenal when as you have just down the risk of injury in our key weak areas are the same". Yes the risk of injury in key areas is about the same, but you can't just ignore the other 9 positions in the team when considering the effect of injury on a title challenge.
I completely agree. The only point I was trying to make is that ALL teams have big 'ifs' around there title challenge not just us.
Great if he's correct but its a wild prediction dependent on many factors.
Fair enough. Personally don't think Arsenal winning the league is too far fetched, we have a good chance imo, certainly the best chance we've had in years. Wenger has put alot of faith in the current squad it's upto them to repay Wenger really.
If we can get off to a solid start turn I think we have enough experience and quality not to bottle the second half again. An Injury crisis is the only thing that can stop us
Fair enough. Personally don't think Arsenal winning the league is too far fetched, we have a good chance imo, certainly the best chance we've had in years. Wenger has put alot of faith in the current squad it's upto them to repay Wenger really.
If we can get off to a solid start turn I think we have enough experience and quality not to bottle the second half again. An Injury crisis is the only thing that can stop us