Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SA-1)
    What you lol'ing about bro

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    your sarcasm detection pal
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leinad2012)
    To be fair there hasn't been any times really where we have been in for a player which other top 8 clubs are too. Maybe in the next few windows we'll see some progress on that front
    Don't be too sure. It's very rare for only one club to be interested in a big name player when they're unsettled, especially when that player leaves Madrid/Barcelona. Just because it isn't reported it doesn't mean the interest isn't there. I highly doubt only Arsenal were interested in Ozil, I even remember seeing PSG/United links a couple of days before he moved. In the end Ozil confirmed he came here because of one hugely important factor: Arsene Wenger, which brings me on to my next point.

    I also have to agree with PimpedButterfly on this, you're highly underestimating Arsenal's attractiveness as a football club, especially to foreign players. London status, CL football every season, to play under one of footballs most successful managers in Arsene Wenger who has a great track record in getting the best out of his players, huge wages, to play alongside world class players like Ozil, Sanchez and Cech. Arsenal literally have everything a top talent would want right now, it really is an exciting project when you think about it. Arsenal have gone through their rough patch and can only go up from here on out.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AliRizzo)
    Don't be too sure. It's very rare for only one club to be interested in a big name player when they're unsettled, especially when that player leaves Madrid/Barcelona. Just because it isn't reported it doesn't mean the interest isn't there. I highly doubt only Arsenal were interested in Ozil, I even remember seeing PSG/United links a couple of days before he moved. In the end Ozil confirmed he came here because of one hugely important factor: Arsene Wenger, which brings me on to my next point.

    I also have to agree with PimpedButterfly on this, you're highly underestimating Arsenal's attractiveness as a football club, especially to foreign players. London status, CL football every season, to play under one of footballs most successful managers in Arsene Wenger who has a great track record in getting the best out of his players, huge wages, to play alongside world class players like Ozil, Sanchez and Cech. Arsenal literally have everything a top talent would want right now, it really is an exciting project when you think about it. Arsenal have gone through their rough patch and can only go up from here on out.
    Yeah but come on the"Wenger appeal" is diminishing. Anyone signing now knows there is a very good chance they'll only be managed by him for 18 months
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leinad2012)
    Yeah but come on the"Wenger appeal" is diminishing. Anyone signing now knows there is a very good chance they'll only be managed by him for 18 months
    True, Wenger will be retiring soon, but as I listed before he's not the ONLY reason players will want to come here, and I'm sure he'll be replaced by a manager who's just as capable.

    Can't imagine Wenger retiring in 2017 tbh, especially if we win the league before then. After reading so much about him it seems his life revolves around football and he wants to be in the game as long as possible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AliRizzo)
    I also have to agree with PimpedButterfly on this, you're highly underestimating Arsenal's attractiveness as a football club, especially to foreign players. London status, CL football every season, to play under one of footballs most successful managers in Arsene Wenger
    It will be significant for Arsenal if they can capitalise on Chelsea's blip and establish themselves as the best team in the capital in the next few years.

    London is on the radar of Europe's top players as a city to live in in a way that Manchester isn't, and certainly Liverpool isn't. Being the prime London club will be a big draw.

    I think the only limiting factor for Arsenal will be money - if they say had Chelsea's money they could easily have out-Chelsea'd Chelsea.

    Could be interesting times ahead whatever happens this season. I'm sure there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth if Arsenal finish the season trophyless (quite feasible) and people will say that's it Arsenal will NEVER win the league if they can't do it this year. But I'm old enough to remember that being said about Man U in 1992 after they stuttered to 2nd place blowing a great chance of the league in the run-in against Leeds.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    It will be significant for Arsenal if they can capitalise on Chelsea's blip and establish themselves as the best team in the capital in the next few years.

    London is on the radar of Europe's top players as a city to live in in a way that Manchester isn't, and certainly Liverpool isn't. Being the prime London club will be a big draw.

    I think the only limiting factor for Arsenal will be money - if they say had Chelsea's money they could easily have out-Chelsea'd Chelsea.

    Could be interesting times ahead whatever happens this season. I'm sure there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth if Arsenal finish the season trophyless (quite feasible) and people will say that's it Arsenal will NEVER win the league if they can't do it this year. But I'm old enough to remember that being said about Man U in 1992 after they stuttered to 2nd place blowing a great chance of the league in the run-in against Leeds.
    Agreed, Chelsea's embarrassing demise this season has done us a massive favor and shows that it's not easy to be in the top 4 every year. I also agree that not winning the league this year will help the popular opinion that Arsenal just aren't capable of winning the big trophies when it matters.

    I don't think money is limiting us anymore. Between 04-13 it was definitely a huge hindrance and as a result we not only lost some of our key players but we were also unable to compete in the transfer market. I have a feeling Hazard would have been ours if that saga were to occur today. Arsenal are now financially stable and should be able to compete with the big boys, although wages in excess of 200k a week is a barrier we are still yet to break.

    The last thing we need now to confirm our presence as a big club is to do well in Europe. Embarrassing results like those against Olympiacos, Zagreb, and even the 5-1 against Bayern doesn't help our image. Need to break that last 16 hoodoo and we'll be set, although I don't think that will be happening this year.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AliRizzo)
    Agreed, Chelsea's embarrassing demise this season has done us a massive favor and shows that it's not easy to be in the top 4 every year. I also agree that not winning the league this year will help the popular opinion that Arsenal just aren't capable of winning the big trophies when it matters.
    People used to mock Arsenal for talking up "staying in the top four every year" but this isn't something Man Utd, Liverpool or likely now Chelsea have been able to sustain and those clubs have thrown more money around than Arsenal during their financially constrained period.

    (Original post by AliRizzo)
    I don't think money is limiting us anymore. Between 04-13 it was definitely a huge hindrance and as a result we not only lost some of our key players but we were also unable to compete in the transfer market. I have a feeling Hazard would have been ours if that saga were to occur today. Arsenal are now financially stable and should be able to compete with the big boys, although wages in excess of 200k a week is a barrier we are still yet to break.
    I agree and the books on Arsenal eg "The Making of a Modern Superclub" and "The Quest to Rediscover Past Glories" show just how tight things were and how difficult the task for Wenger was. He did superbly well. History has also shown that a lot of his sales were not that bad in hindsight, despite what rent-a-gobs like Piers Morgan say. The sales which indicated Arsenal's "lack of ambition" were players like: Fabregas, Van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Kolo Toure, Clichy. Which of those went on to be better after Arsenal than at Arsenal? At best they had brief half-seasons of their Arsenal-esque form.

    I think the issue for Arsenal when both Chelsea and City (and recently but less effectively, Man Utd) came on the scene splashing cash was Arsenal could not compete in the same market so they were always looking for the next tier down of player. Some of Wengers signings in that next tier down were definitely not players that would have got in the top teams and he moved them on: Gervinho, Podolski, Squillaci.

    But also he made some good signings too and I would question the "lack of ambition" argument pitted against those sales mentioned above by comparing them to replacements: Ozil & Cazorla now look like upgrades on Fabregas & Nasri; also Sanchez & Giroud compared to RVP & Adebayor or Monreal & Koscielny vs Clichy & Kolo Toure.

    (Original post by AliRizzo)
    The last thing we need now to confirm our presence as a big club is to do well in Europe. Embarrassing results like those against Olympiacos, Zagreb, and even the 5-1 against Bayern doesn't help our image. Need to break that last 16 hoodoo and we'll be set, although I don't think that will be happening this year.
    I think luck can come in to play in the Champions League. Liverpool were not the best team in Europe in 2005, neither were Chelsea in 2012. Arsenal were not far off winning in 2006 when they were already a team a bit past their peak. Obviously when you have dynasties winning 3 CLs in 5 years or whatever like Barca, Real, Milan and Liverpool have done in the past then that is the hallmark of a great team. But I think the main yardstick for Arsenal is can they get back to sustained Premier League success and I think in the next 5 to 10 years Arsenal can win a few titles and steadily move in to pole position in English football.

    Man Utd I think are at a dangerous crossroads similar to where Liverpool were at the end of the Souness era. Liverpool then went down the "bootroom" culture with Roy Evans who was out of his depth and by the time he left, Liverpool were no too far removed from their glory days to have that pitch to potential players. I think United might do the same if they go with Giggs.

    Chelsea also have a lot of rebuilding to do now so I think its about Arsenal v Man City for the next few years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    People used to mock Arsenal for talking up "staying in the top four every year" but this isn't something Man Utd, Liverpool or likely now Chelsea have been able to sustain and those clubs have thrown more money around than Arsenal during their financially constrained period.
    You mean by one season where we had a joke of a manager in charge? When we were comparable to Arsenal (e.g. After the Glazers bought us, didn't allow us to spend millions on players to the extent we sold Ronaldo and lost Tevez to be replaced by Obertan and Owen), and an experienced manager, we won titles and challenged on all fronts, whereas Arsenal haven't bar the last few seasons when they've spent more money.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FFTypoCorrector)
    You mean by one season where we had a joke of a manager in charge? When we were comparable to Arsenal (e.g. After the Glazers bought us, didn't allow us to spend millions on players to the extent we sold Ronaldo and lost Tevez to be replaced by Obertan and Owen), and an experienced manager, we won titles and challenged on all fronts, whereas Arsenal haven't bar the last few seasons when they've spent more money.
    I mean the whole post-Ferguson era. United have started to resemble Arsenal of recent years. Trophyless, unhappy fans and playing only for trying to make the top four. The difference is United have been shelling out a lot of money compared to Arsenal.

    Now I'm not going to criticise SAF's record at United as I regard him as the greatest manager of all time and his record is superior to Wenger's, there's no argument about that. SAF and Wenger are the only real managers who had a long term plan for their clubs but SAF was better. The difference between the two for me was Wenger developed his hallmark style and for a while dominated the game with brilliant football but when times got hard he retreated in to a caricature of that style, continuing to sign attacking midfielders and not addressing the point that Arsenal had become soft at the back and centre of the park. SAF had a couple of fallow spells where United dropped off but he always rebuilt better and also I felt he was a more open-minded manager to different formations and styles. His sides always played to win but he evolved with the game moving from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 with inside forwards. He didn't go like Wenger just stubbornly trying to prove the merits of a particular philosophy.

    However I think you're exaggerating a bit when you say "when United were comparable to Arsenal" in terms of not having funds to spend under the Glazers. The Glazers were never the tight fists that were feared in fact they backed SAF in the transfer market more than Martin Edwards had. If you read "Managing My Life" SAF was frustrated at United's reluctance to back him in the 1990s when he was trying to sign players like Batistuta, Desailly, Ronaldo (Brazilian one).

    Berbatov was £27m, Anderson was £22m, Carrick, Nani and Hargreaves were all close to £20m. That year you talk about Ronaldo and Tevez leaving and Obertan and Owen coming in they also signed Valencia from Wigan for £13m, the next year they brought De Gea, Jones and Young in and the year after that signed Van Persie from Arsenal for £22m and Kagawa for £11m so it's not as though money was constrained over a long period of time like it was at Arsenal.

    I don't think there's an argument that SAF was the greatest manager but what will be interesting now is the post SAF era: how will his successors compare with Wenger's record.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I mean the whole post-Ferguson era. United have started to resemble Arsenal of recent years. Trophyless, unhappy fans and playing only for trying to make the top four. The difference is United have been shelling out a lot of money compared to Arsenal.

    Now I'm not going to criticise SAF's record at United as I regard him as the greatest manager of all time and his record is superior to Wenger's, there's no argument about that. SAF and Wenger are the only real managers who had a long term plan for their clubs but SAF was better. The difference between the two for me was Wenger developed his hallmark style and for a while dominated the game with brilliant football but when times got hard he retreated in to a caricature of that style, continuing to sign attacking midfielders and not addressing the point that Arsenal had become soft at the back and centre of the park. SAF had a couple of fallow spells where United dropped off but he always rebuilt better and also I felt he was a more open-minded manager to different formations and styles. His sides always played to win but he evolved with the game moving from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 with inside forwards. He didn't go like Wenger just stubbornly trying to prove the merits of a particular philosophy.

    However I think you're exaggerating a bit when you say "when United were comparable to Arsenal" in terms of not having funds to spend under the Glazers. The Glazers were never the tight fists that were feared in fact they backed SAF in the transfer market more than Martin Edwards had. If you read "Managing My Life" SAF was frustrated at United's reluctance to back him in the 1990s when he was trying to sign players like Batistuta, Desailly, Ronaldo (Brazilian one).

    Berbatov was £27m, Anderson was £22m, Carrick, Nani and Hargreaves were all close to £20m. That year you talk about Ronaldo and Tevez leaving and Obertan and Owen coming in they also signed Valencia from Wigan for £13m, the next year they brought De Gea, Jones and Young in and the year after that signed Van Persie from Arsenal for £22m and Kagawa for £11m so it's not as though money was constrained over a long period of time like it was at Arsenal.

    I don't think there's an argument that SAF was the greatest manager but what will be interesting now is the post SAF era: how will his successors compare with Wenger's record.
    Yeah I agree with you then. I guess it'll be interesting to see if Arsenal can maintain that level of consistency post-Wenger as well, it depends on the evolution of Liverpool and Spurs as you'd assume that Chelsea/United/City will be mainstays in the title picture for the forseeable.

    Fergie was a lot more flexible yeah, haven't read that book but caught some snippets from his auto, where one passage described how Park was deployed to harrass Pirlo and we came out with a big aggregate win. SAF struck the perfect balance between being pro-active and reactive, something which others manage to do (e.g. Jose is too reactive at times, such as when he perceives a team to have good wingers he'll push his wingers back to double up, and they're 10 yards behind where they should be to be able to quickly transition to a counter-attack). Wenger's glory days were a bit too early on for me, but seems like he's betrayed his own success when you look at the players he used to have, big nasty men like Paddy and Bergkamp obviously differ to his current personnel.

    The Glazers were tightfists to an extent. You mentioned the players we bought post-Ronaldo but our net spend (I do see the irony here) was still fairly low. Between 2005 and Fergie's retirement, how many marquee signings did we make? Tevez, Berbatov, RvP, a soon to be out of contract RvP are the only ones that comes to mind, the rest were prospects. I can't comment on Edwards, but on a success:money spent ratio, we're very close to Arsenal in that period (that is to say we actually won trophies so naturally had a higher budget).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FFTypoCorrector)
    The Glazers were tightfists to an extent. You mentioned the players we bought post-Ronaldo but our net spend (I do see the irony here) was still fairly low. Between 2005 and Fergie's retirement, how many marquee signings did we make? Tevez, Berbatov, RvP, a soon to be out of contract RvP are the only ones that comes to mind, the rest were prospects. I can't comment on Edwards, but on a success:money spent ratio, we're very close to Arsenal in that period (that is to say we actually won trophies so naturally had a higher budget).
    United had a dynasty of success in that period so you wouldn't expect them to make that many marquee signings, because marquee signings expect to be starters and United would have to be moving existing players out.

    There were a core of five players who were going to be part of the starting 11: Van der Sar, Gary Neville, Ferdinand, Scholes and Giggs. Also during the Glazer era they brought in Vidic, Evra and Carrick who also became integral parts, and for the first four years Ronaldo was there as well. So it meant the main signings were players to supplement them.

    Any team with a settled successful spine will be less active in the transfer market: Arsenal were the same in their period of success. After the likes of Henry, Pires and Campbell had come in, Arsenal went quiet in the transfer market for a few years - just chipping in 1 or 2 first teamers a season, Gilberto, Lehmann, Van Persie. The anomaly in that era was splashing out a club record fee (I think!) on Jose Antonio Reyes who had a brilliant few months and then faded away.

    (Original post by FFTypoCorrector)
    Wenger's glory days were a bit too early on for me, but seems like he's betrayed his own success when you look at the players he used to have, big nasty men like Paddy and Bergkamp obviously differ to his current personnel.
    I think Wenger's glory days were only really knocked off by the fact large sums of money came in to Chelsea and Man City which Arsenal couldn't compete with. If it hadn't been for those outside injections of money you'd have seen United and Arsenal go head to head for the rest of teh decade as the top two forces in English football - with United winning the larger share but Arsenal would have had a few more trophies than they actually did.

    Wenger failed to do what Fergie did, which was constantly refresh a legendary defence. Fergie had Schmeichel; Parker, Bruce, Pallister and Irwin which was second best defence in the league to Arsenal's Seaman; Dixon, Adams, Bould/Keown and Winterburn. Wenger had the fortune to inherit that defence and because he modernised the diet and conditioning he extended their careers like AC Milan's grand old defence. But apart from replacing Adams with Campbell he never really got Arsenal right at the back once they had gone. The way Fergie managed United's defence was great. Gary and Phil Neville came in, Jaap Stam came in, Ferdinand came in, Vidic and Evra came in. He always had an eye for great defenders and constantly maintained United's strength at the back. Since the famous Arsenal back four retired and especially after Campbell left, Arsenal's back line has varied between average and sub-average.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Can this elneny geez actually play dm? Looks skinny af and i cba to scout him via YouTube compilations
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I want to hear Zurich's thoughts on Mohamed Elneny
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Happy New Year my Gooners x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SA-1)
    I want to hear Zurich's thoughts on Mohamed Elneny
    Mohamed Elneny - Arsenal PL Champion 2016. You heard it here first haters, quote me! Do you like the sound of that? Zurich Zurich is bent zurichisamoron
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Previous Egyptians to play in the Premier League:

    Literally never heard of half of them. He's in illustrious company that's for sure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    He's so ****ing good.

    One day they will debate, was Bergkamp as good as Özil?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by swirly)
    He's so ****ing good.

    One day they will debate, was Bergkamp as good as Özil?
    Bergkamp retired 10 years ago. 10 years ffs. Now I feel old.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)
    Bergkamp retired 10 years ago. 10 years ffs. Now I feel old.
    How old are you? I am 24 lol.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Tom.x.Gotze)
    How old are you? I am 24 lol.
    Same age. 25 in April.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: October 7, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.