The Arsenal Thread XXVI
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Zürich
It really isnt. If you spend any time looking at data, and I do it for a living and to a very high level, then you consider an average as your default. Why? Because the most recent is but one single data point and so influenced unduly by short term trends. In this case, Arseal being at a 30 year low point and Liverpool at a 30 year high point. As we saw last season, reversion to a mean is typical.
Cool story bro. Well done on ignoring the entire context of our discussion and going onto some tangent about how great you are.
1. A single data point would be to use one random financial year - I gave you the context of the last 5 financial years, which in itself provides an average.
2. Arsenal's average for the last 5 financial years of data we have is finishing 5-8th in the league and before that it was finishing 4th every year and getting knocked out in the 1st knock-out round of CL for 7 years - that has been Arsenal's mean. Frankly in the data we have, Arsenal's crumble in a title challenge was outlier and the reversion to the mean would be going back to finishing 5th next season.
3. Why would you take a 30 year period? Is it because it's been 20 years since Arsenal have been relevant or last challenged for the title? Stop living in the past.
4. A 30 year average would be ridiculous considering the football landscape has changed so much from the inflation in transfer fees/wages, the massive increase in TV money (all of domestic, overseas and then also CL TV money. On top of that we've seen several states come into the game for political purposes on top of the billionares like Abramovich and Kroenke.
5. When you're doing your data analysis to a high level, don't they teach you to disregard out of date data?
(Original post by Zürich)
See above. I would use Liverpool's season after Roy Hodgson, would you? Nor should you use Arsenal's recently for basically the same reason. This is not complicated and I would say intuitive to a 4 year old. Otherwise I would blindly apply Turkey sales in January as my expected sales annually or scarves in July.
See above. I would use Liverpool's season after Roy Hodgson, would you? Nor should you use Arsenal's recently for basically the same reason. This is not complicated and I would say intuitive to a 4 year old. Otherwise I would blindly apply Turkey sales in January as my expected sales annually or scarves in July.
And someone actually pays you for this kind of analysis..?
You've talking about a data point from 12 years ago, under a manager who was sacked after 6 months, who was appointed by different owners (Gillett & Hicks). Nothing about Liverpool is the same as back then, from new owners who run the club entirely different to a world class manager who has lasted slightly longer than 6 months in being here over 7 years now. Revamped commercial team + on pitch success over a 5-6 year period + lot of investment in the stadium that has changed from 45k to 61k when the next season starts.
Kroenke has been majority owner since 2011. He's been the main owner since 2018. There have been no material changes to the Emirates in a couple of decades. There have only been 2 managers in the last 5 years at Arsenal. The performances on the pitch have been very similar in that period. Other than made up financials, I don't know what you would use other than the last 5 years data. You can factor in some other things like assuming CL football would add 50-100mil to Arsenal's bottom line (but also more costs) but there isn't going to be much more dramatic changes.
Whereas for Arsenal we're talking about the same
(Original post by Zürich)
Arsenal at c.533 with CL at a minimum. Dont forget the sponsor additional revenue and sheer ability to attract big names when youre in it. The remaining gap is cyclical and captures the fact Liverpool at the very top of the cycle(literally greatest period in 40 years) and that Arsenal at the bottom.
What drives a club's revenue? 1) Fanbase 2) Success 3) Management
2) & 3) are cycical. I wouldnt forget that Arsenal were run in a ludicrous, pathethic way on and off the pitch. Do you think a club doing Pepe for 70m would also be making great off the field deals? Do you think a club doing Salah at 30m would be doing better or worse deals? These things are cyclical as said. 1) drives the mean to which every single club, without exception, drifts towards. Liverpool couldnt put a dent in Utd's position, as they have more fans, even though you were much better ran and successful. But you could dwarf Arsenal, even though simialr fanbase and therefore (and you dont need an MBA to grasp this) revenue streams. Swap the recent history and the two flip. You know it, and I know that you know it.
Arsenal at c.533 with CL at a minimum. Dont forget the sponsor additional revenue and sheer ability to attract big names when youre in it. The remaining gap is cyclical and captures the fact Liverpool at the very top of the cycle(literally greatest period in 40 years) and that Arsenal at the bottom.
What drives a club's revenue? 1) Fanbase 2) Success 3) Management
2) & 3) are cycical. I wouldnt forget that Arsenal were run in a ludicrous, pathethic way on and off the pitch. Do you think a club doing Pepe for 70m would also be making great off the field deals? Do you think a club doing Salah at 30m would be doing better or worse deals? These things are cyclical as said. 1) drives the mean to which every single club, without exception, drifts towards. Liverpool couldnt put a dent in Utd's position, as they have more fans, even though you were much better ran and successful. But you could dwarf Arsenal, even though simialr fanbase and therefore (and you dont need an MBA to grasp this) revenue streams. Swap the recent history and the two flip. You know it, and I know that you know it.
Sure you have factored in an extra 100mil for Arsenal but there's still the unexplained gap up to Liverpool's 702mil for that financial period.
Are you assuming more money paid from current sponsors directly as a result of CL football or more new sponsorship money due to CL? If the latter, it only comes in when you've had sustained success. One season of CL qualification isn't going to bring you in tens of millions in additional commercial revenue.
A club's revenues are made up of 3 main components - TV money, match day revenue and commercial revenues.
The 3 things you have listed are all actually just one thing - success. If you're management is successful, you're more successful on the pitch. If you are successful on the pitch, all the plastic Arsenal fans will come back to supporting the club, which means more money too.
Arsenal have never been a badly run club. Under Wenger and Dein, it was the model club almost everyone looked at in terms of how to be successful. Frankly I think FSG looked at Wenger's Arsenal and Man Utd as the blueprints to follow to make Liverpool into today's success.
Arsenal have made mistakes in the transfer market (like Pepe) but for years, the PL clubs generally accept that half of transfers fail. That affects success on the pitch (or makes it harder unless you have unlimited money like Man City) but it doesn't change the fundamental financials of the club.
Even if Burnley won the next 3 PL titles, they won't make as much money as Man Utd/Liverpool or even get as close to Arsenal. Going back to the 3 main money components (TV, match day and commercial deals):
- Turf Moor is too small at 21k capacity to make 100mil+ in revenues like Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal can
- they won't be able to translate the success into fans who spend money that quickly
- commercial deals will come in related to the success but there isn't that long and far reaching brand (across the world) like the old clubs so they won't make as much
- TV money they should receive
So then taking these in turn:
TV money: Arsenal = Liverpool as it's equal opportunity for both clubs (just depends on who is more successful on the pitch in the short term
Match day revenue: Slightly in Arsenal's favour as London ticket prices are higher but gap has closed in recent years as both capacity of 60k and 61k are similar now and both have lots of corporate facilities.
Commercial revenues: frankly Liverpool have a bigger brand and under FSG are better able to exploit the LFC brand. Liverpool have always made as much or more money than Arsenal in commercial revenues (even when Liverpool were low down on their football cycle as you said) and when successful, we make even more money.
Not sure why the latter is a difficult point for you. It's in the same way that Man Utd's commercial revenues are insane. They make more money from stadium revenues (75k capacity) and commercial deals than Liverpool because the brand has been bigger/stronger for longer. FSG have done well to close the gap compared to the Glazer's poor running of their cashcow but if success is equal then Man Utd will make more money than Liverpool in revenues.
Original post by Zerforax
Cool story bro. Well done on ignoring the entire context of our discussion and going onto some tangent about how great you are.
1. A single data point would be to use one random financial year - I gave you the context of the last 5 financial years, which in itself provides an average.
2. Arsenal's average for the last 5 financial years of data we have is finishing 5-8th in the league and before that it was finishing 4th every year and getting knocked out in the 1st knock-out round of CL for 7 years - that has been Arsenal's mean. Frankly in the data we have, Arsenal's crumble in a title challenge was outlier and the reversion to the mean would be going back to finishing 5th next season.
3. Why would you take a 30 year period? Is it because it's been 20 years since Arsenal have been relevant or last challenged for the title? Stop living in the past.
4. A 30 year average would be ridiculous considering the football landscape has changed so much from the inflation in transfer fees/wages, the massive increase in TV money (all of domestic, overseas and then also CL TV money. On top of that we've seen several states come into the game for political purposes on top of the billionares like Abramovich and Kroenke.
5. When you're doing your data analysis to a high level, don't they teach you to disregard out of date data?
And someone actually pays you for this kind of analysis..?
You've talking about a data point from 12 years ago, under a manager who was sacked after 6 months, who was appointed by different owners (Gillett & Hicks). Nothing about Liverpool is the same as back then, from new owners who run the club entirely different to a world class manager who has lasted slightly longer than 6 months in being here over 7 years now. Revamped commercial team + on pitch success over a 5-6 year period + lot of investment in the stadium that has changed from 45k to 61k when the next season starts.
Kroenke has been majority owner since 2011. He's been the main owner since 2018. There have been no material changes to the Emirates in a couple of decades. There have only been 2 managers in the last 5 years at Arsenal. The performances on the pitch have been very similar in that period. Other than made up financials, I don't know what you would use other than the last 5 years data. You can factor in some other things like assuming CL football would add 50-100mil to Arsenal's bottom line (but also more costs) but there isn't going to be much more dramatic changes.
Whereas for Arsenal we're talking about the same
Sure you have factored in an extra 100mil for Arsenal but there's still the unexplained gap up to Liverpool's 702mil for that financial period.
Are you assuming more money paid from current sponsors directly as a result of CL football or more new sponsorship money due to CL? If the latter, it only comes in when you've had sustained success. One season of CL qualification isn't going to bring you in tens of millions in additional commercial revenue.
A club's revenues are made up of 3 main components - TV money, match day revenue and commercial revenues.
The 3 things you have listed are all actually just one thing - success. If you're management is successful, you're more successful on the pitch. If you are successful on the pitch, all the plastic Arsenal fans will come back to supporting the club, which means more money too.
Arsenal have never been a badly run club. Under Wenger and Dein, it was the model club almost everyone looked at in terms of how to be successful. Frankly I think FSG looked at Wenger's Arsenal and Man Utd as the blueprints to follow to make Liverpool into today's success.
Arsenal have made mistakes in the transfer market (like Pepe) but for years, the PL clubs generally accept that half of transfers fail. That affects success on the pitch (or makes it harder unless you have unlimited money like Man City) but it doesn't change the fundamental financials of the club.
Even if Burnley won the next 3 PL titles, they won't make as much money as Man Utd/Liverpool or even get as close to Arsenal. Going back to the 3 main money components (TV, match day and commercial deals):
- Turf Moor is too small at 21k capacity to make 100mil+ in revenues like Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal can
- they won't be able to translate the success into fans who spend money that quickly
- commercial deals will come in related to the success but there isn't that long and far reaching brand (across the world) like the old clubs so they won't make as much
- TV money they should receive
So then taking these in turn:
TV money: Arsenal = Liverpool as it's equal opportunity for both clubs (just depends on who is more successful on the pitch in the short term
Match day revenue: Slightly in Arsenal's favour as London ticket prices are higher but gap has closed in recent years as both capacity of 60k and 61k are similar now and both have lots of corporate facilities.
Commercial revenues: frankly Liverpool have a bigger brand and under FSG are better able to exploit the LFC brand. Liverpool have always made as much or more money than Arsenal in commercial revenues (even when Liverpool were low down on their football cycle as you said) and when successful, we make even more money.
Not sure why the latter is a difficult point for you. It's in the same way that Man Utd's commercial revenues are insane. They make more money from stadium revenues (75k capacity) and commercial deals than Liverpool because the brand has been bigger/stronger for longer. FSG have done well to close the gap compared to the Glazer's poor running of their cashcow but if success is equal then Man Utd will make more money than Liverpool in revenues.
1. A single data point would be to use one random financial year - I gave you the context of the last 5 financial years, which in itself provides an average.
2. Arsenal's average for the last 5 financial years of data we have is finishing 5-8th in the league and before that it was finishing 4th every year and getting knocked out in the 1st knock-out round of CL for 7 years - that has been Arsenal's mean. Frankly in the data we have, Arsenal's crumble in a title challenge was outlier and the reversion to the mean would be going back to finishing 5th next season.
3. Why would you take a 30 year period? Is it because it's been 20 years since Arsenal have been relevant or last challenged for the title? Stop living in the past.
4. A 30 year average would be ridiculous considering the football landscape has changed so much from the inflation in transfer fees/wages, the massive increase in TV money (all of domestic, overseas and then also CL TV money. On top of that we've seen several states come into the game for political purposes on top of the billionares like Abramovich and Kroenke.
5. When you're doing your data analysis to a high level, don't they teach you to disregard out of date data?
And someone actually pays you for this kind of analysis..?
You've talking about a data point from 12 years ago, under a manager who was sacked after 6 months, who was appointed by different owners (Gillett & Hicks). Nothing about Liverpool is the same as back then, from new owners who run the club entirely different to a world class manager who has lasted slightly longer than 6 months in being here over 7 years now. Revamped commercial team + on pitch success over a 5-6 year period + lot of investment in the stadium that has changed from 45k to 61k when the next season starts.
Kroenke has been majority owner since 2011. He's been the main owner since 2018. There have been no material changes to the Emirates in a couple of decades. There have only been 2 managers in the last 5 years at Arsenal. The performances on the pitch have been very similar in that period. Other than made up financials, I don't know what you would use other than the last 5 years data. You can factor in some other things like assuming CL football would add 50-100mil to Arsenal's bottom line (but also more costs) but there isn't going to be much more dramatic changes.
Whereas for Arsenal we're talking about the same
Sure you have factored in an extra 100mil for Arsenal but there's still the unexplained gap up to Liverpool's 702mil for that financial period.
Are you assuming more money paid from current sponsors directly as a result of CL football or more new sponsorship money due to CL? If the latter, it only comes in when you've had sustained success. One season of CL qualification isn't going to bring you in tens of millions in additional commercial revenue.
A club's revenues are made up of 3 main components - TV money, match day revenue and commercial revenues.
The 3 things you have listed are all actually just one thing - success. If you're management is successful, you're more successful on the pitch. If you are successful on the pitch, all the plastic Arsenal fans will come back to supporting the club, which means more money too.
Arsenal have never been a badly run club. Under Wenger and Dein, it was the model club almost everyone looked at in terms of how to be successful. Frankly I think FSG looked at Wenger's Arsenal and Man Utd as the blueprints to follow to make Liverpool into today's success.
Arsenal have made mistakes in the transfer market (like Pepe) but for years, the PL clubs generally accept that half of transfers fail. That affects success on the pitch (or makes it harder unless you have unlimited money like Man City) but it doesn't change the fundamental financials of the club.
Even if Burnley won the next 3 PL titles, they won't make as much money as Man Utd/Liverpool or even get as close to Arsenal. Going back to the 3 main money components (TV, match day and commercial deals):
- Turf Moor is too small at 21k capacity to make 100mil+ in revenues like Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal can
- they won't be able to translate the success into fans who spend money that quickly
- commercial deals will come in related to the success but there isn't that long and far reaching brand (across the world) like the old clubs so they won't make as much
- TV money they should receive
So then taking these in turn:
TV money: Arsenal = Liverpool as it's equal opportunity for both clubs (just depends on who is more successful on the pitch in the short term
Match day revenue: Slightly in Arsenal's favour as London ticket prices are higher but gap has closed in recent years as both capacity of 60k and 61k are similar now and both have lots of corporate facilities.
Commercial revenues: frankly Liverpool have a bigger brand and under FSG are better able to exploit the LFC brand. Liverpool have always made as much or more money than Arsenal in commercial revenues (even when Liverpool were low down on their football cycle as you said) and when successful, we make even more money.
Not sure why the latter is a difficult point for you. It's in the same way that Man Utd's commercial revenues are insane. They make more money from stadium revenues (75k capacity) and commercial deals than Liverpool because the brand has been bigger/stronger for longer. FSG have done well to close the gap compared to the Glazer's poor running of their cashcow but if success is equal then Man Utd will make more money than Liverpool in revenues.
Sigh
In one sentance, Arsenal and Liverpool have a very similar number of fans and therefore revenue potential, ignoring cyclical changes in short term success, revenue will converge .
Run a simple regression against long term revenue and it will be only fanbase size which will be non-spurious. In the short term you'll have things like CL qualification and manager, where Liverpool have obviously been way better. But in the long term, pretty much nothing else matters. Think about what you are saying man.
It's really as simple as that, no need for essays or psuedo-analysis.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Zürich
Sigh
In one sentance, Arsenal and Liverpool have a very similar number of fans and therefore revenue potential, ignoring cyclical changes in short term success, revenue will converge .
Run a simple regression against long term revenue and it will be only fanbase size which will be non-spurious. In the short term you'll have things like CL qualification and manager, where Liverpool have obviously been way better. But in the long term, pretty much nothing else matters. Think about what you are saying man.
It's really as simple as that, no need for essays or psuedo-analysis.
In one sentance, Arsenal and Liverpool have a very similar number of fans and therefore revenue potential, ignoring cyclical changes in short term success, revenue will converge .
Run a simple regression against long term revenue and it will be only fanbase size which will be non-spurious. In the short term you'll have things like CL qualification and manager, where Liverpool have obviously been way better. But in the long term, pretty much nothing else matters. Think about what you are saying man.
It's really as simple as that, no need for essays or psuedo-analysis.
And again you just say fluffy words without any data to back up your claims. Are you really sure you work with data since you don't seem to recognise any or be able to provide any.
Fan numbers is vague/hard to prove (which is probably why you include it in your fluffy non-response) but even simple things like LFC having 23.8mil followers on twitter compared to Arsenal's 21.7mil (just a small 10% higher) show some evidence.
The clubs only care about fan spending power, which directly or indirectly translates into money for the club. What's the point in having 100mil poor fans who spend nothing if you can have 50mil fans who spend £100 on kids every year.
The commercial revenues of the clubs is one metric which shows corporate support (or how much brands value being associated with clubs) and Liverpool make way more than Arsenal.
Can you provide literally anything to show that Arsenal are more popular or even as popular as Liverpool?
Original post by Zerforax
And again you just say fluffy words without any data to back up your claims. Are you really sure you work with data since you don't seem to recognise any or be able to provide any.
Fan numbers is vague/hard to prove (which is probably why you include it in your fluffy non-response) but even simple things like LFC having 23.8mil followers on twitter compared to Arsenal's 21.7mil (just a small 10% higher) show some evidence.
The clubs only care about fan spending power, which directly or indirectly translates into money for the club. What's the point in having 100mil poor fans who spend nothing if you can have 50mil fans who spend £100 on kids every year.
The commercial revenues of the clubs is one metric which shows corporate support (or how much brands value being associated with clubs) and Liverpool make way more than Arsenal.
Can you provide literally anything to show that Arsenal are more popular or even as popular as Liverpool?
Fan numbers is vague/hard to prove (which is probably why you include it in your fluffy non-response) but even simple things like LFC having 23.8mil followers on twitter compared to Arsenal's 21.7mil (just a small 10% higher) show some evidence.
The clubs only care about fan spending power, which directly or indirectly translates into money for the club. What's the point in having 100mil poor fans who spend nothing if you can have 50mil fans who spend £100 on kids every year.
The commercial revenues of the clubs is one metric which shows corporate support (or how much brands value being associated with clubs) and Liverpool make way more than Arsenal.
Can you provide literally anything to show that Arsenal are more popular or even as popular as Liverpool?
Facebook #
Twitter #
Instigram #
Global Tours
Stadium size
Shirt Sales
All vey similar.
No idea at all why this is difficult for you to comprehend, or admit.
Long term revenue will correlate strongly with #, as I think the dogs and cats on the street know. The Liverpool gap, which isnt huge btw, is simply a short term feature of the divergence in recent success. The two will close fairly rapidly in the next 2 seasons.
As I said, whatever you do for a living, I hope for your comanies sake is not remotely analytical. This is not complex.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Zürich
Facebook #
Twitter #
Instigram #
Global Tours
Stadium size
Shirt Sales
All vey similar.
No idea at all why this is difficult for you to comprehend, or admit.
Long term revenue will correlate strongly with #, as I think the dogs and cats on the street know. The Liverpool gap, which isnt huge btw, is simply a short term feature of the divergence in recent success. The two will close fairly rapidly in the next 2 seasons.
As I said, whatever you do for a living, I hope for your comanies sake is not remotely analytical. This is not complex.
Twitter #
Instigram #
Global Tours
Stadium size
Shirt Sales
All vey similar.
No idea at all why this is difficult for you to comprehend, or admit.
Long term revenue will correlate strongly with #, as I think the dogs and cats on the street know. The Liverpool gap, which isnt huge btw, is simply a short term feature of the divergence in recent success. The two will close fairly rapidly in the next 2 seasons.
As I said, whatever you do for a living, I hope for your comanies sake is not remotely analytical. This is not complex.
So post the source and figures to show me the numbers are similar?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/964295/arsenal-facebook-instagram-twitter-social-media-following/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/964294/liverpool-facebook-instagram-twitter-social-media-following/
This statista website shows Liverpool having "Across all platforms, the club's social media following amounted to over 130 million."
Compared to Arsenal having "" As of June 2023, Arsenal FC had a combined social media following of over 97 million"
Facebook - both appear to have around 41-42mil likes
Instagram - Arsenal 26.6mil vs Liverpool 42.6mil
Twitter - Arsenal's 21.7mil vs Liverpool 23.8mil
Shirt sales - the most recent I can find is for 2021:
https://www.footballtransfers.com/en/transfer-news/uk-premier-league/2022/01/which-soccer-club-sold-most-football-shirts-2021
Liverpool 3rd in the world on 2.45mil shirt sales. Arsenal don't make the top 10 globally which would mean less than 1mil shirt sales.
Liverpool's shirt sponsorship is £50mil per season and Arsenal's is £40mil a season. I think both are due for renewal soon.
Stadium size - Arsenal are 60k, Liverpool will be 61k from the start of this season. I think Arsenal estimate their wait for season ticket around 5-10 years. Liverpool's waiting list has been closed for a while - when the first expansion happened, people who had been waiting 20-25 years finally were offered tickets. Not sure what the wait might be now.
Like you say, it's not complicated. But carry on making sweeping assumptions with no data to back up your claims.
Looking forward to the game vs UTD tonight, hopefully no random injury knocks that affect our start of season.
Can't really look too deep into it but there were a lot of takeaways from the MLS game. Timber looks very promising indeed. He was all over the pitch; replicates what Zinny does but on the right hand side. I think defensively he'll be more sound too. Means our attack doesn't fall apart when Zinny isn't on the pitch.
I'm not sure if people have comprehended how much stronger we are already compared to last season. We're probably up there for best defence depth wise. Zinchenko + White alongside Tierney + Timber. Both pairs good enough to start every game for us. Haven't even mentioned Kiwior yet. Timber doubles up as a CB too so gives us an extra option at CB with Gabi/Saliba + White and Timber to substitute. If we keep Partey that's insane depth for the 6 position and they can play alongside each other
Can't really look too deep into it but there were a lot of takeaways from the MLS game. Timber looks very promising indeed. He was all over the pitch; replicates what Zinny does but on the right hand side. I think defensively he'll be more sound too. Means our attack doesn't fall apart when Zinny isn't on the pitch.
I'm not sure if people have comprehended how much stronger we are already compared to last season. We're probably up there for best defence depth wise. Zinchenko + White alongside Tierney + Timber. Both pairs good enough to start every game for us. Haven't even mentioned Kiwior yet. Timber doubles up as a CB too so gives us an extra option at CB with Gabi/Saliba + White and Timber to substitute. If we keep Partey that's insane depth for the 6 position and they can play alongside each other
Sat in the sun smoking a cigar looking at the new statue of Wenger for 30m today
Sad that he wasnt personally there for the unveiling, guess he's still (rightly) sore about his final few years at the club.
We wouldnt be signing Declan Rice for £105m today without him, you can be sure of that.
#ArseneKnows
Sad that he wasnt personally there for the unveiling, guess he's still (rightly) sore about his final few years at the club.
We wouldnt be signing Declan Rice for £105m today without him, you can be sure of that.
#ArseneKnows
yeah Arsene did so much for Arsenal. Honestly he's a guy I can respect a lot.
Prefer him to Fergie, he was funny, had a bit of spice to him but at the same time you can tell he's a caring human being who cares about his players.
You rarely get stories from ex players who disliked Wenger who were managed under him. You get a few from SAF, Pep and Mourinho though.
I'm not one who cares too much about playing the right way(although don't play ******** football all the time) but he would do the fancy way but could also do the grind out wins style. That's what made a lot of people love Arsenal. That technical ability along with the grit.
Prefer him to Fergie, he was funny, had a bit of spice to him but at the same time you can tell he's a caring human being who cares about his players.
You rarely get stories from ex players who disliked Wenger who were managed under him. You get a few from SAF, Pep and Mourinho though.
I'm not one who cares too much about playing the right way(although don't play ******** football all the time) but he would do the fancy way but could also do the grind out wins style. That's what made a lot of people love Arsenal. That technical ability along with the grit.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by bj27
yeah Arsene did so much for Arsenal. Honestly he's a guy I can respect a lot.
Prefer him to Fergie, he was funny, had a bit of spice to him but at the same time you can tell he's a caring human being who cares about his players.
You rarely get stories from ex players who disliked Wenger who were managed under him. You get a few from SAF, Pep and Mourinho though.
I'm not one who cares too much about playing the right way(although don't play ******** football all the time) but he would do the fancy way but could also do the grind out wins style. That's what made a lot of people love Arsenal. That technical ability along with the grit.
Prefer him to Fergie, he was funny, had a bit of spice to him but at the same time you can tell he's a caring human being who cares about his players.
You rarely get stories from ex players who disliked Wenger who were managed under him. You get a few from SAF, Pep and Mourinho though.
I'm not one who cares too much about playing the right way(although don't play ******** football all the time) but he would do the fancy way but could also do the grind out wins style. That's what made a lot of people love Arsenal. That technical ability along with the grit.
Yes, one of the good guys in football.
In terms of his stlye, I think towards the end of his regieme he became a bit too "philisophical" and determined to prove that he could win his way.Without a midfield destroyer, with "progressive CBs" and some of his decisions were, on their own, unforgiveable. Playing Denilson for years alongside Fabregas. Almunia. And towards the end, putting together a team with some real bad apples (Mustafi, Ozil, Auba, Kolasinac). And you cant tell me he didnt choose to not spend money. He had a talent for spoting players and that list is well known but we alowed ourselves to become a "meme club" in terms of being walked over and being the "good guys but not winners". It wouldnt have taken much. A GK in 2008. A DM pretty much any year. But he chose to play Coquelin, "his project". Not ruthless enough etc etc.
But at other times he could be as cynical as anyone(2005 FA Cup final?) so he must be judged as someone who was inconsistent and his record is not as flawless as even he might like to pretend, but nobody is perfect. Overall most of his sides were a joy to watch. Not even the invincibles but the likes of Fabregas/Nasri/Rosicky/RVP and Wilshere/Rosicky/Cazorla/Ozil were just a joy to behold.
Arsenal are a club which has a branding and soul more than most, and that's Wenger's real legacy. There is a romance about the club because of him, at least that's the main reason I remember him so fondly and will for the rest of my life.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/23008565/arsenal-arsene-wenger-mystery-brunette-beach-mykonos/
Glad to see that he is enjoying his life. Unrivalled sauce.
Glad to see that he is enjoying his life. Unrivalled sauce.
Original post by bj27
Also the Wenger arsenal coat is legendary. Unrivalled drip tbh.
Thoughts on Arteta going for David Raya? Unreal business imo, most necessary signing, the GK position is where we need the biggest upgrade. He will be undisputed no.1 in time for me.
Original post by Tom.Ford
Thoughts on Arteta going for David Raya? Unreal business imo, most necessary signing, the GK position is where we need the biggest upgrade. He will be undisputed no.1 in time for me.
Weren’t Arsenal fans saying Ramsdale is one of the best goalkeepers in the world? He’s not even the best goalkeeper in London. I’m not surprised Arteta is replacing him.
Original post by Driving_Mad
Weren’t Arsenal fans saying Ramsdale is one of the best goalkeepers in the world? He’s not even the best goalkeeper in London. I’m not surprised Arteta is replacing him.
I have seen him play many times, he has a concentration issue, it's really bad sometimes and he admits it in his interviews. Also, his distribution has been pretty bad since the middle of 2022.
The reason why fans rate him so much is because we had Leno who was a good shotstopper but had no ability to distribute, and Ramsdale's abilities in this regard were at one point far ahead and impressive. But he's fell off massively. Could be too many games for him and lack of competition.
Ramsdale is a good goalkeeper, but he looks out of place in a team challenging for trophies, he doesn't settle the defence, and his handling and command of his box from corners is sometimes so erratic.
If you have a very competent GK, it makes the team look a lot more solid. It's a glaring weakness in our team to have a keeper who is still growing/finding his level. It's a mental issue with Ramsdale.
Ramsdale is a very good goalkeeper. He is capable ot top quality saves which he has no right to be saving, he's shown that many times in his time at Arsenal.
And he's a big personality, that's obvious.
Good on set pieces, good communicator etc etc.
But, and this is pretty fundamental, he is completely average shot stopper most of the time. In 1v1s he just doesnt save often enough for me. How many times would say Kane score if clearn through on goal with him? 80-90%? That's the reality and you just dont back him in the 50/50s.
Finally, his penalty stopping is a complete disgrace. He is nearly as bad as Lloris/De Gea which is saying something....
Frankly, we've outgrown him. He's very much a top/4-Europa League level keeper. So I would have no issues replacing him, as popular as he is.
Hes not improving, he'll be at this level now until he's finished. That's where we are with him.
You go through our squad now. Saliba/Rice/Partey/Odegaard/Saka and there is quality everywhere, literally. Except GK where we're just "good" so its the obvious place to add quality. We didnt expect to be in this position but we are.
Raya is not an upgrade however, and has been around the block a while now.
Personally, I think Ramsdale is "OK" for now and wont be a calamity keeper ever. He's just not top top level and the 3-4 points a season we might gain from an upgrade is probably worth the £60m we'd spend on genuine top class.
So I would wait until a top top class GK comes around. Liverpool did this with Becker and benefited hugely and we're in a not dissimilar position. I dont want an upgrade on Ramsdale just, which frankly is easy to do but a waste of time. We should be scouting and as a "generational" GK, as soon as a Becker/Oblak/Cech/Neuer appears, we should pounce. We can get £30m for Ramsdale and if we upgrade and get a #1 that'll be around for the next 10 years then it's a no-brainer. These level GKs appear fairly regularly and we shouldnt have issues attracting them so lets just wait it out.
The teams that win the title all have top goal-keepers, with the exception of maybe Joe Hart and DDG. In 25 years the list is Seaman, Schmeichel, Cech, Van Der Saar, Becker, Ederson. Ramsdale is a level below that. Just the way it is.
And he's a big personality, that's obvious.
Good on set pieces, good communicator etc etc.
But, and this is pretty fundamental, he is completely average shot stopper most of the time. In 1v1s he just doesnt save often enough for me. How many times would say Kane score if clearn through on goal with him? 80-90%? That's the reality and you just dont back him in the 50/50s.
Finally, his penalty stopping is a complete disgrace. He is nearly as bad as Lloris/De Gea which is saying something....
Frankly, we've outgrown him. He's very much a top/4-Europa League level keeper. So I would have no issues replacing him, as popular as he is.
Hes not improving, he'll be at this level now until he's finished. That's where we are with him.
You go through our squad now. Saliba/Rice/Partey/Odegaard/Saka and there is quality everywhere, literally. Except GK where we're just "good" so its the obvious place to add quality. We didnt expect to be in this position but we are.
Raya is not an upgrade however, and has been around the block a while now.
Personally, I think Ramsdale is "OK" for now and wont be a calamity keeper ever. He's just not top top level and the 3-4 points a season we might gain from an upgrade is probably worth the £60m we'd spend on genuine top class.
So I would wait until a top top class GK comes around. Liverpool did this with Becker and benefited hugely and we're in a not dissimilar position. I dont want an upgrade on Ramsdale just, which frankly is easy to do but a waste of time. We should be scouting and as a "generational" GK, as soon as a Becker/Oblak/Cech/Neuer appears, we should pounce. We can get £30m for Ramsdale and if we upgrade and get a #1 that'll be around for the next 10 years then it's a no-brainer. These level GKs appear fairly regularly and we shouldnt have issues attracting them so lets just wait it out.
The teams that win the title all have top goal-keepers, with the exception of maybe Joe Hart and DDG. In 25 years the list is Seaman, Schmeichel, Cech, Van Der Saar, Becker, Ederson. Ramsdale is a level below that. Just the way it is.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Zürich
Ramsdale is a very good goalkeeper. He is capable ot top quality saves which he has no right to be saving, he's shown that many times in his time at Arsenal.
And he's a big personality, that's obvious.
Good on set pieces, good communicator etc etc.
But, and this is pretty fundamental, he is completely average shot stopper most of the time. In 1v1s he just doesnt save often enough for me. How many times would say Kane score if clearn through on goal with him? 80-90%? That's the reality and you just dont back him in the 50/50s.
Finally, his penalty stopping is a complete disgrace. He is nearly as bad as Lloris/De Gea which is saying something....
Frankly, we've outgrown him. He's very much a top/4-Europa League level keeper. So I would have no issues replacing him, as popular as he is.
Hes not improving, he'll be at this level now until he's finished. That's where we are with him.
You go through our squad now. Saliba/Rice/Partey/Odegaard/Saka and there is quality everywhere, literally. Except GK where we're just "good" so its the obvious place to add quality. We didnt expect to be in this position but we are.
Raya is not an upgrade however, and has been around the block a while now.
Personally, I think Ramsdale is "OK" for now and wont be a calamity keeper ever. He's just not top top level and the 3-4 points a season we might gain from an upgrade is probably worth the £60m we'd spend on genuine top class.
So I would wait until a top top class GK comes around. Liverpool did this with Becker and benefited hugely and we're in a not dissimilar position. I dont want an upgrade on Ramsdale just, which frankly is easy to do but a waste of time. We should be scouting and as a "generational" GK, as soon as a Becker/Oblak/Cech/Neuer appears, we should pounce. We can get £30m for Ramsdale and if we upgrade and get a #1 that'll be around for the next 10 years then it's a no-brainer. These level GKs appear fairly regularly and we shouldnt have issues attracting them so lets just wait it out.
The teams that win the title all have top goal-keepers, with the exception of maybe Joe Hart and DDG. In 25 years the list is Seaman, Schmeichel, Cech, Van Der Saar, Becker, Ederson. Ramsdale is a level below that. Just the way it is.
And he's a big personality, that's obvious.
Good on set pieces, good communicator etc etc.
But, and this is pretty fundamental, he is completely average shot stopper most of the time. In 1v1s he just doesnt save often enough for me. How many times would say Kane score if clearn through on goal with him? 80-90%? That's the reality and you just dont back him in the 50/50s.
Finally, his penalty stopping is a complete disgrace. He is nearly as bad as Lloris/De Gea which is saying something....
Frankly, we've outgrown him. He's very much a top/4-Europa League level keeper. So I would have no issues replacing him, as popular as he is.
Hes not improving, he'll be at this level now until he's finished. That's where we are with him.
You go through our squad now. Saliba/Rice/Partey/Odegaard/Saka and there is quality everywhere, literally. Except GK where we're just "good" so its the obvious place to add quality. We didnt expect to be in this position but we are.
Raya is not an upgrade however, and has been around the block a while now.
Personally, I think Ramsdale is "OK" for now and wont be a calamity keeper ever. He's just not top top level and the 3-4 points a season we might gain from an upgrade is probably worth the £60m we'd spend on genuine top class.
So I would wait until a top top class GK comes around. Liverpool did this with Becker and benefited hugely and we're in a not dissimilar position. I dont want an upgrade on Ramsdale just, which frankly is easy to do but a waste of time. We should be scouting and as a "generational" GK, as soon as a Becker/Oblak/Cech/Neuer appears, we should pounce. We can get £30m for Ramsdale and if we upgrade and get a #1 that'll be around for the next 10 years then it's a no-brainer. These level GKs appear fairly regularly and we shouldnt have issues attracting them so lets just wait it out.
The teams that win the title all have top goal-keepers, with the exception of maybe Joe Hart and DDG. In 25 years the list is Seaman, Schmeichel, Cech, Van Der Saar, Becker, Ederson. Ramsdale is a level below that. Just the way it is.
Courtois as well for top keepers (so funny I been saying he's a better keeper than de gea for years)
(edited 1 year ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What team do you support and why?
- Premier League Teams Hurt/Heal Game Part 1
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- Will EPL become a farmers league?
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Is it still possible that Utd could qualify for Europe
- What is the worst football Kit you have seen?
- Best football match you saw as a child?
- What will the false prophet of revelation use at his disposal to deceive people ?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- is it just me or there are a lot of teams playing out from the back now?
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- London accommodation
- Greatest goalkeeper of all time?
- Football Career Mode
- Euros 2024 Thread
- Whats everyone up to?
- How to write a personal statement?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
What teams would you support if it was based on where your parents are from?Football
6
11
