• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

EPL | Chelsea vs Arsenal| 04/02/17 | 12:30 K/O (GMT)

What will the result be for this match?


  • Total voters
    59
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hunter Zolomon

Well-Known Member
What do you base this rubbish on? In our last 8 there we have won once and lost 7 times. So where do you get this? Wenger never changes anything according to the opposition.
i dont understand the madness that goes on here, wenger is so predictable, down to the time he makes substitutions. He is clearly and old man with no drive or hunger, who is far too comfortable. You google the word complacent, you will see a picture of wenger.
 

celestis

Arsenal-Mania Veteran
Moderator

Country: Australia
Having watched the game again we probably would have been better off starting Giroud up front . Aerially we were on top of them , I counted 3 free headers in their box we should have scored from , lo and behold first decent cross Giroud gets he scored .
 

teamsoutheast

Well-Known Member
I was just watching the game again. Is it me or did we look far better playing that weird 4-2-2-2 or whatever it was formation. We looked more dangerous going forward and having someone alongside Giroud seems to give us more options in our attacking play.
 

Big Poppa

Established Member
Trusted ⭐

Country: USA

Player:Saliba
Having watched the game again we probably would have been better off starting Giroud up front . Aerially we were on top of them , I counted 3 free headers in their box we should have scored from , lo and behold first decent cross Giroud gets he scored .

I see your logic, but those free headers came about due to the fluid movement in attack. I don't know if we have that with Giroud starting. I feel his goal (as they often do), came about once we threw the proverbial kitchen sink at them and put the ball in early. We rarely do this unless we are chasing a lead, which is why I think he scores so many late goals.
 

Big Poppa

Established Member
Trusted ⭐

Country: USA

Player:Saliba
I was just watching the game again. Is it me or did we look far better playing that weird 4-2-2-2 or whatever it was formation. We looked more dangerous going forward and having someone alongside Giroud seems to give us more options in our attacking play.

Don't forget that the pattern of the game had adjusted at that point. Chelsea receded territory and defended deep, knowing they had the strength in numbers at the back and the ability to hurt us on the break. We had possession in more advanced areas but I don't necessarily feel we were more dangerous.

This wasn't a great Chelsea performance in my opinion. A key factor is they exploited our mistakes with far more ruthlessness than we exploited theirs. They gave us 4 or 5 REALLY good chances from sloppy play - remember that mix up between Cahill and Courtois in the beginning when Iwobi's shot went wide? The free headers for Gabriel and Mustafi 2 yards in front of goal? The chance for Özil? All of those arrived when we played our starting formation.

Had Chelsea had the same opportunities, I feel it would've been another 6-0.
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
The problem with Giroud is that you're basically playing with 10 men at times.
 

Rain Dance

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
Having watched the game again we probably would have been better off starting Giroud up front . Aerially we were on top of them , I counted 3 free headers in their box we should have scored from , lo and behold first decent cross Giroud gets he scored .
Dude.. hindsight......
I see your logic, but those free headers came about due to the fluid movement in attack. I don't know if we have that with Giroud starting. I feel his goal (as they often do), came about once we threw the proverbial kitchen sink at them and put the ball in early. We rarely do this unless we are chasing a lead, which is why I think he scores so many late goals.
Hindsight too.... Giroud also scores many first early goals
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
Theo is more often guilty of this, than Giroud

Fair but at least with Theo you have the threat of running in behind a defence, but when your midfield is non existent like it was on Saturday, I guess it doesn't really matter.
 

celestis

Arsenal-Mania Veteran
Moderator

Country: Australia
The problem with Giroud is that you're basically playing with 10 men at times.

There is that Zig but in the context of this game I think we missed a trick . Middle was blocked but plenty of space down the flanks to cross and the amount of corners we had but doesn't have to be Giroud it could have been Welbeck .
 

celestis

Arsenal-Mania Veteran
Moderator

Country: Australia
Don't forget that the pattern of the game had adjusted at that point. Chelsea receded territory and defended deep, knowing they had the strength in numbers at the back and the ability to hurt us on the break. We had possession in more advanced areas but I don't necessarily feel we were more dangerous.

This wasn't a great Chelsea performance in my opinion. A key factor is they exploited our mistakes with far more ruthlessness than we exploited theirs. They gave us 4 or 5 REALLY good chances from sloppy play - remember that mix up between Cahill and Courtois in the beginning when Iwobi's shot went wide? The free headers for Gabriel and Mustafi 2 yards in front of goal? The chance for Özil? All of those arrived when we played our starting formation.

Had Chelsea had the same opportunities, I feel it would've been another 6-0.

In the first half as well though BP , but it didn't have to be Giroud it could have been Welbeck as well . For the ball over the top.
 

Penn_

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
Having watched the game again we probably would have been better off starting Giroud up front . Aerially we were on top of them , I counted 3 free headers in their box we should have scored from , lo and behold first decent cross Giroud gets he scored .

Looks like we started the wrong line up in the previous two games. Giroud couldn't get near the ball against Watford with the four CBs they played.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
What do you base this rubbish on? In our last 8 there we have won once and lost 7 times. So where do you get this? Wenger never changes anything according to the opposition.
In the 'Deal or no Deal' thread I've put some meat on the bones of those stats you just posted. Since Wenger arrived they show an interesting trend . . . if you can face the truth that is. :lol:
 

karl

Well-Known Member
The problem with Giroud is that you're basically playing with 10 men at times.
Not really true. Top scorer for the last 4 seasons and only 6 behind Alexis this year, which is probably a better strike rate per minute. Also he offers more than most of our defenders in our own penalty area at set pieces. There is plenty of competition for the lowest contributor in this team though.
 

The Gooner

Active Member
I saw ESPN's Craig Burley analyze Arsenal's performance and he was pretty accurate when he said that Arsenal only played for the first ten minutes and then just didn't do anything. We were looking threatening when we were pressing during the start and almost forced a mistake from Chelsea in the second minute. Then we just totally forgot how to press and on many occasions were just standing when Chelsea had the ball.

We were not intense enough, Kante and Matic and their front three were putting pressure on our players at all times to force a mistake but we were just standing and sightseeing when they had the ball. Özil, Iwobi and Theo being the main culprits.

Also, I remember during the second half when we were 2 down I think and still there was like 20 or so minutes to go Monreal put in a perfect cross and all it needed was a tap in. However, there were three Arsenal players waiting for said cross but no one was urgent enough to put it in. Just standing still like statues!

I think that just bout sums us up. We lack intensity and urgency in our game. No wonder we are termed the "softest" team.
 

celestis

Arsenal-Mania Veteran
Moderator

Country: Australia
I saw ESPN's Craig Burley analyze Arsenal's performance and he was pretty accurate when he said that Arsenal only played for the first ten minutes and then just didn't do anything. We were looking threatening when we were pressing during the start and almost forced a mistake from Chelsea in the second minute. Then we just totally forgot how to press and on many occasions were just standing when Chelsea had the ball.

We were not intense enough, Kante and Matic and their front three were putting pressure on our players at all times to force a mistake but we were just standing and sightseeing when they had the ball. Özil, Iwobi and Theo being the main culprits.

Also, I remember during the second half when we were 2 down I think and still there was like 20 or so minutes to go Monreal put in a perfect cross and all it needed was a tap in. However, there were three Arsenal players waiting for said cross but no one was urgent enough to put it in. Just standing still like statues!

I think that just bout sums us up. We lack intensity and urgency in our game. No wonder we are termed the "softest" team.

Yeah happens when we are down on confidence go back in our shells , we are missing that technical player that wants to control the game .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts+

Top Bottom