Arsène Wenger: Same Old Class

[Makingtrax]

You should get a bumper sticker that says "Wenger beat Conte twice" cause that's all you got to say whenever anyone points out Wenger's failings.

Reasonable criticisms of Wenger:
Not spending the money he has available
Poor in game management (allows players to wander out of position)
Selecting favourite players (sometimes out of position)
Keeping injury prone players (his worst failing)
Terrible wage structure
Keeping poor squad players too long
Not ruthless enough, likes to befriend players
Fallen out of the top 4, below where he should be

Less credible criticisms of Wenger
Good managers know how to set up against him (clearly Conte doesn't)
He should be challenging for the league title
He doesn't do tactics
His defences have always been frail
He can't defend set pieces
He was never very good anyway, just inherited George Graham's defence
He picks players with weak mentality
He hasn't chosen any leaders

 

[Toast]

Reasonable criticisms of Wenger:
Not spending the money he has available
Poor in game management (allows players to wander out of position)
Selecting favourite players (sometimes out of position)
Keeping injury prone players (his worst failing)
Terrible wage structure
Keeping poor squad players too long
Not ruthless enough, likes to befriend players
Fallen out of the top 4, below where he should be

Less credible criticisms of Wenger
Good managers know how to set up against him (clearly Conte doesn't)
He should be challenging for the league title
He doesn't do tactics
His defences have always been frail
He can't defend set pieces
He was never very good anyway, just inherited George Graham's defence
He picks players with weak mentality
He hasn't chosen any leaders

How is 'he should be challenging for the league title' not a credible criticism? He keeps telling us he should be doing that.

 

[Sniper Mik]

Reasonable criticisms of Wenger:
Not spending the money he has available
Poor in game management (allows players to wander out of position)
Selecting favourite players (sometimes out of position)
Keeping injury prone players (his worst failing)
Terrible wage structure
Keeping poor squad players too long
Not ruthless enough, likes to befriend players
Fallen out of the top 4, below where he should be

Less credible criticisms of Wenger
Good managers know how to set up against him (clearly Conte doesn't)
He should be challenging for the league title
He doesn't do tactics
His defences have always been frail
He can't defend set pieces
He was never very good anyway, just inherited George Graham's defence
He picks players with weak mentality
He hasn't chosen any leaders

Wenger's pants have been pulled down repeatedly and I mean repeatedly by managers of United, Chelsea, Liverpool, City and now even feckin Sp**s, pretty much every decent manager in Europe, a Ronald Koeman managed Southampton side(?!). But yes, let's ignore all that because he beat Conte twice in a year, even though a Conte side clobbered us last season as well.

 

[Makingtrax]

How is 'he should be challenging for the league title' not a credible criticism? He keeps telling us he should be doing that.

Because there's three clubs that can easily outspend us. And one of them normally wins, whoever their manager is.

Berating Sp**s, Liverpool or Arsenal managers for not beating those three is unrealistic. Poch got close last year, which shows how good he is. But I suspect not this year. Money nearly always wins in the end.

 

[Toast]

Because there's three clubs that can easily outspend us. And one of them normally wins, whoever their manager is.

Berating Sp**s, Liverpool or Arsenal managers for not beating those three is unrealistic. Poch got close last year, which shows how good he is. But I suspect not this year. Money nearly always wins in the end.

And if the criticism was "he should win the league title every year" you might have a point, but that's not what I wrote.

 

[Dokaka]

Come on bro, you can't have it both ways.

Last season Man U£626m, Arsenal £332m, West Ham £171m

I'm not critising the Hammers for coming 11th, seems OK for your spend.

Gunners though should be in the top 4 and challenging for the FA Cup which by and large we have been. It may not be setting any houses on fire . . . but 'utter misery' is nonsense.

It's this season losing two out of the first three games playing more like Accrington Stanley, that Arsenal's wheels look to be coming off.

You can't just look at transfer spends. Wages are what keeps us from competing moreso than transfer sums. Coquelin earns more than half of our starters ie.

Our highest ever earner was Payet and he was on 100k for like 4 months, and he was an exception due his immense performances and the interest from other clubs that followed.

You literally spend more than double what we do on wages and it's only 55% of your turnover. We spend 60%.

 

[Makingtrax]

Wenger's pants have been pulled down repeatedly and I mean repeatedly by managers of United, Chelsea, Liverpool, City and now even feckin Sp**s, pretty much every decent manager in Europe, a Ronald Koeman managed Southampton side(?!). But yes, let's ignore all that because he beat Conte twice in a year, even though a Conte side clobbered us last season as well.

I showed all the results against the top teams since 2013/4 (when our spending improved) on AM last season, home and away, in all comps.

If you look it up, you'll find that's blatantly untrue. Sp**s faired the best against us but if I remember we were better than City and Chelsea. Think United was similarish.

 

[Makingtrax]

And if the criticism was "he should win the league title every year" you might have a point, but that's not what I wrote.

Yeah, that's another criticism of him and the board. They over talk our hand.

 

[Makingtrax]

You can't just look at transfer spends. Wages are what keeps us from competing moreso than transfer sums. Coquelin earns more than half of our starters ie.

Our highest ever earned was Payet and he was in 100k for like 4 months, and he was an exception due his immense performances and the interest from other clubs that followed.

You literally spend more than double what we do on wages and it's only 55% of your turnover. We spend 60%.

True. Not criticising West Ham, they do OK.

 

[Toast]

Yeah, that's another criticism of him and the board. They over talk our hand.

That's fair, though I personally disagree. I think we're capable of fulfilling the targets they set but probably not under their leadership.

 

[Toast]

I showed all the results against the top teams since 2013/4 (when our spending improved) on AM last season, home and away, in all comps.

If you look it up, you'll find that's blatantly untrue. Sp**s faired the best against us but if I remember we were better than City and Chelsea. Think United was similarish.

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches during which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repitition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

 

[goonerwarsh]

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches in which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repitition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

Those are interesting stats for sure. However like you mentioned, it's not just the stats. It's the manner of those defeats, and even some of the draws where we've been ahead and desperately needing victories to only be clawed back because we can't defend leads. It's how the defeats came about, the drubbings and the manner of performances. Have we ever beat United, Chelsea, City, Liverpool or Sp**s particularly the latter two now they have great managers by 5's, 6's or dare I even say it 8's.

The horrific thing is that some of the worst results and performances of the whole clubs history have come just in recent years. Those thumpings have become the norm to the point where we're almost resigned to them. No other supposed big club gets hammered as often as Arsenal do. I think it was on the Tuesday club this week where they said that if you were to take 20 of the worst results or games in our history, the majority of those would be in recent years.

 

[GeorgiaGunner]

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches in which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repitition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

Awesome post. Love it (and greatly appreciate it) when people put this sort of stuff out there -- really improves the quality of the forum.

 

[FreakySami]

How is the owner freezing the money? Like he froze it last year when we spent £100m on transfers in a single window for the first time in our history? Or this year when we broke our transfer record? Read the article I posted.


This myth that the owner is stopping spending is another excuse that people use to defend wenger, when he is the one who is reluctant to spend. And if he was freezing the money, we would not have been able to afford sanchez staying and losing out on £60m, yet wenger had to freedom to decide to keep him.

I can't even be bothered on the transfer front, it's wenger thats the problem as I keep repeating.

... We have a problem where we need to fix our wage structure because of new rules, what do you suggest?
Also, I can't stand legrove on Twitter so don't even bother wasting your time trying to convince me of anything, your wasting my time and yours.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches during which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repitition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

Nice post mate. I didnt know these stats. Feels like we are always ****ting our pants against top6.

 

[isop]

... We have a problem where we need to fix our wage structure because of new rules, what do you suggest?
Also, I can't stand legrove on Twitter so don't even bother wasting your time trying to convince me of anything, your wasting my time and yours.

I'm not suggesting anything, if anything I'm in favour of judicious signings that give you value for money without necessarily overspending (e.g. the availability of Mahrez at £45-50m, Draxler at £35m, and crediting him for Lacazette at £46-52m in this inflated market), and of course there will be times when we need to spend a bit more, depends on the player obviously.

On another note, it's embarrassing that rival fans are desperate for wenger to stay as long as possible, and were delighted that he re-signed. They know we'll never be a threat to the league title as long as he's here. I remember feeling the same way about van gaal at man u. But I definitely don't feel the same way about conte, pochettino, klopp, and to some degree guardiola and mourinho.

We had years of consistent top 4, credit where credit is due to wenger for delivering that minimum, but competition was not like it is today with the rival managers. I predicted we would finish 6th last season below this new strong set of rival managers, and we only finished 5th because mourinho threw the league to focus on the europa at the end of the season.

I think it will happen this season, the squad is good enough to challenge and get top 4, but the rival managers are still strong, even everton have a strong manager and are pushing with ambitious signings, so wenger is no longer in his comfort zone.

If anything it'll look even worse for wenger, just like it did in the leicester season. The guy with 20+ years experience in the league, being beaten in the league by a younger generation of managers. The fa cup win last season at the end of his contract was the perfect time for him to ride off into the sunset.

 

[Makingtrax]

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches during which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repitition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

Unbiased and to the point. Can't even remember the last time I agreed with every single word of a post on AM.

Respect.

 

[IslingtonBornandbred]

Couldn't find your post, so I worked it out myself because I wanted to illustrate this point.

Arsenal home & away against the top 6 since 2013/14 in all competitions

Liverpool
WLWDWDDLLL
3 wins, 3 draw, 4 losses.
Scored 18, conceded 23.

Sp**s
WWWDLWDDDL
4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses
Scored 12, conceded 10.

Chelsea
LDLLDWLLWLWW
4 wins, 2 draws, 6 losses.
Scored 8, conceded 17.

Man City
LDWDWWDLDLDW
4 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 20, conceded 17.

United
LDLWDWLDW
3 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses.
Scored 12, conceded 9.

Overall
18 wins, 17 draws, 18 losses.
Scored 70, conceded 76.

Remarkably even, overall. Could be better perhaps, but not as diabolically bad as one might think.

Why then do we have a persistent reputation as 'big 6 bottlers'? Four reasons, in my opinion.

1. Some poor patches during which we didn't record enough wins overall or we didn't record a win against a particular team for too long, which reinforced our bad reputation.

2. Far too many drubbings. 6-0, 5-1, 4-0 etc. sticks in people's memory a lot better and a lot longer than, say, a 2-1 win. So when people think Arsenal v top 6, they tend to think of the times we rolled over far too easily.

3. The manner in which we drop points. Drubbings aside, there have been too many games where we've dropped points in silly ways. That stuff sticks.

4. The big one: our away record. The media headlines are frequently filled with our atrocious away record against the top 6. And atrocious it is. 2 wins, 6 draws and 13 losses. This again reinforces the idea that we're horrendously bad against the top 6, but it also conveniently glosses over our good home record and decent overall record. But our away record is what gets rolled out time and again in the media.

We play away to a big side? Our terrible away record hits the headlines. We get another drubbing, like last week against Liverpool? Out comes the away record. Repetition is reinforcement.

But from the above you can see that, overall, it's really not all that bad. I'd say we still drop points a bit too often, but our record against the top 6 is actually much better than people think. None of this is to say, however, that our record against the top 6 is beyond reproach or that aspects of it should not be criticised.

Interesting. Many points have already been made about why the defeats always seem so magnified but I'd guess or so it seems a number of our big game defeats have come at a time when it really matters i.e when we are still in contention or the pundits are building it up i.e "this is when it really matters" or this is the game that we will see if Arsenal can be champions" and it's usually in these games that we will come out with a shocking performance hence "Arsenal don't do it in big games" (or big games when it matters).

 

[Batman]

The biggest problem this team has is a complete lack of respect for the opponent and the belief that a good but not great squad can set out with no organization and win matches. Every single title winning squad in the history of the PL's first rule is a safe, organized defense. All 3 of Wenger's title winning squads followed this rule as well.

You watch the Invincibles and 2 things stand out immediately. First their size and strength overwhelmed teams into coughing the ball up before they made it into our defensive third of the field. This meant we were always attacking a defense on the back foot. Klopp manages this with Liverpool who while not a particularly strong team make great use of their abundance of pace. Any team who doesn't park the bus against them runs the risk of being cut open by an immediate incisive counter set up by their high press. The Invincibles didn't press quite as high but the result was the same. Very rarely were our goals forced to come against an organized defense on the front foot.

2nd and equally important is that there was considerably less unnecessary movement from our players. You were never going to find Cole or Pires for example on the right side of the pitch. The only players who really had the freedom to move around in the final third were Henry and Bergkamp. Every other player basically operated from their touchline to the center of the pitch and ventured no further. Gilberto only ever made forward runs when Vieira had dropped deep to win aerial challenges and he let Vieira follow in on the counter attacks that were started for those late runs into the box. You can watch any game from 2002-2004 and the story is the same.

Most of that team's success was based on organization and drive. Occasionally against the bigger sides and those that sat deep you had situations which necessitated technical magic from Henry, Bergkamp, Pires and Reyes but mostly it was very simple stuff. Lehmann's distribution was top notch and many a quick counter was started with one of his long throws. The back 4 moved as a unit with the fullbacks and center backs always covering when the other went forward. The midfield pairing operated the same. And the front four were always filling lanes on the counter to stretch the defense wide so that there was space for a final ball to meet the runs in the middle. Basic, basic stuff executed masterfully by a team with the perfect mix of brawn and technique.

So what's the point? The point is that every team in England wins the league this way. They may do it with varying degrees of style and quality but this is how you win and we have abandoned it entirely for absolutely no good reason. Özil's performance for Germany today is evidence that even the biggest culprit(though not totally his fault) of style over substance in the squad can be lethal in an organized setup with defined roles. That's why the 3-5-2 worked at the end of last season. It forced defined roles and accountability that somehow Wenger has undone in the span of a couple of months.

Wenger needs to go back and watch what made his early sides successful and start rebuilding the foundation to include those ingredients. That means at least one new CB in the VVD mold and at least one new CM with size who can tackle and is comfortable on the ball.This formula not only is the way to win the PL but it at least gives you a chance in Europe. I believe part of the attempt to emulate Barca was with an eye on winning the CL but it has taken us backwards even more in Europe than domestically. What is absolutely clear though is that recruitment must take a different shape. We are going to struggle for the next couple of years but I would rather build a solid defensive foundation again and struggle for goals for a year before bringing in attacking players than continue placing promising attackers on top of a foundation made of tissue paper.

 

[Piper]

Look, everybody knows that the better quality players you buy, the better chance you have of finishing higher in the league.

Wenger took a lot of flak last year. He's stayed because he's desperate to win the league, prove the doubters wrong and leave on a high like SAF.

Common sense tells you, of all the people at the club, the one who stands to gain the most from spending, is Wenger.

Why would he shoot himself in the foot by not going all out for the best players the bank balance would allow. It makes no sense.

That is a good question mate..Why would he? Well why would he make the team selections for Liverpool like he did? Simple, in my eyes this guy lost the plot years ago. You say "black" he'll say "white" He has been on a mission for 10 years to prove people wrong and until he is taken out of our club will continue this s&it for the next 2 years!