Lakersgooner24
Established Member
Not when you have foresight. We knew Wenger was content with 2nd when he brought on Monreal while we were losing. Not going to go any deeper, it's the past anyways.
-
! ! ! 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.
CL| Napoli v Arsenal, 11/12, 7.45pm, SS1
- Thread starter GOONER1991
- Start date
- Replies 775
- Views 31,088
- Status
People often say that Theo weakens our right hand side defensively but is that really the case?
I can recall many occasions when we have conceded from attacks on the left which left Gibbs and whom ever is in front of him in a mess but on the right? There are sometimes individual mistakes by Sagna and Jenks but I think its been quite a while since we have conceded after being outdone on the right side. It would take a hell of an attack to outpace both Sagna/Jenks and Theo!
I can recall many occasions when we have conceded from attacks on the left which left Gibbs and whom ever is in front of him in a mess but on the right? There are sometimes individual mistakes by Sagna and Jenks but I think its been quite a while since we have conceded after being outdone on the right side. It would take a hell of an attack to outpace both Sagna/Jenks and Theo!
Herbas
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to say too. When you see so many posts how putting Walcott on the field would severely weaken our right side defence, you could almost imagine that Özil is some back-tracking god.
I always remember that CL game against Milan from years ago when Kaka (who was still in his prime back then) tried to launch a counter down our right flank. Kaka ain't no slouch but, even with a headstart, Theo burned him up with just a few strides. I remember being highly amused by that. Theo is no defender, all he does usually is run back and add to the numbers. However, he's not an obstacle that you can typically outrun so you get into dangerous positions on the byeline, so his mere presence usually forces the opposing attack to cut inside or launch long lofted crosses (in which case we need an alert left back on the back post).
Country: England
I hope this result didnt hit the squad as hard as it hit me. But judging by how they played I'd say they are not too fussed...
yuvken
Established Member
@ Playmaker - gotta say, mate, you make me smile. You're a good poster, you do use your brains, and you speak your own mind. That is commendable, and makes whatever you bring here a positive contribution (certainly coupled with your seemingly unwavering positivity 
).
But you must note that there has to be a difference between ideals in the ideal realm, and their application in real life. It happens no matter how you construct your value hierarchy, it'll always need to meet reality in the end, and find that compromises need to be made. That innocent beauty cannot be kept even in principle, once you decided to bring your project down to earth, to take place in real life events. Be it beauty (it seems to be high on your agenda), or other ideals, no matter: real life stuff is made of plural values, they essentially mix plural ideals, and thus cannot be a drawing board environment for idealistic conceptions (whichever they are).
We play our way and it doesn't matter? well, ok, that's legit. I can see how one specific fan doesn't even care if we win or lose - why does it matter? that person has "Beauty" as the pan, and why would that person care? titles don't mean much - how you win them does, right? but then - why win a single game, while we're at it? and if that doesn't matter, why even follow the rules of the game (guidelines of how to play it, with the essential aim of…winning the game ).
So, when we take things to real life (that's where we meet the opponents, and play them the way agreed by defined rules with a particular aim), it seems we do need to win. And that has to be a factor - a very central factor - when we consider what we care about. It means, in other words, that whatever gives us better chances to win carries with it a very strong reason to choose it. That is simply rational (it doesn't necessarily mean it's the only reason, as I'm sure you'd want to say; but it is definitely not a reason without weight, as might be understood from your earlier idealistic stance). But then we need to consider:
But most baffling is your seeming tendency to mix the ideal of beauty and style also with probabilities - that to me is water and oil: what exactly do you mean by "We are an exception. We play a particular style, so if we play well in each round we will progress to the final?" that our style is different - ok, cool. That you choose to prefer that style to winning - personal choice, cool as well (though, as this post hopefully clarifies, it's no solid ground for a club to be built on). But what is the relevance of the style, that presumably if we stick by it and do it well we'll get to the final? is it a more winning secret formula that would give us a Brazil 70 type superiority? that sounds strange (and going by your early "chelsea won it by being crap and defending for 3 rounds" doesn't sound like you actually believe in it).
Think, hard as it may be, you (and many others, I guess) should accept that there are separate things, though we might like to have 'em both (or all), and they essentially don't mix. Winning is one, separate element. And it's essential.
How you make your peace with that given ground is your own affair.
).But you must note that there has to be a difference between ideals in the ideal realm, and their application in real life. It happens no matter how you construct your value hierarchy, it'll always need to meet reality in the end, and find that compromises need to be made. That innocent beauty cannot be kept even in principle, once you decided to bring your project down to earth, to take place in real life events. Be it beauty (it seems to be high on your agenda), or other ideals, no matter: real life stuff is made of plural values, they essentially mix plural ideals, and thus cannot be a drawing board environment for idealistic conceptions (whichever they are).
We play our way and it doesn't matter? well, ok, that's legit. I can see how one specific fan doesn't even care if we win or lose - why does it matter? that person has "Beauty" as the pan, and why would that person care? titles don't mean much - how you win them does, right? but then - why win a single game, while we're at it? and if that doesn't matter, why even follow the rules of the game (guidelines of how to play it, with the essential aim of…winning the game
).So, when we take things to real life (that's where we meet the opponents, and play them the way agreed by defined rules with a particular aim), it seems we do need to win. And that has to be a factor - a very central factor - when we consider what we care about. It means, in other words, that whatever gives us better chances to win carries with it a very strong reason to choose it. That is simply rational (it doesn't necessarily mean it's the only reason, as I'm sure you'd want to say; but it is definitely not a reason without weight, as might be understood from your earlier idealistic stance). But then we need to consider:
Well, surely, if winning matters, it does matter. All of the above do. Each one of them means less chance to win, and a good reason to avoid. But maybe you did see it yourself?
That begins to sound like me (although it is obviously not accurate: many times the better teams fall victims to a cruel fixture list, injuries, a bad day on one or the other occasion, etc.). But then you continue with:
If you don't then you don't deserve to - ok, this could be taken in a million ways. Surely, by the defined rules of the competition you don't. But if the simple common sense, that basic innocent notion we all have to some extent, that the best team deserves to win, then this is all wrong. It is just not true that the best teams are immune to the fixture list, and that they brush aside whoever is in front of them. Brazil 1970 did. Maybe a few teams in history did as well. They were simply so far ahead of the others, other factors meant little.
But most baffling is your seeming tendency to mix the ideal of beauty and style also with probabilities - that to me is water and oil: what exactly do you mean by "We are an exception. We play a particular style, so if we play well in each round we will progress to the final?" that our style is different - ok, cool. That you choose to prefer that style to winning - personal choice, cool as well (though, as this post hopefully clarifies, it's no solid ground for a club to be built on). But what is the relevance of the style, that presumably if we stick by it and do it well we'll get to the final? is it a more winning secret formula that would give us a Brazil 70 type superiority? that sounds strange (and going by your early "chelsea won it by being crap and defending for 3 rounds" doesn't sound like you actually believe in it).
Think, hard as it may be, you (and many others, I guess) should accept that there are separate things, though we might like to have 'em both (or all), and they essentially don't mix. Winning is one, separate element. And it's essential.
How you make your peace with that given ground is your own affair.
Country: England
arshy9 said:
How can you watch Arsenal lose 2-0 and have it not bother you?
@yuvken
let him be optimist, we have enough stock of pessimistic already.
let him be optimist, we have enough stock of pessimistic already.
yuvken
Established Member
I said I liked his optimism. Makes me smile. And I genuinely think it's a positive contribution - it's all there, read the post.
right, sorry,
I didn't read every line
I didn't read every line
Re The Playmaker's post - I thought I was reading something cut & paste from AW's future memoirs.
Whilst I agree that this is the ideal / philosophy AW & Co like to push as being representative of the club and AW's legacy,
I also think that this is far more basic an ideal / philosophy than we realise or choose to accept.
The fundamental is to play attractive football, but there is nothing more to it than that. Everything about the execution re style, shape, roles is ALL subject to change based upon the resources available at the start of each season, which it's self is determined by AW's philosophy regards the transfer market player valuations and his prioritisation of youth development.
Youth development to give something back to the game;
Attractive football to entertain;
Team collective rather than individualism;
Fiscal responsibility in the market re player valuations & club debt;
Transfer policy to look for bargains & opportunities to improve quality & value.
The journey is more important than the destination or result, as there can be only 4 winners of the 4 competitions we partake in each season, yet the journey must provide enough enjoyment and sense of achievement (re quality of play and player development), to keep encouraging the corporate sponsors to invest and the fans to return each season.
Winning is a consequence of a perfect storm scenario when enough of the right pieces come together long enough, rather than as being a primary criteria or outcome.
Whilst I agree that this is the ideal / philosophy AW & Co like to push as being representative of the club and AW's legacy,
I also think that this is far more basic an ideal / philosophy than we realise or choose to accept.
The fundamental is to play attractive football, but there is nothing more to it than that. Everything about the execution re style, shape, roles is ALL subject to change based upon the resources available at the start of each season, which it's self is determined by AW's philosophy regards the transfer market player valuations and his prioritisation of youth development.
Youth development to give something back to the game;
Attractive football to entertain;
Team collective rather than individualism;
Fiscal responsibility in the market re player valuations & club debt;
Transfer policy to look for bargains & opportunities to improve quality & value.
The journey is more important than the destination or result, as there can be only 4 winners of the 4 competitions we partake in each season, yet the journey must provide enough enjoyment and sense of achievement (re quality of play and player development), to keep encouraging the corporate sponsors to invest and the fans to return each season.
Winning is a consequence of a perfect storm scenario when enough of the right pieces come together long enough, rather than as being a primary criteria or outcome.
yuvken
Established Member
Oh, the shame!Anzac said:
Let's storm the bastille!
Wouldn't hurt you to have a bit of whatever the playmaker is having every now and then
onetowatch
Well-Known Member
The true cost of this defeat is now clear!
Stillmatic
Active Member
I know I'm late but I just wanna say I was annoyed when Theo didn't start this game, even more p**sed off when he didn't even get off the bench. He brought on Ramsey instead.
- Status
