Absolutely and that is an example of how a quick counter can work well with Theo. It was exquisite. They just need to do that more. They didn't look to do it enough.CoRP said:
Arsenal 2015-2016: The One That Got Away
- Thread starter blueguitar322
- Start date
Ramsey and Bellerin were left behind, everybody else (who was fit) traveled to Croatia.
I hope to see Wenger do some significant rotation, above and beyond the two seemingly obvious changes (Debuchy for Bellerin, Ox for Ramsey). You obviously want to get off to a good start in the group but we're in a position where its very unlikely that we'll win a group that includes Bayern while we don't face a huge threat from Olympiakos as the third best club. Meanwhile, we're going to Stamford Bridge only three days after this match. Give Rozza some run in place of Ozil or Campbell some time in place of Alexis (maybe not both).
Needless to say, losing Wilshere and Welbeck until Christmas hurts us a lot right now. The downgrade from them to Rosicky/Campbell is pretty significant.
I hope to see Wenger do some significant rotation, above and beyond the two seemingly obvious changes (Debuchy for Bellerin, Ox for Ramsey). You obviously want to get off to a good start in the group but we're in a position where its very unlikely that we'll win a group that includes Bayern while we don't face a huge threat from Olympiakos as the third best club. Meanwhile, we're going to Stamford Bridge only three days after this match. Give Rozza some run in place of Ozil or Campbell some time in place of Alexis (maybe not both).
Needless to say, losing Wilshere and Welbeck until Christmas hurts us a lot right now. The downgrade from them to Rosicky/Campbell is pretty significant.
I thought Rosicky was still out injured?
Even if true, your point about rotation stands and I agree.
Even if true, your point about rotation stands and I agree.
Rosicky had surgery, he's out til Xmas. Basically the same thing as Welbeck.
We have no midfield depth. Our backups will be Arteta and Flamini and whatever literal child we didn't send on loan that we can drum up.
We have no midfield depth. Our backups will be Arteta and Flamini and whatever literal child we didn't send on loan that we can drum up.
Dinamo played in the Champions League group stage in both 2011-12 and 2012-13. In those 12 matches, they managed 1 point total and had a total goal differential of minus 32. They haven't lost a domestic game in like 40 matches but their league is shit and this team most likely blows.
I know its Europe and every away match is tricky. But if Wenger doesn't rotate heavily he really has no balls. What is the point of having Arteta or Flamini in the team if they're not going to play in this kind of match? We are playing 2x a week for the next three weeks between this midweek fixture, the League Cup NLD, and a must-win home match against Olympiacos. This is arguably the easiest match we'll play in that run.
I know its Europe and every away match is tricky. But if Wenger doesn't rotate heavily he really has no balls. What is the point of having Arteta or Flamini in the team if they're not going to play in this kind of match? We are playing 2x a week for the next three weeks between this midweek fixture, the League Cup NLD, and a must-win home match against Olympiacos. This is arguably the easiest match we'll play in that run.
If Wenger had balls he'd rotate fairly heavily for at least one of the Bayern matches as well as the Dinamo matches - we should just embrace second place in the Group and try to keep the squad fresh heading into the winter months. I mean, it can't hurt to try and change our now-established seasonal pattern, can it? (Arsenal may even go into the Bayern matches looser and with lower expectations that way.)
By the way, if I'm not mistaken this "Reine-Adelaide" fellow of whom you speak should only be referred to by true Gooners going forward as "JEFF".
By the way, if I'm not mistaken this "Reine-Adelaide" fellow of whom you speak should only be referred to by true Gooners going forward as "JEFF".
So that was miserable. I'm mostly just laughing in disbelief. Arsenal think they are European royalty and frequently underestimate how difficult it can be playing away in the CL. Never seem to learn.
Ridiculous refereeing to give the red to Giroud but that in no way excuses the performance.
I still think Arsenal are still strongly favored to go through, provided they don't have another night like this.
Hope that 50+ minutes of 10v11 doesn't hurt them on Saturday.
Ridiculous refereeing to give the red to Giroud but that in no way excuses the performance.
I still think Arsenal are still strongly favored to go through, provided they don't have another night like this.
Hope that 50+ minutes of 10v11 doesn't hurt them on Saturday.
I guess this is more related to Arsenal than Chelsea, but how Cesc Fabregas changed Arsenal Forever by Richard Jolly.
I just got around to watching the Wednesday-Bolton game from mid week and Wellington Silva can bring it- second division of course, but he was frightening. His ability to create space and beat people 1 on 1 was way above what you usually see in the Championship. Fun to watch.
Mike Dean + Costa + Stamford Bridge + Chelsea's tactics was always going to be a bad combination.
Positives: Arsenal actually didn't play that badly. Poor marking (albeit a man down) on a set piece plus a deflected goal (albeit two men down).
Negatives: Diego Costa is scum of the earth yet is seemingly untouchable despite his antics. Despite that, Gabriel cannot lose his cool like that. No excuse. Stick up for your teammates sure, but soccer isn't hockey and retributive justice only leads to cards. Cazorla cannot slide tackle like that when he's on a yellow.
Fallout: Arsenal will miss both Cazorla and Gabriel in their CC matchup at Spurs. They'll also miss Gabriel for Leicester away and United at home, pending appeal.
Positives: Arsenal actually didn't play that badly. Poor marking (albeit a man down) on a set piece plus a deflected goal (albeit two men down).
Negatives: Diego Costa is scum of the earth yet is seemingly untouchable despite his antics. Despite that, Gabriel cannot lose his cool like that. No excuse. Stick up for your teammates sure, but soccer isn't hockey and retributive justice only leads to cards. Cazorla cannot slide tackle like that when he's on a yellow.
Fallout: Arsenal will miss both Cazorla and Gabriel in their CC matchup at Spurs. They'll also miss Gabriel for Leicester away and United at home, pending appeal.
Soccer confuses me. If Costa had grazed Koscielny's head instead of chest bumping him it is an automatic red but giving him a Hulk Hogan-style eye rake and slapping him in the face is nothing. Then the chest bump (w/ a flop) and grabbing of Gabriel's neck only results in one yellow? Gabriel came in late and shoved Costa but that isn't always a yellow. The second yellow was classic Costa and I suppose Gabriel should have known better. This all happened after Costa went down early in the game and simulated a card - which I've seen penalized w/ yellow before.
Also - why is it that people get so worked up when a team (in this case Chelsea) surround an official? I've seen Chelsea get guff for this in the past but it doesn't really register to me as anything out of the ordinary.
Mourinho is the type of villain that makes me want to watch soccer. He's fun to root against. Costa kind of ruins the game and seems to get away with it. I'll give him credit for putting his team in an advantageous position but it doesn't add to my enjoyment of the game. I'm just not sure why he gets the benefit of the doubt in situations like today.
Also - why is it that people get so worked up when a team (in this case Chelsea) surround an official? I've seen Chelsea get guff for this in the past but it doesn't really register to me as anything out of the ordinary.
Mourinho is the type of villain that makes me want to watch soccer. He's fun to root against. Costa kind of ruins the game and seems to get away with it. I'll give him credit for putting his team in an advantageous position but it doesn't add to my enjoyment of the game. I'm just not sure why he gets the benefit of the doubt in situations like today.
Now we have to read about how Costa is an evil genius. This, as if he knows he will somehow go unpunished for what are multiple yellow and red card infractions. And that's genius? If Mike Dean was even half-competent the stories would be about Costa's stupidity on his home field, but the referee's cowardice (or simple incompetence) means the narrative is that Arsenal are emotionally weak, that they are the ones who lost their cool. It's bogus.
And why is Costa's play worth celebrating? Why is his cynicism proof of Arsenal's weakness? What team should assume that a referee will turn a completely blind eye to awful actions by one player while their own players will be punished for lesser offenses? What manager should presume that? Who is such a cynic (certainly not Wenger) and why should we as fans be encouraged to view and accept the game so cynically? Why should we accept this awareness as pragmatic, or our reality? Is that where we are these days? I don't mean to sound naive, but this game came down to a shit referee not enforcing the rules in clear daylight, not the genius of a vicious, cynical striker.
You would think the media, particularly the game day commentators, would call Costa out for what he did, which was act like a pig and take advantage of a weak referee in front of a home crowd. This is neither smart football, nor is it anything close to genius. It's as cynical as it gets, and Costa deserves absolutely no credit for this; his "genius" relies on something uncontrollable, which is the weakness of Dean. He deserves nothing but our scorn. Costa and Mourinho also truly deserve each other, they are a couple of utter cynics who show no outward joy from the game, just a real disdain for it. It might get results, but it is truly hideous stuff.
Games like today make me angry (hence this rant), the result was unjust and representative of almost nothing about the team.* A quick yellow to Costa after the multiple assaults on Kos, and this game is different. Instead we have to read about how Gabriel hurt his team, and how Mourinho has it over Wenger. It's an incorrect narrative, appealing to the worst elements of soccer. We (and others) should resist it.
* Wednesday, on the other hand, that was frustrating and worrying, but far less angering. It was utterly deserved - the team was terrible for the bulk of the game and the result was truly fair.
And why is Costa's play worth celebrating? Why is his cynicism proof of Arsenal's weakness? What team should assume that a referee will turn a completely blind eye to awful actions by one player while their own players will be punished for lesser offenses? What manager should presume that? Who is such a cynic (certainly not Wenger) and why should we as fans be encouraged to view and accept the game so cynically? Why should we accept this awareness as pragmatic, or our reality? Is that where we are these days? I don't mean to sound naive, but this game came down to a shit referee not enforcing the rules in clear daylight, not the genius of a vicious, cynical striker.
You would think the media, particularly the game day commentators, would call Costa out for what he did, which was act like a pig and take advantage of a weak referee in front of a home crowd. This is neither smart football, nor is it anything close to genius. It's as cynical as it gets, and Costa deserves absolutely no credit for this; his "genius" relies on something uncontrollable, which is the weakness of Dean. He deserves nothing but our scorn. Costa and Mourinho also truly deserve each other, they are a couple of utter cynics who show no outward joy from the game, just a real disdain for it. It might get results, but it is truly hideous stuff.
Games like today make me angry (hence this rant), the result was unjust and representative of almost nothing about the team.* A quick yellow to Costa after the multiple assaults on Kos, and this game is different. Instead we have to read about how Gabriel hurt his team, and how Mourinho has it over Wenger. It's an incorrect narrative, appealing to the worst elements of soccer. We (and others) should resist it.
* Wednesday, on the other hand, that was frustrating and worrying, but far less angering. It was utterly deserved - the team was terrible for the bulk of the game and the result was truly fair.
It's supposed to be prohibited by the rules, only the captain is allowed. West Ham were fined for it last week. Chelsea are notorious for not only doing it on every call, but never getting punished for it.smokin joe wood said:
Cellar-Door said:
Good to know. I learned something today!
Miracle's rant (that's a lot of questions!) does bring up one point that I find interesting about English commentators: Results vs. process based analysis. Typically, in the US, commentators are much more results based than process based. It's easier and requires less articulation and people can't really argue with results. When I first began watching soccer it was really refreshing to hear them say things like 'luck' and 'deserved more' because you don't hear those things in the US from commentators. But when Costa clearly gets away with some shenanigans today (upon review) the analysts in the studio are caught up in the easy narrative that Costa goaded Gabriel and that's 'just who he is' instead of saying Arsenal were unlucky or Costa was lucky.
Anyways, Gabriel now has two dust ups in the last two Premier League games. Could be an aberration but not really the type of decision making you're looking for from a CB.
Something about Arsenal reminds me of the average club golfer. Take me: I'm a four handicapper, which means I average about 76-77 with the occasional 72-73 and quite a few rounds in the high 70s and into the 80s. When I shoot 72, that feels to me like what I ought to shoot every time; when I shoot 83, I can easily dismiss it as an aberration or point to bad weather or a few bad bounces which got me off on the wrong foot; when I shoot 77, I usually walk off the course thinking I was one or two missed putts or one minor mistake away from a 73 or 74. If I were truly honest with myself, though - and also truly serious about becoming a better golfer - I'd realize that I probably get a bit lucky in my 72s, and that my rounds in the 80s aren't so much aberrations as they are true reflections of the flaws in my game, with those flaws magnified just enough to manifest very badly in my final score. To get better, I'd need to practice enough to reduce my swing flaws, get a lesson to make sure I'm imparting enough backspin on my chip shots, and maybe consult a sports psychologist to work on the mental side of my game. But to be honest, I'm probably just going to keep my four handicap and pretend that I ought to be a two handicap and can get there without too much extra effort.
Arsene Wenger is of course the club golfer in this analogy: it just seems like he'd rather make excuses for Arsenal's bad performances instead of actually knuckling down and making a serious effort to change things. It could be that he's just being coy with the media, but I don't really believe that any more; instead, I'm more inclined to think Wenger believes Arsenal's good performances are the team's true state, and that the middling-to-bad games are accidents caused by bad luck or an opponent's provocations or a referee's bad decisions.
Arsene Wenger is of course the club golfer in this analogy: it just seems like he'd rather make excuses for Arsenal's bad performances instead of actually knuckling down and making a serious effort to change things. It could be that he's just being coy with the media, but I don't really believe that any more; instead, I'm more inclined to think Wenger believes Arsenal's good performances are the team's true state, and that the middling-to-bad games are accidents caused by bad luck or an opponent's provocations or a referee's bad decisions.
Really? I guess everything is relative in golf...anyway, next time I'll pretend my handicap is 16 to make sure my actual point (such as it was) doesn't get lost.
The narratives are all so contradictory and frustrating. I have to remember not to read the press, I did a good job of not getting myself in a tizzy about Deflategate, but am not doing such a good job over this for some reason. Here's what has been written, all highly contradictory and counterlogical.
1. Arsenal has no discipline! - But didn't Kos respond utterly maturely and with utter discipline after being face-raked, elbowed, scratched, chest-bumped? And Gabriel had a hand on his throat and photos indicate he too may have been pawed by Costa. And his reaction was, while stupid, not violent in the slightest.
2. Arsenal have no leaders! - But wait, there were people shuffling Paulista away from the scene - Cech grabbed Gabriel, and there were clearly others talking to him to get him away from Costa. And Dean did nothing forceful with the players, as referee. Nada.
3. Arsenal have no steel! - Contra #2, Gabriel stuck up for a teammate who was face-raked, elbowed, scratched, and chest-bumped. So - what is "steel"? Surrounding the ref? Taking a swing at Costa? Was Arsenal supposed to go break a leg once they went behind, just for satsifaction? Sounds viscerally appealing, but it's a coward's solution, and having had players like Ramsey nearly destroyed by violence I don't ever see that kind of response - nor would I ever hope for it.
This incident is not indicative of any systematic issues with the squad. Other things can easily do that, such as a Coquelin injury without sufficient backup, or Sanchez' lack of finishing form. But not the Gabriel/Costa BS or the match result. This was simply criminally awful refereeing and unpunished violent instigation. Nothing else. The media has no critical skills.
1. Arsenal has no discipline! - But didn't Kos respond utterly maturely and with utter discipline after being face-raked, elbowed, scratched, chest-bumped? And Gabriel had a hand on his throat and photos indicate he too may have been pawed by Costa. And his reaction was, while stupid, not violent in the slightest.
2. Arsenal have no leaders! - But wait, there were people shuffling Paulista away from the scene - Cech grabbed Gabriel, and there were clearly others talking to him to get him away from Costa. And Dean did nothing forceful with the players, as referee. Nada.
3. Arsenal have no steel! - Contra #2, Gabriel stuck up for a teammate who was face-raked, elbowed, scratched, and chest-bumped. So - what is "steel"? Surrounding the ref? Taking a swing at Costa? Was Arsenal supposed to go break a leg once they went behind, just for satsifaction? Sounds viscerally appealing, but it's a coward's solution, and having had players like Ramsey nearly destroyed by violence I don't ever see that kind of response - nor would I ever hope for it.
This incident is not indicative of any systematic issues with the squad. Other things can easily do that, such as a Coquelin injury without sufficient backup, or Sanchez' lack of finishing form. But not the Gabriel/Costa BS or the match result. This was simply criminally awful refereeing and unpunished violent instigation. Nothing else. The media has no critical skills.
Well, this site does a consistently excellent job of reminding me that I'm neither as clever nor as articulate as I think I am. (Which is good for my humility, if not my ego.) But really, it never occurred to me that referring to myself as having a four handicap would be seen by anyone as bragging; if anything, I thought it apt to compare Arsenal to a four-handicap golfer at the moment.
Anyway, I do agree with miracleofmidre's post. In and of itself there's no shame in losing at Stamford Bridge, and there are many positives to be said about how Koscielny and even Gabriel initially responded to Costa's provocation. Rather, it's the utter predictability that Mourinho would yet again find a way to get the better of Wenger on and/or off the pitch which continues to frustrate. Funnily enough, I just caught up today with last Thursday's Football Weekly podcast, and in the wake of the Zagreb loss Rafa Honigstein spoke about there perhaps being a lack of true objectivity within Arsenal about assessing exactly where the club's weaknesses lie. I think a lot of us thought each of the two FA Cup Final wins were signs that the club had turned a corner and was back on the road to becoming a true contender...but what if they were just a reversion to the mean within a relatively small sample size? So instead of thinking about Arsenal going eight seasons without a trophy and then getting two trophies in successive years, you instead think of a club which hasn't really changed at all and happened to win two trophies within an 10-year period? Maybe the better golf analogy would be to compare Arsenal to a professional golfer who has had significant success with the swing he grew up with but perhaps ought to tear it down and try to build it back up into something even better: the new swing might yield major championships (e.g., Nick Faldo) or lead to significant regression (e.g., Padraig Harrington), but is sticking with the same, safe swing with its small but all-too-familiar flaws really the best way forward?
Anyway, I do agree with miracleofmidre's post. In and of itself there's no shame in losing at Stamford Bridge, and there are many positives to be said about how Koscielny and even Gabriel initially responded to Costa's provocation. Rather, it's the utter predictability that Mourinho would yet again find a way to get the better of Wenger on and/or off the pitch which continues to frustrate. Funnily enough, I just caught up today with last Thursday's Football Weekly podcast, and in the wake of the Zagreb loss Rafa Honigstein spoke about there perhaps being a lack of true objectivity within Arsenal about assessing exactly where the club's weaknesses lie. I think a lot of us thought each of the two FA Cup Final wins were signs that the club had turned a corner and was back on the road to becoming a true contender...but what if they were just a reversion to the mean within a relatively small sample size? So instead of thinking about Arsenal going eight seasons without a trophy and then getting two trophies in successive years, you instead think of a club which hasn't really changed at all and happened to win two trophies within an 10-year period? Maybe the better golf analogy would be to compare Arsenal to a professional golfer who has had significant success with the swing he grew up with but perhaps ought to tear it down and try to build it back up into something even better: the new swing might yield major championships (e.g., Nick Faldo) or lead to significant regression (e.g., Padraig Harrington), but is sticking with the same, safe swing with its small but all-too-familiar flaws really the best way forward?
When I read it my reaction was that most 18 handicap players really don't want to hear 4 handicappers whine about the problems with their game, much like fans of most teams don't want to hear complaints about a team that finishes in the top 4 every freaking year.
Not a slam on you or Arsenal, this is the Arsenal thread after all. Just saying that's the way a non-Arsenal fan interpreted the analogy.
Not a slam on you or Arsenal, this is the Arsenal thread after all. Just saying that's the way a non-Arsenal fan interpreted the analogy.
Sure, that's perfectly fair criticism - I get that now. I wish I'd compared Arsenal to a hypothetical double-digit handicapper instead of myself, because the thought process behind the golfer would be the same if not worse and wouldn't have opened the can of worms I opened in putting myself at the center of the analogy. (Like I said, SoSH is an incredibly tough but generally also a very fair school in which to learn the arts of logic and discourse.)
By the way, the reason I'm turning to golf analogies and other rhetorical devices right now is that I truly cannot understand why someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgeable about football as Arsene Wenger continues to make the same mistakes and fall into the same traps every year. It's obvious that Wenger has blind spots; what's far less apparent is WHY he doesn't, can't and/or won't fix them, or even appear to identify them. I'm convinced the underlying reasons must be psychological, although I'm truly open to listening to any other theory which might explain the "why?" question better. As to this critique...
...I'm inclined to believe that if Arsenal had finished in the top 4 every year throughout the last decade and won the odd trophy, but used three or four managers and played somewhat different styles of football along the way (and fell short of the Premiership and Champions League in different ways every year), Arsenal supporters wouldn't be as frustrated as we are at present. Change is itself a lubricant.
By the way, the reason I'm turning to golf analogies and other rhetorical devices right now is that I truly cannot understand why someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgeable about football as Arsene Wenger continues to make the same mistakes and fall into the same traps every year. It's obvious that Wenger has blind spots; what's far less apparent is WHY he doesn't, can't and/or won't fix them, or even appear to identify them. I'm convinced the underlying reasons must be psychological, although I'm truly open to listening to any other theory which might explain the "why?" question better. As to this critique...
SoxFanInCali said:
...I'm inclined to believe that if Arsenal had finished in the top 4 every year throughout the last decade and won the odd trophy, but used three or four managers and played somewhat different styles of football along the way (and fell short of the Premiership and Champions League in different ways every year), Arsenal supporters wouldn't be as frustrated as we are at present. Change is itself a lubricant.
A very long, very detailed (as usual) breakdown of Arsenal's finances that clearly lays out that there is money to be spent that is not being spent and there's really only 1 guy you can lay that at the feet of. As always SwissRamble does great work and I might be able to glean more information from articles like this if I had any sort of understanding of finance but others may find it illuminating.
Also KSE took another 3m pounds out of the club for "services" aka for a dividend that isn't a dividend cuz then other shareholders would get a piece.
Kroenke is a disease.
Also KSE took another 3m pounds out of the club for "services" aka for a dividend that isn't a dividend cuz then other shareholders would get a piece.
Kroenke is a disease.
I think changing managers and playing styles as frequently as you describe is not a recipe for success, even with the transfer situation as fluid as it is in European Football.ConigliarosPotential said:
I wasn't suggesting that changing managers is a recipe for success as such; rather, the same results under different managers with different styles probably would have been more warmly received than they have under the same manager. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that.
Meanwhile, Gabriel's appeal has been successful, so he won't serve a three-match ban (even as Costa now will):
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34329563
Meanwhile, Gabriel's appeal has been successful, so he won't serve a three-match ban (even as Costa now will):
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34329563
So if Gabriel's red card was improper, then that means that Arsenal didn't lack discipline. It means they were wronged.
So when do all those wickedly smart pundits write those new stories correcting themselves?
So when do all those wickedly smart pundits write those new stories correcting themselves?
And those pundits aren't going to change their ways or apologize so long as you're buying their rags, clicking on their articles, or talking about them.
I get what you were saying, but the counter argument is: if you're changing managers and playing styles at a rate of three or four managers, each with different playing styies, in a 10-year period, you're unlikely to have the same results. Unless you're willing to spend like Chelsea and Citeh, of course. Think about the remaining top three leagues in Europe:ConigliarosPotential said:
Spain: Only Barcelona and Real make the champions league every year, and they are notorious spenders
Italy: Milan made the Champions league seven out of the past ten years, and their spending has recently caught up with them. Only Inter has come close (6), and they're in a financial hole as well. The rest of the Champions league is a rotating cast of characters.
Germany: Bayern Munich has made Champions League nine out of ten years. Nobody else is close.
Arsenal had made it all ten years, despite spending less than Bayern, Barca, and Real. Man U is nine out of the last ten years, and the year they didn't make it, who's fault was that?
It's Arsenal's stability that has kept them in the Champions league.
I don't disagree at all with anything in that post. But two counterpoints:
1) I refer you to my previous question: why does someone as knowledgeable as Arsene Wenger ritually make such baffling decisions both in the transfer market and tactically on the pitch every season? Does anyone have any plausible theories?
And forget the hypothetical of having multiple managers in a 10-year period; do you not think there's at least ONE new manager out there willing to come to Arsenal who would be a net improvement relative to Wenger? A new manager might not measure up to Wenger's strengths, but as long as he's not *too* far behind in those areas and can still fix the obvious weaknesses and also eradicate complacency / create a new and positive mentality / change the culture (pick your favorite) within the club, I think as a breath of fresh air he'd be given much more latitude than Moyes ever got at Man Utd. And even if a new manager were to fail as badly as Moyes, there's always the next guy after him; life goes on, and things can get better. Arsenal's financial strength and stability is now - or certainly appears to be - such that the club could afford at least one Moyes-style mistake without falling from their current tier of footballing existence to the one in which the likes of Liverpool and Spurs currently dwell.
2) I know this always sounds horribly self-indulgent to anyone who supports all but maybe three or four clubs in England, and I know the grass is always greener...but is qualifying for the Champions League every year really all that exciting or special? It's not Arsenal fans who derisively reference the "trophy for finishing in fourth place" every year, and given the choice between a) continuing on the current path of 3rd or 4th place in the league and the last 16 in the Champions League every year, and b) screwing up one year and not qualifying for Europe at all, but having less fixture congestion the following year and thereby being able to make a real run at the title (see: Liverpool, 2012/13), I'd absolutely choose option B. But Wenger seems to have chosen a path which entirely centers around option A: it's like he won't take risks and won't shake things up lest he risk his streak of Champions League qualification. He knows his one way and sticks to it, even if it means he'll have to catch lightning in a bottle to ever realistically threaten the top clubs over the course of a full Premiership or Champions League campaign.
Football fandom these days is almost entirely relative: most fans' joy ultimately comes from outperforming expectations, not achieving success in absolute terms. Neither Swansea, Crystal Palace nor Leicester will win the league in my lifetime, but if those clubs finish in 6th, 8th and 10th place this year (respectively), I'm pretty sure those club's fans will be happier than most Gooners will if Arsenal should again finish in 3rd or 4th and go out in the last 16 of the Champions League. Arsenal met or very slightly exceeded expectations last year at best, and that's the best they've done for most of the past decade; usually, the club meets or slightly falls short of expectations. It's just maddening. In contrast, when Man Utd had their horrible year like the one under Moyes, their fans then recalibrated their expectations and could enjoy a 4th place league finish in a way they never could have under Fergie. I mean, which baseball team would you rather have supported: the Bobby Cox Atlanta Braves from 1991 to 2005 (consistent excellence but near-perpetual frustration in October), or the Boston Red Sox from 2001 to 2015 (last place finishes to go along with three titles)? That's a no-brainer, right?
1) I refer you to my previous question: why does someone as knowledgeable as Arsene Wenger ritually make such baffling decisions both in the transfer market and tactically on the pitch every season? Does anyone have any plausible theories?
And forget the hypothetical of having multiple managers in a 10-year period; do you not think there's at least ONE new manager out there willing to come to Arsenal who would be a net improvement relative to Wenger? A new manager might not measure up to Wenger's strengths, but as long as he's not *too* far behind in those areas and can still fix the obvious weaknesses and also eradicate complacency / create a new and positive mentality / change the culture (pick your favorite) within the club, I think as a breath of fresh air he'd be given much more latitude than Moyes ever got at Man Utd. And even if a new manager were to fail as badly as Moyes, there's always the next guy after him; life goes on, and things can get better. Arsenal's financial strength and stability is now - or certainly appears to be - such that the club could afford at least one Moyes-style mistake without falling from their current tier of footballing existence to the one in which the likes of Liverpool and Spurs currently dwell.
2) I know this always sounds horribly self-indulgent to anyone who supports all but maybe three or four clubs in England, and I know the grass is always greener...but is qualifying for the Champions League every year really all that exciting or special? It's not Arsenal fans who derisively reference the "trophy for finishing in fourth place" every year, and given the choice between a) continuing on the current path of 3rd or 4th place in the league and the last 16 in the Champions League every year, and b) screwing up one year and not qualifying for Europe at all, but having less fixture congestion the following year and thereby being able to make a real run at the title (see: Liverpool, 2012/13), I'd absolutely choose option B. But Wenger seems to have chosen a path which entirely centers around option A: it's like he won't take risks and won't shake things up lest he risk his streak of Champions League qualification. He knows his one way and sticks to it, even if it means he'll have to catch lightning in a bottle to ever realistically threaten the top clubs over the course of a full Premiership or Champions League campaign.
Football fandom these days is almost entirely relative: most fans' joy ultimately comes from outperforming expectations, not achieving success in absolute terms. Neither Swansea, Crystal Palace nor Leicester will win the league in my lifetime, but if those clubs finish in 6th, 8th and 10th place this year (respectively), I'm pretty sure those club's fans will be happier than most Gooners will if Arsenal should again finish in 3rd or 4th and go out in the last 16 of the Champions League. Arsenal met or very slightly exceeded expectations last year at best, and that's the best they've done for most of the past decade; usually, the club meets or slightly falls short of expectations. It's just maddening. In contrast, when Man Utd had their horrible year like the one under Moyes, their fans then recalibrated their expectations and could enjoy a 4th place league finish in a way they never could have under Fergie. I mean, which baseball team would you rather have supported: the Bobby Cox Atlanta Braves from 1991 to 2005 (consistent excellence but near-perpetual frustration in October), or the Boston Red Sox from 2001 to 2015 (last place finishes to go along with three titles)? That's a no-brainer, right?
In a vacuum they are not. I was more referring to the post-game narrative constructed (and also my earlier post) about pundits (and yes, per Sachmoney I should ignore them, and for some reason this time I didn't).Dummy Hoy said:
In this case I don't see how one can accuse Paulista of a lack of discipline when his actions were ruled to have not been worthy of dismissal. Perhaps one can say he ought to do absolutely nothing in response to Costa, but if he acted out in such a manner that is (now) determined to not have been worthy of dismissal, it is fair to presume that acted, in the moment, in a manner that he rightfully considered to be unworthy of Dean's response.
Only a putrid referee made his action undisciplined, not the action itself. I guess one might also say Gabriel should realize who the referee is, and have expectations accordingly. Or that he should have been coached to have known and thus risk nothing with even a mild action, but that's frankly unrealistic for a player so new to the league.
It will be interesting if Costa is retroactively punished. In this case Mike Dean will have been responsible for making a mistake with just about every one of his decisions, have cost a team points, and yet he himself will likely escape any censure and suffer nothing for his incompetence.
And look at that, Costa suspended for three games.
Incredible. Yet Arsenal did everything wrong that game, we hear.
Incredible. Yet Arsenal did everything wrong that game, we hear.
I think Paulista deserved his red. Luckily for him, Dean so badly screwed up in not sending off Costa that the FA basically had to overturn Paulista's. I mean he did more than enough after the first yellow, including the little kick that got him the red, to deserve either a second yellow or a red.
Cellar-Door said:
Have you seen footage that actually shows Gabriel kicking Costa? I haven't scoured the internet but I still haven't seen footage that conclusively shows him doing anything and stories like this are circulating that claim that the ban was partly overturned because footage was presented to the FA showing that there was no contact. I don't know whether that is true but it seems like less than a slam dunk that he deserved to be sent off.
Also, total nitpick here but...I wish people would stop referring to him as "Paulista," which isn't his last name. His nickname is "Gabriel Paulista" meaning Gabriel from Sao Paulo. Calling him "Paulista" is the equivalent of referring to "Sully from Boston" simply as "From Boston."
This is that footage that has been cited.
http://arsenalist.com/f/2015-16/chelsea-vs-arsenal/gif-from-espn-brazil-s-coverage-showing-gabriel-s-kick.html
http://arsenalist.com/f/2015-16/chelsea-vs-arsenal/gif-from-espn-brazil-s-coverage-showing-gabriel-s-kick.html
https://streamable.com/m93i
tough guy Costa going after Ox after the ball is well out.
Gabriel with a straight red and this crap doesn't even deserve a yellow?
tough guy Costa going after Ox after the ball is well out.
Gabriel with a straight red and this crap doesn't even deserve a yellow?
miracleofmidre said:
To my eye that looks like Gabriel tried to deliberately back into Costa and then kick him with the little flick .. but missed.
Flamini fox in the box! We've found our striker solution. 1-0.
Edit at 32': Debuchy keeps giving Rose TONS of space on the right. Between this half and other games, it seems like he's lost all positional sense.
Edit at 32': Debuchy keeps giving Rose TONS of space on the right. Between this half and other games, it seems like he's lost all positional sense.
Debuchy has just lost it I think. He's getting absolutely TORCHED down that side. Having Gol Campbell as his man ahead probably doesnt help but still.
I can't believe Flamoney scored a goddamn goal.
I can't believe Flamoney scored a goddamn goal.