Arsenal FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

FearDark

jasonorr wrote: »

I'm not sure whose memory is better (probably not mine) but, I thought he did well for a bit and then started making mistakes? Fabianski had to be given a shot before him really. Wouldn't mind seeing Mannone get the remainder of the games to jog my memory. He's 22, not 24 by the way.

What was the story with Almunia today? Was he injured or dropped?

Ah yes my bad, he is infact 22, Im confusing his age with his squad number .

Some sort of problem with Amunias wrist today, twisted or something. So they say...

You could probarbly count Fabianski's good performances on one hand, and none of them came this season. He was really bad last season too when called upon, I must dig out some facts on this.

Pepe LeFrits

Frisbee wrote: »

As well did everyone else see Sol run down Rodallega in a foot race today?

lol, what a brilliant image. Little Rodallega getting trampled under Sol's giant feet.

Sol has lot some of his pace but he was lightning quick to begin with. Hope he stays on!

Mannone had one great game and then a load of dodgy ones. He doesn't appear to be very good either.

gosplan

I hope Wenger doesn't overcomplicate the goalkeeper issue as some people are doing.

Sure, it's not easy to find a keeper that we can view as a starter for the next 5-10 years.

However, between the sticks is now a crisis position for Arsenal. I hope that if Wenger can't find a Cheh or Lloris, he'll do the sensible thing and offer someone like Schwazter or Sorensen a contract.

Our first priority is to make sure we have someone competent in goals for the first match of next season, after that we can worry about the next 5-10 years.

SlickRic

not bidding for Shay Given (i assume you didn't) was IMO the most naive and stupid thing Arsenal have done in their recent history.

x PyRo

Why would we want another goalkeeper that's poor in the air ?

For all Givens strong points he's exactly the type of keeper we don't need.

Tiny defense and a goalkeeper who's even smaller that our center backs who are probably the smallest pairing in the league ? I'm glad we didn't go for him. We need a big tall, commanding keeper who'll dominate aerially not another shot stopping "specialist".

leninbenjamin

SlickRic wrote: »

not bidding for Shay Given (i assume you didn't) was IMO the most naive and stupid thing Arsenal have done in their recent history.

Shay's distribution is **** though, I can see why Arsene wouldn't go for him.

SlickRic

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Shay's distribution is **** though, I can see why Arsene wouldn't go for him.

that is such boll*x; i hate that argument against Shay. it's not the best but it's not ****.

and even if it was true, he's a 100% better goalkeeper, more if it was possible, than what you have.

Shay in goals, would have given you at least 6-9 extra points this year. that's how stupid not sorting out that goalkeeping situation is. and Shay was by far the obvious candidate, and i've no doubt he would've come.

Ush1

x PyRo wrote: »

Why would we want another goalkeeper that's poor in the air ?

For all Givens strong points he's exactly the type of keeper we don't need.

Tiny defense and a goalkeeper who's even smaller that our center backs who are probably the smallest pairing in the league ? I'm glad we didn't go for him. We need a big tall, commanding keeper who'll dominate aerially not another shot stopping "specialist".

Given is taller than both Gallas and Vermaelen.

Who would you have in mind? The likes of Joe Hart is 6 foot 3, not exactly a giant of a keeper.

Paleface

SlickRic wrote: »

not bidding for Shay Given (i assume you didn't) was IMO the most naive and stupid thing Arsenal have done in their recent history.

Shay would unquestionably have been a better choice in goals this season than any of our current keepers.

Wenger chose not to sign him for whatever reasons. Perhaps Given didn't want to leave the North of England. He's played all of his club football up there.

I'm sure he's on better wages at City aswell.

SlickRic

you'd swear Given was a leprechaun the way some people go on about his height.

x PyRo

Ush1 wrote: »

Given is taller than both Gallas and Vermaelen.

Who would you have in mind? The likes of Joe Hart is 6 foot 3, not exactly a giant of a keeper.

I stand corrected, has it in my head for years that he was 5'11 and not 6'1.

Regardless, it doesn't matter anyways. The fact is with the players we have Given isn't commanding enough to be our keeper, he's very poor in the air. So him behind our defense would of been terrible.

Hart is good in the air, he'd do the job and fit the bill perfectly in my opinion.

Pepe LeFrits

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all.

We're not exactly this team of midgets that people go on about either.

Ush1

x PyRo wrote: »

I stand corrected, has it in my head for years that he was 5'11 and not 6'1.

Regardless, it doesn't matter anyways. The fact is with the players we have Given isn't commanding enough to be our keeper, he's very poor in the air. So him behind our defense would of been terrible.

Hart is good in the air, he'd do the job and fit the bill perfectly in my opinion.

Well I don't think Given is very poor in the air but a huge factor with goalkeepers is the number of mistakes they make. Given makes very few in comparison to Almunia.

x PyRo

SlickRic wrote: »

you'd swear Given was a leprechaun the way some people go on about his height.

It's a valid reason to why he's poor in the air though.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all.

We're not exactly this team of midgets that people go on about either.

Who cares if they're midgets or not, the fact is we've no good defensive headerers of the ball bar our center backs, who aren't even that good in the air.

A commanding goalkeeper would solve alot of the goals we concede from corners and crosses, simple as.

x PyRo

Ush1 wrote: »

Well I don't think Given is very poor in the air but a huge factor with goalkeepers is the number of mistakes they make. Given makes very few in comparison to Almunia.

He's a great keeper don't get me wrong, Don't think he'd solve any of our problems as we don't have a defense good enough to protect him.

I make very few in comparison to Almunia! I used to play in goals in a Longford Town youth team and if i did half the things Almunia has done i'd of been out of there quicker than Usain Bolt.

SlickRic

x PyRo wrote: »

It's a valid reason to why he's poor in the air though.

1) it's not a valid reason, because he's not a leprechaun. in fact he's 6" 1'.

2) he is not as sh*t in the air as people seem to believe. he's not the absolute top notch in that area, but he makes up for it in almost every other facet of his goalkeeping.

3) he's better than Almunia and Fabianski, even if they were in goals simultaneously. which is the important thing really.

Pepe LeFrits

I ****ing hate that 'simple as' phrase. It's up there with 'QFT', 'This', '+1' and '/thread'.

Lots of teams are like that. We concede far too many goals of all types to be turning our noses up at a quality keeper like Given.

leninbenjamin

SlickRic wrote: »

that is such boll*x; i hate that argument against Shay. it's not the best but it's not ****.

Why is it "bollix"? Watch any game Shay plays in, for City or Ireland, he needlessly gives the ball away to the opposition countless times in a game. As much as I love him, he frequently draws on opposition pressure with his aimless punts forward. He's a liability, particularly to a team who have very little aerial presence.

SlickRic wrote: »

and even if it was true, he's a 100% better goalkeeper, more if it was possible, than what you have.

Shay in goals, would have given you at least 6-9 extra points this year. that's how stupid not sorting out that goalkeeping situation is. and Shay was by far the obvious candidate, and i've no doubt he would've come.

People will blame Fabianski for yesterday, but that's only one side of the story. We needless gave the ball away in midfield countless times and Diaby in particular didn't track back when he should have. No matter how good the GK is, we would have dropped points yesterday.

As for the 100% better remark... the difference isn't as sizable as people think. First leg against Barca being the perfect example, Almunia's positioning cost us the first goal but at the same time he had kept us in the tie til that with some stunning saves. Do people honestly think the likes of Sorensen and Schwarzer would have gotten down in time to makes those reaction saves?

I'm not defending Almunia, I know he's not good enough, but at the same time he is a fantastic shot stopper who has kept out shots that 80-90% of all other Premier League keepers wouldn't get down in time to save. People are being exceptionally naive here imo. We need a new keeper, but this isn't football manager for **** sake. There's no point buying the first to come available, a new keeper is very destabilizing for the defense afterall, we could easily end up with the revolving door of United in the early 00s if people had their way here.

Ush1

Given is a better shot stopper also IMO.

Alumunia couldn't stop that shot from that kid playing for Spurs!:D

x PyRo

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I ****ing hate that 'simple as' phrase. It's up there with 'QFT', 'This', '+1' and '/thread'.

Lots of teams are like that. We concede far too many goals of all types to be turning our noses up at a quality keeper like Given.

Oh, boo-hoo. Get over yourself, you're always going on about something not being right.

Wenger obviously doesn't consider him good enough either. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you but i think we need someone like i've already described. Given doesn't organize the defense well either. He never shouts instructions until he has made a save etc. He's not what we need. Simple as.

x PyRo

SlickRic wrote: »

1) it's not a valid reason, because he's not a leprechaun. in fact he's 6" 1'.

2) he is not as sh*t in the air as people seem to believe. he's not the absolute top notch in that area, but he makes up for it in almost every other facet of his goalkeeping.

3) he's better than Almunia and Fabianski, even if they were in goals simultaneously. which is the important thing really.

1) I ment his height, i never called him a leprechaun .

2) He's not sh*t in the air, but he's not great in it either. I believe we need someone who is, unless we get an aerially dominant center back which we don't have, therefore i think it leaves our keeper under pressure for corners then they makes mistakes. Yesterday was another example.

3) I'm better than both of them, should Wenger sign me up ? They're both sub standard keepers, as is Mannone. They should all be shipped out, Szczesny should be promoted to #2 behind a new keeper. I'd personally like Hart if City would sell him. He fits the bill of the perfect all round keeper that we need. I think he's better than Given overall too.

SlickRic

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Why is it "bollix"? Watch any game Shay plays in, for City or Ireland, he needlessly gives the ball away to the opposition countless times in a game. As much as I love him, he frequently draws on opposition pressure with his aimless punts forward. He's a liability, particularly to a team who have very little aerial presence.

he would be playing for Arsenal. aimless punts forward aren't really in your vocabulary.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

As for the 100% better remark... the difference isn't as sizable as people think. First leg against Barca being the perfect example, Almunia's positioning cost us the first goal but at the same time he had kept us in the tie til that with some stunning saves. Do people honestly think the likes of Sorensen and Schwarzer would have gotten down in time to makes those reaction saves?

Almunia is horrifically inconsistent. he'll put on the Barca performance, but be out of position for Ibra's first goal, or then let in that shocker against Birmingham costing you points. even his shot-stopping is a major problem.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

There's no point buying the first to come available, a new keeper is very destabilizing for the defense afterall, we could easily end up with the revolving door of United in the early 00s if people had their way here.

the defence is de-stabilised for the simple reason that they don't have someone reliable behind them. if they had Shay, who they knew would handle everything comfortably, and be reliable in doing so, it would make a big difference.

i'm not abstaining blame from your Cesc-less midfield, because Diaby in particular was cr*p again, but goalkeeper is the key one to get right for Arsenal in the close season IMO.

and xPyro, Hart better than Given? FFS. why all the Given hate? a seasoned, proven veteran, versus a guy whose just had his first full season really playing regularly in the top flight, having to go out on loan to get it. but Hart is quality, and within your price range maybe, seen as he's possibly surplus to requirements thanks to Given.

blinding

x PyRo wrote: »

He's a great keeper don't get me wrong, Don't think he'd solve any of our problems as we don't have a defense good enough to protect him.

I make very few in comparison to Almunia! I used to play in goals in a Longford Town youth team and if i did half the things Almunia has done i'd of been out of there quicker than Usain Bolt.

You are pretty quick for a goalkeeper have you ever thought of giving the athletics a go.

x PyRo

SlickRic wrote: »

and xPyro, Hart better than Given? FFS. why all the Given hate? a seasoned, proven veteran, versus a guy whose just had his first full season really playing regularly in the top flight, having to go out on loan to get it. but Hart is quality, and within your price range maybe, seen as he's possibly surplus to requirements thanks to Given.

Where did i say i hate him ? He's a class keeper etc etc but Hart is better in my opinion. I may be wrong i may be right but from what i've seen of both this season i'd preffer Hart.

Hart has kept the same amount of clean sheets as Given in one less game, Saved 30 more shots than him, conceded alot less goals. All in a team alot worse than City. He's a class act.

If Given wasn't Irish then people wouldn't like him as much.

blinding wrote: »

You are pretty quick for a goalkeeper have you ever thought of giving the athletics a go.

I was obviously implying that they'd kick me out fairly quickly and that should be the same case with Almunia.

Doesn't take a genius to work that one out.

Paleface

I think arguing about Given is not really relevant at this stage.

He's a City player now and Arsenal need to look elsewhere for a goal keeper.

gosplan

Paleface wrote: »

I think arguing about Given is not really relevant at this stage.

He's a City player now and Arsenal need to look elsewhere for a goal keeper.

Yes, tis a silly debate.

To clarify my earlier point - a new goalkeeper is a serious priority.

I don't think we should run out and buy the first keeper available but if Wenger has plans to purchase a long term solution to our goalkeeping problems, then I hope to hell he has a backup plan in case that doesn't happen. This is where keepers like Sorenson and Schwatzer come in.

We simply can't start another season with Al and Fab.

And whatever people feel about destabilising our back four with a change in goalkeepers, we conceeded a goal from keeper's error in three of the last four league games.

Additionally, I think our keepers are down as having made 9 saves across those four games. So for every three saves an Arsenal keeper is making he's giving away one needless goal - this stastic probably continues through the season if you were to look.

You could also look at the fact we've conceeded 6 goals while making those 9 saves. Put plainly, our goalkeepers have no good working relationship with the defense, therefore, there is nothing to destabilise.

Max Power1

gosplan wrote: »

Yes, tis a silly debate.

To clarify my earlier point - a new goalkeeper is a serious priority.

I don't think we should run out and buy the first keeper available but if Wenger has plans to purchase a long term solution to our goalkeeping problems, then I hope to hell he has a backup plan in case that doesn't happen. This is where keepers like Sorenson and Schwatzer come in.

We simply can't start another season with Al and Fab.

I think the highlighted part is the crux of the situation.

Admittedly the likes of Loris is more a pipe dream than a likely reality. Hart on the other hand is backup at city and would like a chance at 1st team football. He should be england keeper for years to come and would be the ideal long term replacement for Seaman (which we havent had yet).

City may sell him, they did sell their captain and best center half at the start of the season because he wasnt getting a game.

If we do get Hart, lets hope he works out a better signing than Richard Wright - the last mooted long term seaman replacement

L'prof

SlickRic wrote: »

not bidding for Shay Given (i assume you didn't) was IMO the most naive and stupid thing Arsenal have done in their recent history.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but, we can all see that Given is a much better keeper than Almunia. The thing is, while I never thought Almunia was great, but I didn't think he'd be as bad as he has been this year, I doubt many people did to be honest and at the time the difference in quality between the two wasn't as glaringly obvious.

As for not bidding for Given, I wouldn't be so sure that we didn't, but you have to remember that he was signed in the same window that our protracted Arshavin deal took place, which undoubtedly took up a lot of our time and I'm not so sure we had any money left after that. The only thing we could offer Given was Champions League football. We couldn't compete with any wages offered to Given by City and London is about twice as far away from Newcastle as Manchester is, which may have been a factor. City paid £8m for him, the most we'd paid for a keeper under Wenger was £6m for Wright and look how well that turned out! Lehmann was £2m and he was fantastic for us.

As an aside, not trying to rise you but, just clarifying my point...Liverpool should never have allowed the Americans to take over the club, should never have let go of Alonso or paid £20m for an injured player! Hindsight is all well and good, but what's the point in dwelling on things that can't be changed???

Frisbee

gosplan wrote: »

We simply can't start another season with Al and Fab.

This.

If we can't fine someone to solve out problems for the next ten years then a two year stopgap is more than acceptable.

L'prof

x PyRo wrote: »

He's a great keeper don't get me wrong, Don't think he'd solve any of our problems as we don't have a defense good enough to protect him.

I make very few in comparison to Almunia! I used to play in goals in a Longford Town youth team and if i did half the things Almunia has done i'd of been out of there quicker than Usain Bolt.

You from the town?

Pepe LeFrits

x PyRo wrote: »

I was obviously implying that they'd kick me out fairly quickly and that should be the same case with Almunia.

Doesn't take a genius to work that one out.

Hey look, there's another thing that isn't right - your sense of humour.

MaxPower1 wrote:

Admittedly the likes of Loris is more a pipe dream than a likely reality. Hart on the other hand is backup at city and would like a chance at 1st team football. He should be england keeper for years to come and would be the ideal long term replacement for Seaman (which we havent had yet).

I'm not really convinced that Hart is the solution; doing it at Birmingham is one thing. At this point though I'd be happy to see if he was able to step up. Players like Lloris shouldn't really be pipe-dreams for a club like Arsenal. Hopefully that'll change soon.

x PyRo

jasonorr wrote: »

You from the town?

Nope, only 40 minutes away. In inbred Leitrim. :pac:

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Hey look, there's another thing that isn't right - your sense of humour.

Damn, it has been my life goal to have my sense of humour accepted by you.

Frisbee

Easy Tigers...

Arseblog made good reading this morning

Max Power1

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I'm not really convinced that Hart is the solution; doing it at Birmingham is one thing. At this point though I'd be happy to see if he was able to step up. Players like Lloris shouldn't really be pipe-dreams for a club like Arsenal. Hopefully that'll change soon.

Well he would be better than the current situation, and also the mooted "short term replacement" options like Mark Schwarzer (who while a serviceable lower EPL goalkepper, is nowhere near good enough for arsenal)

WRT Lloris, he would probably be interested in a move to the Emirates, but its more the prospective prohibitive fee that makes him unobtainable.

Pepe LeFrits

x PyRo wrote: »

Damn, it has been my life goal to have my sense of humour accepted by you.

Better, but it's still your inability to spot others' that I was referring to.

Max Power1 wrote:

Well he would be better than the current situation, and also the mooted "short term replacement" options like Mark Schwarzer (who while a serviceable lower EPL goalkepper, is nowhere near good enough for arsenal)

WRT Lloris, he would probably be interested in a move to the Emirates, but its more the prospective prohibitive fee that makes him unobtainable.

Agreed, but financially the club is one of the biggest in the world and hopefully, sooner or later, it'll start to act like it.

x PyRo

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Better, but it's still your inability to spot others' that I was referring to.

It's just something i can't grasp unless there's a smiley after it.

Don't know why.

L'prof

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Agreed, but financially the club is one of the biggest in the world and hopefully, sooner or later, it'll start to act like it.

Hopefully, that was the whole reasoning behind the move to the Emirates, but ironically the move ha also been a major factor in our lack of transfer activity in the recent years. We made a remarkable dent in that debt due to the sale of the Highbury flats which, may be the reason Wenger has hinted at spending some money. The only thing is, the debt is still quite big so, will he continue to spend? I'm not so sure!

Frisbee

jasonorr wrote: »

The only thing is, the debt is still quite big so, will he continue to spend? I'm not so sure!

I don't think we'd need to spend continuously to acheive success though.

A large transfer budget this summer and in January which could allow us to sign the right players would set us up well for a few years.

L'prof

Frisbee wrote: »

I don't think we'd need to spend continuously to acheive success though.

A large transfer budget this summer and in January which could allow us to sign the right players would set us up well for a few years.

I hope you're right, if only buying the right players was as easy as it sounds!

Pepe LeFrits

Frisbee wrote: »

I don't think we'd need to spend continuously to acheive success though.

A large transfer budget this summer and in January which could allow us to sign the right players would set us up well for a few years.

Which is just as well as Le Prof won't be around for too much longer I reckon.

It's been a long old pit stop...

Frisbee

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Which is just as well as Le Prof won't be around for too much longer I reckon.

It's been a long old pit stop...

I view your pessimism with disdain.

Arsene will be with us forever!






won't he?

L'prof

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Which is just as well as Le Prof won't be around for too much longer I reckon.

It's been a long old pit stop...

What? You'd like to see Wenger gone soon and get somebody else in to try and work on a (possibly) minimal budget?

Pepe LeFrits

jasonorr wrote: »

What? You'd like to see Wenger gone soon and get somebody else in to try and work on a (possibly) minimal budget?

Eh, wha?

Frisbee wrote: »

I view your pessimism with disdain.

Arsene will be with us forever!

Next season is going to be very interesting in that regard. I think he'd be inclined to sign one final contract, but if the next campaign doesn't go well, then who knows. He could call it a day.

Marty McFly

cooker3 wrote: »

Wenger is a victim of his own success. He has being so consistent and set an incredible standard which results in ungrateful fools who actually think 3rd in the league and not winning a trophy in a few years is actually a bad run and as bad as it gets.
Try mid table obscurity and no champions league for a while which is what could easily happen under a lesser manager (in other words nearly every other manager in the world) and you may wish you didn't get what you asked for.

I dont think so ive been supporting arsenal since before the wenger era i remeber when bruce rioch got sacked for landing us in mid table obscurity. The board wont accept it at such a club as arsenal. A lot of neutrals I know are mystified at arsenals loyalty to him.

Yes i realise some people are loyal beyond belief to wenger and he has done great things in the past, but are you really happy with not really challenging for league honours again? Lets be honest its not that we improved this year its that chelseas and united standards dropped this year more than anything else.

Im not saying sack him outright im just saying some major money has to be spent and at least 3to 4 top quality players have to be brought in. If he does that id be quite happy so lets hope everyones optimism on here is justified and he does do that.

Frisbee

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Next season is going to be very interesting in that regard. I think he'd be inclined to sign one final contract, but if the next campaign doesn't go well, then who knows. He could call it a day.

I'd think the opposite.

I think if we won the league next year he'd leave knowing his decisions to stick with a young squad and minimal spending were vindicated.

But if we were to do poorly he'd sign a one year extension to try again.

leninbenjamin

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Players like Lloris shouldn't really be pipe-dreams for a club like Arsenal.

It's not the price, it's also a question of value. He'd cost in excess of €25m, yet at times he's looked no better than Almunia when it comes to his positioning and his aerial command. Is he really worth it?

jasonorr wrote: »

Hopefully, that was the whole reasoning behind the move to the Emirates, but ironically the move ha also been a major factor in our lack of transfer activity in the recent years. We made a remarkable dent in that debt due to the sale of the Highbury flats which, may be the reason Wenger has hinted at spending some money. The only thing is, the debt is still quite big so, will he continue to spend? I'm not so sure!

The size of debt is not important, it's the ability to repay said debt that is. Since the Highbury loan has been almost entirely paid off the rest of the debt is in the form of long term bonds with a fixed annual interest repayment of approximately £17m, fairly manageable for a club with Arsenal's revenues. Arsenal no longer have to worry too much about being able to meet debt repayments in the short term, so he finally has no reason not to spend!

Pepe LeFrits

By all accounts he was shocked and rattled by the fans' anger at the AGM before last and I think it'll only be worse if next season finishes in a similar vein. His comments over the past while to me suggest that if he fails next season, then he'll admit defeat and walk.

Royale with Cheese

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

I dont think so ive been supporting arsenal since before the wenger era i remeber when bruce rioch got sacked for landing us in mid table obscurity.

Rioch brought Arsenal from a 12th place finish in 95 to a 5th place finish in 96. He was sacked because Dein was hell bent on getting Wenger in and wasn't happy with Rioch's appointment in the first place.

Marty McFly

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Rioch brought Arsenal from a 12th place finish in 95 to a 5th place finish in 96. He was sacked because Dein was hell bent on getting Wenger in and wasn't happy with Rioch's appointment in the first place.

Ok you could be right on that point if so i stand corrected.

L'prof

leninbenjamin wrote: »

The size of debt is not important, it's the ability to repay said debt that is. Since the Highbury loan has been almost entirely paid off the rest of the debt is in the form of long term bonds with a fixed annual interest repayment of approximately m, fairly manageable for a club with Arsenal's revenues. Arsenal no longer have to worry too much about being able to meet debt repayments in the short term, so he finally has no reason not to spend!

As far as I was aware, we never really had to worry about debt repayments because of our revenues so what was the reason behind us not spending? The interest repayment were £25m before, they've been reduced by £8m which is significant but, I don't believe that's the difference between us not spending in the past and deciding to spend this summer!