Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013/14 mod warning post #5144

Alfred Borden

ronjo wrote: »

If we can somehow grind out a win on Sunday and get some players back then it would really be possible to finish the league very strongly and hopefully capitalise if any of the three ahead of us slip up.

I know there is some IFs in there but I am feeling positive after seeing that Ramsey news.

Me too, a win sunday would be massive, hopefully we could have Ozil back too for the next league game. Both them fresh should help us do very well in the run in. At least the top 3 will definitely drop points anyways just a matter of how much. Suppose we have to be patient with Aaron too, will take a few games to get back in rhythm.

greendom

ronjo wrote: »

If we can somehow grind out a win on Sunday and get some players back then it would really be possible to finish the league very strongly and hopefully capitalise if any of the three ahead of us slip up.

I know there is some IFs in there but I am feeling positive after seeing that Ramsey news.

True, and with Ozil, Kos, Wilshere waiting in the wings, we have nothing to fear with our end of season run-in.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

Great news to have Ramsey back in the squad. Hopefully now we can finish the season strongly.

AdamD

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/03/tottenham-hold-talks-romelu-lukaku-summer-move

Would love if we made a move for him. They sold Mata to United so it may not be completely out of the question

GavRedKing

AdamD wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/03/tottenham-hold-talks-romelu-lukaku-summer-move

Would love if we made a move for him. They sold Mata to United so it may not be completely out of the question

I reckon he'll be sold but if Everton can come up with the cash they'll be the preferred team to sell to, less of a threat than Spurs and yereselves, ideally he'll be kept but given his antics in the summer transfer window I cant see him wanting to stay.

AdamD

GavRedKing wrote: »

I reckon he'll be sold but if Everton can come up with the cash they'll be the preferred team to sell to, less of a threat than Spurs and yereselves, ideally he'll be kept but given his antics in the summer transfer window I cant see him wanting to stay.

I've seen a lot of Chelsea fans giving him abuse for what happened but I thought at the time he was very justified in being unhappy and this season has only vindicated him. Bringing in an aging, inferior Eto'o and having both him and Torres ahead of him in the pecking order for the first few games was farcical. He seems to be a very driven individual so if Chelsea have their heads screwed on I imagine they could keep him, and get him playing well quite easily.

dvemail

I know he has been out since Decemeber but i just hope they don't rush Ramsey back into the first team. Now is not the time for a third setback.

greendom

AdamD wrote: »

I've seen a lot of Chelsea fans giving him abuse for what happened but I thought at the time he was very justified in being unhappy and this season has only vindicated him. Bringing in an aging, inferior Eto'o and having both him and Torres ahead of him in the pecking order for the first few games was farcical. He seems to be a very driven individual so if Chelsea have their heads screwed on I imagine they could keep him, and get him playing well quite easily.

On the other hand he could have chosen to stay and fight for his place. Prove himself in training and off the bench. I'm sure he would have ended up as Chelsea's no 1 striker and both sides would have benefitted.

GavRedKing

AdamD wrote: »

I've seen a lot of Chelsea fans giving him abuse for what happened but I thought at the time he was very justified in being unhappy and this season has only vindicated him. Bringing in an aging, inferior Eto'o and having both him and Torres ahead of him in the pecking order for the first few games was farcical. He seems to be a very driven individual so if Chelsea have their heads screwed on I imagine they could keep him, and get him playing well quite easily.

Eto'o wasnt signed until 29th August though, before that it was Torres and Ba getting games before Lukaku, which was weird as Lukaku had a decent pre-season, he scored 4/5 goals IIRC.

He would have been kept if he didnt hand in a transfer request and he probably would have played more than both Torres and Eto'o but when that happened we couldnt loan Ba as Lukaku wanted out.
Ideally we'd have loaned Ba and kept Lukaku but those are the breaks in football, could have been a different season for us, ye and everton had a played out different.

jonneymendoza

dvemail wrote: »

I know he has been out since Decemeber but i just hope they don't rush Ramsey back into the first team. Now is not the time for a third setback.

rather he miss the whole season so he can come and play the whole of next season injury free

jonneymendoza

greendom wrote: »

True, and with Ozil, Kos, Wilshere waiting in the wings, we have nothing to fear with our end of season run-in.

its a shame we are out of the title hunt because if we was still in it. those players could help us push on to win it

Mr.Micro

ronjo wrote: »

If we can somehow grind out a win on Sunday and get some players back then it would really be possible to finish the league very strongly and hopefully capitalise if any of the three ahead of us slip up.

I know there is some IFs in there but I am feeling positive after seeing that Ramsey news.

Yes, we need something from the Everton game and leave nothing to chance.

Nemeses2050

Jeez I'm glad we didn't sign your man Mitroglu - I don't think he has a touched ball since moving to fulham...In Wenger we trust....:D

cson

Lukaku strikes me as a very streaky kind of player. Definitely think he'd be a good signing but to be honest I want Balotelli.

Re Barcelona; I'm fairly certain UEFA will find some method of digging their darling Barcelona out of that ban, though it'd be delightful if it was upheld.

80 points and the FA Cup would be significant progress imo. Quite whether we can sustain it next season under Wenger, its hard to tell. The 'unluckiness' with injuries is fairly constant at this stage and the lack of our ability to adjust tactically to big games is pretty constant at this stage too. City, Chelsea and United are only going to get stronger next season. I predict turmoil for Spurs as I think they'll jettison Levy in the summer and I think Liverpool will struggle with the demands of the CL unless they invest heavily in the squad.

Hanalei

cson wrote: »

Re Barcelona; I'm fairly certain UEFA will find some method of digging their darling Barcelona out of that ban, though it'd be delightful if it was upheld.

Agree with you there, they'll be protected as usual. How they were never pulled for their disgusting and blatant tapping up Cesc is mind boggling but that's only the tip of the iceberg with those lot....

I'd like to call this ban karma but we all know the appeal will go their way.

cson wrote: »

.... The 'unluckiness' with injuries is fairly constant at this stage ....

This has been an ongoing problem for 6 or 7 years now, although I remember the 1997/98 and 2001/02 run ins were blighted with injury and we really had to utilise the squad. 2003/04 was an unusually good season for injuries, having our best players pretty much constantly available was the difference between "just" winning the title and winning it undefeated.

But this "unluckiness" with injuries is so regular that it can't just be luck, we're doing something wrong. I have no idea what that is but I'd have expected the club to get to the bottom of it by now.

Gary Lewin stepped down as head physio and left the club in 2008; I wonder if that is somehow a factor? (You'd swear we didn't replace him at all the way things have gone since he left!)

Spanish Johnny

Hanalei wrote: »

Agree with you there, they'll be protected as usual. How they were never pulled for their disgusting and blatant tapping up Cesc is mind boggling but that's only the tip of the iceberg with those lot....

I'd like to call this ban karma but we all know the appeal will go their way.



This has been an ongoing problem for 6 or 7 years now, although I remember the 1997/98 and 2001/02 run ins were blighted with injury and we really had to utilise the squad. 2003/04 was an unusually good season for injuries, having our best players pretty much constantly available was the difference between "just" winning the title and winning it undefeated.

But this "unluckiness" with injuries is so regular that it can't just be luck, we're doing something wrong. I have no idea what that is but I'd have expected the club to get to the bottom of it by now.

Gary Lewin stepped down as head physio and left the club in 2008; I wonder if that is somehow a factor? (You'd swear we didn't replace him at all the way things have gone since he left!)

Surely the injuries are to do with training methods rather than the medical team? Think it was Arseblog that said Arsenal's medical team is complete top notch in every facet.

Hanalei

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Surely the injuries are to do with training methods rather than the medical team? Think it was Arseblog that said Arsenal's medical team is complete top notch in every facet.

I believe it's our style of play on the pitch, up to 2006 we didn't rely so much on having possession of the ball, Arsenal were comfortable on the ball, and comfortable off the ball, knowing that without the ball they could be patient and kill teams on the counter attack, and on the ball they had players like Bergkamp and Pires who could penetrate the opposition defence with a killer pass.

Since then the team is most uncomfortable off the ball, doesn't rely on counter attack so much, and needs to have the ball. But because we don't have the Pires or Bergkamp style players to penetrate a well organised defence we need to keep the ball more in the hope than an opening will eventually appear, so more time with the ball in midfield and in front of opposition defence means drawing more physical contact, which means more chance of injury.

That's just my barstool opinion, in reality I have no idea. But there are people more qualified than me who are very well paid at the club who should be investigating this and figuring out why exactly it is happening.

Marty McFly

Hanalei wrote: »

I believe it's our style of play on the pitch, up to 2006 we didn't rely so much on having possession of the ball, Arsenal were comfortable on the ball, and comfortable off the ball, knowing that without the ball they could be patient and kill teams on the counter attack, and on the ball they had players like Bergkamp and Pires who could penetrate the opposition defence with a killer pass.

Since then the team is most uncomfortable off the ball, doesn't rely on counter attack so much, and needs to have the ball. But because we don't have the Pires or Bergkamp style players to penetrate a well organised defence we need to keep the ball more in the hope than an opening will eventually appear, so more time with the ball in midfield and in front of opposition defence means drawing more physical contact, which means more chance of injury.

That's just my barstool opinion, in reality I have no idea. But there are people more qualified than me who are very well paid at the club who should be investigating this and figuring out why exactly it is happening.

In all honesty I don't think it is that it one of the reason some people tend to use but if you look at other teams who play that style of football most don't suffer the same amount of injuries we do Barcelona being the prime example amongst others.

I would be of the belief it something to do with our training methods.

Our medical team is meant to be top notch though which again makes no sense because you would like to think/ imagine they would have some input on each individuals training methods weak spots, areas to target etc.

It can't just be bad luck we keep signing injury prone players.

One things for sure there's something wrong somewhere along the line.

Hanalei

Marty McFly wrote: »

In all honesty I don't think it is that it one of the reason some people tend to use but if you look at other teams who play that style of football most don't suffer the same amount of injuries we do Barcelona being the prime example amongst others.

I would be of the belief it something to do with our training methods.

Our medical team is meant to be top notch though which again makes no sense because you would like to think/ imagine they would have some input on each individuals training methods weak spots, areas to target etc.

It can't just be bad luck we keep signing injury prone players.

One things for sure there's something wrong somewhere along the line.

Not saying I disagree (can't stress enough that I have no idea why ) but could your point on Barcelona be countered by saying that they are not faced with the same levels of physicality in La Liga as Arsenal are in the Premier League? Also, Barcelona are far better at it than us, they move the ball around far more effectively and quicker, so they don't end up with anywhere near as many 50;50's as we do!

Training methods does stick out as a question mark alright.... Not an easy one to answer though as we don't see what happens in training and can't easily compare with other clubs.

Hanalei

Hanalei wrote: »

I believe it's our style of play on the pitch, up to 2006 we didn't rely so much on having possession of the ball, Arsenal were comfortable on the ball, and comfortable off the ball, knowing that without the ball they could be patient and kill teams on the counter attack, and on the ball they had players like Bergkamp and Pires who could penetrate the opposition defence with a killer pass.

Since then the team is most uncomfortable off the ball, doesn't rely on counter attack so much, and needs to have the ball. But because we don't have the Pires or Bergkamp style players to penetrate a well organised defence we need to keep the ball more in the hope than an opening will eventually appear, so more time with the ball in midfield and in front of opposition defence means drawing more physical contact, which means more chance of injury.

That's just my barstool opinion, in reality I have no idea. But there are people more qualified than me who are very well paid at the club who should be investigating this and figuring out why exactly it is happening.

Good point. Would we have this problem on the continent and how many of our players have got bad injuries in Europe? You might see the odd cynical foul but rarely a leg breaker. Personally though i think that no one would dare kick Vieira, Petit, or the back four or they'd have got it back with interest. Ozil or Cazorla doesn't exactly strike fear in the heart of oppostion good as ball players as they might be. Ramsey is still young and light. Chambo was unlucky with the cruciate but is generally more robust.

Spanish Johnny

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Surely the injuries are to do with training methods rather than the medical team? Think it was Arseblog that said Arsenal's medical team is complete top notch in every facet.

Is there a little sense of wrapping up players in cotton wool do you think?

Marty McFly

Hanalei wrote: »

Not saying I disagree (can't stress enough that I have no idea why ) but could your point on Barcelona be countered by saying that they are not faced with the same levels of physicality in La Liga as Arsenal are in the Premier League? Also, Barcelona are far better at it than us, they move the ball around far more effectively and quicker, so they don't end up with anywhere near as many 50;50's as we do!

Training methods does stick out as a question mark alright.... Not an easy one to answer though as we don't see what happens in training and can't easily compare with other clubs.

No I don't think it is that I just used Barcelona as the prime example. Most teams these days try to play possession football sadly imo counter attacking football is not as prevalent as it once was.

Remember the Swansea team under Rodgers was famed for its ability to hold onto possession and dominate games, they had a thread bare squad and never once suffered the injuries we did if they did it would have impacted them a lot more given there thin squad.

I think it comes down to training methods and what we do on the ground not only in footballing terms but in our conditioning of the players. Do we spend enough time on range of movement etc. Do we individualize players or do we have a uniform approach etc sadly none us can answer that as were not on the training ground seeing what goes on.

But we all know there is something wrong when we consistently suffer long term injuries season after season.

gosplan

Marty McFly wrote: »

No I don't think it is that I just used Barcelona as the prime example. Most teams these days try to play possession football sadly imo counter attacking football is not as prevalent as it once was.

Remember the Swansea team under Rodgers was famed for its ability to hold onto possession and dominate games, they had a thread bare squad and never once suffered the injuries we did if they did it would have impacted them a lot more given there thin squad.

I think it comes down to training methods and what we do on the ground not only in footballing terms but in our conditioning of the players. Do we spend enough time on range of movement etc. Do we individualize players or do we have a uniform approach etc sadly none us can answer that as were not on the training ground seeing what goes on.

But we all know there is something wrong when we consistently suffer long term injuries season after season.

Yup. We're great against the average joe in the last 25 mins of matches but it comes at a price.

Marty McFly

gosplan wrote: »

Yup. We're great against the average joe in the last 25 mins of matches but it comes at a price.

Again as I've said before as well the case for that makes no sense at all, that we push our players harder in training so our players can last the 90 minutes longer is complete and utter nonsense imo.

Every team out there trains there players to be at peak fitness so we would not be the exception in that regard and lets just say our players were pushed harder were better physically prepared to last the 90 minutes then why would we suffer more injuries?

If our players were most physically fit than most average teams then we should see less injuries not more as our muscles wouldn't tire as much leaving us less susceptible to injuries not the other way around.

enfant terrible

jonneymendoza wrote: »

its a shame we are out of the title hunt because if we was still in it. those players could help us push on to win it

Don't think many teams would of coped with their four best players out injured for such a long time.

keano_afc

Hanalei wrote: »

I believe it's our style of play on the pitch, up to 2006 we didn't rely so much on having possession of the ball, Arsenal were comfortable on the ball, and comfortable off the ball, knowing that without the ball they could be patient and kill teams on the counter attack, and on the ball they had players like Bergkamp and Pires who could penetrate the opposition defence with a killer pass.

Since then the team is most uncomfortable off the ball, doesn't rely on counter attack so much, and needs to have the ball. But because we don't have the Pires or Bergkamp style players to penetrate a well organised defence we need to keep the ball more in the hope than an opening will eventually appear, so more time with the ball in midfield and in front of opposition defence means drawing more physical contact, which means more chance of injury.

That's just my barstool opinion, in reality I have no idea. But there are people more qualified than me who are very well paid at the club who should be investigating this and figuring out why exactly it is happening.

I dont think that many of our injuries are contact related to be honest. We get an unreal amount of muscular injuries. Ramsey, Özil, Kos all missing at the moment and due to muscle injuries. We tend to rush our players back too quickly due to having such a small squad. Ramsey a case in point.

gosplan

Marty McFly wrote: »

Again as I've said before as well the case for that makes no sense at all, that we push our players harder in training so our players can last the 90 minutes longer is complete and utter nonsense imo.

Every team out there trains there players to be at peak fitness so we would not be the exception in that regard and lets just say our players were pushed harder were better physically prepared to last the 90 minutes then why would we suffer more injuries?

If our players were most physically fit than most average teams then we should see less injuries not more as our muscles wouldn't tire as much leaving us less susceptible to injuries not the other way around.

Yeah but not when it results in them being overworked.

Ramsey broke down on Dec 26th after a run on games. Then Ozil and Wilshire broke down because they were playing every minute.

I'm not saying it's the only reason but when we're all creaming ourselves posting stats about our midfielders practically running half marathons twice a week, we need to accept that this combined with an intensive training schedule comes at a price.

jonneymendoza

i heard moyes trains his squad till they cant stand up anymore and hi training way are a lot intense! dont see many injuries from his everton or united side

greendom

jonneymendoza wrote: »

i heard moyes trains his squad till they cant stand up anymore and hi training way are a lot intense! dont see many injuries from his everton or united side

United are second to us this season

cson

To take something from Rugby parlance; player management is a big thing too I think. Imo we do it very badly, we don't mind players enough - Ollie has played the 2nd most games for us this season and its a minor miracle that its only now that the Mertescielny axis has been broken up for a period of games.

We don't mind players because we don't have the squad to rotate them. Thus we overplay and injure the good players we have and you're then expected to get the results against Bayern, City and Chelsea without Walcott, Ramsey, Ozil and Wilshere. Their absences affect us infinitely more than the corresponding would affect Bayern, City and Chelsea - why? Because they have the squads to cope with a challenge on all fronts.

The more you look at it; the more you can see that our annual March capitulation has less to do with mental strength or any perceived lack of it and more to do with being basically physically knackered because we've been playing our best players week in week out as we simply have no one to replace them adequately - or certainly no one the manager trusts to replace them adequately (Park anyone?!)

The blame for that goes to AW; I get his aversion to wasting money but a loan deal for Kim Kallstrom being the sum total of our January business when the squad is crying out for bodies in the short and medium term is criminal. We're the 4th or 5th biggest club in the world based on revenue for chrissake. We're not poor. We can deal with a £10m signing going wrong. We've trying to bandage wounds that need stitches for far too long.

.jacksparrow.

cson wrote: »

To take something from Rugby parlance; player management is a big thing too I think. Imo we do it very badly, we don't mind players enough - Ollie has played the 2nd most games for us this season and its a minor miracle that its only now that the Mertescielny axis has been broken up for a period of games.

We don't mind players because we don't have the squad to rotate them. Thus we overplay and injure the good players we have and you're then expected to get the results against Bayern, City and Chelsea without Walcott, Ramsey, Ozil and Wilshere. Their absences affect us infinitely more than the corresponding would affect Bayern, City and Chelsea - why? Because they have the squads to cope with a challenge on all fronts.

The more you look at it; the more you can see that our annual March capitulation has less to do with mental strength or any perceived lack of it and more to do with being basically physically knackered because we've been playing our best players week in week out as we simply have no one to replace them adequately - or certainly no one the manager trusts to replace them adequately (Park anyone?!)

The blame for that goes to AW; I get his aversion to wasting money but a loan deal for Kim Kallstrom being the sum total of our January business when the squad is crying out for bodies in the short and medium term is criminal. We're the 4th or 5th biggest club in the world based on revenue for chrissake. We're not poor. We can deal with a £10m signing going wrong. We've trying to bandage wounds that need stitches for far too long.

Such sense for such a young man..

shano_88

Gibbs and Gnabry doubtful for Sunday. Monreal and Ramsey back in the squad.

ronjo

I will probably get absolutely slated for this but i dont care

Would anyone here take Torres? He is quick which we are really missing up front and yes I realise I am ignoring his other flaws.
He did get more than 20 goals last season.

Alfred Borden

ronjo wrote: »

I will probably get absolutely slated for this but i dont care

Would anyone here take Torres? He is quick which we are really missing up front and yes I realise I am ignoring his other flaws.
He did get more than 20 goals last season.

I would definitely take him as backup but not sure he has it anymore to be a starter. Would give us something very different, just hard to see whats wrong with him. Numerous different managers and different systems at chelsea may be hurting him.

wawaman

Raf32 wrote: »

I would definitely take him as backup but not sure he has it anymore to be a starter. Would give us something very different, just hard to see whats wrong with him. Numerous different managers and different systems at chelsea may be hurting him.

I would take him purely for the fact of the way he has been treated by HIM and he would be eager for revenge. If he scored a hat trick for us while we beat Chelsea 7-0 next season, all the better !!!!!

Skylinehead

ronjo wrote: »

I will probably get absolutely slated for this but i dont care

Would anyone here take Torres? He is quick which we are really missing up front and yes I realise I am ignoring his other flaws.
He did get more than 20 goals last season.

Torres isn't quick these days, his pace is gone. Plus he can't shoot. No from me, we can do much better. And he's on 180k a week :eek:

ronjo

Skylinehead wrote: »

Torres isn't quick these days, his pace is gone. Plus he can't shoot. No from me, we can do much better. And he's on 180k a week :eek:

Ok but other than all those things??? :pac:

Fuzzy_Dunlop

If we're going to compromise on our stiker targets, I'd prefer to go with someone younger with the potential to improve (i.e Drmic) than someone like Torres.

I've also got it into my head today that it would be amazing to sign Reus, would be better than Draxler and probably about the same price. Again this would be mainly if we can't get a top striker.

No for Torres from me. I noticed a big decline in his form his last few months at Liverpool tbh.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

No for Torres from me. I noticed a big decline in his form his last few months at Liverpool tbh.

Her would have been better than zilch though. Zilch has been useless

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Her would have been better than zilch though. Zilch has been useless

Still slightly better than Bendtner or Sanogo though :pac:

Hanalei

Torres? 2010 was a long time ago now and he's been woeful since then compared to the standards set up to then.

Chelsea won't be able to sell him, he is essentially their Bendtner- the best they can hope for is to loan him out because like Bendtner, he's not going to take a pay cut (and on what Chelsea are paying you can't blame him...)

We're much better off with Giroud, and what we need is someone better than Giroud. I like Giroud, but we need to remember what we were accustomed to up to a few years ago- Wright, Bergkamp, Henry, Dutch skunk; that's the standard we should be aspiring to.

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Still slightly better than Bendtner or Sanogo though :pac:

Bendtner did get a very important goal though even if some of us can't stand his attitude and Sanogo might be good in time. I think he will improve with games. Couldn't understand his first full game being a very important CL match though.

gimli2112

Deleted User wrote: »

No for Torres from me. I noticed a big decline in his form his last few months at Liverpool tbh.

Just posted the same thing in the Liverpool thread where the same debate is going on.

batistuta9

tayto lover wrote: »

Bendtner did get a very important goal though even if some of us can't stand his attitude and Sanogo might be good in time. I think he will improve with games. Couldn't understand his first full game being a very important CL match though.

i think it was wenger punishing giroud for lying

any of you think giroud will leave this summer? the stories of his wife wanting him to leave london & go back to france

also i'd take demba da as a squad player still too

tayto lover

batistuta9 wrote: »

i think it was wenger punishing giroud for lying

any of you think giroud will leave this summer? the stories of his wife wanting him to leave london & go back to france

also i'd take demba da as a squad player still too

Is he Demba Ba's father? He would be past it surely :pac:

.jacksparrow.

gimli2112 wrote: »

Just posted the same thing in the Liverpool thread where the same debate is going on.

Hardly ground breaking news at the time though.

shano_88

No thanks to Torres. Past his best, lost his pace, no confidence, ageing and on high wages. Doesn't tick any boxes really.

Spanish Johnny

jonneymendoza wrote: »

i heard moyes trains his squad till they cant stand up anymore and hi training way are a lot intense! dont see many injuries from his everton or united side

United have had a chronic amount of injuries this season to be fair.

gosplan

I want Wenger to buy young players with huge potential.

I want to see the next Nasri, Fabregas and RVP and us not sell them.