Arsenal Thread

cfdh_edmundo said:
Maybe there is a case for experimentation, but I would do it in training, pre-season friendlies, possibly the Carling Cup (although I would be tempted to play the strongest team possible to try and win it), possibly a dead rubber CL group game (when/if you were already guarenteed to finish 1st). Maybe at the tail end of the league if you were comfortably in 2nd/3rd (if 4th I would say go for 3rd because ideally you wouldnt want the CL playoff or to be bumped like Spurs last year) - if I did it, I'd do it in no pressure games, ideally away from home. That way if the experiment goes wrong it's not a dramatic issue, and if the player in question makes a mistake he's like likely to get grief for the next few matches from the supporters.

Again if I was doing it I'd probably only do it with younger players who havent really mastered a position. I'm not sure I'd do it on players who have, to a degree, already proven themselves in a position. Take Gervinho, he's proven himself at Lille winning the Cup and League the year before he left. Internationally he'd proven himself for the Ivory Coast playing something like 50 games and being in ACN, World Cup and Olympic squads. Almost every time he's played for Lille or the Ivory Coast he's played with an othordox striker (Moussa Sow and Drogba). It's the same with Arshavin, he's played off the striker at Zenit and won everything domestically and the Europa League, he'd been senational in that role for Russia in Euro 2008. Regarding Bendtner at 6ft4 he's among the tallest players in the Arsenal squad, he doesnt have a low center of gravity so he'll struggle with aspects of wing play. He's never been blessed with what one might call blistering pace and doesnt outwit defenders with speed, I really dont know why Wenger experimented with him on the wing as he doesnt have the pace to beat a fullback and one wouldnt imagine his crossing would be sensational. Its the same for Ramsey, decent at holding the ball and short passes but can you see him beating a full back time after time?

There are some strikers who have the build and skill set to potentially suceed as wingers, within the British game possibly Tevez, Javier Hernandez, ten years ago perhaps Micheal Owen or Robbie Keane. And perhaps the reverse is true with pacey players like Bale or Cristiano Ronaldo (in his last few years at Man Utd) perhaps having the physique to play more centrally as a striker. I'm not saying I would do it with any of these players as I think by and large they are already in their optimal positions, but (if they werent already so good in their normal roles) there would be more of a case for experimenting with them than players like Bendtner, Ramsey and Arshavin playing out of position. Looking at the Arsenal squad I'd only really experiment with the youth players like Eisfeld, Gnabry, Yenarris, and Ryu Miyaichi not generally established memebers of the squad.
Click to expand...

Again this post seems to suggest that every game Wenger has played players in different positions and experimented with has been a failure. When that just wasn't/isn't the case and I really don't see it as as big a deal and as damaging as you suggest.

It also assumes that Wenger just waits for a game to come along and just puts those players in different positions? When he would have tried them in those positions in training and tried them out and they would have played well there for him to try it in an actual match.

Gervinho initially played well in the central role (Or at the very least scored goals), so Wenger tried him for longer. It didn't work in the end and he doesn't put Gervinho there any more.

Ramsey played a couple of good games initially in that winger role, but on further games it was proved that it wasn't good in the long term and Wenger hasn't put him back on the wing since.

How can it be worrying for fans that Arsene does this? I just don't get it. He is bashed for not changing his game plan and when he tries to, by having different options and trying to change things, he is bashed for that as well.

Again I just think that things are blown out of proportion a bit with some of the things that people beat Wenger with over and over again.

Of course these things are happening and sometimes they don't work and it is frustrating but the way you and Rentboy describe things, it just makes them look 100 times worse than they actually are.
 
Well if we take the example of Gervinho, and those 4 goals in 5 games on paper it looks like a fairly decent return. But if you look at the matches he only really played very well in one of those games, against Southampton when he scored 2 goals. Yes it's great to score 2 against them but if you look at that match it's probably Arsenal's easiest game all season, they won 6-1 (this was when Adkins's Southampton were shipping goals for fun they only kept 2 clean sheets in 22 games under Atkins, Newcastle, Reading and Villa and after the 6-1 they shipped 3 to Everton, 2 to Fulham and 4 to West Ham in the next for games). In the game itself Saints panicked everytime Arsenal got near their box, they scored 2 own goals and Wallcott was able to score in the 15 mins he had.

Wenger picked an identical attacking approach for the next two games, City away and Chelsea at home, with Gervinho again spearheading the attack as pretty much the lone striker. It didn't really yield the results he would have wanted. Arsenal had a lot of the ball against City and looked very good for much of the game in terms of possession, but they had zero goal threat, lots of neat play but no cutting edge he actually had a few chances but either had a poor touch or put his shot over. In the end one of Arsenal's defenders, Koscielny, bailed them out and slvaged a draw near the end of the game. It was a similar story against Chelsea at the Emirates in the next match. You went 1-0 down but didnt play that badly, again Gervinho had lots of chances - he badly fluffed a header, eventually he scored to make it 1-1 before half time, but you looked a little blunt with just him upfront. Infact when Wenger brought Giroud on (2-1 down with 20 mins left) you actually had a lot more presence upfront and Giroud himself caused Chelsea problems and forced 2 good saves from Cech.

I think playing Gervinho as a lone striker in those games was a bad idea. He did well against a weak Southampton team, but against two big rivals in vital games for you he looked a little bit of a makeshift. Your attack was a bit blunt and you have to wonder if he had played an orthodox striker might you have got more than one point from a possible six. It's almost like an extension of only experimenting in unimportant games, to a degree Wenger could take a gamble against Southampton at home, but it was such a big risk to experiment with formations away to the Champions and home to the CL winners, those are surely games where you should play a standard and settled team.
 
Before the Southampton game was the Montpelier away game where he got the winner as well.

So had two games in a row where he was doing what a central striker should do....score goals.

The next two league games were Man City and Chelsea. The Man City game I think we played very well and were unfortunate to get the draw imo and it could have had something to do with Gervinho being up front center. The Chelsea game as well, but he also got our only goal in that game (Who knows if someone else was playing, then maybe they would have scored more? who knows?

Everything is better in hindsight.

My point was that playing Gervinho up front centrally wasn't as bad a decision as you both make out and I think I proved it. Maybe he shouldn't have played centrally in the Man City and Chelsea games but maybe we would have done fuck all if he didn't play there as well.

His stint initially in the central role wasn't bad, his goal return in that period was very good.

Wenger might have made a mistake playing him there in the Man City and Chelsea games (Although he scored in the latter) but it was hardly a disaster having him play in that central role.

That is my point, it has been exaggerated how bad he was in that central striker role and how crazy it was for Wenger to play him there.
 
Well I think it was a little crazy given (a) there was a competant orthodox striker as an alternative on the bench (Giroud) and (b) Man City and Chelsea were high calibre teams (Champions of England and Europe). Also if you look at Man City you played them in mid September, but if you look at the three City games in Sept before your game they had played QPR, Stoke and Real Madrid, in each of those games they had let in at least one goal to a physical (or out and out) striker, Zamora, Crouch and Benzema (against Real Ronaldo and Marcelo also scored) - so I do find it strange that Wenger decided not to play a conventional striker.

It's a similar situation with Chelsea, when you played them it was right at the end of Sept. Aside form a 0-0 at QPR they had a 100% record in the league and the only league goals they had conceeded were 2 to Reading (in a 4-2 win) one was headed by Pogrebnyak (a big tall striker) and the other was one Cech fumbled into his own net from a Guthrie free kick. In Europe they were taken apart by Atletico in the Super Cup with a Falcao (orthodox striker) hattrick and the 4th from the center back Miranda. In the CL they had only played one game: home to Juventus. They had been comfortable for large spells of the game and were 2-1 up until Conte (Juve coach) brought on Quagliarella (fairly tall orthodox striker) for Giovinco (very short attacking midfielder or off the striker player). This put Chelsea under a lot more pressure as Juventus were able to use Quagliarella and Vucinic in tandem. So even before the Arsenal - Chelsea match Chelsea, while generally pretty resolute, had experienced problems against regular strikers so again I'm not sure why he picked Gervinho ahead of Giroud, and indeed when the Frenchman came on Chelsea looked a little less comfortable. I would be very surprised if Wenger wasn't informed of these prior matches (in all likelyhood he will have watched replays of them) so I can't really countenance why Gervinho was ahead of Giroud especially in the second match when it hadnt really worked in the first.
 
If Cygan scored 4 goals in 5 games maybe I would :DD

I don't know if any body is listening, but I don't agree with Gervinho playing in the centre I just don't think it is as crazy decision and that it was that bad as people are making out.

The way people are talking it is like Wenger did put Cygan up front for the whole season and he didn't score one goal.
 
I could understand doing it in the Carling Cup, in a dead rubber CL game or perhaps at a push against a pretty weak PL team. But doing it against 2 of the 3 direct rivals (or 4 if you count Spurs) just seems suicidal -if you'd won at home to Chelsea imagine how it might have ended up making a difference in terms of finishing 3rd/4th ? a six point swing? But he went in with an effectivly self-imposed handicap on the team.

What I wish Wenger would understand is that there is a time and place to experimentations, and there certain players you can experiment with and others who you cant as the "new" positions are too much of a radical departure from their original ones.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
I could understand doing it in the Carling Cup, in a dead rubber CL game or perhaps at a push against a pretty weak PL team. But doing it against 2 of the 3 direct rivals (or 4 if you count Spurs) just seems suicidal -if you'd won at home to Chelsea imagine how it might have ended up making a difference in terms of finishing 3rd/4th ? a six point swing? But he went in with an effectivly self-imposed handicap on the team.

What I wish Wenger would understand is that there is a time and place to experimentations, and there certain players you can experiment with and others who you cant as the "new" positions are too much of a radical departure from their original ones.
Click to expand...

It also makes it even less crazy because I just remembered that Giroud hadn't scored for Arsenal when we play Man City and Chelsea. He was struggling to score.

So was it that crazy to play Gervinho who had been scoring in that position recently against the big teams? (and again who did actually score against Chelsea).

We should leave it anyway, We all agree that he shouldn't be put in the centre, my only objections is that Wenger wasn't really stupid to do it and wasn't pathetic for doing it etc etc
 
Bit harsh on Giroud, he'd only started two league games for you upto that point (Stoke and Liverpool both away both full 90) in the other league games he'd been brought on with about 20 mins. In his first CL match he was involved in both of your goals at Montpelier and in the Carling Cup (which was between the City and Chelsea games) he'd scored anyway.
 
Gervinho upfront was an act of desperation on Wenger`s part. That led me to believe he was going to buy another target man to share the load w/ Giroud. 1.) he`s not a lethal finisher, 2.) no upper body strength whatsoever .

Now, there`s talk around that Wenger is going to spend , and SPEND big this summer 100-150k per Mr.Dein and a few others:BRMM: Its like having Disney World w/ a substitute Mickey Mouse. Wenger would have Minnie Mouse play Mickey Mouse.Sometimes you need to buy big to replace another Mickey.
 
I'm beginning to understand why you guys didn't like Adebayor...what a pathetic performance yesterday in the EL against Basel (who were great and fully deserved their qualification). I just knew that he would miss his penalty...what an idiot.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
Bit harsh on Giroud, he'd only started two league games for you upto that point (Stoke and Liverpool both away both full 90) in the other league games he'd been brought on with about 20 mins. In his first CL match he was involved in both of your goals at Montpelier and in the Carling Cup (which was between the City and Chelsea games) he'd scored anyway.
Click to expand...

Ok so it is harsh on Giroud that I mention this, his first goal came after the City game, against a league one side we demolished 6-1?

But you can demean Gervinho scoring two against Premier league opposition Southampton, by going over all their previous games and how shit Southampton were and also dismiss him scoring the winner in a Champs League Qualifier and who also scored against Chelsea.

So am I the one being harsh on Giroud or are you being harsh on Wenger for trying out Gervinho in that role?

I was the one defending Giroud when he wasn't scoring etc while people were saying Wenger has found another dud etc after a few games. But I just wanted to highlight it to prove a point.

Based on those first five games, the way Giroud didn't come out of the blocks scoring goals, Wenger was not pathetic or crazy to play Gervinho in that role afterwards.

We all know now after subsequent games that it isn't a great role for him to play in, that is why Wenger hasn't put him back there again. But for that initial first 5 games in charge, it wasn't the bat shit crazy idea that everyone likes to make it to be.

Wenger chose Gervinho who was scoring in that role, he scored an important goal in the champions league, got a brace against premier league opposition and also scored against Chelsea. He chose him ahead of the only other recognised striker that was new to Arsenal and was struggling to find goals at the time (He found one against League one opposition).

We are going round in circles anyway,
 
BobbyBox said:
Ok so it is harsh on Giroud that I mention this, his first goal came after the City game, against a league one side we demolished 6-1?

But you can demean Gervinho scoring two against Premier league opposition Southampton, by going over all their previous games and how shit Southampton were and also dismiss him scoring the winner in a Champs League Qualifier and who also scored against Chelsea.

So am I the one being harsh on Giroud or are you being harsh on Wenger for trying out Gervinho in that role?

I was the one defending Giroud when he wasn't scoring etc while people were saying Wenger has found another dud etc after a few games. But I just wanted to highlight it to prove a point.

Based on those first five games, the way Giroud didn't come out of the blocks scoring goals, Wenger was not pathetic or crazy to play Gervinho in that role afterwards.

We all know now after subsequent games that it isn't a great role for him to play in, that is why Wenger hasn't put him back there again. But for that initial first 5 games in charge, it wasn't the bat shit crazy idea that everyone likes to make it to be.

Wenger chose Gervinho who was scoring in that role, he scored an important goal in the champions league, got a brace against premier league opposition and also scored against Chelsea. He chose him ahead of the only other recognised striker that was new to Arsenal and was struggling to find goals at the time (He found one against League one opposition).

We are going round in circles anyway,
Click to expand...

I've read the past few pages and I completely agree with what you're saying.

I don't see the problem with Wenger shuffling his deck and going off the form book! If Giroud looks off-the-boil and is lacking some sharpness in training, whilst Gervinho looks like he's enjoying his football, why not just try a different option?

Yes, it didn't work out perfectly. But he scored goals didn't he? 4 in 5 someone said? If you have someone who can give you that goal return and a striker who's not as sharp as you'd like them to be, who would you pick?!

In Wenger we trust.
 
Yeah we're going round in circles, but in Giroud's defense he'd played less than 300 mins in a brand new team before those games and 2/3rds of that (and his only two full matches) were fairly hard away games (Stoke, Liverpool). If you look at the difference in physique between Giroud and Gervinho you can see who the natural striker is and who the winger is, I still think it was lunacy to pick a tiny converted winger as a striker against such big and solid teams as City and Chelsea, it's not just hindsight as these teams had already been slightly exposed but orthodox strikers in prior games.

Also what was Wenger's long term plan? If the gamble had paid off and Gervinho was somehow the panacea for his striking problems what was going to do in January / Feburary when he was in South Africa for the ACN (where he wouldnt be playing as a lone striker by the way)? You would have had an underplayed (and so out of form) Giroud, Wallcott (again not a natural striker, and also someone who looked like he was holding the club to ransom and potentially wanted to leave) or another short winger or attacking midfielder being forced into the striker role. From Swansea at home in the cup (6th Jan) all the way through to the Blackburn cup match (16th Feb) Giroud started all 10 games (and scored 5). Gervinho was away for all but the last of these games, so what would Wenger have done if his gamble had worked?
 
:BOP: Well, well... well,
1st half was shocking...2nd more shocking.Once Theo enter w/ Pod the game started to look good. That penalty was never a penalty unless the game was a Europa/CL or possibly WC. That has to be the 1st penalty that no one knew from where it came from(no appeals), not an EPL penalty.

I think that Penalty change the game, Norwich lost their cool(mental state) that allow us to get behind their back line fairly easy.
 
F*ck yeah!! :D
What a game, what a game!

We scored 3 goals in 10 minutes?
The co-commentator broadcasting the match was bitching about the penalty but I can't see how one could argue.
Kamara almost took Giroud's shirt off as he was trying to volley.

The game was still cagey at 1-1 but for me what won the match was the sheer audacity and skill of Oxlade-Chamberlain when he ran at their defence, did the little one-two and squared it perfectly for any touch to put us ahead.

Norwich might have a case for complaint in the 3rd goal, I'll give them that. But overall we deservedly won this. We had 2 shots against the crossbar and that unbelievable miss by Gervinho. He had a on-off day, but what really counts sometimes is sticking the ball to the back of the net and he had the clearest chance. If we had depended on that chance we were screwed.
A club like Arsenal, that wants to keep always on the CL and start challenging for the league title again, cannot keep a striker like Gervinho as first XI material. I'm sorry to say this, because Gervinho looks like a really nice guy, but any striker who can't put that away is a liability to their team.

Anyhoo, I'm very happy today! We're 1 point above and the countdown to St. Totteridge's Day can now begin :D

EDIT: oh, in all fairness to Ramsey, he was superb today!
 
Last edited:
Incredible match. Really tought we were done for. Never write this team off! :D

Oh, and Gervinho was back to the poor version of himself unfortunately. Everytime he got on the ball he looked like he had no idea what to do with it.
 
I didn't read through each individual post about the previous discussion, but I think I disagree with Bobby this time, which is very unusual. :D I really think playing Walcott and Gervinho upfront as lone strikers, especially against formidable opponents, is a call for disaster as Edmundo mentioned.. This strategy can work against weaker opponents, but you must stick Giroud in there when the opposition is serious. Otherwise, it is inevitable for Gervinho and Walcott to fade out between the defense.

I think with this decision, Wenger likes to imagine he is emulating the Barca style, with a make-shift attacker playing upfront rather than a true centre forward. However, this can only be succesful with a lethal player of Messi's calibre. I don't follow Barca too frequently, but I sense even they suffer a great handicap with this strategy when Messi is missing.

In addition, I really think Gervinho is an unbelievable mismatch for this role. I have seen Walcott succeed in this role mentioned before against some lesser opponents. He is somewhat suitable for this role, even more so if the defense is more relaxed or on the back foot with a fast-paced match. However, I can never EVER see Gervinho in the center of the field. I think, also, it is unfair for him to expect him to provide in that position. I really think that is a terrible decision, and luckily, Wenger has not tried him in that position for a while now as far as I can remember.

Remember the Bayern 1st leg. I think Wenger's decision to start with Walcott as the only striker was again an example of this terrible decision and ultimately cost us the tie. I think Wenger was hoping to play possession football and Walcott could cause trouble for the defenders with tight-space maneuvers and shot attempts. Ultimately, it was a failure as naturally, Walcott, and thus the Arsenal offense, failed to prove any presence.

I think this is one of the underlying causes of the Arsenal's lackluster offensive performances that irregularly appear. One week, the team looks lethal and destructive. The next week, 90 minutes of meaningless and unintrusive pass abouts.

This is why I really like Giroud. I might even make him my new avatar. :D Yes, he is not a clinical finisher by any means, but he delivers so many other assets on his plate. I feel he is a unique and talented player and he adds another dimension to the offense that is so crucial. He is a great option for the passers as he is always pushing forward, looking for runs and empty spaces. This really pushes the whole team forward, whereas in other occasions, the team has trouble finding the drive to simply attack. This also constantly keeps the opposition defenders busy, which in term, relieves the other strikers and attacking midfielders' pressures.

Also, I think he is very adapt at picking up on one-two's and serving as a wall, which I think suits the Arsenal playing style so well. I always see him control long balls and head them on or down for nearby teammates, which is also a huge relief for the team in case the game gets stuck and you have to resort to long balls or forcing in crosses from the wings.

I think if he can prove his mental strength as top-caliber player with a hunger to succeed (and also his finishing) then I have faith he will become one of the best strikers in the game. I am confident that if he does manage to hold his place, in a couple of years, everyone is going to be talking about him.

GIROUD! GIROUD! GIROUD!
 
AK.Rabona said:
I didn't read through each individual post about the previous discussion, but I think I disagree with Bobby this time, which is very unusual. :D I really think playing Walcott and Gervinho upfront as lone strikers, especially against formidable opponents, is a call for disaster as Edmundo mentioned.. This strategy can work against weaker opponents, but you must stick Giroud in there when the opposition is serious. Otherwise, it is inevitable for Gervinho and Walcott to fade out between the defense.

I think with this decision, Wenger likes to imagine he is emulating the Barca style, with a make-shift attacker playing upfront rather than a true centre forward. However, this can only be succesful with a lethal player of Messi's calibre. I don't follow Barca too frequently, but I sense even they suffer a great handicap with this strategy when Messi is missing.

In addition, I really think Gervinho is an unbelievable mismatch for this role. I have seen Walcott succeed in this role mentioned before against some lesser opponents. He is somewhat suitable for this role, even more so if the defense is more relaxed or on the back foot with a fast-paced match. However, I can never EVER see Gervinho in the center of the field. I think, also, it is unfair for him to expect him to provide in that position. I really think that is a terrible decision, and luckily, Wenger has not tried him in that position for a while now as far as I can remember.

Remember the Bayern 1st leg. I think Wenger's decision to start with Walcott as the only striker was again an example of this terrible decision and ultimately cost us the tie. I think Wenger was hoping to play possession football and Walcott could cause trouble for the defenders with tight-space maneuvers and shot attempts. Ultimately, it was a failure as naturally, Walcott, and thus the Arsenal offense, failed to prove any presence.

I think this is one of the underlying causes of the Arsenal's lackluster offensive performances that irregularly appear. One week, the team looks lethal and destructive. The next week, 90 minutes of meaningless and unintrusive pass abouts.

This is why I really like Giroud. I might even make him my new avatar. :D Yes, he is not a clinical finisher by any means, but he delivers so many other assets on his plate. I feel he is a unique and talented player and he adds another dimension to the offense that is so crucial. He is a great option for the passers as he is always pushing forward, looking for runs and empty spaces. This really pushes the whole team forward, whereas in other occasions, the team has trouble finding the drive to simply attack. This also constantly keeps the opposition defenders busy, which in term, relieves the other strikers and attacking midfielders' pressures.

Also, I think he is very adapt at picking up on one-two's and serving as a wall, which I think suits the Arsenal playing style so well. I always see him control long balls and head them on or down for nearby teammates, which is also a huge relief for the team in case the game gets stuck and you have to resort to long balls or forcing in crosses from the wings.

I think if he can prove his mental strength as top-caliber player with a hunger to succeed (and also his finishing) then I have faith he will become one of the best strikers in the game. I am confident that if he does manage to hold his place, in a couple of years, everyone is going to be talking about him.

GIROUD! GIROUD! GIROUD!
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that I just want to point out that I wasn't agreeing that Wenger was correct in playing Gervinho in the centre, I think it was a bad idea and I love Giroud.

My whole point was that with all the circumstances at the time, it wasn't a pathetic and crazy thing to do. It wasn't the right thing to do IMO but I can completely understand why he did it at that point in time.
 
We still have some tricky games other than the Everton and Man United games and we are only 1 point ahead of Spurs at the moment, so there is still a big chance we will lose points.

We also play QPR away that are fighting for their lives and Newcastle and Fulham away which are also hard games. The Wigan game hopefully they will be concentrating on the FA Cup Final, so it might be a bit better but I take none of these games for granted at all.

It's still going to be tough imo opinion to finish in the top 4.
 
Some tricky games indeed. Everton is a very hard one, even if at home. But if we really want it, it's a must win. They are a potential competitor for CL spots - and Chelsea and Tottenham should be just as worried about them.

Somehow I think QPR will be quite winnable, because I think they will be practically relegated by the time we face them.
The trickiest one of the bottom teams will be Wigan for me. They always sucker punch us, if you remember the last 2-3 seasons. And they are (once again) in the fight against relegation, except they have a good chance of staying up (differently from QPR).

I think the Man United game, which will at the Emirates, will have a bit of edge taken off it and there's the possibility that they will be a bit relaxed, having practically won the league already.

One thing is for sure, the team needs to keep the focus and take control of the matches, being more menacing than we have been. There was a long patch during this Norwich game when it seemed we were nowhere near from scoring. We could also see that Walcott is not that effective against teams who are parking the bus.
We need to have more bite and be more incisive in our attacking play. Hopefully with Podolski back and fit again, we will have that. I'm hoping for ruthless displays like that one against West Ham!
 
Ooh I forgot Wigan are in the relegation fight, he they are all hard games then. If we can get 4th it will be a good accomplishment as it didn't look promising a few months ago.

Hopefully we do and we can build on it, rumors are Wenger is going to go mental and spend, I believe it when I see it, but it will only be good if we get into the champs league again.

It's an exciting end to the season, hopefully on Tuesday we play better than we did against Norwich.
 
Only watched the first half so far, but if Arsenal put as much effort into trying to play some football as they do trying to get Everton players booked, they'd be killing them.
 
Disappointed ! Giroud didn`t have his tap-in boots :COAT: Everton did their best to bring the physicality to the game. Theo got NFL tackle 2x , hope he`s fine. Jack looks short of ideas tonight. 1pts is a terrible result imo! Fulham in 4 days...
 
I'm beginning to think rules mean f*ck all in England. Gibson should've been sent off in the 1st half. He was on a yellow when he intentionally fouled Walcott cynically to stop a counter attack. Even if it would seem harsh, doesn't matter. Rules are rules. But the ref let him get away with it. Oh well.

It was quite negative from Everton, I think they didn't come to play actual football, they just showed glimpses of it at times. That young kid Barkley almost scored a beauty of a goal.

Anyway, we could and should have won this. Unfortunately Giroud missed 2 great chances.

I think we can still do it.
 
Rentboy said:
I'm beginning to think rules mean f*ck all in England. Gibson should've been sent off in the 1st half. He was on a yellow when he intentionally fouled Walcott cynically to stop a counter attack. Even if it would seem harsh, doesn't matter. Rules are rules. But the ref let him get away with it. Oh well.

It was quite negative from Everton, I think they didn't come to play actual football, they just showed glimpses of it at times. That young kid Barkley almost scored a beauty of a goal.

Anyway, we could and should have won this. Unfortunately Giroud missed 2 great chances.

I think we can still do it.
Click to expand...

Ref got the first booking wrong - Mirallas' challenge was the yellow card one, not Gibsons.

Theo was looking for it, as was the entire Arsenal team in the first half. Never seen them play like that - all contact resulted in falling and staying down, screaming for cards etc. You'd of through Wilshere had been hacked apart from the number of stoppages in play he required for his 'injuries'.

True highlight was Sagna tough. Went down with a 'head injury', forcing another stoppage in play, but then clearly got up holding his arm - which is where he'd been kicked.

No doubt Everton are physical, but some of the play acting was shameful. It is a contact sport. You are allowed to shoulder check players, and you are allowed to make contact without it being a foul.

To think of some of the older Arsenal teams and their physicality...and compare that to Wilshere/Walcott/Carzola/Ramsey/Arteta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom