How is asking 'Would you like to be at Arsenal next year?' derogatory? Its blunt and to the point, but not derogatory.
The Arsenal Thread
- Thread starter Joss
- Start date
- Replies 21K
- Views 2M
How is asking 'Would you like to be at Arsenal next year?' derogatory? Its blunt and to the point, but not derogatory.
Why Arsenal fans really hate Piers Morgan
People retweet him, players talk to him, and others think that he’s the voice of Arsenal fans. More people than is acceptable don’t know why he is so universally hated by Arsenal fans and a lot of those who do know we don’t like him simply think we don’t like him because we disagree with his opinions on Arsenal.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
If you are connected with Arsenal in any way, then you need to know what follows. You need to make it your duty to ensure that anyone and everyone connected with Arsenal knows the truth about Piers Morgan when it comes to Arsenal. Here are some facts for you:
Piers Morgan was responsible, while he was at The Daily Mirror, for printing false reports which resulted in 35 Arsenal fans being branded hooligans and thugs after the trouble between Arsenal and Galatasaray Fans in Copenhagen. Many lost their their jobs and all lost their season tickets.
The truth? These were ordinary Arsenal fans who happened to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and were simply trying to protect their families as the trouble unfolded around them.
Piers Morgan and the Mirror eventually admitted they had gotten it wrong (eight years later) but they did it quietly. These people are still tarnished with the lies that Morgan printed about them and they are still banned from Arsenal.
All of the erroneous stories are unable to be located on the internet, which is both a good and bad thing. For those trying to explain to others the truth about Piers Morgan we often have little to back our stories up. For now we just have to make do with
Piers Morgan’s apology:
This is a man who thinks having people wrongly accused and their lives ruined was a ‘dumb’ thing. Arsenal fans everywhere owe a duty to those falsely accused to ensure that all other Gooners, and new Arsenal players as well, know the truth about this man.
His apologies mean nothing as long as these Arsenal fans are still having to live with the consequences of his actions.
And if you think that Piers Morgan learned his lesson with this Arsenal ‘story’ don’t forget that this is the man who eventually lost his job because he printed fake pictures of soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq.
Don’t let anyone think he is the voice of our club when it comes to celebrity supporters. He doesn’t speak for me. He never has and he never will.
I dont like players getting involved in these type of twitter battle ****, but what Frimpong did was superb. He owned him. And in past 3-4 days this is the 3rd time Pires getting owned by a footballer. Owen, Frimpong, Gary Lienkar.
https://twitter.com/#!/honigstein/status/171375218768621568
Per Merts is out for season. ****** heavens :'( bad news for us Gunners and Germany.
Per Merts is out for season. ****** heavens :'( bad news for us Gunners and Germany.
At first glance I read that as Piers Morgan XD
if it was piers 'moron' then i would have kept this = (6) devilish face
Arsenal's flaws exposed as Sunderland stump opposition with hybrid approach
Arsenal don't like pressure and they struggle to break down tight defences.
Tactically, it begs the question: what are they good at?
Arsenal's flaws exposed as Sunderland stump opposition with hybrid approach | Michael *** | Football | guardian.co.uk
Aaron Ramsey is pressured on Saturday. Photograph: Lee Smith/Action Images
Arsenal don't like pressure and they struggle to break down tight defences.
Tactically, it begs the question: what are they good at?
Arsenal's flaws exposed as Sunderland stump opposition with hybrid approach | Michael *** | Football | guardian.co.uk
Aaron Ramsey is pressured on Saturday. Photograph: Lee Smith/Action Images
Arsenal's 2-0 defeat at Sunderland said so much about so many aspects of their play – their mental strength, their level of confidence, their raw quality.
The nature of the defeat, signalling the end of their last genuine chance of silverware this season, inevitably leads to grand conclusions based around small or simple incidents. ITV highlighted Sébastien Squillaci walking straight down the tunnel having being replaced, supposedly indicative of the lack of team spirit, while Roy Keane was outraged by so many players wearing gloves, an example of the lack of fight.
Tucked away was a smaller tactical point that can also be twisted into a microcosm of Arsenal's season. There are broadly two strategies a side can take when they do not have the ball. They can push up high and pressurise their opponents, or they can drop very deep, allow the opposition time on the ball in deep positions, but concentrate on remaining tight in their own third. This is the principal tactical debate in modern football – Barcelona have become the dominant side in Europe by pressing heavily, but the only side to deny Pep Guardiola three consecutive European Cups is Inter, who won the tournament by sitting deep in the 2009-10 season.
Of course, it is entirely possible to combine the approaches, which is basically what Martin O'Neill did this weekend. In the league meeting between the sides a week before, Sunderland sat very deep – they played fewer passes in the opposition half than any other side that weekend, and they allowed Mikel Arteta to play 100 passes, more than any Arsenal player had managed this season. It was an exaggerated form of standing off. But though they frustrated Arsène Wenger's side for long periods, Arsenal eventually found a way through. Aaron Ramsey steered in a shot from outside the box, while Thierry Henry found himself on the end of a cross to flick in the winner.
With that in mind, Sunderland used a hybrid approach. They often replicated that caution, but combined this with tenacity higher up the pitch when Arsenal were attempting to build attacks. A key part of Sunderland's gameplan was pressing the three Arsenal central midfielders when they received a forward pass, forcing Arteta, Ramsey and Alex Song to return the ball to where it came from. Arsenal's momentum was killed and they had to start again. When the away side did enjoy long periods on the ball and moved higher up the pitch, then Sunderland reverted to their deeper positions and packed the penalty box.
And this is the puzzle of Arsenal's current style – they are not good enough to overcome either problem. They conceded the first goal after midfield pressure, when Craig Gardner closed down Johan Djourou and forced a free-kick. They conceded the second when Sunderland sat deep, then broke quickly.
Arsenal have long struggled with deep and narrow defences. Stylistically, this should not be as much of a problem as in previous years – they no longer incessantly try to thread the ball through the middle, as they did with Cesc Fábregas the focal point with Samir Nasri and Andriy Arshavin coming inside from the flank. Instead, they play with width and pace, with Theo Walcott, Gervinho and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain options out wide.
This naturally lends itself to playing against narrow sides, but Arsenal move the ball too slowly into wide zones, allowing the opposition to retreat into deep positions where going around the back four results in running out of space. Gervinho, for example, may frequently lose all sense of direction when in the penalty box, but he showed with one good bit of play in this game, when forcing a save from Simon Mignolet, that he can be effective when given the ball quickly and able to run in behind. Against Milan, Arsenal surely had to target the defensively poor Milan full-backs, but the ball never arrived at the wingers in potential one-on-one situations. Pitch-related concerns notwithstanding, it was simply a failure to maximise the area they were stronger in.
Now, they also struggle with pressure in midfield. Physical problems are a key factor; Arteta is too lightweight, as shown by how easily he was shoved off the ball by Stéphane Sessègnon for Sunderland's second goal. Ramsey is a fine competitor at his best, especially considering the severity of the injury he suffered at Stoke two years ago. But he has looked exhausted for weeks, and is currently the equivalent of a dying battery that has been shaken to squeeze more life out of it, when a fresh replacement is sorely needed. Song should be a fine physical force in front of the back four, but the insistence upon midfield rotation means he often ends up ahead of his two midfield colleagues, and is in no position to help.
In Wenger's glory days, Arsenal could deal with that physical attention. They were at their best with two imposing players in the centre – first Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit, then later Vieira and Gilberto Silva. If the opposition tried to rough them up, Arsenal could overpower them. Even Mathieu Flamini was a decent solution. He was a smaller player, but fierce and combative. Much more talented players have left the club in the past few years, but Flamini's decision not to sign a new contract in the summer of 2008 was a significant blow.
The other option for getting around close attention in the centre is a sudden burst of pace and directness. The significance of Jack Wilshere's absence should not be overstated, but that is exactly what he brought to the side last season, and that is partly why he was appreciated by Arsenal fans, to an even greater extent than his fine performances would justify.
It is currently unclear what style of football Arsenal would want to play against. They are not good at dealing with sides pressuring them, and they are not good at dealing with sides who stand off and sit back. The only possible combination that works for them is a side foolish enough to play a high defensive line yet not close down sufficiently in midfield. It is no coincidence that Arsenal's only good performance against a top side this season, as Daniel Taylor notes, was away at Chelsea, who employed those tactics when they and André Villas-Boas were figuring each other out.
Maybe they still are – you half-expect that from a young manager trying to revolutionise a side's style of play. But the main benefit of Wenger's long-term reign has been consistency of approach, familiarity of ideals. For the first time since he joined the club, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Arsenal are good at.
Walcott fails to fire through the middle
The other interesting feature of Arsenal's game was Walcott's brief spell as a striker – he has frequently stated his desire to be fielded as a centre-forward, and here he finally got his chance. But the timing was wrong – late on Sunderland were sitting deeper and deeper, and though quick players are often used as super-subs because the opposition have tired, it often emerges that the player has no space to exploit. Walcott was desperate to run past the defence to use his pace, but his most significant contribution was being caught offside twice.
Three's company for Tottenham
Harry Redknapp switched to a 3-4-1-2 system for Tottenham's trip to Stevenage, with Gareth Bale used in a roaming role behind Louis Saha and Jermain Defoe. This was the first time Spurs had started a game under Redknapp with a back three, though he did switch to that system with relative success away at Stoke earlier in the season.
The obvious common theme between Stevenage and Stoke is their old-fashioned threat from set-pieces and high balls, and the primary reason for playing that system was probably simply to get extra height in at the back – it allowed Redknapp to play Younès Kaboul, Ryan Nelsen and Michael Dawson at the back. Maybe not the most radical decision you will see this season, but it shows that Redknapp thinks about the opposition before selecting his formation, and is not quite the tactical nihilist often portrayed.
The nature of the defeat, signalling the end of their last genuine chance of silverware this season, inevitably leads to grand conclusions based around small or simple incidents. ITV highlighted Sébastien Squillaci walking straight down the tunnel having being replaced, supposedly indicative of the lack of team spirit, while Roy Keane was outraged by so many players wearing gloves, an example of the lack of fight.
Tucked away was a smaller tactical point that can also be twisted into a microcosm of Arsenal's season. There are broadly two strategies a side can take when they do not have the ball. They can push up high and pressurise their opponents, or they can drop very deep, allow the opposition time on the ball in deep positions, but concentrate on remaining tight in their own third. This is the principal tactical debate in modern football – Barcelona have become the dominant side in Europe by pressing heavily, but the only side to deny Pep Guardiola three consecutive European Cups is Inter, who won the tournament by sitting deep in the 2009-10 season.
Of course, it is entirely possible to combine the approaches, which is basically what Martin O'Neill did this weekend. In the league meeting between the sides a week before, Sunderland sat very deep – they played fewer passes in the opposition half than any other side that weekend, and they allowed Mikel Arteta to play 100 passes, more than any Arsenal player had managed this season. It was an exaggerated form of standing off. But though they frustrated Arsène Wenger's side for long periods, Arsenal eventually found a way through. Aaron Ramsey steered in a shot from outside the box, while Thierry Henry found himself on the end of a cross to flick in the winner.
With that in mind, Sunderland used a hybrid approach. They often replicated that caution, but combined this with tenacity higher up the pitch when Arsenal were attempting to build attacks. A key part of Sunderland's gameplan was pressing the three Arsenal central midfielders when they received a forward pass, forcing Arteta, Ramsey and Alex Song to return the ball to where it came from. Arsenal's momentum was killed and they had to start again. When the away side did enjoy long periods on the ball and moved higher up the pitch, then Sunderland reverted to their deeper positions and packed the penalty box.
And this is the puzzle of Arsenal's current style – they are not good enough to overcome either problem. They conceded the first goal after midfield pressure, when Craig Gardner closed down Johan Djourou and forced a free-kick. They conceded the second when Sunderland sat deep, then broke quickly.
Arsenal have long struggled with deep and narrow defences. Stylistically, this should not be as much of a problem as in previous years – they no longer incessantly try to thread the ball through the middle, as they did with Cesc Fábregas the focal point with Samir Nasri and Andriy Arshavin coming inside from the flank. Instead, they play with width and pace, with Theo Walcott, Gervinho and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain options out wide.
This naturally lends itself to playing against narrow sides, but Arsenal move the ball too slowly into wide zones, allowing the opposition to retreat into deep positions where going around the back four results in running out of space. Gervinho, for example, may frequently lose all sense of direction when in the penalty box, but he showed with one good bit of play in this game, when forcing a save from Simon Mignolet, that he can be effective when given the ball quickly and able to run in behind. Against Milan, Arsenal surely had to target the defensively poor Milan full-backs, but the ball never arrived at the wingers in potential one-on-one situations. Pitch-related concerns notwithstanding, it was simply a failure to maximise the area they were stronger in.
Now, they also struggle with pressure in midfield. Physical problems are a key factor; Arteta is too lightweight, as shown by how easily he was shoved off the ball by Stéphane Sessègnon for Sunderland's second goal. Ramsey is a fine competitor at his best, especially considering the severity of the injury he suffered at Stoke two years ago. But he has looked exhausted for weeks, and is currently the equivalent of a dying battery that has been shaken to squeeze more life out of it, when a fresh replacement is sorely needed. Song should be a fine physical force in front of the back four, but the insistence upon midfield rotation means he often ends up ahead of his two midfield colleagues, and is in no position to help.
In Wenger's glory days, Arsenal could deal with that physical attention. They were at their best with two imposing players in the centre – first Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit, then later Vieira and Gilberto Silva. If the opposition tried to rough them up, Arsenal could overpower them. Even Mathieu Flamini was a decent solution. He was a smaller player, but fierce and combative. Much more talented players have left the club in the past few years, but Flamini's decision not to sign a new contract in the summer of 2008 was a significant blow.
The other option for getting around close attention in the centre is a sudden burst of pace and directness. The significance of Jack Wilshere's absence should not be overstated, but that is exactly what he brought to the side last season, and that is partly why he was appreciated by Arsenal fans, to an even greater extent than his fine performances would justify.
It is currently unclear what style of football Arsenal would want to play against. They are not good at dealing with sides pressuring them, and they are not good at dealing with sides who stand off and sit back. The only possible combination that works for them is a side foolish enough to play a high defensive line yet not close down sufficiently in midfield. It is no coincidence that Arsenal's only good performance against a top side this season, as Daniel Taylor notes, was away at Chelsea, who employed those tactics when they and André Villas-Boas were figuring each other out.
Maybe they still are – you half-expect that from a young manager trying to revolutionise a side's style of play. But the main benefit of Wenger's long-term reign has been consistency of approach, familiarity of ideals. For the first time since he joined the club, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Arsenal are good at.
Walcott fails to fire through the middle
The other interesting feature of Arsenal's game was Walcott's brief spell as a striker – he has frequently stated his desire to be fielded as a centre-forward, and here he finally got his chance. But the timing was wrong – late on Sunderland were sitting deeper and deeper, and though quick players are often used as super-subs because the opposition have tired, it often emerges that the player has no space to exploit. Walcott was desperate to run past the defence to use his pace, but his most significant contribution was being caught offside twice.
Three's company for Tottenham
Harry Redknapp switched to a 3-4-1-2 system for Tottenham's trip to Stevenage, with Gareth Bale used in a roaming role behind Louis Saha and Jermain Defoe. This was the first time Spurs had started a game under Redknapp with a back three, though he did switch to that system with relative success away at Stoke earlier in the season.
The obvious common theme between Stevenage and Stoke is their old-fashioned threat from set-pieces and high balls, and the primary reason for playing that system was probably simply to get extra height in at the back – it allowed Redknapp to play Younès Kaboul, Ryan Nelsen and Michael Dawson at the back. Maybe not the most radical decision you will see this season, but it shows that Redknapp thinks about the opposition before selecting his formation, and is not quite the tactical nihilist often portrayed.
mccollio09
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,670
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Arsenal's flaws exposed as Sunderland stump opposition with hybrid approach
Arsenal don't like pressure and they struggle to break down tight defences.
Tactically, it begs the question: what are they good at?
Arsenal's flaws exposed as Sunderland stump opposition with hybrid approach | Michael *** | Football | guardian.co.uk
Aaron Ramsey is pressured on Saturday. Photograph: Lee Smith/Action Images
Arsenal's 2-0 defeat at Sunderland said so much about so many aspects of their play – their mental strength, their level of confidence, their raw quality.
The nature of the defeat, signalling the end of their last genuine chance of silverware this season, inevitably leads to grand conclusions based around small or simple incidents. ITV highlighted Sébastien Squillaci walking straight down the tunnel having being replaced, supposedly indicative of the lack of team spirit, while Roy Keane was outraged by so many players wearing gloves, an example of the lack of fight.
Tucked away was a smaller tactical point that can also be twisted into a microcosm of Arsenal's season. There are broadly two strategies a side can take when they do not have the ball. They can push up high and pressurise their opponents, or they can drop very deep, allow the opposition time on the ball in deep positions, but concentrate on remaining tight in their own third. This is the principal tactical debate in modern football – Barcelona have become the dominant side in Europe by pressing heavily, but the only side to deny Pep Guardiola three consecutive European Cups is Inter, who won the tournament by sitting deep in the 2009-10 season.
Of course, it is entirely possible to combine the approaches, which is basically what Martin O'Neill did this weekend. In the league meeting between the sides a week before, Sunderland sat very deep – they played fewer passes in the opposition half than any other side that weekend, and they allowed Mikel Arteta to play 100 passes, more than any Arsenal player had managed this season. It was an exaggerated form of standing off. But though they frustrated Arsène Wenger's side for long periods, Arsenal eventually found a way through. Aaron Ramsey steered in a shot from outside the box, while Thierry Henry found himself on the end of a cross to flick in the winner.
With that in mind, Sunderland used a hybrid approach. They often replicated that caution, but combined this with tenacity higher up the pitch when Arsenal were attempting to build attacks. A key part of Sunderland's gameplan was pressing the three Arsenal central midfielders when they received a forward pass, forcing Arteta, Ramsey and Alex Song to return the ball to where it came from. Arsenal's momentum was killed and they had to start again. When the away side did enjoy long periods on the ball and moved higher up the pitch, then Sunderland reverted to their deeper positions and packed the penalty box.
And this is the puzzle of Arsenal's current style – they are not good enough to overcome either problem. They conceded the first goal after midfield pressure, when Craig Gardner closed down Johan Djourou and forced a free-kick. They conceded the second when Sunderland sat deep, then broke quickly.
Arsenal have long struggled with deep and narrow defences. Stylistically, this should not be as much of a problem as in previous years – they no longer incessantly try to thread the ball through the middle, as they did with Cesc Fábregas the focal point with Samir Nasri and Andriy Arshavin coming inside from the flank. Instead, they play with width and pace, with Theo Walcott, Gervinho and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain options out wide.
This naturally lends itself to playing against narrow sides, but Arsenal move the ball too slowly into wide zones, allowing the opposition to retreat into deep positions where going around the back four results in running out of space. Gervinho, for example, may frequently lose all sense of direction when in the penalty box, but he showed with one good bit of play in this game, when forcing a save from Simon Mignolet, that he can be effective when given the ball quickly and able to run in behind. Against Milan, Arsenal surely had to target the defensively poor Milan full-backs, but the ball never arrived at the wingers in potential one-on-one situations. Pitch-related concerns notwithstanding, it was simply a failure to maximise the area they were stronger in.
Now, they also struggle with pressure in midfield. Physical problems are a key factor; Arteta is too lightweight, as shown by how easily he was shoved off the ball by Stéphane Sessègnon for Sunderland's second goal. Ramsey is a fine competitor at his best, especially considering the severity of the injury he suffered at Stoke two years ago. But he has looked exhausted for weeks, and is currently the equivalent of a dying battery that has been shaken to squeeze more life out of it, when a fresh replacement is sorely needed. Song should be a fine physical force in front of the back four, but the insistence upon midfield rotation means he often ends up ahead of his two midfield colleagues, and is in no position to help.
In Wenger's glory days, Arsenal could deal with that physical attention. They were at their best with two imposing players in the centre – first Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit, then later Vieira and Gilberto Silva. If the opposition tried to rough them up, Arsenal could overpower them. Even Mathieu Flamini was a decent solution. He was a smaller player, but fierce and combative. Much more talented players have left the club in the past few years, but Flamini's decision not to sign a new contract in the summer of 2008 was a significant blow.
The other option for getting around close attention in the centre is a sudden burst of pace and directness. The significance of Jack Wilshere's absence should not be overstated, but that is exactly what he brought to the side last season, and that is partly why he was appreciated by Arsenal fans, to an even greater extent than his fine performances would justify.
It is currently unclear what style of football Arsenal would want to play against. They are not good at dealing with sides pressuring them, and they are not good at dealing with sides who stand off and sit back. The only possible combination that works for them is a side foolish enough to play a high defensive line yet not close down sufficiently in midfield. It is no coincidence that Arsenal's only good performance against a top side this season, as Daniel Taylor notes, was away at Chelsea, who employed those tactics when they and André Villas-Boas were figuring each other out.
Maybe they still are – you half-expect that from a young manager trying to revolutionise a side's style of play. But the main benefit of Wenger's long-term reign has been consistency of approach, familiarity of ideals. For the first time since he joined the club, it is difficult to pinpoint precisely what Arsenal are good at.
Walcott fails to fire through the middle
The other interesting feature of Arsenal's game was Walcott's brief spell as a striker – he has frequently stated his desire to be fielded as a centre-forward, and here he finally got his chance. But the timing was wrong – late on Sunderland were sitting deeper and deeper, and though quick players are often used as super-subs because the opposition have tired, it often emerges that the player has no space to exploit. Walcott was desperate to run past the defence to use his pace, but his most significant contribution was being caught offside twice.
Three's company for Tottenham
Harry Redknapp switched to a 3-4-1-2 system for Tottenham's trip to Stevenage, with Gareth Bale used in a roaming role behind Louis Saha and Jermain Defoe. This was the first time Spurs had started a game under Redknapp with a back three, though he did switch to that system with relative success away at Stoke earlier in the season.
The obvious common theme between Stevenage and Stoke is their old-fashioned threat from set-pieces and high balls, and the primary reason for playing that system was probably simply to get extra height in at the back – it allowed Redknapp to play Younès Kaboul, Ryan Nelsen and Michael Dawson at the back. Maybe not the most radical decision you will see this season, but it shows that Redknapp thinks about the opposition before selecting his formation, and is not quite the tactical nihilist often portrayed.
Interesting read, but one thing I can't stand about articles like this is that they are a reaction just based on recent events. Obviously, there are a lot of points that are true in the article but it is very subjective. To a non-football fan you would think they're battling against relegation. The article also contradicts itself in the space of a paragraph - it states Ramsey looks tired and well in need of a replacement, whilst also stating due to rotation, Song is played in centre mid too often... SO which is it then?
Personally, I think the article could have been written slightly differently... Arsenal are good at a lot of things, but not GREAT at any...
Not that kind of rotation re: song. In play Arsenal have a fluid rotating midfield, where Song ends up ahead, which is kinda pointless when he is the least creative/worst finisher of the three.
Well that is the point, its a tactical analysis of the last event, and referring it to other incidents. You have taken it far too literally. For their standards, Arsenal are pretty rubbish at executing pretty much everything
quite, and it defeats the point tbh
It is more likely that he is a DM who reads the game well, as most DMs have to be otherwise th ey are caught out of position.
This also means you can read when the attack is lacking a player in a certain position, and he moves to take that position up himself... I think Song would play very well in a two DM setup (i.e. when he played last season with Wilshere both sitting somewhat deep getting interceptions, and Fabs in front).
The problem right now is lack of movement, and it just lets players sit back and get into the ideal position. Arsenal being "bad at breaking teams down" is nothing to do with the killer ball, we can do that, we just don't make defenders move to a position where this will cause them problems.
And being weak under pressure has been a problem since Gilberto left I think. We havn't had a proper DM who sits and purely breaks up for a while, but lets be honest the defence is pretty ***** these days. I support Wenger completely, but he definitely has to be covering up some serious cracks in the business side of AFC right now to not believe we need investment to keep up. Think he's just been told to do the best with what you have - the real problem is how it looks to our top players, along with the wage structure.
This also means you can read when the attack is lacking a player in a certain position, and he moves to take that position up himself... I think Song would play very well in a two DM setup (i.e. when he played last season with Wilshere both sitting somewhat deep getting interceptions, and Fabs in front).
The problem right now is lack of movement, and it just lets players sit back and get into the ideal position. Arsenal being "bad at breaking teams down" is nothing to do with the killer ball, we can do that, we just don't make defenders move to a position where this will cause them problems.
And being weak under pressure has been a problem since Gilberto left I think. We havn't had a proper DM who sits and purely breaks up for a while, but lets be honest the defence is pretty ***** these days. I support Wenger completely, but he definitely has to be covering up some serious cracks in the business side of AFC right now to not believe we need investment to keep up. Think he's just been told to do the best with what you have - the real problem is how it looks to our top players, along with the wage structure.
When it comes to player wages, Wenger is seriously at fault here. Although AST has it wrong RE: Mata, board blocked that because Fab and Nasri hadn't been sold.
There is a lot of talk saying they dont make money available because Wenger wont spend it. Well the board should but their money where their mouth. Publicly go for the rights issue, and say "There you are Arsene, 100 million plus whatever you get from player sales" Seems no one at the club wants to rise to any challenge
The problem is that their 'balance' seems to be used almost entirely on their wages, and any excess (which seems to be around 25-30 mill) is being kept aside to replace the missing CL money, should they not qualify this year.
This doesn't seem to leave any money for transfers unless they make some of their own funds available. Wenger has gotten himself into a terrible situation where he's paying mediocre players far, far higher than they should be paid. The segment about Vermaelen receiving a loyalty bonus was, to me, quite frankly laughable, given he hasn't been at the club for very long really, and his injuries over the past year.
This doesn't seem to leave any money for transfers unless they make some of their own funds available. Wenger has gotten himself into a terrible situation where he's paying mediocre players far, far higher than they should be paid. The segment about Vermaelen receiving a loyalty bonus was, to me, quite frankly laughable, given he hasn't been at the club for very long really, and his injuries over the past year.