Arsenal (Under Arteta) won the FA cup 19/20 and they didn't get much credit for it then so I don't see a reason to read too much into a loss away vs City now.
Arsenal 22/23 - go to new thread
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
That would explain why you are so argumentative and even when giving a compliment there's usually a dig in there.I’m a she thanks.
And you are full of it now you’re back posting cause Arsenal are winning. Sad
The thing about having a free hit to have something to use in the League fixtures is silly. Arsenal has nothing to prove as being able to demonstrate a level that's good enough to win the League in front of City. They have shown that. What Arsenal has to prove is that they can sustain the level they have already attained.
This is especially important given Arteta's tendency to under-rotate the squad. There are players who haven't played enough that we're going to rely on in the months ahead. It's important to get them game time in a situation where we're not dropping points.
The psychological/gamesmanship factors are there, but they're not especially important. It would have been embarrassing to have lost 5-0 or 6-1, but even then it would still be more important to beat Everton and beat Brentford and put the best foot forward to play City again after that. The best frame of reference for Arsenal at this point is to ignore City, and Arsenal's position in the League table allows them to do that. Their job is the same no matter whether City wins every game or continues to drop points.
I forgot they won it
But I agree. I'm not sure why a cup loss where arsenal didn't play their first team matters in the context of this season.Very good point that. In fact I’ve seen some claim that winning the cup was the worst thing to Happen to Arsenal because it gave Arteta more time. When he’s obviously a fraud.
How is it disingenuous to say it was a weakened team?
Before the Arsenal Man Utd game we had to see quite a few posts mentioning that you weren't at full strength because you had 2 or 3 players missing. We made 6 changes from our strongest 11 (7 if you count Jesus being unavailable) for this game. We subbed in 2 at halftime, one of those subs replacing Partey with Lokonga so that still leaves 6 non regulars on the pitch.
Only in the last 24 minutes we sub in 2 more starting 11 players. So at no point did we have less than 5 non regulars on the pitch. I guess other teams are significantly weaker when they have just a couple of players missing but when we change half the team it shouldn't really have much of an effect apparently.
It's very weird this claim they play a weakened side. It was a very strong side, and all the first teamers ended up playing a big part in it.I forgot they won it
I thought several of their first 11 were out. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
A lot of their "starting 11" played 45 minutes or less (Party 45, Saliba 45 , Martinelli 24, Zinchenko 24, Odegaard 16, Ramsdale 0, White 0) so I don't think you were wrong really, not a crap team but not as good as they play week in week out.
To say all first teamers played a big part is off. Here is how many minutes our first team players got in the game
Ramsdale - Didn't play
White - Didn't play
Saliba - 45 mins
Gabriel - 90 mins
Zinchenko - 24 mins
Partey - 45 mins
Xhaka - 90 mins
Odegaard - 16 mins
Martinelli - 24 mins
Saka - 74 mins
Nketieh - 90 mins
Really only 4 first teamers (not sure Nketieh can be considered that though) played a big part in the game, and 7 played 45 mins or less.
By my count it’s 6 positions you could say had second choice players in it but one of them was Trossard so we don’t know if he’s first choice yet.
Last night United had 5 rotational players on the pitch.
It doesn’t make sense in the slightest
Yeah that's what I thought as well. Not really fair to judge them based on that.
Depends what you mean by big part - for me, 45mns is a big part, it's half a game. It's not 15-20mns at the end of the game where you might come on to see the game.
Subjective appreciation of course, but I find it hard to say that he "rested" the first teamers in this game. It wasn't particularly weakened, not really much more so than City's in fact. It's ultimately semantics but it's just about this narrative, that is trying to portray a second string Arsenal against a strong City. It was quite even in that regard.
I guess it depends if you count any player in the squad as a first teamer and not weakening your side significantly.
The equivalent version of that Arsenal team for United would be starting with
Heaton
Wan-Bissaka- Martinez-Lindelof-Malacia
Casemiro-Eriksen
Anthony-Elanga-Garnacho
Weghorst
Then at half time replacing Casemiro with McTominay and Lindelof with Varane. Then just with a quarter of the game left sub in Shaw for Malacia and Rashford for Garnacho.
I would consider that a weakened United team. Yes no youth players there and fairly solid squad players but nowhere near the same quality as starting your strongest 11.
That's the way I see it as well. Even if someone disagrees, it's hardly a "bizzare" viewpoint.
The reality is we already won the cup with Arteta , and won it 4 of the last 8 years. We just have far bigger fish to fry this season and I’m sure that had United been 5 clear at the top of the league most on here wouldn’t care too much about the cup. The league is the biggest prize. It’s what it’s all about.
the team we put out would still be in the cup if it wasn’t against city, we may have even beaten them at home with this line up. It was just the worst draw at a time were we can’t afford any distractions from
What could be for us a sensational league campaign.
no Arsenal fans are against how we approached it anyway.
the team we put out would still be in the cup if it wasn’t against city, we may have even beaten them at home with this line up. It was just the worst draw at a time were we can’t afford any distractions from
What could be for us a sensational league campaign.
no Arsenal fans are against how we approached it anyway.
The reality is we already won the cup with Arteta , and won it 4 of the last 8 years. We just have far bigger fish to fry this season and I’m sure that had United been 5 clear at the top of the league most on here wouldn’t care too much about the cup. The league is the biggest prize. It’s what it’s all about.
the team we put out would still be in the cup if it wasn’t against city, we may have even beaten them at home with this line up. It was just the worst draw at a time were we can’t afford any distractions from what could be for us a sensational league campaign.
no Arsenal fans are against how we approached it anyway.
It’s all been really about Everton away, since full time against United
the team we put out would still be in the cup if it wasn’t against city, we may have even beaten them at home with this line up. It was just the worst draw at a time were we can’t afford any distractions from what could be for us a sensational league campaign.
no Arsenal fans are against how we approached it anyway.
It’s all been really about Everton away, since full time against United
What is bizarre is thinking missing just Casemiro is a huge loss and people were actually changing their predictions in the Arsenal vs United game after he was suspended (check out the match day thread for the comments) but same people trying to down play making 6 changes can't be used as having a big influence on the result.
Last edited:
Not any more bizarre than the "logic" of a poster a few posts up that Arsenal having 6 missing starters for them compared to United's 5 (one more!) means that it's a "strange" to suggest that Arsenal....had a weakened side
No idea what the United comparison matters or how it impacts people's view regarding what constitutes a first team or a weakened side.
Well, I have a couple of Arteta out posts in this thread.
I said most, and probably influenced by going with the flow with the rest of the forum.
At first the only improvements that I saw were the natural development of some players and replacing players with better ones, I honestly didn't see anything I could attribute to arteta. But the way some players are now clearly different, especially xhaka, white and martinelli, I can see arteta's work. I'm glad I was dead wrong.
What’s the consensus on Jorginho?
I think he’s a good addition in the short term and will help secure the title.
That said it does feel quite short sighted and a panic signing that’s just easy to get done with both club and player (circumstances for Chelsea and player living in the same city etc). He’s also going to be on decent money and sat at the club at 31 years old for next season and possibly beyond. Not ideal.
I can see why some would be a bit annoyed about it. Will feel like you’ve missed both your top targets this window (Mudryk and Caecido) and ended up with Trossard and Jorginho who whilst both good players don’t fit the long term vision the same way. There’s surely been plenty of time to sort it all out.
I think he’s a good addition in the short term and will help secure the title.
That said it does feel quite short sighted and a panic signing that’s just easy to get done with both club and player (circumstances for Chelsea and player living in the same city etc). He’s also going to be on decent money and sat at the club at 31 years old for next season and possibly beyond. Not ideal.
I can see why some would be a bit annoyed about it. Will feel like you’ve missed both your top targets this window (Mudryk and Caecido) and ended up with Trossard and Jorginho who whilst both good players don’t fit the long term vision the same way. There’s surely been plenty of time to sort it all out.
Proven, fee seems low, low risk into tying him up for only 18 months (not sure who's option is the +1 year). He'll mainly be coming on off the bench., don't think he's displacing anyone in starting 11.
I don’t disagree but it’s a easy panic signing much like the Trossard one.
Simply has to beg the question why are they missing out on first choice targets and having to settle on whats available at the end of the window?
These deals still cost money and for clubs like Arsenal, and United, there’s not limitless funds to throw about on wages and fees.
If Arteta wants him I’ll back him. Not sure what he does myself. One for the Europa league and the last 20 mins of games when we are 2 goals up. We needed short term cover so it’s better than nothing.
I think we ll go for both Caciedo and rice in the summer . If Chelsea haven’t signed them by then.
I think we ll go for both Caciedo and rice in the summer . If Chelsea haven’t signed them by then.
because Mudryk and Caciedo would have cost 200m while Trossard and Jorginho 30m. Not really that complicated when you add the numbers.
disagree about Trossard, he’s already delivering, don’t think we’d have beaten United if we didn’t have him.
Everton will beat them at the weekend.
You heard it here first
You heard it here first
I'm fine with it. Our defensive line is pretty high, so he should have less ground to cover. Partey is a single pivot, but he gets quite a lot of help from Zinchenko inverting. Also, our left 8 is Xhaka, a player who has spent most of his time at Arsenal on the left side of a double pivot. We can always tweak our 4-3-3 a little to drop Xhaka back a bit if Jorginho is getting overrun.
Against the lesser sides, particularly at home, he might actually be more suitable than Partey for unlocking packed defences. But I haven't watched him a great deal this season, so that may be going a bit too far.
That's interesting. I see where you're coming from, but for me the real panic buy would have been paying £90m for Caicedo.
My issue with that deal was the same as the Mudryk, I worry about £80m+ players that aren't automatic starters (unless your oil state-backed and money doesn't matter). I think it creates a lot of pressure to play your record signing and that could potentially jeopardise the meritocratic vibe we have at the club.
I think that's one of the reasons we loaned out Pepe. Had the club (he's pre-Arteta) bought him for his "true" value of £30m-£40m and on reasonable wages, he's probably be a rotation player in our squad rather than on loan.
Jesus is another example. He cost £45m, so there can be a genuine competition with Nketiah when he returns from injury. If he cost £100m we'd be under enormous pressure to start him no matter how well his replacement played.
Spending money is great, but if you don't spend it wisely it can serious screw with your squad harmony.
Gives them a bit more depth for when they have to use the squad a bit, like in the EL, but doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't improve their first XI or provide competition for the current starters.
I mean surely you acknowledge you missed out on your first choices? The club was obviously wanting to make a big long term signing and lost out on both targets.
Has to be worth asking the question why that’s happened when there’s been months to plan and prepare for January?
As above really the club wanted Mudryk and Caecido but have had to settle on two easy deals instead.
I’m just curious as to how that’s happened as can see there’s some frustration with Edu.
Edu has signed Saliba 30m, Odegaard 30m, Martinelli 6m, Gabriel for 25m, Tomiyasu for 16m, Ramsdale for 25m. Jesus 45m, Tierney 25m, Zinchenko 35m. We gave Nketiah a new deal rather than listen to the masses who said he should have been allowed to walk for free.
So I dont understand why people are criticizing him for failing to engage in Chelsea's game of 'paying whatever it takes'. Its important to exercise discipline on and off the pitch. Paying over the odds is a bad habit and not one we should adopt.
I also think another Arteta masterclass is incoming, Trossard and Jorginho will be elevated playing in our dynamic system.
So I dont understand why people are criticizing him for failing to engage in Chelsea's game of 'paying whatever it takes'. Its important to exercise discipline on and off the pitch. Paying over the odds is a bad habit and not one we should adopt.
I also think another Arteta masterclass is incoming, Trossard and Jorginho will be elevated playing in our dynamic system.
We did miss out on our first choices with Mudryk and Caicedo. But we also missed out on our first choices with Vlahovic and Martinez... so we signed Zinchenko and Jesus.
I don't think we have to ask what happened - we know what happened. Chelsea matched our offer to Shaktar but with better terms (more money upfront / easier add-ons) and Brighton wanted at least £80m to even consider selling. Both deals went beyond what we wanted to pay so we didn't sign them and signed alternative players instead.
There is a very clear strategy in place. Whether it's a good one or not is up for debate, but it seems to be working out so far. Hopefully that continues.
Mudryk or Caicedo wouldnt get in our first 11.
I mean that's debatable, especially in the long term, but I really fail to see the relevance to what I said. In line with most of your posts though, so at least you're consistent.
can get on board with Jorginho being a panic signing but trossard? Great signing, great price, done well before deadline day.
They both would. Caicedo would take over from Xhaka and Martinelli would play through the middle with Mudryk on the left.
There's a lot of misconceptions about Caicedo in particular. He's excellent as a 6 (so he can cover for Partey in case of injury) but he's excellent as an 8 as well (he played there for a few games last season alongside Bissouma). Since you'll probably sign him in the summer anyway, you may be pleasantly surprised by him.
If that’s the case it begs the question why you were looking to spend 70 odd million on them?