RacingClub
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2021
- Messages
- 2,049
- Supports
- Racing Club
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.
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.You had a free hit to play your best 11 at your rivals ground to see where you really are in terms of progression. It was literally a free hit. 1 game a week, in a lesser competition. You either beat them, which is a massive psychological advantage, or lose in which it doesn't matter as it's only the cup. It also means win or lose at least you have something to utilise when you face them twice in the league (like a tactic or a lesson learned).
Instead you ended up playing most of your first teamers from minute 1, ended up playing some more to finish the game, put in a nothing performance whilst Man City barely got out of first gear, and Arteta is left none the wiser. Extremely shortsighted from him.
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.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.
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.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.
How is it disingenuous to say it was a weakened team?Slightly disingenuous given every one of your first team were on the pitch tonight..
Saliba, Martinelli, Partey, Odegaard, Nketiah, Gabriel, Xhaka…
It wasn’t a youth team or anything.
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 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.
I thought several of their first 11 were out. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.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.
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.I thought several of their first 11 were out. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
To say all first teamers played a big part is off. Here is how many minutes our first team players got in the gameIt'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.
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.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.
Yeah that's what I thought as well. Not really fair to judge them based on that.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.
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.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.
I guess it depends if you count any player in the squad as a first teamer and not weakening your side significantly.I thought several of their first 11 were out. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
That's the way I see it as well. Even if someone disagrees, it's hardly a "bizzare" viewpoint.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.
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.That's the way I see it as well. Even if someone disagrees, it's hardly a "bizzare" viewpoint.
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 sideWhat 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.
Well, I have a couple of Arteta out posts in this thread.it’s a bit like how most people that wanted Arteta sacked for not being good enough for Arsenal were non Arsenal fans.
I said most, and probably influenced by going with the flow with the rest of the forum.Well, I have a couple of Arteta out posts in this thread.
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.I said most, and probably influenced by going with the flow with the rest of the forum.
I don’t disagree but it’s a easy panic signing much like the Trossard one.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.
because Mudryk and Caciedo would have cost 200m while Trossard and Jorginho 30m. Not really that complicated when you add the numbers.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.
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.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.
That's interesting. I see where you're coming from, but for me the real panic buy would have been paying £90m for Caicedo.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.
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.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 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.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.
As above really the club wanted Mudryk and Caecido but have had to settle on two easy deals instead.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.
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 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.
Mudryk or Caicedo wouldnt get in our first 11.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 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.Mudryk or Caicedo wouldnt get in our first 11.
can get on board with Jorginho being a panic signing but trossard? Great signing, great price, done well before deadline day.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.
They both would. Caicedo would take over from Xhaka and Martinelli would play through the middle with Mudryk on the left.Mudryk or Caicedo wouldnt get in our first 11.
If that’s the case it begs the question why you were looking to spend 70 odd million on them?Mudryk or Caicedo wouldnt get in our first 11.