As long as he continues to take arsenal to 4th he's there for life
comment by Oddish (U17162)
posted 27 minutes ago
As long as he continues to take arsenal to 4th he's there for life
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sickening.
He persists to keep injury prone and older players on for what reason?
Rosicky comes in for 1 game after a long lay off as sub and then his injured again. Arteta has no pace and you can bet your bottom $ he will be injured again. Flamini for all his effort is way past it, so why does Wenger keep these players around? Experience, Cover, none of it adds up!
I guess the only reason I can come to is he can't find any adequate replacements unless it's an outrageous price, that seems lame to me!
OP
And the worse thing is hes about to sign a big new fat contract so we've got many more years of this
ohh yeah his such a loser for bring in players like Ozil, Sanchez, Cech and Santi..
Ohh and alos discoverying and naturing quality players like Cesc, Bellerin, Kosicley to name but a few.. ever great manager has made errors in the transfer market
Fergie - selling Pogba.. buying Anderson, Keleberson Bebe
Jose - Selling De Buryne and Lukuk..
yes you can point to the above winning titles etc etc..but so have Wenger..the only thing missing is the CL..(and his never had the budget that these 2 have worked with)
What was Jose's budget when he won the CL with Porto? And Inter?
(Not on the wind up - genuine question, I assume it is less than Arsenal but could be wrong)
fair enough his budget wasnt that much at Porto, but the squad at Inter was pretty decent at a time when Serie A was very weak (with Juv and Milan being involved with match fixing). so he pretty had the CL to concentrate on (not taking that away from him at all)
but we can also question what he did at Madrid and Chelsea with the massive budget and WC player he had..
How can he be the biggest loser when he hes won league titles and cups. Op has used completely wrong terminology. You mean most deluded.
Should also be noted that during JM’s time away from the PL, AW remained loyal to Arsenal despite a number of lucrative offers from Europe.
Not sure there are many managers around who would reject the likes of Munich and Madrid to remain at a club with restricted finances, and in particular significantly reduced chances of winning silverware.
Yes Jose winning with Porto was very good - and yes him winning Italian league with Inter was expected but again doing the CL was a great achievement, they were not the strongest squad in that competition by any means.
We could go down the route of comparing records and making excuses but ultimately Jose's record is better than Arsene's I think. However for the OP to call Wenger the biggest loser in history is crazy - he has achieved fantastic things and is a very good manager. A more realistic question for the OP to ask would be is Wenger over-rated, and has he underachieved given the size of club Arsenal is.
I think we all agree that Wenger isnt the best manager in the world but to call him the biggest loser in history is a bit much. He has his faults and his good points, and he is still our manager and probaly will be next season too, so chill out OP, it wont do your blood pressure any good, getting so irate about him.
Adding loyalty to the mix confused matters I think...
Jose left Porto and Inter after winning the biggest competition there is. Had Arsene won the European cup he may have moved on feeling he had achieved his goal.
As for Chelsea - what position were they in when he left the first time? And where were Real Madrid? Would finishing 4th be acceptable at these clubs?
You can call it loyalty but it could be interpreted differently.
Had AW chosen to join Munich or Madrid I suspect his CV (in relation to silverware) would be somewhat different.
In regard to the OP (and likeminded comments) I suspect they are simply borne of frustration, (as often displayed when Arsenal drop points) rather than any objective assessment of AW.
They have different attributes,
Wenger will give you attacking brand of football, bring some youth in, stick by his players, maybe win some stuff and generally not cause much aggro in the dressing room/ the press/ other managers.
Jose will win trophies, bring through no youth, style of football will be ok, but a lot of the time, it is not sustainable because he demands so much of his players that it usally doesnt last longer than 3 yrs.
What's Wenger's record?
3 PLs and 0 CLs in 20 years? At Arsenal? That's poor
Analog
On the face of it yes, I agree.
But for nearly half of that time, AFC were not able to challenge for silverware, and were continuously restructuring.
So while on paper the return does not look good, it does not reflect the whole picture.
You were able to challenge for silverware. You bottled it a few times. Granted you had less funds than other teams but still achievable
Analog
The fact the club challenged at was further testament to AW.
Can you imagine JM managing a situation where he had to sell, (generate circa £20m per annum via player trading) his best players, and keep the side in the CL each season?
On the bright side Arsene Wenger has just funded Stanley Kroenke's new LA Rams stadium to the tune of $500m.
Wenger is retiring to California.
Had Arsene Wenger gone to Bayern or Real and finished 4th he would have been booted out the door wouldn't he? So yes his CV would have been quite different.
Using finances as a mediator is misleading as well, as if we did that then the real top managers might be those who finish 17th on a shoestring budget.
In the time Arsenal were trophy-less far smaller clubs managed to win silverware (Birmingham and Wigan) for example. Financial muscle is clearly in Arsenal's favour on these clubs.
MrMortimer
Wholly inconceivable given the dominance and resource available to Madrid and Munich, they would have finished outside the top 2 in their respective leagues.
The clubs you mention (Birmingham and Wigan) now languish in the lower leagues.
When considering AFC's rivals (United, CFC etc) were spending huge amounts of money to strengthen, Arsenal simply were not.
Given the dominance of those clubs it is inconceivable that they would finish outside the top two? Have Madrid or Munich ever dominated a league so much that they went an entire league campaign undefeated?
Yes Wigan and Birmingham have been relegated... the point remains though. If you are arguing that resources are a factor then firstly - two clubs were more successful than Arsenal during their lean period despite having much lower budgets - Secondly does finishing 4th with the 4th best team/squad mean the manager is performing well, or simply doing as he should be. Martinez kept Wigan up for a number of seasons when I think they were extremely weak, I think he actually over-performed during his spell as Wigan boss - if he finishes 17th with the 20th best team surely he has performed better as a manager than someone who finishes where they should in the league?
Interesting you say AFC's rivals are United and CFC - surely you rivals for 4th spot were Tottenham and the teams directly below?
Also on resources - if a manager has money and decides not to spend it how does that factor into the equation - Should he only be judged on the money spent or the money available? If a manager was given a transfer kitty of £100m but only spends £100k and has a bad season - should he be praised? Surely he hasn't made the most out of the assets available to him so that is worthy of criticism.
Arsene has the easiset job as a professional manager in top class football....4th place...this fuels his utter negligence, he is under ZERO pressure whilst collecting apparently 8 million per!....between him, the board and the yank...we're royally facked for the next 15-20 years...(I've resigned myself to this fact a long time ago)
MrMortimer
Could AFC have won a bit more, a cup here or there, or spent a bit more, (beyond their means)? Probably yes. But the reality is AFC chose to forsake short term success for long term stability.
Any business of AFC’s size that is confronted with a project the size of the Emirates construction, (and wish to remain self-sufficient) is obviously going to have to make significant provisions.
This choice on reflection was undoubtedly the correct decision, given the period, (economic downturn) and fate of other clubs. Portsmouth secured an FA Cup but were nearly wound up as a result of their overspending, and now reside in the fourth tier (league two) of English football.
Finances aside, from a sporting perspective losing our best player(s) each season, and having to continually rebuild (with little squad cohesion) was difficult too. AW has openly acknowledged he considers this his greatest achievement during his 20yrs at AFC.
Sign in if you want to comment
Biggest loser in history
Page 1 of 2
posted on 4/2/16
As long as he continues to take arsenal to 4th he's there for life
posted on 4/2/16
comment by Oddish (U17162)
posted 27 minutes ago
As long as he continues to take arsenal to 4th he's there for life
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sickening.
posted on 4/2/16
He persists to keep injury prone and older players on for what reason?
Rosicky comes in for 1 game after a long lay off as sub and then his injured again. Arteta has no pace and you can bet your bottom $ he will be injured again. Flamini for all his effort is way past it, so why does Wenger keep these players around? Experience, Cover, none of it adds up!
I guess the only reason I can come to is he can't find any adequate replacements unless it's an outrageous price, that seems lame to me!
posted on 4/2/16
OP
And the worse thing is hes about to sign a big new fat contract so we've got many more years of this
posted on 4/2/16
£200m!
posted on 4/2/16
ohh yeah his such a loser for bring in players like Ozil, Sanchez, Cech and Santi..
Ohh and alos discoverying and naturing quality players like Cesc, Bellerin, Kosicley to name but a few.. ever great manager has made errors in the transfer market
Fergie - selling Pogba.. buying Anderson, Keleberson Bebe
Jose - Selling De Buryne and Lukuk..
yes you can point to the above winning titles etc etc..but so have Wenger..the only thing missing is the CL..(and his never had the budget that these 2 have worked with)
posted on 4/2/16
What was Jose's budget when he won the CL with Porto? And Inter?
(Not on the wind up - genuine question, I assume it is less than Arsenal but could be wrong)
posted on 4/2/16
fair enough his budget wasnt that much at Porto, but the squad at Inter was pretty decent at a time when Serie A was very weak (with Juv and Milan being involved with match fixing). so he pretty had the CL to concentrate on (not taking that away from him at all)
but we can also question what he did at Madrid and Chelsea with the massive budget and WC player he had..
posted on 4/2/16
How can he be the biggest loser when he hes won league titles and cups. Op has used completely wrong terminology. You mean most deluded.
posted on 4/2/16
Should also be noted that during JM’s time away from the PL, AW remained loyal to Arsenal despite a number of lucrative offers from Europe.
Not sure there are many managers around who would reject the likes of Munich and Madrid to remain at a club with restricted finances, and in particular significantly reduced chances of winning silverware.
posted on 4/2/16
Yes Jose winning with Porto was very good - and yes him winning Italian league with Inter was expected but again doing the CL was a great achievement, they were not the strongest squad in that competition by any means.
We could go down the route of comparing records and making excuses but ultimately Jose's record is better than Arsene's I think. However for the OP to call Wenger the biggest loser in history is crazy - he has achieved fantastic things and is a very good manager. A more realistic question for the OP to ask would be is Wenger over-rated, and has he underachieved given the size of club Arsenal is.
posted on 4/2/16
I think we all agree that Wenger isnt the best manager in the world but to call him the biggest loser in history is a bit much. He has his faults and his good points, and he is still our manager and probaly will be next season too, so chill out OP, it wont do your blood pressure any good, getting so irate about him.
posted on 4/2/16
Adding loyalty to the mix confused matters I think...
Jose left Porto and Inter after winning the biggest competition there is. Had Arsene won the European cup he may have moved on feeling he had achieved his goal.
As for Chelsea - what position were they in when he left the first time? And where were Real Madrid? Would finishing 4th be acceptable at these clubs?
You can call it loyalty but it could be interpreted differently.
posted on 4/2/16
Had AW chosen to join Munich or Madrid I suspect his CV (in relation to silverware) would be somewhat different.
In regard to the OP (and likeminded comments) I suspect they are simply borne of frustration, (as often displayed when Arsenal drop points) rather than any objective assessment of AW.
posted on 4/2/16
They have different attributes,
Wenger will give you attacking brand of football, bring some youth in, stick by his players, maybe win some stuff and generally not cause much aggro in the dressing room/ the press/ other managers.
Jose will win trophies, bring through no youth, style of football will be ok, but a lot of the time, it is not sustainable because he demands so much of his players that it usally doesnt last longer than 3 yrs.
posted on 4/2/16
What's Wenger's record?
3 PLs and 0 CLs in 20 years? At Arsenal? That's poor
posted on 4/2/16
Analog
On the face of it yes, I agree.
But for nearly half of that time, AFC were not able to challenge for silverware, and were continuously restructuring.
So while on paper the return does not look good, it does not reflect the whole picture.
posted on 4/2/16
You were able to challenge for silverware. You bottled it a few times. Granted you had less funds than other teams but still achievable
posted on 4/2/16
Analog
The fact the club challenged at was further testament to AW.
Can you imagine JM managing a situation where he had to sell, (generate circa £20m per annum via player trading) his best players, and keep the side in the CL each season?
posted on 4/2/16
On the bright side Arsene Wenger has just funded Stanley Kroenke's new LA Rams stadium to the tune of $500m.
Wenger is retiring to California.
posted on 4/2/16
Had Arsene Wenger gone to Bayern or Real and finished 4th he would have been booted out the door wouldn't he? So yes his CV would have been quite different.
Using finances as a mediator is misleading as well, as if we did that then the real top managers might be those who finish 17th on a shoestring budget.
In the time Arsenal were trophy-less far smaller clubs managed to win silverware (Birmingham and Wigan) for example. Financial muscle is clearly in Arsenal's favour on these clubs.
posted on 4/2/16
MrMortimer
Wholly inconceivable given the dominance and resource available to Madrid and Munich, they would have finished outside the top 2 in their respective leagues.
The clubs you mention (Birmingham and Wigan) now languish in the lower leagues.
When considering AFC's rivals (United, CFC etc) were spending huge amounts of money to strengthen, Arsenal simply were not.
posted on 4/2/16
Given the dominance of those clubs it is inconceivable that they would finish outside the top two? Have Madrid or Munich ever dominated a league so much that they went an entire league campaign undefeated?
Yes Wigan and Birmingham have been relegated... the point remains though. If you are arguing that resources are a factor then firstly - two clubs were more successful than Arsenal during their lean period despite having much lower budgets - Secondly does finishing 4th with the 4th best team/squad mean the manager is performing well, or simply doing as he should be. Martinez kept Wigan up for a number of seasons when I think they were extremely weak, I think he actually over-performed during his spell as Wigan boss - if he finishes 17th with the 20th best team surely he has performed better as a manager than someone who finishes where they should in the league?
Interesting you say AFC's rivals are United and CFC - surely you rivals for 4th spot were Tottenham and the teams directly below?
Also on resources - if a manager has money and decides not to spend it how does that factor into the equation - Should he only be judged on the money spent or the money available? If a manager was given a transfer kitty of £100m but only spends £100k and has a bad season - should he be praised? Surely he hasn't made the most out of the assets available to him so that is worthy of criticism.
posted on 4/2/16
Arsene has the easiset job as a professional manager in top class football....4th place...this fuels his utter negligence, he is under ZERO pressure whilst collecting apparently 8 million per!....between him, the board and the yank...we're royally facked for the next 15-20 years...(I've resigned myself to this fact a long time ago)
posted on 4/2/16
MrMortimer
Could AFC have won a bit more, a cup here or there, or spent a bit more, (beyond their means)? Probably yes. But the reality is AFC chose to forsake short term success for long term stability.
Any business of AFC’s size that is confronted with a project the size of the Emirates construction, (and wish to remain self-sufficient) is obviously going to have to make significant provisions.
This choice on reflection was undoubtedly the correct decision, given the period, (economic downturn) and fate of other clubs. Portsmouth secured an FA Cup but were nearly wound up as a result of their overspending, and now reside in the fourth tier (league two) of English football.
Finances aside, from a sporting perspective losing our best player(s) each season, and having to continually rebuild (with little squad cohesion) was difficult too. AW has openly acknowledged he considers this his greatest achievement during his 20yrs at AFC.
Page 1 of 2