dependabledennis, there is just so much of your post that I disagree with that I can't be bothered to go into it all here. Personally it sounds to me like your opinions are based on a few brief viewings of the Arsenal defence rather than watching them every game and as such aren't very well informed. For example Koscielny has probably been our best defender this year and has much improved since last year (when he wasn't actually as bad as everyone said anyway).
Beckham was never THAT special, in a way that the likes of Henry, Ronaldo etc were that special.
But I don't think many saw outside Man Utd saw him as a weak link or undeserving of his success.
And after that match v Greece I think every England supporter truely saw something special about him.
OK, yes I'm a united fan so I don't tend to spend my time watchin arsenal, but if you really think he's the best you can do then fair enough bud, I just happen to think he's nowhere near as good as the players of the past 15-20 years and I think you really are grasping at straws if you think he is.
And after that match v Greece I think every England supporter truely saw something special about him.
................
If only Gerrard or Lampard could ever match that kind of performance when they put on an England shirt.
Vid...
Was thinking the other day, if we hadn't of got Ronny straight after, i'm sure we'd have missed Becks and what gave to the team even more.
If i was 15 younger Becks would make my legend staus but i'm not therefor i agree with you on that point!
Do I think Koscielny is as good as Tony Adams or Sol Campbell? No. Do I think he's good enough to be in a top club in England, yes.
Football is a team game, you don't need everyone to be of the highest quality you just need them to all be pulling in the same direction, something Arsenal have lacked in recent years. For example you don't believe Toure or Lauren were of a good enough standard and yet they formed part of a team that went the whole season unbeaten. That can't have been just a fluke can it? They were an organised defensive unit. As were the famous back four, arguably stronger than their constituent parts if the opinions on this thread and of a string of England managers are to go by.
What Arsenal have lacked, and I've been saying since the start of the season, is not quality in defence but organisation. Whether that's down to the coaching or the lack of communication in defence is another matter.
Recently though we've looked much better organised at the back and our midfield and forwards all seem to have an understanding and lo and behold we're on a winning streak. I still think we need more quality up front because we're too reliant on Van Persie but we're looking more consistent than we have done for many years.
just happen to think he's nowhere near as good as the players of the past 15-20 years and I think you really are grasping at straws if you think he is.
.................
Fans natioonwide over the last six years have labled arsenal as chokers.
No one ever labled the as chokers when Adams was around.
Wengers mistake is not replacing the British backbone that that team had.
I am sorry JJG but the Frenchies etc just don't have that never say die attitude.
Ah yes that's the problem, nationality. That's why England are always so successful at the major competitions, the only thing they'd choke on is their own grit.
comment by JohnJensensGoal (U6334)
posted 4 minutes ago
Ah yes that's the problem, nationality. That's why England are always so successful at the major competitions, the only thing they'd choke on is their own grit.
........................
We are talking Tony Adams here, not the England national team.
Having a British backbone to your team in club football is completely different to the England National Team.
United, Chelsea, Arsenal when they won trophies. Even Mancini can see this.
You appear to be changing your mind within your own posts. If we're talking about Tony Adams why are we then talking about United and Chelsea's British backbone.
Basically I don't subscribe to the fact that you need a British backbone to win the league. Tell me was Sol Campbell our entire backbone during the invincible season? No.
What you need is organisation and understanding and that is what all the successful teams have that Arsenal have lacked recently.
You appear to be changing your mind within your own posts.
................
I have not changed my mind on anything.
..................
Basically I don't subscribe to the fact that you need a British backbone to win the league.
....................
United, Chelsea and the old Arsenal will beg to differ. Count up the titles.
City are building their title team on a British backbone.
Liverpool look to be heading back that way after years in the doldrums. Spurs have a solid British backbone to their team.
Vidicschin is right that most successful teams in England have an English/British spine and I'm sure that's probably true for most countries.
It makes sense, home grown players will always have a greater understanding of their own league and culture as well as a tighter bond with their fans so they are the best adapted to succeed. Of course you need quality as well so getting that balance is the key. But then saying that I'm sure it isn't impossible to win the league with an all non English spine or team but it would be very hard.
It makes sense, home grown players will always have a greater understanding of their own league and culture as well as a tighter bond with their fans so they are the best adapted to succeed.
.......................
It makes perfect sense.
What have Liverpool and Arsenal got in common over the last six years.
They moved away from having a nucleus of British players.
Liverpool are moving back in the right direction. Arsenal now have Ramsey, Gibbs Wilshere and Walcott. I can understand why Arsene was after Cahill to be honest.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Therefore, though I'm sure RedBlackandWhiteside posted this comment it in jest, it backs up the argument about the Arsenal back four's already legendary status rather nicely.
****
that's the most straw clutching conclusion that I have ever read on these boards.
I was being serious. My missus has heard of the Arsenal back 4 and its got nothing to do with football.
Of course, your beloved was the only person to have seen The Full Monty I guess?
Exactly.
Night.
RedBlackandWhiteside
As I recall, The Full Monty is hardly packed to the rafters with obscure cultural references right? Therefore by your reckoning, if Arsenal's back four was no more well known than those of Man U/Liverpool/whoever FC, why was it used as a reference?
Besides which, this discussion is based on the knowledge of people with at least a passing interest in football, therefore using someone who has little to no interest or knowledge of the subject as an example - in this case, your wife - is ridiculous, as were she not married to a Man U supporter, I'm sure like many other non-football people, she'd struggle to name any player from the last 20 years from your club's history bar Davey "Becks" Beckham, let alone know whether the club's back four was revered or not.
Using her awareness of the subject coming only via a film to prop up your flimsy excuse of an argument is then not only laughable, but definitely the most straw clutching conclusion that I've ever read on these boards.
Bravo on your valiant attempt to take Manc myopia to previously uncharted levels though.
I didn't really want to carry on this argument but I'm a fool to myself so I shall:
It stands to reason that many successful English teams have a British spine because we're in Britain the big teams basically have the pick of the cream of British football. That holds true in all countries. It however doesn't mean that a team without a British spine is incapable of success. Arsenal's 'invincibles' proved this. What is required is the requisite quality and a team that plays well together. Are you really saying that if you took the current Barcelona team and put them in the Premier League they'd struggle because they haven't got any British players? Of course not.
If I was to pick my personal best Man Utd team of the last 20 years I'd go for:
Schmeichel
Evra
Vidic
Stam
Neville
Giggs
Keane
Scholes
Rooney
Ronaldo
Van Nistelrooy
I think that team would pretty much walk the league. But I'd hardly say it had a British backbone.
I think that we have shown that 88-92 the back 4 were great and Arsenal were succesful and scoring.
92-97 we had an awful midfield with the likes of Selley, Morrow and Hillier, and the back 4 still performed well (CWC final 94 being prime example).
And we have shown how, in 99 the defence again set records with an attacking team, 9 years after the first time.
Other defensive units have done well, but how many have seen the same four/five players being the backbone of it over a decade?
Sign in if you want to comment
His team made him look good!!
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 22/11/11
dependabledennis, there is just so much of your post that I disagree with that I can't be bothered to go into it all here. Personally it sounds to me like your opinions are based on a few brief viewings of the Arsenal defence rather than watching them every game and as such aren't very well informed. For example Koscielny has probably been our best defender this year and has much improved since last year (when he wasn't actually as bad as everyone said anyway).
posted on 22/11/11
Beckham was never THAT special, in a way that the likes of Henry, Ronaldo etc were that special.
But I don't think many saw outside Man Utd saw him as a weak link or undeserving of his success.
And after that match v Greece I think every England supporter truely saw something special about him.
posted on 22/11/11
OK, yes I'm a united fan so I don't tend to spend my time watchin arsenal, but if you really think he's the best you can do then fair enough bud, I just happen to think he's nowhere near as good as the players of the past 15-20 years and I think you really are grasping at straws if you think he is.
posted on 22/11/11
And after that match v Greece I think every England supporter truely saw something special about him.
................
If only Gerrard or Lampard could ever match that kind of performance when they put on an England shirt.
posted on 22/11/11
Vid...
Was thinking the other day, if we hadn't of got Ronny straight after, i'm sure we'd have missed Becks and what gave to the team even more.
If i was 15 younger Becks would make my legend staus but i'm not therefor i agree with you on that point!
posted on 22/11/11
Do I think Koscielny is as good as Tony Adams or Sol Campbell? No. Do I think he's good enough to be in a top club in England, yes.
Football is a team game, you don't need everyone to be of the highest quality you just need them to all be pulling in the same direction, something Arsenal have lacked in recent years. For example you don't believe Toure or Lauren were of a good enough standard and yet they formed part of a team that went the whole season unbeaten. That can't have been just a fluke can it? They were an organised defensive unit. As were the famous back four, arguably stronger than their constituent parts if the opinions on this thread and of a string of England managers are to go by.
What Arsenal have lacked, and I've been saying since the start of the season, is not quality in defence but organisation. Whether that's down to the coaching or the lack of communication in defence is another matter.
Recently though we've looked much better organised at the back and our midfield and forwards all seem to have an understanding and lo and behold we're on a winning streak. I still think we need more quality up front because we're too reliant on Van Persie but we're looking more consistent than we have done for many years.
posted on 22/11/11
just happen to think he's nowhere near as good as the players of the past 15-20 years and I think you really are grasping at straws if you think he is.
.................
Fans natioonwide over the last six years have labled arsenal as chokers.
No one ever labled the as chokers when Adams was around.
Wengers mistake is not replacing the British backbone that that team had.
I am sorry JJG but the Frenchies etc just don't have that never say die attitude.
posted on 22/11/11
Ah yes that's the problem, nationality. That's why England are always so successful at the major competitions, the only thing they'd choke on is their own grit.
posted on 22/11/11
comment by JohnJensensGoal (U6334)
posted 4 minutes ago
Ah yes that's the problem, nationality. That's why England are always so successful at the major competitions, the only thing they'd choke on is their own grit.
........................
We are talking Tony Adams here, not the England national team.
Having a British backbone to your team in club football is completely different to the England National Team.
United, Chelsea, Arsenal when they won trophies. Even Mancini can see this.
posted on 22/11/11
You appear to be changing your mind within your own posts. If we're talking about Tony Adams why are we then talking about United and Chelsea's British backbone.
Basically I don't subscribe to the fact that you need a British backbone to win the league. Tell me was Sol Campbell our entire backbone during the invincible season? No.
What you need is organisation and understanding and that is what all the successful teams have that Arsenal have lacked recently.
posted on 22/11/11
You appear to be changing your mind within your own posts.
................
I have not changed my mind on anything.
..................
Basically I don't subscribe to the fact that you need a British backbone to win the league.
....................
United, Chelsea and the old Arsenal will beg to differ. Count up the titles.
City are building their title team on a British backbone.
Liverpool look to be heading back that way after years in the doldrums. Spurs have a solid British backbone to their team.
posted on 22/11/11
Vidicschin is right that most successful teams in England have an English/British spine and I'm sure that's probably true for most countries.
It makes sense, home grown players will always have a greater understanding of their own league and culture as well as a tighter bond with their fans so they are the best adapted to succeed. Of course you need quality as well so getting that balance is the key. But then saying that I'm sure it isn't impossible to win the league with an all non English spine or team but it would be very hard.
posted on 22/11/11
It makes sense, home grown players will always have a greater understanding of their own league and culture as well as a tighter bond with their fans so they are the best adapted to succeed.
.......................
It makes perfect sense.
What have Liverpool and Arsenal got in common over the last six years.
They moved away from having a nucleus of British players.
Liverpool are moving back in the right direction. Arsenal now have Ramsey, Gibbs Wilshere and Walcott. I can understand why Arsene was after Cahill to be honest.
posted on 22/11/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/11/11
Therefore, though I'm sure RedBlackandWhiteside posted this comment it in jest, it backs up the argument about the Arsenal back four's already legendary status rather nicely.
****
that's the most straw clutching conclusion that I have ever read on these boards.
I was being serious. My missus has heard of the Arsenal back 4 and its got nothing to do with football.
posted on 23/11/11
Of course, your beloved was the only person to have seen The Full Monty I guess?
Exactly.
Night.
posted on 23/11/11
RedBlackandWhiteside
As I recall, The Full Monty is hardly packed to the rafters with obscure cultural references right? Therefore by your reckoning, if Arsenal's back four was no more well known than those of Man U/Liverpool/whoever FC, why was it used as a reference?
Besides which, this discussion is based on the knowledge of people with at least a passing interest in football, therefore using someone who has little to no interest or knowledge of the subject as an example - in this case, your wife - is ridiculous, as were she not married to a Man U supporter, I'm sure like many other non-football people, she'd struggle to name any player from the last 20 years from your club's history bar Davey "Becks" Beckham, let alone know whether the club's back four was revered or not.
Using her awareness of the subject coming only via a film to prop up your flimsy excuse of an argument is then not only laughable, but definitely the most straw clutching conclusion that I've ever read on these boards.
Bravo on your valiant attempt to take Manc myopia to previously uncharted levels though.
posted on 23/11/11
I didn't really want to carry on this argument but I'm a fool to myself so I shall:
It stands to reason that many successful English teams have a British spine because we're in Britain the big teams basically have the pick of the cream of British football. That holds true in all countries. It however doesn't mean that a team without a British spine is incapable of success. Arsenal's 'invincibles' proved this. What is required is the requisite quality and a team that plays well together. Are you really saying that if you took the current Barcelona team and put them in the Premier League they'd struggle because they haven't got any British players? Of course not.
If I was to pick my personal best Man Utd team of the last 20 years I'd go for:
Schmeichel
Evra
Vidic
Stam
Neville
Giggs
Keane
Scholes
Rooney
Ronaldo
Van Nistelrooy
I think that team would pretty much walk the league. But I'd hardly say it had a British backbone.
posted on 23/11/11
I think that we have shown that 88-92 the back 4 were great and Arsenal were succesful and scoring.
92-97 we had an awful midfield with the likes of Selley, Morrow and Hillier, and the back 4 still performed well (CWC final 94 being prime example).
And we have shown how, in 99 the defence again set records with an attacking team, 9 years after the first time.
Other defensive units have done well, but how many have seen the same four/five players being the backbone of it over a decade?
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7