Worst team I've seen in yellow since 8th August 2009

[Making Plans 943]

Arsenal = absolute sh*te.

[lake district canary 0]

Well said, mp,  looked slow, disjointed  and uninspired. 

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Arsenal are to Milan what Ipswich are to Norwich.

[Yellow Messiah 0]

Andre Santos, Mertesacker, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Diaby, Rosicky, Song, Arshavin, Benayoun, Chamakh

 

All very average players who regularly start for Arsenal yet wouldn''t get in any other big team, contrast this with the team who played against us in 2004/5 Viera, Henry, Pires etc.

 

 

[Making Plans 943]

[quote user="Ncfc123"]

Andre Santos, Mertesacker, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Diaby, Rosicky, Song, Arshavin, Benayoun, Chamakh. All very average players who regularly start for Arsenal yet wouldn''t get in any other big team,[/quote]

Or the current City team. Don''t think Lambert would tolerate such wasters.

[SplatCat 18]

I also loved the Roy Keane ''perhaps we''re not as good as we think we are'' comment. He can''t resist telling everyone what muppets they are can he.  Everyone can see Arsenal are sh* at the moment, doesn''t take a genius.  Arsenal = crazy manager, Chelsea = ageing squad and novice manager, Liverpool = old skool manager and average players, man u = dodgy owners, man city = good set up all the way through, same with spurs. but still, you can see why the epl has struggled internationally this year given the above. 

[Mister Chops 7]

To be fair, they are playing AC Milan away from home on a sh*t pitch.  The worst team I''ve seen in yellow recently is our binmen, they''re f*cking useless, there''s no passion and they collect rubbish like a bunch of individuals rather than an organised unit.

[Lisa Ate All The Bread Again 0]

Let''s be honest Arsenal are in serious decline. A few years ago you would really have fancied them tonight, but that team is very very average with two or three exceptions, and Wenger seems too stubborn to accept some of the cheap so called sensible purchases really are out of their depth. Money isn''t everything, but spirit is. Not foolish enough to compare City to a club like Arsenal but they could learn a few things from us by bringing in hungry young English players rather than 3rd rate euro trash. Not a dig at foreign players but Wengers obsession with forgiven youth brings mixed results, for every Fabragas you have two or three Chamracks.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Lisa Ate All The Bread Again"]Let''s be honest Arsenal are in serious decline. A few years ago you would really have fancied them tonight, but that team is very very average with two or three exceptions, and Wenger seems too stubborn to accept some of the cheap so called sensible purchases really are out of their depth. Money isn''t everything, but spirit is. Not foolish enough to compare City to a club like Arsenal but they could learn a few things from us by bringing in hungry young English players rather than 3rd rate euro trash. Not a dig at foreign players but Wengers obsession with forgiven youth brings mixed results, for every Fabragas you have two or three Chamracks.[/quote]And you also have Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Ramsey, Gibbs, Wilshere, Lansbury....

[Lisa Ate All The Bread Again 0]

How many of those will be sold? Walcott and Wilshire as well as Van Persie apparently Manchester bound this summer. Chamberlain will be off in two years max once established (take him to the world cup) Gibbs and Ramsey, Ramsey ok, but Gibbs wouldn''t get in any other top five clubs line up.

Seriously that line up tonight was terrible Monsiour Chpoi

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

I''ll probably end up with egg on my face this time next week, but I suspect Napoli will deal with Chelsea in the same way . Much as I dislike the Mancs, you can only feel that they''d have both made a better fist of English representation at this level of the CL ,than the two London clubs.

 

You do have to wonder if Wenger has some dirt on the chairman/  owners at the Emirates . Nowhere else would such failure have been tolerated spending (relatively) so much money for so long . I mean, if Man U had gone 6 years (soon to be 7) without a trophy, does anyone honestly believe that Fergie would still be in a job ?

 

To put this in a Norwich context, and without wishing to demean any of Lambert''s achievements this season, it''s only fair to say that one of the reasons why a team of such average talent as us has done so well (8th place), is that the standard of the Prem is far below what it was 7 or 8 yrs ago. In that regard , Roy Keane is spot-on.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

I''ll probably end up with egg on my face this time next week, but I suspect Napoli will deal with Chelsea in the same way . Much as I dislike the Mancs, you can only feel that they''d have both made a better fist of English representation at this level of the CL ,than the two London clubs.

 

[/quote]

 

Well maybe they should have made a better fist of getting out of their groups! I''m assuming you don''t think that one of the Manc clubs would do better against Napoli considering they have already been beaten by them away and drawn with them at home in the group stage. Napoli are not doing as well as they were earlier in the season (they are down to seventh in Serie A) but I would agree that they will cause Chelsea plenty of problems.

 

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

You do have to wonder if Wenger has some dirt on the chairman/  owners at the Emirates . Nowhere else would such failure have been tolerated spending (relatively) so much money for so long . I mean, if Man U had gone 6 years (soon to be 7) without a trophy, does anyone honestly believe that Fergie would still be in a job ?

[/quote]

 

He hasn''t spent much at all though compared to the rest of what we would consider to be the ''big six''. If you look in terms of net spend since 2003* (the start of Abromovic era Chelsea seems as good a place to start as any)  the top five in terms of spending are Chelsea (£447,500,000), Manchester City (£416,395,000), Liverpool (£136,500,000), Spurs (£110,150,000) and Manchester United (£87,300,000). Of the current Premier League teams Arsenal are way down in 19th place in terms of net spend with a transfer profit of £23,870,000 for the period 2003-2012.

 

In that context I find it difficult to describe Arsene Wenger as a failure. Now you could argue that the lack of spending is down to Wenger himself but one would assume that he has the backing of the board for this and that they do not want to go down the road of spending huge amounts of money on established starts whose transfer value is only likely to reduce. Qualifying for the Champions League each year (and how many years in a row has Wenger managed that?) should be the measure of success for Arsenal as they clearly lack the financial muscle to challenge the big spenders of United, City and Chelsea. You might be able to describe this season as a failure if they don''t qualify for the Champions League but even that would be harsh considering the figures I have provided.

 

* Figures from [url=http://www.transferleague.co.uk/]Transfer League[/url]

[Old Shuck 192]

Wenger seems set on sticking to his recruitment principles to the point of it dragging Arsenal into decline.

As for the Prem, well, when you now hear of clubs and managers aimning for the now fabled "4th place" then you do wonder about our so-called "best league in the world", come on, it isn''t even in the top three in Europe as regards technical ability and the ''name'' players who feature in it. Its fast and furious and commercially driven by experts, but in terms of the quality of football played by its so called leading sides....?

It would be a great kick up the bloated backside of the Prem if Chelsea were also to be beaten in this round. I can''t go with this "you have to support English clubs in Europe" mantra-why? They''re not representing England for a start, they''re representing themselves and themselves and their supporters alone. Add to that the fact that they are hardly showcasing English footballing talent, so why the hell should I "get behind them" as Tildesley keeps saying-in addition to all that, I support one team and one team alone!

Keane is spot on-we are not as good as we think we are. And if success is now finishing 3rd or 4th-and that above winning the FA Cup-then we''ll get worse.

Time for the leading clubs to breakaway and have their regular little all European Super League love-in regularly, leave the rest of us to it here without them. Judging on last night and maybe tonight, Arsenal and Chelsea will be dragging down the Prem, not blazing its name across the continent.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

He hasn''t spent much at all though compared to the rest of what we would consider to be the ''big six''. If you look in terms of net spend since 2003* (the start of Abromovic era Chelsea seems as good a place to start as any)  the top five in terms of spending are Chelsea (£447,500,000), Manchester City (£416,395,000), Liverpool (£136,500,000), Spurs (£110,150,000) and Manchester United (£87,300,000). Of the current Premier League teams Arsenal are way down in 19th place in terms of net spend with a transfer profit of £23,870,000 for the period 2003-2012.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s why I put the "relatively" in paretheses after "spending" in my posting Shack. Of course if you compare to Citeh etc then Arsenal are low spenders, but most teams in Britain could only dream of the sort of dosh Wenger has spent in his entire time there. In any case , transfer profit is only a very narrow statistic to use.I''d agree with you to a certain extent that regular Champs League football is an achievement of sorts, but even in their halcyon days  they never did much in it. I''m sorry, but for a club with the resources of Arsenal to go seven years without any sort of silverware at all (not even the League Cup or FA Cup), is a pathetic failure.

 

Your earlier point is a much fairer one. Of course MoanUre and Citeh have only got themselves to blame for making such a balls up of their qualifying groups, but the knock out stage is a different kettle of fish altogether, and , really, all I was saying is that I think that the two Manc clubs would have been better equipped for that. We''ll never know of course. I suppose we''ll get some idea tonight in the Citeh v Porto game !

[Aggy 766]

The thing is with Arsenal, whilst they''re not spending as much as some of the other clubs around them, they are still a very good side - they wouldn''t consistently be finishing in the Champions League places and usually being in the title race until the last couple of months of the season when they capitulate (obviously not this season!). Even if they didn''t win the league, you''d surely expect them to at least have won an FA cup or something in that period. Wenger, for me, is living on past success and probably the style of football they play, although, as every one else can see, that isn''t doing them much good.I was having a discussion with a Man Utd fan at the start of the season and I said that the English clubs, Man Utd included, were not the force in Europe they were a few seasons ago. He said that that was rubbish and it was only because Barca and Real were so much better than everyone else that the English clubs looked poorer. Whilst I agree that the two Spanish sides are head and shoulders above everyone else, I think the European run of the English teams this season shows that we are miles behind a lot of other teams as well. A few years ago Milan were an aging, spent force that I''d have backed any of the "top 4" to dispatch. So a 4-0 loss last night shows just how far in the opposite directions we''ve gone.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Aggy"]The thing is with Arsenal, whilst they''re not spending as much as some of the other clubs around them, they are still a very good side - they wouldn''t consistently be finishing in the Champions League places and usually being in the title race until the last couple of months of the season when they capitulate (obviously not this season!).[/quote]

 

I''m not even sure I''d go as far as saying that, Aggy. They certainly WERE a very good side, but these days they are a run of the mill squad with two or three very good players in it ( v Persie , Walcott certainly) Do you honestly think that Djorou, Szechny, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Song and Sagna are top grade players?  I''ve always liked Arteta, but he looked completely out of his depth last night.

 

Your second point is very telling. At best, the EPL is standing still ( I would say going downhill). Everybody raves about the Spanish League, but Serie A is improving very rapidly, as are Le Championnat and Bundesliga. I can see , if nothing is done, English football will have another long period in the wilderness.

[Syteanric 1]

dare i say it the champions league is whats keeping Wenger in a job... if Van Persie gets injured they are royally f*cked!

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

He hasn''t spent much at all though compared to the rest of what we would consider to be the ''big six''. If you look in terms of net spend since 2003* (the start of Abromovic era Chelsea seems as good a place to start as any)  the top five in terms of spending are Chelsea (£447,500,000), Manchester City (£416,395,000), Liverpool (£136,500,000), Spurs (£110,150,000) and Manchester United (£87,300,000). Of the current Premier League teams Arsenal are way down in 19th place in terms of net spend with a transfer profit of £23,870,000 for the period 2003-2012.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s why I put the "relatively" in paretheses after "spending" in my posting Shack. Of course if you compare to Citeh etc then Arsenal are low spenders, but most teams in Britain could only dream of the sort of dosh Wenger has spent in his entire time there. In any case , transfer profit is only a very narrow statistic to use.I''d agree with you to a certain extent that regular Champs League football is an achievement of sorts, but even in their halcyon days  they never did much in it. I''m sorry, but for a club with the resources of Arsenal to go seven years without any sort of silverware at all (not even the League Cup or FA Cup), is a pathetic failure.

[/quote]

 

OK then. If you look at total transfer fees rather than profit Arsenal have still spent £100,000,000 less than any one of Spurs, City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea over the period 2003-2012. They''ve spent just £9,000,000 more than Aston Villa over that period. Of  course they have spent more than ''most teams in Britain'' but we''re not really comparing them with those teams are we? Indeed in your first post you asked the question whether Manchester United would put up with such ''failure''. My point is that it is not really fair to compare the two as they have spent vastly different sums on players. And as much as you or I might dislike the notion we both know that winning the FA Cup or League Cup is much less important in modern day football than qualifying for the Champions League. If Arsenal had have won the League Cup last year rather than losing to Birmingham in the final would you be describing Arsene Wenger as a success?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,650]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

He hasn''t spent much at all though compared to the rest of what we would consider to be the ''big six''. If you look in terms of net spend since 2003* (the start of Abromovic era Chelsea seems as good a place to start as any)  the top five in terms of spending are Chelsea (£447,500,000), Manchester City (£416,395,000), Liverpool (£136,500,000), Spurs (£110,150,000) and Manchester United (£87,300,000). Of the current Premier League teams Arsenal are way down in 19th place in terms of net spend with a transfer profit of £23,870,000 for the period 2003-2012.

 

[/quote]

 

That''s why I put the "relatively" in paretheses after "spending" in my posting Shack. Of course if you compare to Citeh etc then Arsenal are low spenders, but most teams in Britain could only dream of the sort of dosh Wenger has spent in his entire time there. In any case , transfer profit is only a very narrow statistic to use.I''d agree with you to a certain extent that regular Champs League football is an achievement of sorts, but even in their halcyon days  they never did much in it. I''m sorry, but for a club with the resources of Arsenal to go seven years without any sort of silverware at all (not even the League Cup or FA Cup), is a pathetic failure.

[/quote]

 

OK then. If you look at total transfer fees rather than profit Arsenal have still spent £100,000,000 less than any one of Spurs, City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea over the period 2003-2012. They''ve spent just £9,000,000 more than Aston Villa over that period. Of  course they have spent more than ''most teams in Britain'' but we''re not really comparing them with those teams are we? Indeed in your first post you asked the question whether Manchester United would put up with such ''failure''. My point is that it is not really fair to compare the two as they have spent vastly different sums on players. And as much as you or I might dislike the notion we both know that winning the FA Cup or League Cup is much less important in modern day football than qualifying for the Champions League. If Arsenal had have won the League Cup last year rather than losing to Birmingham in the final would you be describing Arsene Wenger as a success?

[/quote]

Shack''s right - we are all very use to Arsenal contending for the League title most years or being in the Quater Finals of the Champion''s League but when their spending is looked at it looks more like a mid-table Premier League team''s than a member of the ''Top 4'' or ''Top 6'' as it is now.

 

Wenger has basically worked miracles bringing players through the academy (or finding them young in domestic/European Leagues). Not all of his kids go on to be world class, but nearly all go on to play at a good level.  Arsenal probably should''ve spent bigger money to help them keep pace with the Chelsea''s, Man City''s of this world but they just don''t have the wealthy owner (who''s willing to spend the cash) to do that, losing David Dein was a big blow for them. Wenger always says ''there is money to spend'' but he is really covering up the fact that Arsenal can''t compete with the bigger boys and rather than face the ignominy of losing targets to them he will look to lesser known players. Wenger and the board have known for a little while that they would drop out of the top 4 sooner rather than later, but they also know in the long run they are probably in a better position than teams like Chelsea, Man City and Tottenham as they don''t have to buy a couple of £20+m players every year to maintain their level. They probably will lose RVP in the summer, but guys like Wilshere, Ramsey, Walcott and Chamberlain aren''t going anywhere for many years yet.

 

Hopefully FFP will help clubs like Arsenal out as their approach should be rewarded not berated.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Yes, I''ll take all that into account, Shack and BYG . My Son in Law and several friends are Gooners, and it''s been interesting to see how to a man, they were all singing Wenger''s praises 3 years ago, but, one by one, they''ve begun to lose faith in him . I just don''t believe your assertion that they are happy with only the qualification to the CL most years. Let''s face it, we all(or indeed most) support our team in the hope of seeing them win something . What they all say is that they can just about see that the days of challenging for the title are over. They were never going to win the CL, but some sort of silverware in the cabinet is essential; esp as Spurs and Chelsea have won plenty !

 

I maintain that, by the standards of the vast majority of clubs, they have plenty of funds at their disposal . They get huge crowds and their prices are the highest in the League. And, as such, the failure to win at least the League  Cup or FA Cup over the course of 7 years is unacceptable, IMHO.