Football Season 2012/2013 - Page 134

thenry · 14-11-2012, 16:36

we do not have to spend a billion to compete. the vast amount that teams have spent is due to different direction. our direction can see us compete but waste has to be kept to a minimum. the amount of players not performing is just pathetic. these players are on huge wages. Wengers persisting with something thats not working.

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

we do not have to spend a billion to compete. the vast amount that teams have spent is due to different direction. our direction can see us compete but waste has to be kept to a minimum. the amount of players not performing is just pathetic. these players are on huge wages. Wengers persisting with something thats not working.

What would count as working? People keep asserting that we don't need a billion to compete but for the most part that seems to be the case. Chelsea and City dominate after spending billions. United are sort of an outlier but they do have considerably greater income as well as continued difficulty in getting quality players in. Then there is us. The 4th best funded team in the league finishing 4th or 3rd.

I like the idea of being able to compete without spending much but it seems to be wishful thinking rather than something born out of reality...

thenry · 14-11-2012, 16:51

so your telling me that players that on 50-80k now offer little and we have to accept that and to get more you have to spend much much more? thats wrong. the money spent is such a vast amount the way you put across what you say above is like saying 50-80k is nothing.

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

so your telling me that players that on 50-80k now offer little and we have to accept that and to get more you have to spend much much more? thats wrong. the money spent is such a vast amount the way you put across what you say above is like saying 50-80k is nothing.

No those contracts should obviously be better managed. I am referring to the overall picture. We're the 4th best funded team, less than that in some respects, and we finish 4th or 3rd in most cases.

What would the expectations be of a new manager?

thenry · 14-11-2012, 17:05

maximise spend for a start. would we of finished lower than 3rd last season if we had the other half of the squad performing? could we have won something?

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

maximise spend for a start. would we of finished lower than 3rd last season if we had the other performing? could we have won something?

Yes we can maximise spend but it's not the easiest task. Especially if you're looking for value as you're taking as risk. Players who are certain to be good command a much higher premium so you take risk underneath that. For every Koscielny there will be a Squillaci.

That said it's something we can do much better on. No one is saying Arsenal is perfect.

Also if all the players had been performing then maybe we would have won something but every team tends to have players who under perform. Spurs' decline towards the end was driven partly by a drop in Modric's performance. If United had a better midfield would they have won the league? In hindsight everything is easy.

However what do we actually expect from a new manager? Is it win the league?

thenry · 14-11-2012, 17:17

1. The League
2. The Champions League
3. The FA Cup
4. Champions League Qualification
5. The League Cup

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

1. The League
2. The Champions League
3. The FA Cup
4. Champions League Qualification
5. The League Cup

Yes I understand the prioritisation of what we want to win, but what would be expected of them? The FA Cup and League Cup have never saved anyones jobs, ask Dalglish. So we're at the league. What position what the new manager be expected to achieve?

thenry · 14-11-2012, 17:24

first and foremost we have to be performing and the recent history of taking the pee has to be ousted. with that foundation we can go for the league.

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

first and foremost we have to be performing and the recent history of taking the pee has to be ousted. with that foundation we can go for the league.

What else is a better judge of performance than league position? This is my problem with 'getting Wenger out', it's based on nebulous perceptions of performance. Statistically Wenger is performing well, either at or above the level of revenue Arsenal have and certainly beyond the money spent. So the justification of getting rid of him depends on issues that are harder to quantify.

We have to be careful about that. If there is no real evidence that Wenger is under performing then what evidence is there that a new manager will do better?

Are we sure we're not transferring a general discontent over the direction of football and our difficulty in adjusting to a new place in the pyramid onto Wenger and that, once he has gone, the problems will remain?

thenry · 14-11-2012, 17:32

Wenger is underperforming. Arsenal on the field is declining. i dont just look at stats but reality of our current state.

denphone · 14-11-2012, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

Wenger is underperforming. Arsenal on the field is declining. i dont just look at stats but reality of our current state.

Although not a Arsenal supporter they are a shadow of the sides from the past although the same can be said of my beloved as well.

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

Wenger is underperforming. Arsenal on the field is declining. i dont just look at stats but reality of our current state.

Arsenal are declining but I would argue that it's the result of better funded teams arriving.

I think you need to better define how Wenger is under performing because the league positions suggest he is not. If it's not clear what the standard expectation should be of Arsenal then I find it hard to take it seriously when people say he is underachieving on that expectation.

thenry · 14-11-2012, 18:11

declining because of the mega rich throwing money about? no. declining because Wenger doesnt seem to be able to get the full squad performing and as a result wasting a vast amount of cash. yes.

**Damien** · 14-11-2012, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

declining because of the mega rich throwing money about? no. declining because Wenger doesnt seem to be able to get the full squad performing and as a result wasting a vast amount of cash. yes.

It's isn't a coincidence that Arsenal stopped winning after Chelsea's billions arrived on the scene, nor is it a coincidence that Manchester City won the league after having half a billion pounds invested in their first team squad. Money speaks. This has held up with few exceptions. The richest clubs tend to win their respective leagues.

We can talk about Wenger over and over again but it should be a substantive discussion with a proper argument and/or facts to back it up. The continued assertion that Wenger needs to go and is ruining the team is hollow without a reasoned argument for it. There rarely is one.

So I am back to the first point I made. We need to define what our expectations are, if those expectations as reasonable in the current climate, and how Wenger is performing against those expectations. This isn't a conversation Arsenal fans wish to have because, looked at objectively, we're meeting what can be expected of us. That's a depressing thought given that 10 years ago we were on top of the game.