Another thing. Would it be too much to ask for Petr Cech to

[World's End Stella]

Alongside the fact we have better players and as Ash says, they'd been pressing (and covering a considerable additional distance) for the whole game

I don't really see how it's that hard to fathom that an additional 24 hrs rest, especially over a congested period of football, must be of considerable benefit.

It is a benefit, no question. Considerable? That depends on your definition.

I didn't see a team with more energy take a 3 nil lead over a tired team. Had I seen that, I never would expect us to come back to 3-3 as we did.

I saw an unprepared team who lacked focus and who didn't seem to know how to handle a much less talented team pressing them. I saw two very good players (Bellerin and Mustafi) have off days one of whom (Mustafi) was just back from injury and hadn't played in the previous match. In fact, Hector has only just returned as well so I would expect him to be able to handle 2 games in 3 days, especially at his age. I saw some poor performances from players who have been poor too often (Ramsey, Iwobi) to merit a place in the team on a regular basis but who continue to get played anyway.

In short, I saw Arsenal of the past 10 years, not a team that dropped two points because they were tired.

[Pokster]

So the question that was raised was that if the additional day's rest put us at a disadvantage, why did we improve significantly after 60 minutes of football? If anything, I would expect that we should have started more strongly and then faded as the game went on.

If you don't think that and extra 28 hrs rest helps then you know nothing about football... oh

[SWv2]

I don't really see how it's that hard to fathom that an additional 24 hrs rest, especially over a congested period of football, must be of considerable benefit.

The congested argument is *******s, sorry.

Prior to Sunday we had last played on the 26th so 6 full days rest and then before that another 6 days to the City game.

48 hours between the Palace match was not ideal but to use it as an excuse for that pitiful first 70 minute performance last night is wrong. Perhaps a factor among others but not a sole reason for such a poor show.

[PSRB]

It is a benefit, no question. Considerable? That depends on your definition.

I didn't see a team with more energy take a 3 nil lead over a tired team. Had I seen that, I never would expect us to come back to 3-3 as we did.

I saw an unprepared team who lacked focus and who didn't seem to know how to handle a much less talented team pressing them. I saw two very good players (Bellerin and Mustafi) have off days one of whom (Mustafi) was just back from injury and hadn't played in the previous match. In fact, Hector has only just returned as well so I would expect him to be able to handle 2 games in 3 days, especially at his age. I saw some poor performances from players who have been poor too often (Ramsey, Iwobi) to merit a place in the team on a regular basis but who continue to get played anyway.

In short, I saw Arsenal of the past 10 years, not a team that dropped two points because they were tired.

Bellerin was playing with ankle injury, apparently and the Ox was originally on the bench as he had a knock as well........granted one could rightly say, then why bring the Ox on rather than Perez?!

[World's End Stella]

The congested argument is *******s, sorry.

Prior to Sunday we had last played on the 26th so 6 full days rest and then before that another 6 days to the City game.

48 hours between the Palace match was not ideal but to use it as an excuse for that pitiful first 70 minute performance last night is wrong. Perhaps a factor among others but not a sole reason for such a poor show.

Quite. You might also point out that of the 10 outfield players who started the Bournemouth match, only 6 started the Palace match.

There were plenty of reasons that we dropped two points, the disadvantage of having played a day later than our opponent was one of them, but a very, very small one based on the evidence of how the game actually played out.

[Burney]

The congested argument is *******s, sorry.

Prior to Sunday we had last played on the 26th so 6 full days rest and then before that another 6 days to the City game.

48 hours between the Palace match was not ideal but to use it as an excuse for that pitiful first 70 minute performance last night is wrong. Perhaps a factor among others but not a sole reason for such a poor show.

How long we had before the Palace game is irrelevant to the fact that we had no recovery time from the previous game, I'm afraid. That's like saying that the fact that you hadn't run a marathon for months makes it fine to do two in two days. That's not how the human body works.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Honestly you lot amaze me sometimes.

Bellerin and Mustafi were hopeless, most of midfield utterly anonymous, Ramsey was played in the Ozil role and didnt do a single thing of any note that wasn't bad, for 60 minutes Giroud barely touched the ball and the entire team lacked focus and seemed completely unprepared for Bournemouth. Not Madrid, not Barcelona, not Munich, Bournemouth.

And you think Cech is a problem? Jesus lord.

If that is what was being said then you would be right but it isn't therefore, you are wrong!

[World's End Stella]

How long we had before the Palace game is irrelevant to the fact that we had no recovery time from the previous game, I'm afraid. That's like saying that the fact that you hadn't run a marathon for months makes it fine to do two in two days. That's not how the human body works.

We actually had approximately 49.45 hours recovery time between the end of the Palace game and the beginning of the Bournemouth game which is slightly more than 'no recovery time'. Bournemouth had approximately 74.45 hours. Although you would have to adjust that based on the number of players who started both games for both teams, if you wanted to be strictly accurate.

However, as you can see from the posts above, it would be a waste of time because no one is saying that there is no impact, the point that is being made is that the impact of the additional days rest does not justify the poor play from Arsenal for the first 60-70 minutes nor the fact that we dropped 2 points to a team with far less talent than ourselves.

[SWv2]

How long we had before the Palace game is irrelevant to the fact that we had no recovery time from the previous game, I'm afraid.

We had 48 hours B, not "no recovery time" as you say.

Not ideal as I have stressed but not a complete handicap either.

[Burney]

We actually had approximately 49.45 hours recovery time between the end of the Palace game and the beginning of the Bournemouth game which is slightly more than 'no recovery time'. Bournemouth had approximately 74.45 hours. Although you would have to adjust that based on the number of players who started both games for both teams, if you wanted to be strictly accurate.

However, as you can see from the posts above, it would be a waste of time because no one is saying that there is no impact, the point that is being made is that the impact of the additional days rest does not justify the poor play from Arsenal for the first 60-70 minutes nor the fact that we dropped 2 points to a team with far less talent than ourselves.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it excuses anything completely, merely that it is a serious mitigating factor with a demonstrable impact on the outcome of the game. No-one can seriously believe that, if the two sides had equal time between games, Arsenal's first half performance would have been as bad as it was.

And if you don't believe that, you are effectively conceding that the lack of recovery time played a large part in costing us those two points.