C'mon out MONTY!!! We want to talk football with you

[World's End Stella]

We can see you back there, hiding in the background with your Arsene Wenger blankie, a tear in your eye, your ego gradually diminishing with each passing second as you try and decide whether to fight the fight or retreat to your bedroom with Wenger's biography, an Invincibles video and a box of Kleenex.

Man up, come on out and prove to us that you STILL know more about football than anyone else on AWIMB.

:-)

[Ash]

Now you're acting like Monty, WES.

[Monty92]

We can see you back there, hiding in the background with your Arsene Wenger blankie, a tear in your eye, your ego gradually diminishing with each passing second as you try and decide whether to fight the fight or retreat to your bedroom with Wenger's biography, an Invincibles video and a box of Kleenex.

Man up, come on out and prove to us that you STILL know more about football than anyone else on AWIMB.

:-)

I think I must have said 300 times on Awimb over the past few years that Wenger leaving may well be the best way forward. I've merely scoffed at the idea that this is a no-brainer and my position on that hasn't changed at all.

Would it not be sensible to reserve judgement over just how catastrophic things are beyond three games and a still-open transfer window? Last season was looking pretty bad too, and that turned out ok-ish, didn't it?

[World's End Stella]

Now you're acting like Monty, WES.

It's the only way I could get him to post.

And it seems to have worked.

:-)

[Burney]

I think I must have said 300 times on Awimb over the past few years that Wenger leaving may well be the best way forward. I've merely scoffed at the idea that this is a no-brainer and my position on that hasn't changed at all.

Would it not be sensible to reserve judgement over just how catastrophic things are beyond three games and a still-open transfer window? Last season was looking pretty bad too, and that turned out ok-ish, didn't it?

But, short of us going on a 10-game winning streak, results have now become somewhat almost irrelevant. It's moved beyond what happens on the pitch.

[Monty92]

But, short of us going on a 10-game winning streak, results have now become somewhat almost irrelevant. It's moved beyond what happens on the pitch.

Our best player wants to leave and the transfer window slams shut tomorrow. Of course things have moved beyond what happens on the pitch :shrug:

[Ash]

But, short of us going on a 10-game winning streak, results have now become somewhat almost irrelevant. It's moved beyond what happens on the pitch.

Depends. If Sanchez goes and it turns out he really was the sand in the underwear (I'm not saying that is the case) the boys might start playing like a team again (as they miraculously did when the back three was introduced) and some kind of hope could creep back. Won't stop the contractual headaches, of course.

[Sir C]

Our best player wants to leave and the transfer window slams shut tomorrow. Of course things have moved beyond what happens on the pitch :shrug:

Ramsey wants out as well? :yikes:

[SWv2]

But, short of us going on a 10-game winning streak, results have now become somewhat almost irrelevant. It's moved beyond what happens on the pitch.

Every bad result is going to cause last seasons regrettable events to come to the fore.

We now have 2 players who have made it very clear they want to leave, one more publicly than the other admittedly, so every poor performance, individual error will be jumped on as a sign of a lack of commitment. We really have no option but to sell (as indeed many have called for all summer) yet we leave ourselves with just over 24 hours to replace.

And yet for so many years we were told, and some of us lapped up, the intangible claim of Arsenal being a club that did things correctly etc.

It almost appears we stumble along from one mess to another (yet amazingly remain relatively very successful).

[redgunamo]

But, short of us going on a 10-game winning streak, results have now become somewhat almost irrelevant. It's moved beyond what happens on the pitch.

I was thinking that too. Perhaps that's the idea. Surely as a football manager, the very last thing you really want to judged by ultimately is footballl results?

[Burney]

Depends. If Sanchez goes and it turns out he really was the sand in the underwear (I'm not saying that is the case) the boys might start playing like a team again (as they miraculously did when the back three was introduced) and some kind of hope could creep back. Won't stop the contractual headaches, of course.

Yes, but as soon as a run ends, all the underlying tensions come straight back to the surface. The problems will remain endemic as long as AW stays.

[Sir C]

Every bad result is going to cause last seasons regrettable events to come to the fore.

We now have 2 players who have made it very clear they want to leave, one more publicly than the other admittedly, so every poor performance, individual error will be jumped on as a sign of a lack of commitment. We really have no option but to sell (as indeed many have called for all summer) yet we leave ourselves with just over 24 hours to replace.

And yet for so many years we were told, and some of us lapped up, the intangible claim of Arsenal being a club that did things correctly etc.

It almost appears we stumble along from one mess to another (yet amazingly remain relatively very successful).

Woaaah there, big fella! This idea of the Arsenal being a club which does things 'the right way' is nothing to do with success in the transfer market, or contract negotiations. It's a question of values, of manners, respect and politeness. It's summed up by the flowers on the boardroom table in the colours of the opposition on matchdays, the way that all staff members are treated with the same degree of respect, all that 'Arsenal family' business which one may or may not dismiss as nonsense, but exists all the same.

'The right way' is a question of moral good, not contractural efficiency.

[World's End Stella]

I think I must have said 300 times on Awimb over the past few years that Wenger leaving may well be the best way forward. I've merely scoffed at the idea that this is a no-brainer and my position on that hasn't changed at all.

Would it not be sensible to reserve judgement over just how catastrophic things are beyond three games and a still-open transfer window? Last season was looking pretty bad too, and that turned out ok-ish, didn't it?

So you didn't see anything in the Liverpool game concerning enough to merit analysis beyond 'it's only the third game, let's be patient'?

And our transfer window spending, assuming we sell Ox for the numbers being bandied about, will be about net zero, meanwhile some teams that finished ahead of us are spending 100mil+, and this is in no way surprising or concerning?

[Monty92]

Woaaah there, big fella! This idea of the Arsenal being a club which does things 'the right way' is nothing to do with success in the transfer market, or contract negotiations. It's a question of values, of manners, respect and politeness. It's summed up by the flowers on the boardroom table in the colours of the opposition on matchdays, the way that all staff members are treated with the same degree of respect, all that 'Arsenal family' business which one may or may not dismiss as nonsense, but exists all the same.

'The right way' is a question of moral good, not contractural efficiency.

But surely a club could fall short of its values, of manners, respect and politeness when it comes contract negotiations?

[Peter]

I think I must have said 300 times on Awimb over the past few years that Wenger leaving may well be the best way forward. I've merely scoffed at the idea that this is a no-brainer and my position on that hasn't changed at all.

Would it not be sensible to reserve judgement over just how catastrophic things are beyond three games and a still-open transfer window? Last season was looking pretty bad too, and that turned out ok-ish, didn't it?


Last season was a bit of a disaster and saw some of our worst performances in years. It seemed like we were useless for months, all sorts going on.....and yet, we finished with 74 points which is 4 more than the year before and slightly above our average return.

Funny old game etc....anyway, the point is wenger is a useless **** and should be sacked. Everyone knows that.

[Peter]

Woaaah there, big fella! This idea of the Arsenal being a club which does things 'the right way' is nothing to do with success in the transfer market, or contract negotiations. It's a question of values, of manners, respect and politeness. It's summed up by the flowers on the boardroom table in the colours of the opposition on matchdays, the way that all staff members are treated with the same degree of respect, all that 'Arsenal family' business which one may or may not dismiss as nonsense, but exists all the same.

'The right way' is a question of moral good, not contractural efficiency.

Do they still do all that, post Hill Wood?

[Monty92]

So you didn't see anything in the Liverpool game concerning enough to merit analysis beyond 'it's only the third game, let's be patient'?

And our transfer window spending, assuming we sell Ox for the numbers being bandied about, will be about net zero, meanwhile some teams that finished ahead of us are spending 100mil+, and this is in no way surprising or concerning?

I didn't see the Liverpool game - I was catching crabs with my son off Herne Bay pier. But by all accounts, I certainly wouldn't argue there was nothing to merit further analysis beyond three games.

I don't see why our net spend should matter at all. If we're happy with who we've signed, and happy with who we've sold, and we end up with a + net spend, then that is no reason to complain in and of itself.

Of course, if you're not happy with who we've bought and sold, then that's a different matter.

[Burney]

I didn't see the Liverpool game - I was catching crabs with my son off Herne Bay pier. But by all accounts, I certainly wouldn't argue there was nothing to merit further analysis beyond three games.

I don't see why our net spend should matter at all. If we're happy with who we've signed, and happy with who we've sold, and you've still got a + net spend, then that is no reason to complain in and of itself.

Of course, if you're not happy with who we've bought and sold, then that's a different matter.

Did you catch any good ones worth eating?

[Peter]

So you didn't see anything in the Liverpool game concerning enough to merit analysis beyond 'it's only the third game, let's be patient'?

And our transfer window spending, assuming we sell Ox for the numbers being bandied about, will be about net zero, meanwhile some teams that finished ahead of us are spending 100mil+, and this is in no way surprising or concerning?

Concerning or not, it is in no way new. Although I didnt watch the Liverpool game I bet it was no worse than others over the years. It cant have been any worse than the one where we were 4-0 down after 20 minutes. That one looked like the entire team was hungover and had just got out of bed.

Is any of this new/surprising/worse than the last ten years? I dont think it is.

[Monty92]

Concerning or not, it is in no way new. Although I didnt watch the Liverpool game I bet it was no worse than others over the years. It cant have been any worse than the one where we were 4-0 down after 20 minutes. That one looked like the entire team was hungover and had just got out of bed.

Is any of this new/surprising/worse than the last ten years? I dont think it is.

There are many other clubs who have been perpetually unsuccessful for ten years or more, who have regularly changed their manager, and whose fans will often tell you that "nothing's changed" during that time.

[World's End Stella]

Concerning or not, it is in no way new. Although I didnt watch the Liverpool game I bet it was no worse than others over the years. It cant have been any worse than the one where we were 4-0 down after 20 minutes. That one looked like the entire team was hungover and had just got out of bed.

Is any of this new/surprising/worse than the last ten years? I dont think it is.

Our midfield has never looked as bad as it did in the Liverpool game, no matter how badly we played.

And in the past we've had injury excuses, new player excuses etc. Xhaka/Ramsey is his chosen pair and they were so dysfunctional it is worth commenting on.

Add in the absurdity of Ox being on the pitch and Bellerin at LWB instead of Saed and you have something pretty exceptional, even within the context of the last 7 years or so.

[Sir C]

But surely a club could fall short of its values, of manners, respect and politeness when it comes contract negotiations?

True enough. But the value isn't so much in always achieving the values to which one aspires, but in consistently trying to, surely?

[Peter]

There are many other clubs who have been perpetually unsuccessful for ten years or more, who have regularly changed their manager, and whose fans will often tell you that "nothing's changed" during that time.

I am not sure there are actually. Certainly not clubs of our size. Even if there were, it doesn't really add much to the debate does it?

Anyway, I think my point was that we probably shouldn't be getting so upset about this type of chaos. We should be used to it and it is exactly why so many people want Wenger out. Essentially, I am sort of agreeing with you, in a way.

[Sir C]

Do they still do all that, post Hill Wood?

I believe so.

[Burney]

True enough. But the value isn't so much in always achieving the values to which one aspires, but in consistently trying to, surely?

There speaks a good Catholic boy! :hehe:

[Ash]

I didn't see the Liverpool game - I was catching crabs with my son off Herne Bay pier. But by all accounts, I certainly wouldn't argue there was nothing to merit further analysis beyond three games.

I don't see why our net spend should matter at all. If we're happy with who we've signed, and happy with who we've sold, and we end up with a + net spend, then that is no reason to complain in and of itself.

Of course, if you're not happy with who we've bought and sold, then that's a different matter.

The two players we signed started on the bench at Liverpool, a game which was similar in some ways to the 8-2, except we got nowhere near the 2.

[Peter]

Our midfield has never looked as bad as it did in the Liverpool game, no matter how badly we played.

And in the past we've had injury excuses, new player excuses etc. Xhaka/Ramsey is his chosen pair and they were so dysfunctional it is worth commenting on.

Add in the absurdity of Ox being on the pitch and Bellerin at LWB instead of Saed and you have something pretty exceptional, even within the context of the last 7 years or so.

Right, but we kind of know why some of that is currently happening, dont we. And it will be resolved shortly.

I think Monty's point is that we shouldn't think the rest of the season will be as bad as that. Of course it will be bad, but not that bad.

[redgunamo]

There speaks a good Catholic boy! :hehe:

:nod: Why the world is in such a mess.

[Monty92]

The two players we signed started on the bench at Liverpool, a game which was similar in some ways to the 8-2, except we got nowhere near the 2.

Shock horror, players just arrived in English football in "starting one of the opening games on the bench" sensation

:rolleyes:

[SWv2]

I believe so.

I don't think we do the shirt sleeves thing any longer.

Noticed this a few games back.

[redgunamo]

The two players we signed started on the bench at Liverpool, a game which was similar in some ways to the 8-2, except we got nowhere near the 2.

Was the 8-2 the first of this little irregular series?

[Monty92]

I am not sure there are actually. Certainly not clubs of our size. Even if there were, it doesn't really add much to the debate does it?

Anyway, I think my point was that we probably shouldn't be getting so upset about this type of chaos. We should be used to it and it is exactly why so many people want Wenger out. Essentially, I am sort of agreeing with you, in a way.

Liverpool, Spurs?

[Burney]

Was the 8-2 the first of this little irregular series?

Yes. Since then, we've always had the 'might get absolutely gang-raped' club in our bag, though.

[Sir C]

I am not sure there are actually. Certainly not clubs of our size. Even if there were, it doesn't really add much to the debate does it?

Anyway, I think my point was that we probably shouldn't be getting so upset about this type of chaos. We should be used to it and it is exactly why so many people want Wenger out. Essentially, I am sort of agreeing with you, in a way.

Aston Villa? Everton? How about clubs who were undoubtedly as big as us? Sheffield Wednesday? Leeds? Huddersfield?

[Burney]

:nod: Why the world is in such a mess.

We'll have a bit less of the anti-catholic hate speech from you, young r. We get enough of that from a.

[Sir C]

There speaks a good Catholic boy! :hehe:

Just a human being acknowledging that we are all capable of failure :shrug:

[Peter]

Liverpool, Spurs?

Spurs to some extent although they have currently solved the problem. It may well reappear.

Liverpool have come far closer than us to winning the league over the last 10 years. Not consistently good but rather silly to say that nothing had changed. It changed constantly.

Of course there are other ways to **** up, nobody is denying it. I think a few of us would even be happy to fail in a different way for a little while, just to make it interesting.

[Peter]

Aston Villa? Everton? How about clubs who were undoubtedly as big as us? Sheffield Wednesday? Leeds? Huddersfield?

It would take quite a mind to argue that nothing had changed at Leeds :clap:

[Ash]

Shock horror, players just arrived in English football in "starting one of the opening games on the bench" sensation

:rolleyes:

Please don't make re-key all the stuff I typed on the other thread about team selection.

[redgunamo]

Just a human being acknowledging that we are all capable of failure :shrug:

I don't think that helps, to be honest. It just gives people the idea that doing the wrong thing is acceptable.

[Monty92]

Spurs to some extent although they have currently solved the problem. It may well reappear.

Liverpool have come far closer than us to winning the league over the last 10 years. Not consistently good but rather silly to say that nothing had changed. It changed constantly.

Of course there are other ways to **** up, nobody is denying it. I think a few of us would even be happy to fail in a different way for a little while, just to make it interesting.

In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club.

[Sir C]

I don't think that helps, to be honest. It just gives people the idea that doing the wrong thing is acceptable.

But if the opposite it true, you're telling people that, if there is a chance of failure, one shouldn't try.

We didn't build an empire without trying and occasionally failing.

[Burney]

But if the opposite it true, you're telling people that, if there is a chance of failure, one shouldn't try.

We didn't build an empire without trying and occasionally failing.

Do or do not. There is no 'try'. :nod:

A wise man said that.

Or it might've been Yoda out of Star Wars now I think about it. :-\

[Burney]

In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club.

As always, Leicester are the racially unacceptable term in this particular woodpile. :-(

[redgunamo]

But if the opposite it true, you're telling people that, if there is a chance of failure, one shouldn't try.

We didn't build an empire without trying and occasionally failing.

One certainly shouldn't try to fail; one should be encouraged to succeed. But there, you've excused failure even while attempting success. And there's no need for it.

Either we get it right, or we get out, needs to be the message.

[Monty92]

As always, Leicester are the racially unacceptable term in this particular woodpile. :-(

One freak season doesn't count - everyone knows that. Almost as worthless as winning the FA fúcking Cup!

[SWv2]

But if the opposite it true, you're telling people that, if there is a chance of failure, one shouldn't try.

We didn't build an empire without trying and occasionally failing.

Did you ultimately not make a bollócks of the whole empire thing?

[Burney]

One freak season doesn't count - everyone knows that. Almost as worthless as winning the FA fúcking Cup!

I wouldn't mind one freak season. :-(

[redgunamo]

As always, Leicester are the racially unacceptable term in this particular woodpile. :-(

I didn't know Leicester was a race. It's racism gone mad, I tell you; everyone is trying to get in on it now :-(

[Burney]

Did you ultimately not make a bollócks of the whole empire thing?

The language you're currently speaking would suggest not.

[Monty92]

I wouldn't mind one freak season. :-(

Not for me, Clive. That's why sticking with Wenger makes sense - it's our best chance of building a dynasty.

[redgunamo]

Did you ultimately not make a bollócks of the whole empire thing?

You'll need to talk to those left behind there, I think.

[Sir C]

Did you ultimately not make a bollócks of the whole empire thing?

I think we just got out when we'd taken all the valuables we wanted.

In your case, potatoes and thick lads with big hands to build roads.

[World's End Stella]

In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club.

How is that relevant to the discussion, though? We are one of those historically big clubs not to mention being one of the ten richest clubs in the world.

So the relevant question is whether or not any of the other clubs in that bracket would accept the same manager failing consistently to challenge for, or win, the league for the same reasons over a ten year period without replacing him.

And I think the answer to that is a very clear 'no'.

[SWv2]

I think we just got out when we'd taken all the valuables we wanted.

In your case, potatoes and thick lads with big hands to build roads.

I wasn't trying to be contentious, simply I would not be as knowledgeable as others on your chequered past.

[Ash]

As always, Leicester are the racially unacceptable term in this particular woodpile. :-(

B. Dortmund and Atletico Madrid?

[redgunamo]

Not for me, Clive. That's why sticking with Wenger makes sense - it's our best chance of building a dynasty.

What does a dynasty mean in football?

[Peter]

In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club.

Which is very different from your original point and discounts the fact that Spurs are, arguably, currently doing exactly that with a turnover substantially lower than ours.

Once you bring resources into the argument you have to face the question of whether we are making the best of ours, regardless of whether that challenges the financially doped or historically bigger. Its tough to argue that we are.

[Monty92]

How is that relevant to the discussion, though? We are one of those historically big clubs not to mention being one of the ten richest clubs in the world.

So the relevant question is whether or not any of the other clubs in that bracket would accept the same manager failing consistently to challenge for, or win, the league for the same reasons over a ten year period without replacing him.

And I think the answer to that is a very clear 'no'.

Right, and demonstrably they wouldn't accept it as they've all opted for another method - changing the manager every season or two. And has it worked? Nope.

[SWv2]

What does a dynasty mean in football?

Thank you R.

Saves me the bother.

[Monty92]

What does a dynasty mean in football?

I dunno. Three FA Cup in 4 years, plus a couple of league titles and maybe a Champions League?

See, when it's put like that we've not actually been that far away, have we :cloud9:

[Monty92]

Which is very different from your original point and discounts the fact that Spurs are, arguably, currently doing exactly that with a turnover substantially lower than ours.

Once you bring resources into the argument you have to face the question of whether we are making the best of ours, regardless of whether that challenges the financially doped or historically bigger. Its tough to argue that we are.

How can you say spurs are successfully challenging the hegemony? If they are, then so are we!

[redgunamo]

I dunno. Three FA Cup in 4 years, plus a couple of league titles and maybe a Champions League?

See, when it's put like that we've not actually been that far away, have we :cloud9:

Yes. That's not actually a dynasty, M. A dynasty is a line of hereditary rulers. And sadly Wenger is essentially a jaffa.

[Burney]

I dunno. Three FA Cup in 4 years, plus a couple of league titles and maybe a Champions League?

See, when it's put like that we've not actually been that far away, have we :cloud9:

You know we lost the Champion's League final, right?

[Peter]

How can you say spurs are successfully challenging the hegemony? If they are, then so are we!

Well, largely by challenging for the title in the last two years and finishing above all of those clubs bar Chelsea last season. You may not consider that challenging the hegemony but I would happily take it as a wooden spoon.

[Burney]

How can you say spurs are successfully challenging the hegemony? If they are, then so are we!

Ah, we're here again with the semantics of the word 'challenge', aren't we?

[Peter]

I dunno. Three FA Cup in 4 years, plus a couple of league titles and maybe a Champions League?

See, when it's put like that we've not actually been that far away, have we :cloud9:

No, quite close in fact. Just the two league titles and the Champions League that we have been nowhere ****ing near winning for ten years.

[Monty92]

Yes. That's not actually a dynasty, M. A dynasty is a line of hereditary rulers. And sadly Wenger is essentially a jaffa.

A line of trophies is dynastic, in a sense. Everyone always told us that domestic cups would be building blocks for greater things. (though I always maintained this was *******s, as has been proved)

[Monty92]

Well, largely by challenging for the title in the last two years and finishing above all of those clubs bar Chelsea last season. You may not consider that challenging the hegemony but I would happily take it as a wooden spoon.

But we finished above them two years ago and you've previously said we've not challenged the hegemony in a decade :shrug:

[Sir C]

No, quite close in fact. Just the two league titles and the Champions League that we have been nowhere ****ing near winning for ten years.

Still with the intemperate language.

What pleasure does it give you to say these things, my son?

[World's End Stella]

Right, and demonstrably they wouldn't accept it as they've all opted for another method - changing the manager every season or two. And has it worked? Nope.

Well yes, yes it has. As a very large number of teams with significantly less resources than us have either won or challenged for the league while we routinely exit the league in Feb/March. Tottenham, Leicester and Liverpool come to mind just in the PL. Now add in Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Monaco to name just a few.

I'm actually astonished that even someone as obsequious as you is still fighting this fight.

Thanks for joining and making the thread a success, Monty old bean. :thumbup:

[Monty92]

Ah, we're here again with the semantics of the word 'challenge', aren't we?

There's no semantics. Peter claims Spurs have challenged the hegemony for the past two years yet also claims we haven't done so for a decade, yet we finished above spurs two years ago!

[Sir C]

Well yes, yes it has. As a very large number of teams with significantly less resources than us have either won or challenged for the league while we routinely exit the league in Feb/March. Tottenham, Leicester and Liverpool come to mind just in the PL. Now add in Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Monaco to name just a few.

I'm actually astonished that even someone as obsequious as you is still fighting this fight.

Thanks for joining and making the thread a success, Monty old bean. :thumbup:

You don't know what obsequious means, do you? :-(

[Peter]

But we finished above them two years ago and you've previously said we've not challenged the hegemony in a decade :shrug:

You remember how that happened, right?

[Monty92]

Well yes, yes it has. As a very large number of teams with significantly less resources than us have either won or challenged for the league while we routinely exit the league in Feb/March. Tottenham, Leicester and Liverpool come to mind just in the PL. Now add in Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Monaco to name just a few.

I'm actually astonished that even someone as obsequious as you is still fighting this fight.

Thanks for joining and making the thread a success, Monty old bean. :thumbup:

If Spurs and Liverpool have challenged for the title in recent years, then so have over the past decade.

[World's End Stella]

There's no semantics. Peter claims Spurs have challenged the hegemony for the past two years yet also claims we haven't done so for a decade, yet we finished above spurs two years ago!

The stunningly obvious point is that they came close to winning the league, we did not and have not for many years, that's the point.

Good lord.

[Monty92]

You remember how that happened, right?

They lost their last game. So according to you the difference between challenging the hegemony and floundering aimlessly is one end of season game?

[World's End Stella]

You don't know what obsequious means, do you? :-(

Sort of fawning and subservient, a suckup basically.

Is that not right? :-(

[Peter]

There's no semantics. Peter claims Spurs have challenged the hegemony for the past two years yet also claims we haven't done so for a decade, yet we finished above spurs two years ago!

We finished level on points after their title challenge collapsed in the last three games and their results imploded. Our title challenge collapsed in February.

We were challenging precisely nobody that season. Spurs built on it by mounting an effective title challenge the following year while we disappeared down to fifth.

[Peter]

If Spurs and Liverpool have challenged for the title in recent years, then so have over the past decade.

Perhaps in 2007/8. Even that was nowhere near as close as Liverpool's a few years ago.

[Burney]

There's no semantics. Peter claims Spurs have challenged the hegemony for the past two years yet also claims we haven't done so for a decade, yet we finished above spurs two years ago!

I would say neither have challenged the hegemony, since it remains firmly in place. For this to work, you would have to define 'challenge' as meaning 'failing repeatedly'.

[Monty92]

The stunningly obvious point is that they came close to winning the league, we did not and have not for many years, that's the point.

Good lord.

I think you exaggerate to suit your agenda. Last season they were significant outsiders for the title throughout the final months and weeks of the season. The season before, WE FINISHED ABOVE THEM!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!!!!!!!

[Monty92]

Perhaps in 2007/8. Even that was nowhere near as close as Liverpool's a few years ago.

And two years ago? If Spurs challenged (as you claim), then so did we.

[Peter]

They lost their last game. So according to you the difference between challenging the hegemony and floundering aimlessly is one end of season game?

Errr, no. THat is according to you. I said Spurs had 'challenged' the hegemony over the last two years by challenging for the title. It was you who brought up the fact that we scraped level on points with them on the last day of the season two years ago. I dont really see how that is relevant.

[Peter]

And two years ago? If Spurs challenged (as you claim), then so did we.

Ok, so you are saying, presumably, that neither us nor Spurs challenged for the title? Surely you are not claiming we did???

[Burney]

They lost their last game. So according to you the difference between challenging the hegemony and floundering aimlessly is one end of season game?

United won their treble by fluking a late win against a better side and because Dennis missed a penalty. Yet that is their crowning 'dynastic' achievement. Long-term outcomes hinge on precisely such moments.

[Monty92]

I would say neither have challenged the hegemony, since it remains firmly in place. For this to work, you would have to define 'challenge' as meaning 'failing repeatedly'.

Agree entirely :shrug:

[Peter]

I would say neither have challenged the hegemony, since it remains firmly in place. For this to work, you would have to define 'challenge' as meaning 'failing repeatedly'.

Its Monty's phrase. I simply said that if Spurs had failed to challenge it I would still happily accept what they have achieved as a wooden spoon. I dont really feel the need to challenge the hegemony. I just want to challenge for the league.

[Monty92]

Ok, so you are saying, presumably, that neither us nor Spurs challenged for the title? Surely you are not claiming we did???

Correct, I don't think either of us have meaningfully challenged. For the past two seasons it's true that Spurs have kept their hopes alive until the last few weeks, but on both occasions they have remained significant outsiders until it was mathematically over.

[redgunamo]

Errr, no. THat is according to you. I said Spurs had 'challenged' the hegemony over the last two years by challenging for the title. It was you who brought up the fact that we scraped level on points with them on the last day of the season two years ago. I dont really see how that is relevant.

Anyway, aren't we part of the hegemony :-(

[Peter]

Correct, I don't think either of us have meaningfully challenged. For the past two seasons it's true that Spurs have kept their hopes alive until the last few weeks, but they have remained significant outsiders throughout on both occasions.

That is true, but in both seasons they were the only realistic challengers in the closing months of the season. They were also better last year than the year before.

It has actually been an odd few years for the hegemony. Two years ago Chelsea, were dreadful, United not much better and City fairly ****. Last season City and United were average. So challenging them wasn't a huge deal. Of course, two years ago we finished above all three of them. But look where we are now.......

The sickening point is that for the first time in 20 years I would swap places with Spurs. You cant tell me that doesn't play a big part in the current hysteria. Our struggles are hard enough to accept without having to glance over at a good and improving Spurs side.

[Burney]

Anyway, aren't we part of the hegemony :-(

It's like the class system, I think. To anyone above us, we're contemptibly beneath them. To anyone below us, we're evil oppressors.

[Peter]

Anyway, aren't we part of the hegemony :-(

I am taking it to mean United and the doped clubs. We dont have the old or new money to compete with them financially.

[World's End Stella]

Anyway, aren't we part of the hegemony :-(

Yes, which is why his logic is all over the place.

Still, we should thank him for joining the thread and fighting the fight. Props to Monty.

He hasn't completely and utterly humiliated himself but he's taken a bloody good run at it.

[redgunamo]

It's like the class system, I think. To anyone above us, we're contemptibly beneath them. To anyone below us, we're evil oppressors.

So, no, then? Nobody can be above the leading or dominant group, can they.

[Monty92]

Yes, which is why his logic is all over the place.

Still, we should thank him for joining the thread and fighting the fight. Props to Monty.

He hasn't completely and utterly humiliated himself but he's taken a bloody good run at it.

No. City, Chelsea and United all still hold a significant financial advantage over us and together they remain a hegemony. Part of that is of course legacy-related and will hopefully even out, but certainly not yet.

[redgunamo]

I am taking it to mean United and the doped clubs. We dont have the old or new money to compete with them financially.

Aren't Liverpool part of it then, because they don't seem to have those things either, but they do have more trophies than all but Manchester United?

[Ash]

Aren't Liverpool part of it then, because they don't seem to have those things either, but they do have more trophies than all but Manchester United?

Pffft. They have won the league less times than Leicester since football was invented in 1992.

[redgunamo]

Yes, which is why his logic is all over the place.

Still, we should thank him for joining the thread and fighting the fight. Props to Monty.

He hasn't completely and utterly humiliated himself but he's taken a bloody good run at it.

Although in fairness to him, he has at least managed to drag you into talking finances, again, when you really wanted to discuss Wenger's rubbish football :-\

[World's End Stella]

No. City, Chelsea and United all still hold a significant financial advantage over us and together they remain a hegemony. Part of that is of course legacy-related and will hopefully even out, but certainly not yet.

Your initial post on this:

'In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club. '

Arsenal on a historical basis are one the biggest clubs in England and we are currently one of the 10 richest clubs in the world. On that basis we would be part of the hegemony.

And please don't tell me that we can't compete with City and Chelsea's money. You aren't really desperate enough to fall back to that one after it has been proven to be such utter nonsense over and over again?

[Peter]

Your initial post on this:

'In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club. '

Arsenal on a historical basis are one the biggest clubs in England and we are currently one of the 10 richest clubs in the world. On that basis we would be part of the hegemony.

And please don't tell me that we can't compete with City and Chelsea's money. You aren't really desperate enough to fall back to that one after it has been proven to be such utter nonsense over and over again?

Are you serious?? You think we could start spending that kind of money on a regular basis?

[Burney]

Pffft. They have won the league less times than Leicester since football was invented in 1992.

I remember reading a Julian Barnes short story in which he imagined heaven. One of the impossible things that happened to him every day was that Leicester won the league. Because, of course, this did seem utterly impossible. :-(

[Peter]

I remember reading a Julian Barnes short story in which he imagined heaven. One of the impossible things that happened to him every day was that Leicester won the league. Because, of course, this did seem utterly impossible. :-(

Fewer times, b. You let Ash off the hook there.

[Burney]

Fewer times, b. You let Ash off the hook there.

I did. Deliberately. I'm turning over a new leaf.

[Peter]

I did. Deliberately. I'm turning over a new leaf.

What happens if you turn over an old leaf?

[Monty92]

Your initial post on this:

'In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club. '

Arsenal on a historical basis are one the biggest clubs in England and we are currently one of the 10 richest clubs in the world. On that basis we would be part of the hegemony.

And please don't tell me that we can't compete with City and Chelsea's money. You aren't really desperate enough to fall back to that one after it has been proven to be such utter nonsense over and over again?

I don't know how close we now are to being able to match them financially nowadays - I'd certainly be very surprised if we're on a par.

But I think a strong legacy factor is at play that makes them more attractive than us, and that is due to factors partly out of our control. I think this holds back Liverpool and Spurs as well.

[Ash]

What happens if you turn over an old leaf?

Groundhog day innit. :shout: :mad:

[World's End Stella]

Are you serious?? You think we could start spending that kind of money on a regular basis?

No, I meant that you can compete with a club on the pitch without spending the same amount i.e. Leicester, Dortumund, AM and Arsenal 97-04

[redgunamo]

Are you serious?? You think we could start spending that kind of money on a regular basis?

No, but I think his point is that we could conceivably start competing with them at football on a regular basis, regardless of spending money.

[Ash]

No, I meant that you can compete with a club on the pitch without spending the same amount i.e. Leicester, Dortumund, AM and Arsenal 97-04

These examples show that it is a possibility, not that it is a given. Or a slam-dunk as your sort would put it.

[redgunamo]

These examples show that it is a possibility, not that it is a given. Or a slam-dunk as your sort would put it.

Yes, but our argument has been that is it isn't a possibility.

[Monty92]

These examples show that it is a possibility, not that it is a given. Or a slam-dunk as your sort would put it.

Leicester was a freak one-off, Dortmund only have one direct competitor and AM are (or were) riddled with debt.

[World's End Stella]

These examples show that it is a possibility, not that it is a given. Or a slam-dunk as your sort would put it.

True, but it means that it is no excuse for not competing for the league for the better part of 10 years when you have the history and the money that Arsenal do.

Note I said 'competing for' not 'winning'.

[World's End Stella]

Leicester was a freak one-off, Dortmund only have one direct competitor and AM are (or were) riddled with debt.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I'd like to think you're taking the piss. :-(

[redgunamo]

Leicester was a freak one-off, Dortmund only have one direct competitor and AM are (or were) riddled with debt.

Dortmund aren't even the second best team in a one-team league :-\

[Burney]

Leicester was a freak one-off, Dortmund only have one direct competitor and AM are (or were) riddled with debt.

By definition, winning the league over 38 games cannot be a freak occurrence. Leicester's league win demonstrated the fact that there is simply no systemic reason that any club with the right combination of players and management cannot win the league in any given season.

[Monty92]

By definition, winning the league over 38 games cannot be a freak occurrence. Leicester's league win demonstrated the fact that there is simply no systemic reason that any club with the right combination of players and management cannot win the league in any given season.

How much money would you bet on such a lowly team winning the league again (without the help of a sugar daddy) in the next decade? Or 20 years? There's a reason why the answer is "not much" - it was a freak season.

Equally, going the season unbeaten. Laudable, but ultimately a freak.

[Peter]

No, but I think his point is that we could conceivably start competing with them at football on a regular basis, regardless of spending money.

Which goes back to your point. The little tinker Monty has managed to drag us back to the financial handicap rather than focusing on what a useless **** Wenger is.

[Burney]

How much money would you bet on such a lowly team winning the league again (without the help of a sugar daddy) in the next decade? Or 20 years? There's a reason why the answer is "not much" - it was a freak season.

Equally, going the season unbeaten. Laudable, but ultimately a freak.

Fine, but if Leicester can achieve it despite all that, how much worse does that make the fact that a team with our resources and talent hasn't done so for 12 years?

Let's be honest, if we'd played to our potential that season, we'd have won the league. The fact we didn't is actually a pretty savage indictment of the character and leadership of that team.

[Peter]

How much money would you bet on such a lowly team winning the league again (without the help of a sugar daddy) in the next decade? Or 20 years? There's a reason why the answer is "not much" - it was a freak season.

Equally, going the season unbeaten. Laudable, but ultimately a freak.

Particularly given that they could have won the league with 71 points that season, underlining just how bad all the 'best' sides were that year. So bad in fact that we finished above them with one of our poorest returns in years.

A freak season. We cant even properly challenge for the title in a freak season. THat is how **** we are.

[Monty92]

Fine, but if Leicester can achieve it despite all that, how much worse does that make the fact that a team with our resources and talent hasn't done so for 12 years?

Let's be honest, if we'd played to our potential that season, we'd have won the league. The fact we didn't is actually a pretty savage indictment of the character and leadership of that team.

Well, as I say, we are in good company. No-one else outside the hegemony has done it during that time either, however many managers they've gone through between them :shrug:

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4176676]Well, as I say, we are in good company. No-one else outside the hegemony has done it during that time either, however many managers they've gone through between them

Spurs bringing in Pocchettino rather than Harry Redknapp has hugely improved their chances of the league, though, no? From non-contenders, they're now contenders by virtue of changing managers. Do in other words, change can work, no?

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4176676]Well, as I say, we are in good company. No-one else outside the hegemony has done it during that time either, however many managers they've gone through between them

Spurs bringing in Pocchettino rather than Harry Redknapp has hugely improved their chances of the league, though, no? From non-contenders, they're now contenders by virtue of changing managers. Do in other words, change can work, no?

Have I ever suggested that change can't work? I've consistently said that there's no reason in theory that replacing Wenger couldn't improve our chances of winning the league.

Whether or not Pocchetino is better equipped to turn Spurs into title winners than Wenger is to do the same at Arsenal remains to be seen. Just as Wenger has had plenty of time to show that he has what it takes, Pocchetino has had very little time at all. In other words, both have plenty to prove, in different ways.

[Ash]

Well, as I say, we are in good company. No-one else outside the hegemony has done it during that time either, however many managers they've gone through between them :shrug:

But other sides have competed. We haven't. We are out of the race by spring. Every. Single. Year. Spurs and Liverpool have both fallen at the end but they have competed. And Leicester. Did we mention them?

So three clubs have competed. Each with less monies than Arsenal. But not Arsenal. Our record away from home against the top six is something like two wins out of the last 33 games.* Add Stoke as a bogey team and we generally **** our pants away to at least three teams with less money every season. We're just weak and fragile. :-( Like a beautiful machine when every part is working harmoniously, but so easily broken and so difficult to repair.

*I many have got this completely wrong. was on MOTD apparently. Not that I'd watch that under the circs.

[Peter]

But other sides have competed. We haven't. We are out of the race by spring. Every. Single. Year. Spurs and Liverpool have both fallen at the end but they have competed. And Leicester. Did we mention them?

So three clubs have competed. Each with less monies than Arsenal. But not Arsenal. Our record away from home against the top six is something like two wins out of the last 33 games. Add Stoke as a bogey team and we generally **** our pants away to at least three teams with less money every season. We're just weak and fragile. :-( Like a beautiful machine when every part is working harmoniously, but so easily broken and so difficult to repair.

Cue jokes about my Rover not even being a beautiful machine.....

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4176681]

Have I ever suggested that change can't work? I've consistently said that there's no reason in theory that replacing Wenger couldn't improve our chances of winning the league.

Whether or not Pocchetino is better equipped to turn Spurs into title winners than Wenger is to do the same at Arsenal remains to be seen. Just as Wenger has had plenty of time to show that he has what it takes, Pocchetino has had very little time at all. In other words, both have plenty to prove, in different ways.

Im not really sure anyone feels that further proof is required where Wenger is concerned. :hehe:

Whether Pocchetino can turn Spurs into title winners remains to be seen. He has certainly turned them into competitive title challengers from the mess of three years ago and produced the best Spurs side in the last 30 years. I cant wait for him to leave.

[Monty92]

But other sides have competed. We haven't. We are out of the race by spring. Every. Single. Year. Spurs and Liverpool have both fallen at the end but they have competed. And Leicester. Did we mention them?

So three clubs have competed. Each with less monies than Arsenal. But not Arsenal. Our record away from home against the top six is something like two wins out of the last 33 games.* Add Stoke as a bogey team and we generally **** our pants away to at least three teams with less money every season. We're just weak and fragile. :-( Like a beautiful machine when every part is working harmoniously, but so easily broken and so difficult to repair.

*I many have got this completely wrong. was on MOTD apparently. Not that I'd watch that under the circs.

I don't think Spurs or Liverpool have meaningfully challenged for the title during the period you state. Liverpool got closest, but they remained outsiders until they lost their home game with Chelsea in April which basically killed their hopes. Spurs have not really got close at all.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Burney;4176681]

Have I ever suggested that change can't work? I've consistently said that there's no reason in theory that replacing Wenger couldn't improve our chances of winning the league.

Whether or not Pocchetino is better equipped to turn Spurs into title winners than Wenger is to do the same at Arsenal remains to be seen. Just as Wenger has had plenty of time to show that he has the ability, Pocchetino has had very little time at all.

Your tenses are wrong. Wenger showed he had the ability. Given a very different set of circumstances: a two-team league; a limited transfer market and talent pool, he was capable of putting together title-winning sides. It could be argued that, given less favourable circumstances, he has demonstrated that he does not have the ability anymore and that we ought therefore to look for someone who does. 12 years is far longer than most managers get at any club and, given that he set himself the goal of winning leagues by now, you would have to say he has failed on his own terms and that it's time to go.

[Peter]

I don't think Spurs or Liverpool have meaningfully challenged for the title during the period you state. Liverpool got closest, but they remained outsiders until they lost their home game with Chelsea in April which basically killed their hopes. Spurs have not really got close at all.

They were outsiders when they kicked off at home to Chelsea? Despite being in front with three games left and knowing even a draw would keep them ahead??

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=Burney;4176681]

Have I ever suggested that change can't work? I've consistently said that there's no reason in theory that replacing Wenger couldn't improve our chances of winning the league.

Whether or not Pocchetino is better equipped to turn Spurs into title winners than Wenger is to do the same at Arsenal remains to be seen. Just as Wenger has had plenty of time to show that he has what it takes, Pocchetino has had very little time at all. In other words, both have plenty to prove, in different ways.

No, you never said that change couldn't work. But you did say that keeping Wenger was our best chance of building a dynasty.

:clap:

[Monty92]

They were outsiders when they kicked off at home to Chelsea? Despite being in front with three games left and knowing even a draw would keep them ahead??

Ok, fair enough, my memory of that season is a little out. Yes, Liverpool meaningfully challenged. But Spurs didn't.

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=Monty92;4176683]

Your tenses are wrong. Wenger showed he had the ability. Given a very different set of circumstances: a two-team league; a limited transfer market and talent pool, he was capable of putting together title-winning sides. It could be argued that, given less favourable circumstances, he has demonstrated that he does not have the ability anymore and that we ought therefore to look for someone who does. 12 years is far longer than most managers get at any club and, given that he set himself the goal of winning leagues by now, you would have to say he has failed on his own terms and that it's time to go.

And I would add he had an intimate knowledge of French football at a time when French football was having a purple patch and before most clubs had world wide scouting networks.

How many trophies would Wenger have won without Vieira, Henry and Pires? Certainly no league titles, I think.

[Burney]

They were outsiders when they kicked off at home to Chelsea? Despite being in front with three games left and knowing even a draw would keep them ahead??

One of the worst things about recent seasons has been having to be pleased when Chelsea win things rather than Liverpool or Spurs. :-(

[Peter]

Ok, fair enough, my memory of that season is a little out. Yes, Liverpool meaningfully challenged. But Spurs didn't.

I would have been delighted if we had done what Spurs did last season. They went far closer than we have done in a decade.

Meaningful or not, it was pretty impressive.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4176689]

And I would add he had an intimate knowledge of French football at a time when French football was having a purple patch and before most clubs had world wide scouting networks.

How many trophies would Wenger have won without Vieira, Henry and Pires? Certainly no league titles, I think.

I have a lot of sympathy with much of what you say, so dont take this the wrong way; if you ever produce that little list again without including Dennis Bergkamp then I shall be mightily irritated to the point of not wishing to converse with you.

I shall let this first offence pass without further comment.

[Burney]

I would have been delighted if we had done what Spurs did last season. They went far closer than we have done in a decade.

Meaningful or not, it was pretty impressive.

This is the thing: we now have to live in a world where it is necessary even to consider the possibility of Spurs winning the league.

I mean, what the actual fúck is that about? :-(

[World's End Stella]

I would have been delighted if we had done what Spurs did last season. They went far closer than we have done in a decade.

Meaningful or not, it was pretty impressive.

Spurs were 4 points back with 4 games left - that sounds like a challenge to me, I'd certainly take it after the last 10 years

[Peter]

Spurs were 4 points back with 4 games left - that sounds like a challenge to me, I'd certainly take it after the last 10 years

That would be like a dream. Almost close enough to be disappointed when you dont win it.

[Burney]

That would be like a dream. Almost close enough to be disappointed when you dont win it.

Yeah. Remember being close enough to win a league and not doing so? Those were the days. I was young back then. :old:

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4176694]

I have a lot of sympathy with much of what you say, so dont take this the wrong way; if you ever produce that little list again without including Dennis Bergkamp then I shall be mightily irritated to the point of not wishing to converse with you.

I shall let this first offence pass without further comment.

Um, my point was that Wenger was very fortunate to have ended up with those players as he knew them well from his days in French football when they were junior players and he was able to buy them in no small part because other clubs didn't have the scouting networks available to them that would have been needed to discover them. Nowadays he would have a much harder time i.e. Mbappe.

Dennis wasn't relevant because he didn't buy him.

Good thing you never saw this, eh? :-)

http://www.awimb.com/showthread.php?602518-City-have-offered-Sterling-and-money-for-Sanchez&p=4176211#post4176211

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4176699]

Um, my point was that Wenger was very fortunate to have ended up with those players as he knew them well from his days in French football when they were junior players and he was able to buy them in no small part because other clubs didn't have the scouting networks available to them that would have been needed to discover them. Nowadays he would have a much harder time i.e. Mbappe.

Dennis wasn't relevant because he didn't buy him.

Good thing you never saw this, eh? :-)

http://www.awimb.com/showthread.php?602518-City-have-offered-Sterling-and-money-for-Sanchez&p=4176211#post4176211

I remember thinking Chelsea signing Essien was the death-knell for that period when we got all the best young Frogs. He was exactly the sort of player we'd have picked up for tuppence ha'penny a few years earlier.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Peter;4176699]

Um, my point was that Wenger was very fortunate to have ended up with those players as he knew them well from his days in French football when they were junior players and he was able to buy them in no small part because other clubs didn't have the scouting networks available to them that would have been needed to discover them. Nowadays he would have a much harder time i.e. Mbappe.

Dennis wasn't relevant because he didn't buy him.

Good thing you never saw this, eh? :-)

http://www.awimb.com/showthread.php?602518-City-have-offered-Sterling-and-money-for-Sanchez&p=4176211#post4176211


I think I am going to be sick :puke:

[World's End Stella]

[QUOTE=World's End Stella;4176710]


I think I am going to be sick :puke:

:hehe:

And not a single bite, Peter! Even after mentioning Sheringham's name in the same sentence as Dennis'.

Shocking lack of standards on this place and no mistake.

[redgunamo]

Do they still do all that, post Hill Wood?

Sort of, I suppose..

https://www.arsenal.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_16x9/public/images/boardroom_highbury.jpg?itok=p9xVKnYT

https://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/matchday-traditions-in-the-boardroom