Approximately 18 months ago I, World's End Stella, went on an extensive youtube

[World's End Stella]

investigation of all the young prospects I had seen mentioned in the media as potentially being available. After extensive analysis (approx. 30min for all of them) I decided that there were two outstanding talents available, these being Leroy Sane and Ousmane Dembele, both of whom were sold that summer for amounts that Arsenal Football Club could have comfortably afforded. Both are now worth close to 100mil (maybe) proving, yet again, that WES knows a good footballer when he sees one, and a ****e one, as well. See Aaron Ramsey as further proof, as if it were needed. Of course, we didn't buy them because we had AOC and Walcott :-|

On the back of today's BBC Gossip column and a recommendation from that Bundesliga watching pervert, SW, I have spent 5 minutes watching Leon Goretzka play football and I can confirm that he is exactly the player we need at Arsenal.

There is therefore no chance whatsoever of us purchasing him, mostly because we have Xhaka and Ramsey :-|

Still, maybe he'll show up at Spurs :cloud9:

[Pokster]

investigation of all the young prospects I had seen mentioned in the media as potentially being available. After extensive analysis (approx. 30min for all of them) I decided that there were two outstanding talents available, these being Leroy Sane and Ousmane Dembele, both of whom were sold that summer for amounts that Arsenal Football Club could have comfortably afforded. Both are now worth close to 100mil (maybe) proving, yet again, that WES knows a good footballer when he sees one, and a ****e one, as well. See Aaron Ramsey as further proof, as if it were needed. Of course, we didn't buy them because we had AOC and Walcott :-|

On the back of today's BBC Gossip column and a recommendation from that Bundesliga watching pervert, SW, I have spent 5 minutes watching Leon Goretzka play football and I can confirm that he is exactly the player we need at Arsenal.

There is therefore no chance whatsoever of us purchasing him, mostly because we have Xhaka and Ramsey :-|

Still, maybe he'll show up at Spurs :cloud9:

Look, we all know you know **** all about football and are a vile driver who would happily cause an accident if you woke in a bad mood.... comes form driving on the LHS in the states at a guess, muddles the brain.

[Peter]

investigation of all the young prospects I had seen mentioned in the media as potentially being available. After extensive analysis (approx. 30min for all of them) I decided that there were two outstanding talents available, these being Leroy Sane and Ousmane Dembele, both of whom were sold that summer for amounts that Arsenal Football Club could have comfortably afforded. Both are now worth close to 100mil (maybe) proving, yet again, that WES knows a good footballer when he sees one, and a ****e one, as well. See Aaron Ramsey as further proof, as if it were needed. Of course, we didn't buy them because we had AOC and Walcott :-|

On the back of today's BBC Gossip column and a recommendation from that Bundesliga watching pervert, SW, I have spent 5 minutes watching Leon Goretzka play football and I can confirm that he is exactly the player we need at Arsenal.

There is therefore no chance whatsoever of us purchasing him, mostly because we have Xhaka and Ramsey :-|

Still, maybe he'll show up at Spurs :cloud9:

Is this the summer that Sane went to City?

Yeah, that purchase would have been a piece of piss wouldn't it.

Anyway, as you say, we had the Ox then. Now we have Iwobi. And even if we didnt, we have an average side with a clueless manager who would ruin any young player he got his hands on.

So it doesnt really matter, does it.

Anyway, the ashes starts tonight....

[Burney]

Is this the summer that Sane went to City?

Yeah, that purchase would have been a piece of piss wouldn't it.

Anyway, as you say, we had the Ox then. Now we have Iwobi. And even if we didnt, we have an average side with a clueless manager who would ruin any young player he got his hands on.

So it doesnt really matter, does it.

Anyway, the ashes starts tonight....

I’ve realised that I’m simply too old now to stay up half the night watching the ashes :-( They shall just have to get on with it without me, I’m afraid.

Also, we’re gonna get gubbed.

[Monty92]

Is this the summer that Sane went to City?

Yeah, that purchase would have been a piece of piss wouldn't it.

Anyway, as you say, we had the Ox then. Now we have Iwobi. And even if we didnt, we have an average side with a clueless manager who would ruin any young player he got his hands on.

So it doesnt really matter, does it.

Anyway, the ashes starts tonight....

I don't understand what you mean. WES keeps telling us that there is absolutely no disparity between ours and City's ability to sign players :shrug:

[Luis Anaconda]

investigation of all the young prospects I had seen mentioned in the media as potentially being available. After extensive analysis (approx. 30min for all of them) I decided that there were two outstanding talents available, these being Leroy Sane and Ousmane Dembele, both of whom were sold that summer for amounts that Arsenal Football Club could have comfortably afforded. Both are now worth close to 100mil (maybe) proving, yet again, that WES knows a good footballer when he sees one, and a ****e one, as well. See Aaron Ramsey as further proof, as if it were needed. Of course, we didn't buy them because we had AOC and Walcott :-|

On the back of today's BBC Gossip column and a recommendation from that Bundesliga watching pervert, SW, I have spent 5 minutes watching Leon Goretzka play football and I can confirm that he is exactly the player we need at Arsenal.

There is therefore no chance whatsoever of us purchasing him, mostly because we have Xhaka and Ramsey :-|

Still, maybe he'll show up at Spurs :cloud9:

:hehe:In a self-****ing up there with the time you gave a detailed appraisal of everything Aaron did wrong in a game that he didn't even play in, that line is something special. Dembélé maybe worth a 100 million? He signed for Barcelona in a deal that will eventually be worth 130million so yes well done in assessing his value

[Peter]

I don't understand what you mean. WES keeps telling us that there is absolutely no disparity between ours and City's ability to sign players :shrug:

Nobody is going to join us over City. Certainly not now.

[Peter]

:hehe:In a self-****ing up there with the time you gave a detailed appraisal of everything Aaron did wrong in a game that he didn't even play in, that line is something special. Dembélé maybe worth a 100 million? He signed for Barcelona in a deal that will eventually be worth 130million so yes well done in assessing his value

So he was available then?

****ing Wenger :banghead::banghead:

[Peter]

I’ve realised that I’m simply too old now to stay up half the night watching the ashes :-( They shall just have to get on with it without me, I’m afraid.

Also, we’re gonna get gubbed.

I normally go to bed at around midnight so I think I will manage to hang on for the first half an hour tonight. That should be long enough to have the result confirmed..... :eek:

[World's End Stella]

I don't understand what you mean. WES keeps telling us that there is absolutely no disparity between ours and City's ability to sign players :shrug:

In fact, I have never said this. I have said that City's ability to sign players that we cannot does not excuse our lack of signings nor our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis.

[Luis Anaconda]

I’ve realised that I’m simply too old now to stay up half the night watching the ashes :-( They shall just have to get on with it without me, I’m afraid.

Also, we’re gonna get gubbed.

Half their batting line-up is injured though

[Peter]

In fact, I have never said this. I have said that City's ability to sign players that we cannot does not excuse our lack of signings nor our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis.

Who is this Leon whatshisname chap then? why is he perfect for us?

[World's End Stella]

Is this the summer that Sane went to City?

Yeah, that purchase would have been a piece of piss wouldn't it.

Anyway, as you say, we had the Ox then. Now we have Iwobi. And even if we didnt, we have an average side with a clueless manager who would ruin any young player he got his hands on.

So it doesnt really matter, does it.

Anyway, the ashes starts tonight....

And the French international Ousmane Dembele who went to Dortmund that summer? Do you think that Arsenal with their renowned French manager and their financial power might have been able to sign him? Hmmm?

The rest of your post I quite like. :-)

[Peter]

Half their batting line-up is injured though

Its our batting that is the concern. I dont like the sound of their bowling attack at all. Pace, bounce, etc. **** that for a laugh....

[Monty92]

In fact, I have never said this. I have said that City's ability to sign players that we cannot does not excuse our lack of signings nor our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis.

Can you name any other clubs that have weaker purchasing power than City that have challenged for the league or CL on a reasonably consistent basis?

[Peter]

And the French international Ousmane Dembele who went to Dortmund that summer? Do you think that Arsenal with their renowned French manager and their financial power might have been able to sign him? Hmmm?

The rest of your post I quite like. :-)

We were busy almost signing the kid at Monaco.

[World's End Stella]

Who is this Leon whatshisname chap then? why is he perfect for us?

Box to box midfielder to use a cliché, loads of talent from what I saw. Put him next to someone like Kante or Matic and you would have the perfect 4231 midfield two.

I suggest youtube, Peter.

[Peter]

Can you name any other clubs that have weaker purchasing power than City that have challenged for the league or CL on a reasonably consistent basis?

Everyone has weaker purchasing power than City. So, I will give you Chelsea as an answer. Give me two years and I will probably add Spurs as well.

[Peter]

Box to box midfielder to use a cliché, loads of talent from what I saw. Put him next to someone like Kante or Matic and you would have the perfect 4231 midfield two.

I suggest youtube, Peter.

So we would just need a Magic or a Kante and we would be all set. I assume this chap is going to cost upwards of 50-60 million?

By the time they are on youtube it is too late.

[World's End Stella]

I’ve realised that I’m simply too old now to stay up half the night watching the ashes :-( They shall just have to get on with it without me, I’m afraid.

Also, we’re gonna get gubbed.

For those of us who are relative novices to watching the Ashes, what are the timings? How late do I have to stay up to watch the first 10 overs or so and how early do I have to get up to watch the last 10?

[World's End Stella]

Look, we all know you know **** all about football and are a vile driver who would happily cause an accident if you woke in a bad mood.... comes form driving on the LHS in the states at a guess, muddles the brain.

Pssst - before anyone notices you might want to change that. They drive on the RHS in the States, it's England that drive on the LHS.

:thumbup:

[redgunamo]

By the time they are on youtube it is too late.

Right. You need to scout them on FIFA.

[Ash]

In fact, I have never said this. I have said that City's ability to sign players that we cannot does not excuse our lack of signings nor our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis.

So we should regularly be as good as a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position. By us I mean Arsenal not Spurs.

You sound like the kind of person who doesn't use their indicator and then laughs at the people it inconveniences and endangers.

[Sir C]

Everyone has weaker purchasing power than City. So, I will give you Chelsea as an answer. Give me two years and I will probably add Spurs as well.

Wait, in two years you will contend that Spurs have 'challenged for the league or CL on a reasnoably consisitent basis'?

That doesn't make any sense, since they won't have.

[redgunamo]

Can you name any other clubs that have weaker purchasing power than City that have challenged for the league or CL on a reasonably consistent basis?

The money-making side of things has been very good; it's our actual football that's not been good enough.

[Luis Anaconda]

For those of us who are relative novices to watching the Ashes, what are the timings? How late do I have to stay up to watch the first 10 overs or so and how early do I have to get up to watch the last 10?

Midnight start in the UK - 1am here :( Should go on til about 7.30ish but gets dark quickly in Queensland plus rain scheduled for the afternoon. I've taken Friday off so I can sit in the pub all night and watch day 2 :)

[World's End Stella]

Everyone has weaker purchasing power than City. So, I will give you Chelsea as an answer. Give me two years and I will probably add Spurs as well.

It's also a stupid, loaded question, precisely the sort that Monty - with his Wenger blankie wrapped around his shoulders - is likely to ask.

If Leicester can win the league, and Liverpool can come within touching distance, then Arsenal should be able to challenge consistently. His question also ignores how much Arsenal could spend if we had a manager capable of and willing to do it. I point to this past summer's transfer window as yet another example.

[redgunamo]

So we should regularly be as good as a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position. By us I mean Arsenal not Spurs.

You sound like the kind of person who doesn't use their indicator and then laughs at the people it inconveniences and endangers.

Yes, if you ignore the part of the mission statement about improving players. You know, making stars rather than buying them :-\

[Luis Anaconda]

Wait, in two years you will contend that Spurs have 'challenged for the league or CL on a reasnoably consisitent basis'?

That doesn't make any sense, since they won't have.
But but but - they managed to match what Hannover and Stuttgart have done in recent weeks and beat European powerhouse Dortmund - they is the bestest, sir c

[Sir C]

But but but - they managed to match what Hannover and Stuttgart have done in recent weeks and beat European powerhouse Dortmund - they is the bestest, sir c

An amazing result, to be sure. I expect that's why they hammered us at home at the weekend, is it?

Oh.

[Luis Anaconda]

An amazing result, to be sure. I expect that's why they hammered us at home at the weekend, is it?

Oh.

:nod: Amazing how Kane and Alli were poor at the weekend because they weren't match fit but were sensational last night - those three days must have been interesting

[World's End Stella]

So we should regularly be as good as a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position.

No, I did not say this.

Although you could make an argument that had we ditched Wenger when we should have that we had a very good chance at Guardiola and we might very well be just as good as City or anyone else right now. Sadly, we'll never know as the one thing Arsenal haven't had for many years and won't have until Wenger leaves is hope.

[Pokster]

Pssst - before anyone notices you might want to change that. They drive on the RHS in the States, it's England that drive on the LHS.

:thumbup:

Notice you picked up on that but didn't bother to correct that you know f all about football... from that I take it you are now admitting that fact :judge: Guilty as charged

[Peter]

An amazing result, to be sure. I expect that's why they hammered us at home at the weekend, is it?

Oh.

They have challenged for the title in the last two seasons (even if not entirely convincingly). I think they will challenge for it again and not win it over the next two years. Hence the my previous post.

Clearly, if they don't then I wont make the claim. I think I was fairly clear on that initially.

Obviously they are still **** and ****s, whatever they do.

[Peter]

Notice you picked up on that but didn't bother to correct that you know f all about football... from that I take it you are now admitting that fact :judge: Guilty as charged

So even a guy who knows **** all about football can spot players that we are missing?

Oh dear.

[Sir C]

They have challenged for the title in the last two seasons (even if not entirely convincingly). I think they will challenge for it again and not win it over the next two years. Hence the my previous post.

Clearly, if they don't then I wont make the claim. I think I was fairly clear on that initially.

Obviously they are still **** and ****s, whatever they do.

Two seasons ago they finished below us, so we must have been closer to challenging for the title than them :shrug:

[Pokster]

So even a guy who knows **** all about football can spot players that we are missing?

Oh dear.

He "spotted" them by looking at names we were linked with on gossip pages, i wouldn't exactly say that makes him a possible scout

[Luis Anaconda]

Its our batting that is the concern. I dont like the sound of their bowling attack at all. Pace, bounce, etc. **** that for a laugh....

Inexperienced (in Cummins case) and injury prone (all three pacemen with scant back up). Please don't believe the hype, P. As Mike Atherton pointed out when commenting on the Australian's assertion that this was Australia's best Ashes bowling attack ever (yes, really) - combined their three pacemen have 605 fewer test wickets than Broad and Anderson

[Peter]

No, I did not say this.

Although you could make an argument that had we ditched Wenger when we should have that we had a very good chance at Guardiola and we might very well be just as good as City or anyone else right now. Sadly, we'll never know as the one thing Arsenal haven't had for many years and won't have until Wenger leaves is hope.

Isn't it enough to say that we should consistently perform better than we do?

[Monty92]

They have challenged for the title in the last two seasons (even if not entirely convincingly). I think they will challenge for it again and not win it over the next two years. Hence the my previous post.

Clearly, if they don't then I wont make the claim. I think I was fairly clear on that initially.

Obviously they are still **** and ****s, whatever they do.

Saying you think they will challenge but won't win it is a total oxymoron. If you think they'll challenge, by definition it means you think there's no reason why they can't win it.

[Peter]

Inexperienced (in Cummins case) and injury prone (all three pacemen with scant back up). Please don't believe the hype, P. As Mike Atherton pointed out when commenting on the Australian's assertion that this was Australia's best Ashes bowling attack ever (yes, really) - combined their three pacemen have 605 fewer test wickets than Broad and Anderson

But.... there was talk of 90mph and seam movement..... I dont like this.

I cant quite believe some of the **** I have read. Describing a batting line up that, at that point, contained Cook, Root, Bairstow, Moeen and Stokes as the 'worst to ever tour Australia' was utterly ridiculous. Were they not watching cricket in the 90s?

I dont think talent is the issue. Its their ability to hang around all day and turn a 350 into a 500.

[Peter]

Two seasons ago they finished below us, so we must have been closer to challenging for the title than them :shrug:

But you know that isn't true. You were here, you must remember it.

[World's End Stella]

Isn't it enough to say that we should consistently perform better than we do?

Yes, I think that's pretty much what I have said and I fail to see how anyone who is objective and even slightly intelligent can't agree.

If you're one of the ten richest clubs in the world you should be challenging for your domestic league most years, not every year, but most of them. How can anyone not agree with that? :shrug:

[redgunamo]

He "spotted" them by looking at names we were linked with on gossip pages, i wouldn't exactly say that makes him a possible scout

It's all the same thing nowadays, even for professionals. After all, they mostly get their information from Google, same as everyone else, before passing it on to Wenger.

Thing is, there's no such thing as an unknown, potential hundred million pound superstar footballer that nobody has ever heard of. And even if there is, everyone on the internets would've already heard of him.

[Peter]

Saying you think they will challenge but won't win it is a total oxymoron. If you think they'll challenge, by definition it means you think there's no reason why they can't win it.

In fact it isn't an oxymoron at all as challenging for something is not the same as winning it. There is no contradiction whatsoever in stating that you think a side will challenge for the title but that somebody else will win it.

You should note that I didnt say they couldn't win it. I said I thought they wouldn't.

[Peter]

Yes, I think that's pretty much what I have said and I fail to see how anyone who is objective and even slightly intelligent can't agree.

If you're one of the ten richest clubs in the world you should be challenging for your domestic league most years, not every year, but most of them. How can anyone not agree with that? :shrug:

The issue is when the nine richer clubs are as catered across each competition you want to challenge for.

We should have won the league, or at least got ****ing close, the year Leicester won it. THat was piss poor. In truth we have not put in a serious title challenge for donkeys years and that isn't good enough.

I wouldn't expect us to be up there every year but by the same token we shouldn't fail to challenge every year.

[Monty92]

But you know that isn't true. You were here, you must remember it.

We were still considered to be in the race that season without 6 or 7 games to go.

[Peter]

We were still considered to be in the race that season without 6 or 7 games to go.

Not by me :)

[Pokster]

Yes, I think that's pretty much what I have said and I fail to see how anyone who is objective and even slightly intelligent can't agree.

If you're one of the ten richest clubs in the world you should be challenging for your domestic league most years, not every year, but most of them. How can anyone not agree with that? :shrug:

Of one of the 10 richest clubs in the world.. how many others are also English?? So I would have thought the ability to challenge must also depend on what the other clubs in your league are also generating money wise?

[Monty92]

In fact it isn't an oxymoron at all as challenging for something is not the same as winning it. There is no contradiction whatsoever in stating that you think a side will challenge for the title but that somebody else will win it.

You should note that I didnt say they couldn't win it. I said I thought they wouldn't.

Only if you have a very confused idea about what "challenging" means. Perhaps you can provide your definition and then I can better help explain why you are wrong :thumbup:

[Sir C]

But you know that isn't true. You were here, you must remember it.

What isn't true?

Did we, or did we not, finish above them? We did finish above them. You contend that they were challenging for the title. Any team finishing above them must also have been challenging for the title, but more successfully than them.

[Monty92]

Not by me :)

Fine, but I didn't particularly feel that Spurs were ever in the race that season either. They always seemed to have too much to do. The same last season, in fact. They were ALWAYS major outsiders.

And I'm pretty sure you'd say the same about us if we'd have had the same end of season, yet because it's spurs you claim they "meaningfully challenged".

The only outlier is Liverpool, who did meaningfully challenge in their Suarez season.

[Peter]

We were still considered to be in the race that season without 6 or 7 games to go.

I believe we were 8 points behind with about 6 or 7 to play, with a trip to City to come. I could be wrong.

[Peter]

Fine, but I didn't particularly feel that Spurs were ever in the race that season either. They always seemed to have too much to do. The same last season, in fact.

And I'm pretty sure you'd say the same about us if we'd have had the same end of season, yet because it's spurs you claim they "meaningfully challenged".

I would tend to agree. In both seasons they left it too late and had too much to do in the last third of the season. In neither season were they considered anything other than an outside possibility.

However....if they put in a slightly more meaningful challenge in the next two years then they would fit your criteria. That was my point.

And an outside chance of Spurs winning the league is still far too much to bear.

[Rich]

I’ve realised that I’m simply too old now to stay up half the night watching the ashes :-( They shall just have to get on with it without me, I’m afraid.

Also, we’re gonna get gubbed.

Surely you can manage the first hour of play and maybe even the last hour, too?

[Monty92]

I believe we were 8 points behind with about 6 or 7 to play, with a trip to City to come. I could be wrong.

And Spurs were 4 points behind Leicester having played a game more with about 6 or 7 to play, with a trip to Chelsea to come.

You judge us by different standards and I'd like to know why.

[Monty92]

I would tend to agree. In both seasons they left it too late and had too much to do in the last third of the season. In neither season were they considered anything other than an outside possibility.

However....if they put in a slightly more meaningful challenge in the next two years then they would fit your criteria. That was my point.

And an outside chance of Spurs winning the league is still far too much to bear.

No, your point was that they've challenged twice in recent years while we haven't, but are now shifting the goalposts having had the flaws in your argument exposed.

[World's End Stella]

Of one of the 10 richest clubs in the world.. how many others are also English?? So I would have thought the ability to challenge must also depend on what the other clubs in your league are also generating money wise?

True but only to the extent that you fall into Monty's trap of trying to excuse Wenger's performance by believing that money is the only factor. Money helps but as Leicester proved, there are many other factors, many other ways to be successful.

I guess the point really is that if you are one of the ten richest clubs you have enough money that it isn't an excuse.

[World's End Stella]

. Any team finishing above them must also have been challenging for the title, but more successfully than them.

This is untrue, I'm afraid.

With 4 games to go Team A is 12 points behind the league leaders and have been for some time and they finish 12 points behind the champions. Did they challenge for the league? Absolutely not.

Team B is top of the league with 4 games to go but lose their last 4 games and finish third behind Team A on goal difference. Is being top with 4 games to go challenging for the league? Absolutely, yes.

:judge:

[Peter]

No, your point was that they've challenged twice in recent years while we haven't, but are now shifting the goalposts having had the flaws in your argument exposed.

I am not shifting the goalposts. They did leave themselves too much to do but it is rather silly to say they didnt challenge. Our challenge two years ago was faltering badly from March onwards and I dont think anyone genuinely thought, going into April, that we were going to win the league or even come close. Spurs, while being an outside bet, were at least winning games and gathering momentum. At the time, everyone was talking about their title challenge. I cant recall anyone talking about ours going into the last 6 or 7 games. We ended up above them because they collapsed after their title challenge ended at Chelsea.

Last year they did challenge but left it too late. We were nowhere.

I am not really sure where you are going with all this. I am not going to patronise you by explaining the difference between challenging for the title and winning it, even though you seem confused between the two things.

[Peter]

This is untrue, I'm afraid.

With 4 games to go Team A is 12 points behind the league leaders and have been for some time and they finish 12 points behind the champions. Did they challenge for the league? Absolutely not.

Team B is top of the league with 4 games to go but lose their last 4 games and finish third behind Team A on goal difference. Is being top with 4 games to go challenging for the league? Absolutely, yes.

:judge:

An exaggerated version of what actually happened. Or to borrow a phrase from Monty, a 'difference of degrees only'

[World's End Stella]

An exaggerated version of what actually happened. Or to borrow a phrase from Monty, a 'difference of degrees only'

It is a theoretical example of why his theory about challenging for the title or not being correlated to where you finish in the table was inaccurate.

It wasn't related to what happened in any way.

[Peter]

What isn't true?

Did we, or did we not, finish above them? We did finish above them. You contend that they were challenging for the title. Any team finishing above them must also have been challenging for the title, but more successfully than them.

With four games left, Spurs were 5 points behind Leicester. We were ten or eleven points behind and would be mathematically out of it after the next game.

They took 2 points from their last four, while we took 8 and caught them on the last day, on goal difference.

[Monty92]

I am not shifting the goalposts. They did leave themselves too much to do but it is rather silly to say they didnt challenge. Our challenge two years ago was faltering badly from March onwards and I dont think anyone genuinely thought, going into April, that we were going to win the league or even come close. Spurs, while being an outside bet, were at least winning games and gathering momentum. At the time, everyone was talking about their title challenge. I cant recall anyone talking about ours going into the last 6 or 7 games. We ended up above them because they collapsed after their title challenge ended at Chelsea.

Last year they did challenge but left it too late. We were nowhere.

I am not really sure where you are going with all this. I am not going to patronise you by explaining the difference between challenging for the title and winning it, even though you seem confused between the two things.

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester (who had a game in hand). They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their following four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games - exactly the same as Spurs.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged while the other didn't.

[redgunamo]

You judge us by different standards and I'd like to know why.

It's Wenger, isn't it, and His longevity. Given that sort of time, footballistically, people naturally expect much more.

[Peter]

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester. They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their subsequent four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged, and the other didn't.

See above.

[Peter]

Ok, so let's unpack your claims. With seven games to (early April), Spurs drew at Liverpool, effectively leaving them 7 points behind Leicester (who had a game in hand). They then drew 2 and lost 2 of their following four games, ending their title chances mathematically.

With seven games to go, we went to West Ham and drew 3-3. leaving us 9 points behind Leicester. The BBC said this "dealt a blow to our already slim chances of winning the league". We then drew 2 and lost 2 of our subsequent four games - exactly the same as Spurs.

And yet according to you, one of these teams meaningfully challenged while the other didn't.

Just for the record, you are thoroughly wrong here. Spurs won their next two games (including beating United 3-0) and closed the gap to 5 points. At that stage we were ten points behind.

Throughout this conversation, I have never used the term 'meaningfully challenged'. I have referred to Spurs' challenges over two years not being entirely convincing, and to them being very much an outside bet. As much as you would like his to not be the case, I'm afraid it is.

One can argue that their challenge two years ago was not much more convincing than ours. I think perspective is important here as their challenge was far better than anyone expected from them and ours was quite a bit weaker. Around february we looked well placed to mount a serious challenge but our form dipped considerably. Their form continued to improve giving a sense of momentum.

Obviously, this trend continued into the following season where we got progressively worse and they continued to improve.

[Monty92]

See above.

They were 5 points behind and drew at home with West Brom with five games to go. Presumably you think this is where their challenge faltered.

We were 7 points behind and drew with West Ham with 6 games to go.

The difference between your definition of challenging and not challenging at all seems incredibly small.

[Monty92]

Just for the record, you are thoroughly wrong here. Spurs won their next two games (including beating United 3-0) and closed the gap to 5 points. At that stage we were ten points behind.

Throughout this conversation, I have never used the term 'meaningfully challenged'. I have referred to Spurs' challenges over two years not being entirely convincing, and to them being very much an outside bet. As much as you would like his to not be the case, I'm afraid it is.

One can argue that their challenge two years ago was not much more convincing than ours. I think perspective is important here as their challenge was far better than anyone expected from them and ours was quite a bit weaker. Around february we looked well placed to mount a serious challenge but our form dipped considerably. Their form continued to improve giving a sense of momentum.

Obviously, this trend continued into the following season where we got progressively worse and they continued to improve.

You say our form dipped considerably while theirs improved from Feb onwards, yet between the start of Feb and the start of April they'd only amassed five more points than us, which hardly supports your assessment.

[Peter]

They were 5 points behind and drew at home with West Brom with five games to go. Presumably you think this is where their challenge faltered.

We were 7 points behind and drew with West Ham with 6 games to go.

The difference between your definition of challenging and not challenging at all seems incredibly small.

I wasnt going to do this but you have forced me to. This is a post from you on 20 April in that year:

"At this point I think I'd even have Spurs as favourites. I guess our best hope is Chelsea pulling their fingers out at the Bridge but you can easily see them winning their remaining games"

it seems you were quite convinced by them at the time, Monty. Later on in the thread you also say

"7 point gap with five games to go. I dont think we have come that close in a very long time".

You are wrong above, by the way. when they drew with West BRom there were only three games to go.

20 April, 2016. :D

[Peter]

You say our form dipped considerably while theirs improved from Feb onwards, yet between the start of Feb and the start of April they'd only amassed five more points than us, which hardly supports your assessment.

I make that 20 and 11, a difference of 9 points. Which, over the course of that amount of games is actually ****ing massive.

[Pokster]

I wasnt going to do this but you have forced me to. This is a post from you on 20 April in that year:

"At this point I think I'd even have Spurs as favourites. I guess our best hope is Chelsea pulling their fingers out at the Bridge but you can easily see them winning their remaining games"

it seems you were quite convinced by them at the time, Monty. Later on in the thread you also say

"7 point gap with five games to go. I dont think we have come that close in a very long time".

You are wrong above, by the way. when they drew with West BRom there were only three games to go.

20 April, 2016. :D

I would make that game , set and match to Peter

[Monty92]

I wasnt going to do this but you have forced me to. This is a post from you on 20 April in that year:

"At this point I think I'd even have Spurs as favourites. I guess our best hope is Chelsea pulling their fingers out at the Bridge but you can easily see them winning their remaining games"

it seems you were quite convinced by them at the time, Monty. Later on in the thread you also say

"7 point gap with five games to go. I dont think we have come that close in a very long time".

You are wrong above, by the way. when they drew with West BRom there were only three games to go.

20 April, 2016. :D

Oh I've been petrified about them winning the league for both of the seasons under discussion, until they mathematically couldn't.

I was also petrified about not winning on Saturday until we entered the last minute of injury time.

We can now look back with clear eyes and what I am contesting is whether there was such a great disparity between our efforts (in particular two years ago) to justify yours and WES's broader conclusions.

[Monty92]

I make that 20 and 11, a difference of 9 points. Which, over the course of that amount of games is actually ****ing massive.

Your numbers are wrong.

[Peter]

Your numbers are wrong.

I just went with start of Feb to start of April, as you said.

[Peter]

Oh I've been petrified about them winning the league for both of the seasons under discussion, until they mathematically couldn't.

I was also petrified about not winning on Saturday until we entered the last minute of injury time.

We can now look back with clear eyes and what I am contesting is whether there was such a great disparity between our efforts (in particular two years ago) to justify yours and WES's broader conclusions.

As I said, perspective matters. At the time they certainly looked capable of winning it. I think favourites is a bit strong :p

[Ash]

Seeing as this thread has degenerated into autistic tedium I might as well join in.


City's ability to sign players that we cannot does not excuse our lack of signings nor our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis.


So we should regularly be as good as a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position.


No, I did not say this.

It was logically implied by you saying that "City's ability to sign players that we cannot ... does not excuse our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis."

To consistently challenge for the league we should be at least very close to the best teams most years, and that means Man City who are, as I said a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position.


Although you could make an argument that had we ditched Wenger when we should have that we had a very good chance at Guardiola and we might very well be just as good as City or anyone else right now. Sadly, we'll never know as the one thing Arsenal haven't had for many years and won't have until Wenger leaves is hope.

Again, in your mind the only difference between the two clubs is that they have a great manager and we have a bad one.

If you'd just said that Veng should have done a bit better in the league at some point or two in recent years then probably no-one would disagree with you. :shrug:

[Luis Anaconda]

Seeing as this thread has degenerated into autistic tedium I might as well join in.







It was logically implied by you saying that "City's ability to sign players that we cannot ... does not excuse our inability to challenge for the league or the CL on a reasonably consistent basis."

To consistently challenge for the league we should be at least very close to the best teams most years, and that means Man City who are, as I said a club who have unlimited power to recruit better players than us in every position.



Again, in your mind the only difference between the two clubs is that they have a great manager and we have a bad one.

If you'd just said that Veng should have done a bit better in the league at some point or two in recent years then probably no-one would disagree with you. :shrug:

I would, just on principle :D

[Tony C]

You guys have completely missed the point...If we couldnt get the Hackman6 deal sorted then we had ZERO chance getting the likes of Leroy Sane.

Laughable that we supposedly bid £92m for Lamar.

Wenger should’ve got Trabelsi, Mexes, Hackman and Eto’o years ago.

[Luis Anaconda]

You guys have completely missed the point...If we couldnt get the Hackman6 deal sorted then we had ZERO chance getting the likes of Leroy Sane.

Laughable that we supposedly bid £92m for Lamar.

Wenger should’ve got Trabelsi, Mexes, Hackman and Eto’o years ago.

All started with getting the wrong Dixon in 88, t

[redgunamo]

All started with getting the wrong Dixon in 88, t

Right.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/1.8211511.1478007940!/image/image.jpg

[Peter]

All started with getting the wrong Dixon in 88, t

I was thinking about Lee the other day. For a **** player he really was ****ing brilliant.

[Burney]

I was thinking about Lee the other day. For a **** player he really was ****ing brilliant.

Everyone was shīt back then, though. There used to be a ripple of applause whenever someone trapped a ball successfully.

[redgunamo]

Saying you think they will challenge but won't win it is a total oxymoron. If you think they'll challenge, by definition it means you think there's no reason why they can't win it.

I'm not sure. After all, Leicester City themselves were widely felt to be putting up a decent challenge, although nobody thought they would actually win it until they actually did.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

If Nigel used his right foot there would be a standing ovation

[Peter]

I'm not sure. After all, Leicester City themselves were widely felt to be putting up a decent challenge, although nobody thought they would actually win it until they actually did.

Right, but it was only once they had won it that we knew they had challenged for it.

[redgunamo]

Right, but it was only once they had won it that we knew they had challenged for it.

:clap: lol.

[Pokster]

If Nigel used his right foot there would be a standing ovation

Derby County 1989

[Luis Anaconda]

Derby County 1989

You mean Wimbledon surely

[redgunamo]

You mean Wimbledon surely

Yes, George quickly knocked that sort of show-boatery out of him.

[Pokster]

You mean Wimbledon surely

sorry yes... and Sheff Wed away in a league cup match (think he played RB in that game)

[World's End Stella]

Again, in your mind the only difference between the two clubs is that they have a great manager and we have a bad one.

If you'd just said that Veng should have done a bit better in the league at some point or two in recent years then probably no-one would disagree with you. :shrug:

Again, this is not true, I never said Wenger is a bad manager. The difference between the two clubs is that they have more money than us (although I don't think that is as meaningful as some people suggest), they have a better manager than we do (although Wenger is still a good manager, I have never said otherwise), they have a culture/structure at their club (like most big clubs) where success is rewarded and failure punished (unlike our club where the manager can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions) and most importantly of all, they have hope.

There is no logical analysis that leads me to believe that Wenger can win the league with his existing methods nor is there any reason to believe he will ever change. It is for this reason that I believe he should go.

Now try and represent what I said correctly, next time. :-)

[Peter]

Again, this is not true, I never said Wenger is a bad manager. The difference between the two clubs is that they have more money than us (although I don't think that is as meaningful as some people suggest), they have a better manager than we do (although Wenger is still a good manager, I have never said otherwise), they have a culture/structure at their club (like most big clubs) where success is rewarded and failure punished (unlike our club where the manager can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions) and most importantly of all, they have hope.

There is no logical analysis that leads me to believe that Wenger can win the league with his existing methods nor is there any reason to believe he will ever change. It is for this reason that I believe he should go.

Now try and represent what I said correctly, next time. :-)

Reading between the lines, you seem to be saying that Ramsey is a useless, welsh **** ;)

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Pokster
Sheff Weds was won with Nigels left foot and the keepers hands

[Pokster]

Pokster
Sheff Weds was won with Nigels left foot and the keepers hands

Cripes I must be getting :old: I was even at the game (getting squashed in the leppings lane end)

[SWv2]

On the back of today's BBC Gossip column and a recommendation from that Bundesliga watching pervert, SW, I have spent 5 minutes watching Leon Goretzka play football and I can confirm that he is exactly the player we need at Arsenal.



Finally I get recognition from my peers.

:cloud9:

Hold on.

[Luis Anaconda]

pokster
sheff weds was won with nigels left foot and the keepers hands
this is so clearly a sodd post it must be you!

[Sir C]

this is so clearly a sodd post it must be you!

:clap: Good work la!

Busted.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

I do impressions
:hide: