Can you pitiful old Wengerphiles consider when you talk of his record and successes

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

that the bumbling old tit had twenty fúckin years to do it in.

[Sir C]

that the bumbling old tit had twenty fúckin years to do it in.

He arrived in October and by January we were top of the league. We finished 3rd that season. The nest season, his first full season, we won a double.

That's hardly 20 years, you innumerate pillock.

[Burney]

He arrived in October and by January we were top of the league. We finished 3rd that season. The nest season, his first full season, we won a double.

That's hardly 20 years, you innumerate pillock.

They’re lashing out in all directions, knowing that the knives are being sharpened for their beloved oily Spaniard.

Imagine being so desperate to prop up Emery that you’ll try to denigrate Wenger’s achievements.

Sad. :shakehead:

[Pokster]

They’re lashing out in all directions, knowing that the knives are being sharpened for their beloved oily Spaniard.

Imagine being so desperate to prop up Emery that you’ll try to denigrate Wenger’s achievements.

Sad. :shakehead:

Imagine being such a bitter spiteful old misery guts that you start slagging off the new manager only a few weeks into his job, and then spouting rubbish at every opportunity to put him down.

[Rich]

Imagine being such a bitter spiteful old misery guts that you start slagging off the new manager only a few weeks into his job, and then spouting rubbish at every opportunity to put him down.

He is clearly proven that he’s no better than Arsene and we are awful to watch now. I’d bring Arsene home in a heartbeat.

[IUFG]

He is clearly proven that he’s no better than Arsene and we are awful to watch now. I’d bring Arsene home in a heartbeat.

Yes, but you also think there is a formation allowed with 12 players in it.

Back to noncing at kiddie discos, r...

[Burney]

He is clearly proven that he’s no better than Arsene and we are awful to watch now. I’d bring Arsene home in a heartbeat.

:nod: You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone, r. You don't miss your water, 'til your well runs dry.

[Pokster]

He is clearly proven that he’s no better than Arsene and we are awful to watch now. I’d bring Arsene home in a heartbeat.

Apart from the more points than last season and a better record over his first 50 games... yep, proven he is no better.

And you could day that as we are no worse than last season (and we seemed to be on a downward spiral) he has done much better than we are likely to have done if AW had remained

[redgunamo]

Right. Precisely. Excellent management. He looked at the players he actually had and made the best of them. None of this homo vision-thing shít.

Emery took over as though he'd never heard of the Arsenal before, so he really does need to shape up. But quick.



He arrived in October and by January we were top of the league. We finished 3rd that season. The nest season, his first full season, we won a double.

That's hardly 20 years, you innumerate pillock.

[Burney]

Apart from the more points than last season and a better record over his first 50 games... yep, proven he is no better.

And you could day that as we are no worse than last season (and we seemed to be on a downward spiral) he has done much better than we are likely to have done if AW had remained

He doesn't have a better record over his first 50 games. He won more games - not the same thing. You really should stop trying to cling to that statistic, as it's making you look silly.

And getting more points than AW's worst ever season for us in which he found out he was leaving about half way through isn't the achievement you seem to think it is, either.

[redgunamo]

"... Cos we're living in a world where men don't cry." :music:

:rubchin:




:nod: You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone, r. You don't miss your water, 'til your well runs dry.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

He arrived in October and by January we were top of the league. We finished 3rd that season. The nest season, his first full season, we won a double.

That's hardly 20 years, you innumerate pillock.

Eat my gnarly old nutsack you dirty burned out coke ho. You drone on, interminably, about all of the old tits successes of his entire tenure then shift the narrative to his first full season when it suits, conveniently forgetting that his title rate was actually not all that.

Clough even managed to win two consecutive European titles! (is what I meant to say :-D )

[redgunamo]

In fairness, that's what your sort did to poor old George Graham.

Or is that actually the point :rubchin:



They’re lashing out in all directions, knowing that the knives are being sharpened for their beloved oily Spaniard.

Imagine being so desperate to prop up Emery that you’ll try to denigrate Wenger’s achievements.

Sad. :shakehead:

[redgunamo]

No, he didn't actually. Nottingham Forest hold the distinction of being the only club to have won more European Cups (two) than domestic top flight league titles (one) #anaconda



Eat my gnarly old nutsack you dirty burned out coke ho. You drone on, interminably, about all of the old tits successes of his entire tenure then shift the narrative to his first full season when it suits, conveniently forgetting that his title rate was actually not all that.

Even Clough managed to retain the ****ing thing just once.

[Pokster]

He doesn't have a better record over his first 50 games. He won more games - not the same thing. You really should stop trying to cling to that statistic, as it's making you look silly.

And getting more points than AW's worst ever season for us in which he found out he was leaving about half way through isn't the achievement you seem to think it is, either.

So winning more games isn't a good thing? Strange.

AW left because it was obvious he couldn't motivate the team how he used to, his transfer policy seemed to have gone badly wrong ... we needed soemone to come in and steady the boat, that is what has happened... yet you decided within weeks that you didn't like him and didn't want him. It is you that has looked very silly through all this

[Burney]

In fairness, that's what your sort did to poor old George Graham.

Or is that actually the point :rubchin:

Not I. I see GG as being of his time and am very grateful for him dragging us out of the Neill/Howe era of rank mediocrity. I think it's a shame that getting our arses handed to us by Benfica made him shít himself and turn us into a long ball team, but I certainly don't denigrate him. That's Sir C you're thinking of.

[Burney]

So winning more games isn't a good thing? Strange.

AW left because it was obvious he couldn't motivate the team how he used to, his transfer policy seemed to have gone badly wrong ... we needed soemone to come in and steady the boat, that is what has happened... yet you decided within weeks that you didn't like him and didn't want him. It is you that has looked very silly through all this

Well when simply winning more games leaves you heading for (probably) sixth in the table rather than the third AW achieved in 96/97, followed by winning the double in his first season, no, it's not a particularly good thing. That seems pretty obvious to me.

And if you think it's 'obvious' AW could no longer motivate his team because we ended up sixth and going out in the semi of the EL, what are you going to say if that happens in Emery's first season? Surely the same applies? After all, have you seen our results and performances recently? :yikes:

The other thing you don't seem to have considered is that you are cherry-picking comparative stats from right at the start of AW's tenure and from the very end of it, purely to try and make this gobshíte look half-decent.

Surely you can see how desperate that looks, p? :hehe:

[Pokster]

Well when simply winning more games leaves you heading for (probably) sixth in the table rather than the third AW achieved in 96/97, followed by winning the double in his first season, no, it's not a particularly good thing. That seems pretty obvious to me.

And if you think it's 'obvious' AW could no longer motivate his team because we ended up sixth and going out in the semi of the EL, what are you going to say if that happens in Emery's first season? Surely the same applies? After all, have you seen our results and performances recently? :yikes:

The other thing you don't seem to have considered is that you are cherry-picking comparative stats from right at the start of AW's tenure and from the very end of it, purely to try and make this gobshíte look half-decent.

Surely you can see how desperate that looks, p? :hehe:

While you are going on that he won the league in his first full season...... no, nothing like what you have accused me of doing.

UE is working with nearly all the same players AW had, if you aren't prepared to give him time then what is the point of having any manager for more than 12 months? What do you think he could have or should have achieved in his first full season?

We are in a better position that we were 12 months ago, I call that progress

[redgunamo]

fpwm. Hence "your sort" rather than "you".

Anyway, BC posts his half-century. How and where do you rank him?



Not I. I see GG as being of his time and am very grateful for him dragging us out of the Neill/Howe era of rank mediocrity. I think it's a shame that getting our arses handed to us by Benfica made him shít himself and turn us into a long ball team, but I certainly don't denigrate him. That's Sir C you're thinking of.

[Burney]

fpwm. Hence "your sort" rather than "you".

Anyway, BC posts his half-century. How and where do you rank him?

A marvellous batsman. On his day as good as any I've seen. Incredible eye, footwork and reflexes that made up for slight gaps in his technique. As he got older, however, those gaps became more exposed, which is why he only averages 52 rather than the 60+ he looked almost certain to achieve as a younger man.

EDIT: Oh, and batspeed. Never seen a guy generate greater batspeed. Combination of that massive pick-up and incredibly fast hands.

[WES]

He doesn't have a better record over his first 50 games. He won more games - not the same thing. You really should stop trying to cling to that statistic, as it's making you look silly.

And getting more points than AW's worst ever season for us in which he found out he was leaving about half way through isn't the achievement you seem to think it is, either.

The official announcement re Wenger leaving was on April 20th, which is rather more than half way through the season. Or are you implying that the players had downed tools based on rumours of Wenger leaving?

BTW, league position is a poor metric when analysing how the team performed, a better one is the points behind the champions. Wenger's last 5 season; clearly no sign of decline there:

2014 - 4th and 6 points back
2015 - 3rd and 12 points back
2016 - 2nd and 10 points back
2017 - 5th and 18 points back
2018 - 6th and 37 points back

[Burney]

BTW, league position is a poor metric when analysing how the team performed

That's funny. Yesterday you were saying it was the second most important criterion after trophies as regarded what constituted a successful season. :rubchin:

And how does the fact that other teams may be significantly better constitute a meaningful metric of performance in a financially-doped league, by the way? Are the performance levels of our teams somehow diminished by the fact that City or Chelsea can buy most of the best players? Nonsense. You've just finally found a statistic that supports your argument and you're trying desperately to fit reality around it.

You're making it up as you go along! :hehe:

[IUFG]

That's funny. Yesterday you were saying it was the second most important criterion after trophies as regarded what constituted a successful season. :rubchin:

And how does the fact that other teams may be significantly better constitute a meaningful metric of performance in a financially-doped league, by the way? Are the performance levels of our teams somehow diminished by the fact that City or Chelsea can buy most of the best players? Nonsense. You've just finally found a statistic that supports your argument and you're trying desperately to fit reality around it.

You're making it up as you go along! :hehe:


If only we were able to measure football performance by objectivite means, like goals, match scores, wins, draws, losses, points and league position, for example and not rely on subjective terms such as "better", "worse" or "different".

As we know, we can only beat, lose or draw to the teams put in front of us, etc

[Burney]

If only we were able to measure football performance by objectivite means, like goals, match scores, wins, draws, losses, points and league position, for example and not rely on subjective terms such as "better", "worse" or "different".

As we know, we can only beat, lose or draw to the teams put in front of us, etc

We can. It's called league position. But WES doesn't like that as it doesn't support his 'long-term decline' argument, so he's made up a different one.

[IUFG]

We can. It's called league position. But WES doesn't like that as it doesn't support his 'long-term decline' argument, so he's made up a different one.

Can we all agree there was a decline towards the end of AW's tenure, then? :shrug:

[Burney]

Can we all agree there was a decline towards the end of AW's tenure, then? :shrug:

I agreed that the last two league positions were poor, but we did actually win the cup in his penultimate season (which, according to WES's criteria, made the season a success). Given which we appear to have sacked him on the basis of last season's performance alone.

[WES]

That's funny. Yesterday you were saying it was the second most important criterion after trophies as regarded what constituted a successful season. :rubchin:

And how does the fact that other teams may be significantly better constitute a meaningful metric of performance in a financially-doped league, by the way? Are the performance levels of our teams somehow diminished by the fact that City or Chelsea can buy most of the best players? Nonsense. You've just finally found a statistic that supports your argument and you're trying desperately to fit reality around it.

You're making it up as you go along! :hehe:

Well, I said 'league placing' without thinking about it too much actually, but when you think about it, points behind makes more sense. Take a look at the numbers, as an example. You would think that 2016 was our best season but in fact we came closer to the title in 2014 and as per my comment, trophies are the most important so how close you came to winning the title is a better metric than league position. If you finished 2nd and 24 points back would you think that the season was more successful than if you went into the last game of the season with a chance to win the title but ended up 3rd?

And we discussed this financial doping nonsense yesterday, seems you didn't understand so I'll point it out again. Leicester won the league. In that same year Chelsea finished 10th. Liverpool and Tottenham have less money than us and finished 12 and 14 points respectively ahead of us last year. The richest club in England finished 6th two years in a row two years back.

It's never been a valid excuse for the sort of decline we see above and that occurred over the last 7 or 8 years of Wenger's tenure.

Oh, and BTW, league position also shows a decline, provided you consider all seasons and not just those that you want to.

[WES]

I agreed that the last two league positions were poor, but we did actually win the cup in his penultimate season (which, according to WES's criteria, made the season a success). Given which we appear to have sacked him on the basis of last season's performance alone.

So your answer is 'no', then. As it was yesterday.

At least you are consistently stupid/biased. :hehe:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

You're making it up as you go along! :hehe:

Which, in fairness to the old moose b, is exactly what you do. You'd both be fúcked without Google.

[WES]

Which, in fairness to the old moose b, is exactly what you do. You'd both be fúcked without Google.

Nope, I work with numbers, it's what I do. Quantitative analysis is an integral part of my job. My analysis is always logical and objective.

Burney likes to talk a load of old sh1te (nothing wrong with that) but when he gets caught in an unjustifiable position he simply deflects and/or talks in circles rather than admit he was wrong (even if he was taking the piss).

Today he's trying to talk his way out of the idea that there was no discernible decline in results under Wenger during his latter years when the evidence - both quantitative and qualitative - clearly indicates this is not true.

Yesterday he was struggling with the difference between 'not impressive' and 'not as impressive'. :hehe: