Football Focus

[Otta]

Agree, I was not having a dig, I have a lot of respect for Wenger.

But I don't know how you can guarantee that no other manager could have done the same.

[StraferJack]

well guarantee is a bit strong

But if you look at the other "big" names - I doubt they would have been happy with the constraints Wenger worked under. So they would have either not taken the job or left early doors

Only he, who had been so embedeed at the club could have had the backing and the sheer willpower to deliver what he did.

[Otta]

Ah, so we're not talking about the ability to do it, but being willing to. That's quite different.

[maxxi]

I think he earned the backing for the last 500 in the first 500 and agree there are few others who could have seen it through and maintained that top 4 slot. When Arsenal do eventually have to face their 'Moyes Moment' (as I think such future changes may come to be known) they'll have a tough job getting it right.

Might be time soon though.

ETA: I've said it before and I'll say it again - Big Sam has a lot to offer...

[Alan Medic]

I do wonder though if the very good players who left Arsenal would have stayed if there was more investment in the squad? I'm thinking of Cesc, Nasri and RVP. Are there others? More success would bring in more money, but it seems they preferred the balance the books approach rather than the speculate to accumulate approach. There must have been times when they were only two or three players short of a very good team as opposed to a good one.

[StraferJack]

New stadium costs + arrival of Chelsea and city billions

I'm totally happy with the prudent approach arsenal took.

[Jah Lush]

I hate Arsenal. They're a very well run club. They have faith in their manager, who is exceptional. Every season he delivers. They have a massive stadium bought and paid for without slipping down the league. They may not have won anything for a while but every damn season they finish above Spurs and qualify for the Champions League and at the same time play very attractive football. I cannot accuse them of being the boring boring Arsenal of old, which is exactly what they were before Arsene Wenger. I've enormous respect for him as a manager. He's one of the best. I hate his guts. My team, Tottenham Hotspur on the other hand promise so much and every season or two chop and change managers and get nowhere. They nearly always let you down. As a lifelong supporter of Spurs, it's the hope that kills us.

Good performance from the boys tonight though. Another season, another false dawn. Same old same old.

Here's Tom with the weather.

[Mick Mac]

Double post....

[Mick Mac]

Using Spurs as a benchmark you have to agree Arsenal and Wenger have achieved.

However as major London clubs there is perhaps an argument that both should be doing better.

As a very general rule the top clubs in Europe come from the cities that are the financial hubs of those countries, Madrid, Munich, Paris. it's been rare over the last 25 years for London to have a top club. Arsenal have occasionally hit the heights of European finals but not enough in my opinion and Arsene's stadium excuse is running thin. Not that he references that himself, but Spurs have struggled to find the right formula altogether.

[StraferJack]

Again tho. When you have trillionaires taking over Chelsea and city, "normal" clubs can only do so much

Add a fergie man utd into mix and effectively you are playing for fourth each year

I still think the Eduardo leg break a few years ago was main reason we didn't win league that year tho (you can argue we should have anyway)

But given money at our disposal compared to others, I maintain we have overachieved

[Otta]

Good article looking at who was managing in the premier league in 1996 when Wenger came to Arsenal, and has quotes from some of them about Wenger. SAF speaks highly of him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26641963

[titch juicy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Using Spurs as a benchmark you have to agree

> Arsenal and Wenger have achieved.

>

> However as major London clubs there is perhaps an

> argument that both should be doing better.

>

> As a very general rule the top clubs in Europe

> come from the cities that are the financial hubs

> of those countries, Madrid, Munich, Paris. it's

> been rare over the last 25 years for London to

> have a top club. Arsenal have occasionally hit the

> heights of European finals but not enough in my

> opinion and Arsene's stadium excuse is running

> thin. Not that he references that himself, but

> Spurs have struggled to find the right formula

> altogether.

When have Paris had a top european club? One appearance in the quarter finals of the CL for PSG is exactly the same as Tottenham in recent years

[StraferJack]

and isn't Frankfurt the financial hub of Germany?

[Ladygooner]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hate Arsenal. They're a very well run club. They

> have faith in their manager, who is exceptional.

> Every season he delivers. They have a massive

> stadium bought and paid for without slipping down

> the league. They may not have won anything for a

> while but every damn season they finish above

> Spurs and qualify for the Champions League and at

> the same time play very attractive football. I

> cannot accuse them of being the boring boring

> Arsenal of old, which is exactly what they were

> before Arsene Wenger. I've enormous respect for

> him as a manager. He's one of the best. I hate his

> guts. My team, Tottenham Hotspur on the other hand

> promise so much and every season or two chop and

> change managers and get nowhere. They nearly

> always let you down. As a lifelong supporter of

> Spurs, it's the hope that kills us.

>

> Good performance from the boys tonight though.

> Another season, another false dawn. Same old same

> old.

>

> Here's Tom with the weather.

Wow - well put Jah - are you sure we can't tempt you over?!

[Jah Lush]

Not in a million years M'Lady.

[????]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Using Spurs as a benchmark you have to agree

> Arsenal and Wenger have achieved.

>

> However as major London clubs there is perhaps an

> argument that both should be doing better.

>

> As a very general rule the top clubs in Europe

> come from the cities that are the financial hubs

> of those countries, Madrid, Munich, Paris. it's

> been rare over the last 25 years for London to

> have a top club. Arsenal have occasionally hit the

> heights of European finals but not enough in my

> opinion and Arsene's stadium excuse is running

> thin. Not that he references that himself, but

> Spurs have struggled to find the right formula

> altogether.

How many flaws in this Mick? - As SJ points out Frankfurts is Germany's financial huub and last time I looked Barcelona had a pretty good record over the past 25 years (see also teams from Milan/Turin).

The comparison is poor too becuase of the depth of Football in the UK and the competition within London - 11 teams in Premiership or Football League

Traditionally and historically snd supportwies, London's biggest 4 were Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham and West Ham, with the north London duo being the biggest, The last 20 odd years has meant that Chelsea are now bigger than Spurs I guess. But these 4 would is size/support size be in the top 10 of any other league in Europe.

the second tier of London teams - QPR, Crystal Palace, Fulham (and possibly Charlton) would all be pretty big clubs and top tier in most european leagues.

Brentford, Orient are as big as most teams in Serie B too.

Only Millwall are useless Minnows.

If there were just two teams in London - say London Utd and London city, I suspect that they would be the biggest clubs in the world.

[red devil]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Using Spurs as a benchmark you have to agree

> Arsenal and Wenger have achieved.

>

> However as major London clubs there is perhaps an

> argument that both should be doing better.

>

> As a very general rule the top clubs in Europe

> come from the cities that are the financial hubs

> of those countries, Madrid, Munich, Paris. it's

> been rare over the last 25 years for London to

> have a top club. Arsenal have occasionally hit the

> heights of European finals but not enough in my

> opinion and Arsene's stadium excuse is running

> thin. Not that he references that himself, but

> Spurs have struggled to find the right formula

> altogether.

*Charges in with pitch fork...*

Think it might be a lot longer than 25 years Mick. I can't think of a London club that has really dominated the league like Utd and Liverpool have.

For me the big negative against Wenger is that he never produced a team that won back to back titles like the great teams do. Even the Invincibles failed in that respect, giving the air of one hit wonders.

I agree with SJ that City and Chelsea's finances have skewed the market, but Wenger always said that there was big money available to spend on players, but he chose not to. Maybe Wenger was being astute by not spending big, because once you do the pressure to deliver increases. City and especially Chelsea have had a high turnover of managers because expectations to deliver trophies has grown the more they've spent...

Nice try ????...Manchester > London :)

[StraferJack]

"or me the big negative against Wenger is that he never produced a team that won back to back titles like the great teams do. Even the Invincibles failed in that respect, giving the air of one hit wonders. "

a lot to agree with there - I would say dissapointing rather than big negative. I would also say that he never went out of his way to clobber a team like Man Utd did that day and that was a positive

[El Pibe]

to be fair, i think Mick meant financial with a small f rather than with a big one, ie lots of people and wealth, rather than there happens to be a bit full of nobs waving bits of paper around and losing other people's money.

Which would make Milan, Turin and Barcelona very much qualify, see also Munich. Of course Paris is the exception that proves...etc...

Given the relative size of cities London do ok, especially given that it's spreading its support over a dozen or so teams.

Paris, with roughly the same metropolitan population and fewer teams is woefully inadequate by that measure.

Manchester certainly punches above its weight, but then City were shit for a long time, funny what a few billion in the bank can and a nice stadium payed for by the tax payer *ahem ahem* can do.

[StraferJack]

although the Parisian 'burbs did produce a team that dominated world football for about 3-4 years not so long ago

[red devil]

*Faints...*

Manchester United v Bayern Munich

Paris St-Germain v Chelsea

Real Madrid v Borussia Dortmund

Barcelona v Atletico Madrid

[????]

...you'd have lost to all the others too RD :)

[Otta]

Ouch, away for the second leg.

[Otta]

Actually, given recent form (Mid week aside), being away for the second leg might not be too bad a thing...

[red devil]

True dat, but would've fancied our chances against AM, PSG, BD or CFC, now it's simply a case of damage limitation...