I thought he started well, was impressed, but there's no denying he got poorer as the game wore on. Had a terrible second half.

And I thought he misjudged the flight of the ball nearly every time in the second half. Kept getting caught under it and taking himself out of the challenge.

He did not, and you are wrong. There!

I also think critisism of Diaby was way OTT. Yes he faded but then so did Podolski and Cazorla while other never had a good first half in the first place. I guess he's just the go to scapegoat now.

Cazorla had a poor second half and was rightly subbed off, but you wouldn't know it by reading here.

Funny enough, while Diaby is heads and shoulders better than Ramsey defensively, he has also had 2 of our best chances of scoring so far. One really good chance in each game.

Gazza M wrote:

well yes. cazorla, lukas, and giroud still have the new car smell, whereas some people were at the end of their tether with diaby years ago.

I can understand that, but his performances should still be assesed with a balanced view.

someone needs to get a lighter and set his hair on fire

otfgoon wrote:

I also think critisism of Diaby was way OTT. Yes he faded but then so did Podolski and Cazorla while other never had a good first half in the first place. I guess he's just the go to scapegoat now.

This. Lets judge him after half a season. He had too many injuries.

Did he fade or was he just crap the whole game? :hmm:

I don't hate Diaby I just don't think it's a great idea to hand him a relatively significant squad role given he's been out for so long and is so (historically) inconsistent. I'd rather be cut-throat and give Aneke a go for example (well actually, I'd rather bring in a new midfielder but I'm trying to be tad more realistic). What has he done to warrant persisting with him?

Bumper Rex wrote:

Funny enough, while Diaby is heads and shoulders better than Ramsey defensively

He's not though. He's an absolute joke of a defensive player. People accuse Gibbs - sometimes rightly - of getting caught too high up the field but where is the midfielder who's supposed to cover for him? Arteta can't do it all on his own. Podolski ran his legs off against Stoke to cover the huge Diaby-sized hole on our left flank.

Podolski literally ran his legs off!? Fuck! How long till he gets them reattached?

Klaus wrote:

Bumper Rex wrote:

Funny enough, while Diaby is heads and shoulders better than Ramsey defensively

He's not though. He's an absolute joke of a defensive player. People accuse Gibbs - sometimes rightly - of getting caught too high up the field but where is the midfielder who's supposed to cover for him? Arteta can't do it all on his own. Podolski ran his legs off against Stoke to cover the huge Diaby-sized hole on our left flank.

I normally have a lot of time for your opinions Klaus, but when it comes to Diaby now and Rosicky last season your judgement just seems way off. No disrespect. Tosser...

I actually agree with Klaus.

I cringe every time I see Diaby try to tackle or dispossess an opponent. His tackling can be incredibly miss timed, while he gives away a lot of fouls trying to get the ball off a player who has his back to him.

He has tried to become more disciplined overall, but it doesn't mean he's there yet. Ramsey is far more accomplished in that regard. Works harder too.

You know, it's funny how we have all those terrific midfielders but A) collapse like a house of cards every time Arteta is out, and B) still can't stop a two-bit team like Stoke from getting from their own penalty area to ours in less than four passes. These guys don't really seem to create, score or assist either. It would be great if someone could point out what it is they actually bring to the team, without resorting to nonsense like "facilitating play" or "being tall".

incredibly harsh to criticise diaby at this point. hasnt played in forever.

Stop hating Klaus.

And stop bumping the thread with nonsense posts.

Diaby is crap defensively. Said against Stoke that while Arteta was trying to defend on his own, Diaby was strolling back leisurely from up the pitch. You can tell someone will defend him to the death when they bring up his "defensive ability". If the guy plays in the team it's for his attacking abilities, because he has no defensive game. His strength might win him a couple of 50-50s, but he has no positional sense, he's lazy, and his tackling is nothing special.

Crazy talk.

Diaby won his share of headers against Stoke and put himself about. Still don't think he's got what it takes to play in that position, his tackling is horrific and his awareness is non-existent.

Ahem Gervais.......

What They Bring to the Team

Arteta: Lies deep, provides defensive cover, accurate short range passing, long-shot ability when struggling to create, free kicks, excellent positioning, keeps us in possession.
Cons: Not enough attempts at more dangerous passing, nor enough passing range in his decision making (he has the ability, but chooses safety first too much). Not a robust physical presence.

Diaby: Provides a physical presence in midfield, well timed late runs, retains possession through close control, can carry the ball forward, provides some defensive work rate, good shot.
Cons: Often stays too long on the ball, tackling technique is sometimes lacking, lacks form and fitness, injured often.

Cazorla: Quick, close control, provides attacking flair, can shoot from any range, creative spark, two-footed, can create space over a short distance, can drop deep to help "facilitate" play in the middle of the park if necessary.
Cons: Little defensive effort, lacks physicality, shoots too often, misplaces ranged passes frequently, lacks understanding with new team mates.

Ramsey: Work rate, creative ideas, shooting technique, physically robust, defensive effort, passing range.
Cons: Execution of ideas, composure, takes too long on the ball, form, confidence, opts to contain at times when he should tackle.

...etc, etc.

Weak links seem to be Diaby and Ramsey by my reasoning. We could really use a Wilshere.

And the thread topic:
Gervais: Dribbling ability, speed, provides width, puts in a defensive effort, provides dangerous cutbacks, wins corners, The Forehead.
Cons: Confidence, shooting technique, composure, combination play is mediocre, The Forehead.
Other: Looks like a spastic voodoo zombie chicken.

...is shit.

LABFMOF. Faith. He'll soon be there.

Faith Labfmof, the Turkish super talent?

Close, but no cigar.

can't remember the last time a player pissed me off as much as gervais does. worst part is that wenger for some absurd reasons seems to rate him. biggest waste of money since jeffers.

Dislike Chamakh more, but Gervinho a very close second.

For some reason Wenger didn't seem to be bothered that he was signing attacking players that had a park-football-level ability to strike a football. Weird.

wenger only signs top top players.

weren't both chamakh and gervinho integral parts of title winning sides in france?

We should sack our French scouts as their track record is trully abysmal. Just compare their choices with Newcastle's. Sagna is the only decent one they have managed to find and that was 5 years ago. I consider Nasri to be a flawed product and in any case they should probably have chosen Ben-Arfa at the time!

Bold Tone wrote:

We should sack our French scouts as their track record is trully abysmal. Just compare their choices with Newcastle's. Sagna is the only decent one they have managed to find and that was 5 years ago.

Koscielny was a great signing. Jury is out on Giroud.

timBO! wrote:

Koscielny was a great signing. Jury is out on Giroud.

You are right but two out of how many?