Arteta - Over the Hill: Page 4 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Arteta - Over the Hill

y va marquer

Not saying it shouldn't have been qs but I don't agree that whoever we bought would have been a cert to slot in and make the immediate impact that would have prevented the results at Southampton, Liverpool and at home to United.
Given that we played Southampton in January and Liverpool and United in early Feb.

I agree that we should have played Flamini today too, but I don't agree that it would have made a difference to the result having seen the way the players coped with Chelsea's pressing and pace, particularly in the opening stages of the game.

Biggus

y va marquer wrote:
The failure wasn't in January though

January was the final nail in the coffin, even Klaus thought it was unforgivable.

qs! wrote:
I'm pretty sure most people wanted them as their preferred CM partnership given our injury problems. Its not rocket science anyway, they are the only 2 centre mids we have fit.

Exactly.

Gazza M

flameta wouldnt have spared us today. the way we set up it still wouldve been about 3 or 4 nil. doesnt excuse the hairbrained decision to leave flamini out.

Biggus

Well any guesses at theoretical scorelines are pointless.....We only know what did happen.

invisibleman18

Pretty tough playing as a lone midfielder behind 5 attackers to be fair.

Qwiss

y va marquer wrote:
Not saying it shouldn't have been qs but I don't agree that whoever we bought would have been a cert to slot in and make the immediate impact that would have prevented the results at Southampton, Liverpool and at home to United.
Given that we played Southampton in January and Liverpool and United in early Feb.

Nothing is certain with signings but a manager at this level has to take risks. Sometimes you make mistakes but its how many you win vs how many you lose that defines success. Not playing at all is a sure fire way to lose.

y va marquer wrote:
I agree that we should have played Flamini today too, but I don't agree that it would have made a difference to the result having seen the way the players coped with Chelsea's pressing and pace, particularly in the opening stages of the game.

Games ebb and flow. Holding on early is extremely important for us especially. I firmly believe having Flamini in there would have significantly changed the game. Maybe we'd still at lost but I seriously doubt we'd have been done for in 7 minutes. If nothing else he'd have rallied and sorted out some people after the first goal. I don't think its a coincidence that he didn't play against Liverpool either. He's not a world beater but he makes us more solid.

kamikaze

absolutely, we just needed to weather the storm in the initial stages and get a foothold, keep things at 1-0 or even 2-0. we seem to need his leadership on the pitch because no one else really gets it.

y va marquer

qs! wrote:
y va marquer wrote:
I agree that we should have played Flamini today too, but I don't agree that it would have made a difference to the result having seen the way the players coped with Chelsea's pressing and pace, particularly in the opening stages of the game.

Games ebb and flow. Holding on early is extremely important for us especially. I firmly believe having Flamini in there would have significantly changed the game. Maybe we'd still at lost but I seriously doubt we'd have been done for in 7 minutes. If nothing else he'd have rallied and sorted out some people after the first goal. I don't think its a coincidence that he didn't play against Liverpool either. He's not a world beater but he makes us more solid.

He may add a certain amount of solidity, especially against journeymen teams, but against the better teams away from home he doesn't make any game altering difference.
He played in the away tie to City, he played a part yesteday eventually too.
You could say he came to late to do anything but he was put on to stop a rout and he didn't, we continued to concede.
I don't blame him for that and I agree he should have started but I think mentally there's far more wrong with this team when they are out of their comfort zone that the presence of Flamini alone can put right.
Per and Kos had absolute shockers yesterday and against Liverpool, total bottle jobs.

Qwiss

Oh come on he came on yesterday when we were 4-0 down, down to 10 men and with a ramshackle back 4 that included Jenkinson.

The fact of the matter is Ox had a nightmare in midfield. Anyone could have seen that coming against Chelsea.

y va marquer

I didn't see the Ox nightmare as a certainty.
He was awful no doubt but to suggest that a team who as a whole were so horribly nervous, brittle and clueless from kick-off would have been calm and focused if Flamini had started is for me embuing Flamini with powers that he doesn't have.
It misses the point that every single player yesterday was below par and jittery.

dreamlord

To be honest, I don't think Ox contributed to our initial collapse (the 2 goals). I think that was all on the senior members of the team.

Tactics

qs! wrote:
y va marquer wrote:
Not saying it shouldn't have been qs but I don't agree that whoever we bought would have been a cert to slot in and make the immediate impact that would have prevented the results at Southampton, Liverpool and at home to United.
Given that we played Southampton in January and Liverpool and United in early Feb.

Nothing is certain with signings but a manager at this level has to take risks. Sometimes you make mistakes but its how many you win vs how many you lose that defines success. Not playing at all is a sure fire way to lose.

y va marquer wrote:
I agree that we should have played Flamini today too, but I don't agree that it would have made a difference to the result having seen the way the players coped with Chelsea's pressing and pace, particularly in the opening stages of the game.

Games ebb and flow. Holding on early is extremely important for us especially. I firmly believe having Flamini in there would have significantly changed the game. Maybe we'd still at lost but I seriously doubt we'd have been done for in 7 minutes. If nothing else he'd have rallied and sorted out some people after the first goal. I don't think its a coincidence that he didn't play against Liverpool either. He's not a world beater but he makes us more solid.

What could he have said to them that would have sorted out the tactical suicide yesterday?

How did all that shouting and rallying work at City?

Tony Montana

Flamini contributed to the nail in the coffin at City.

Claudius

qs! wrote:
Patters wrote:
Since Ramsey got injured we've lacked the power and drive from midfield. Jack had a few good games in and around early January but he hasn't got anywhere near the running power of Ramsey, and definitely not the strength. Wenger's decision to change from buliding teams of incredible athletes is very strange. We need physical presence in the centre. It might not be a popular thought with football snobs, but rightly or wrongly it remains an important part of English football.

Completely agree. Thats why I don't even like playing Jack deep. Ramsey and a big burly athlete who can play a quick simple pass is what we need.

Conversation should end here. Simples

mak

Flamini is no where near Arteta in any aspect of football. You'd say tackling is Flamini's biggest strength and Arteta's worst attribute, yet Arteta is still better at that.

dreamlord

What good is your tackling ability if you can't get near the ball?

Biggus

Tony Montana wrote:
Flamini contributed to the nail in the coffin at City.

How so Tony, are you talking about the beautiful pass that Ozil played across our box 10m in front of him when he wasn't looking?

evoh

Mikel has no pace or future as a CM at a top club. We need Vidal in the summer but we will end up with nothing.

y va marquer

I took Tactics post and subsequent replies and gave them their own thread.

FrancisJeffersAwfulCareer

He's not good enough and never has been.

A useful squad player is all he should ever have been.

People overrated him technically as well - his first touch is average for the top level and is a big reason why he's so slow to release the ball.

« Previous Page Next Page »