Chilli con carne - Monday 8pm with Arsenal vs Swansea (Sky Sports): Page 21 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Chilli con carne - Monday 8pm with Arsenal vs Swansea (Sky Sports)

Anzac

otfgoon wrote:
Anzac wrote:
My question was as to how they got the ball from their area to ours when we had been attacking with 8+ players in their half?
Was it a similar scenario to the FK given away by Gibbs in the reverse fixture?

Not at all, it was a slow buildup. As I say we had numbers back, no one was out of position.

So if it was a slow build up then why didn't anyone tackle the ball carrier to prevent them taking the ball deep into our final 3rd?
That's the point I was trying to get at - take off Coquelin as ball winner & we're back to being all artists and no artisans.

Qwiss

Both full backs were exposed for the goal. I think if Coq had been on the ball never gets to Montero because he'd have helped Monreal deal with the first cross. It's stabdard Coquelin play. It's also why we need a second Coquelin in the squad.

JazzG

The problem was less Coquelin but more how we suffer when teams sit deep. We have nobody from deep to pass the ball around intelligently enough and know where and when to pass. Cazorla simply isn't good enough in that respect. It is no coincidence his best performances have come when we've had to play more defensively. His worst performances have also come up against teams who sit deeper.

I think this game for me highlights the problem of signing only Schneiderlin in the summer, neither him or Coquelin are ideal unless they're partnered with great passers by them. We're not a defensive team, we don't have the players for it nor the manager. We play on the front foot and need to sign players who can help accommodate that. If we had someone better than Cazorla we wouldn't have needed to take Coquelin off in the first place.

Rex

Personally, I think it is wrong to think of the role Coquelin has and expect a player who helps unlock defenses. For me, that is not at all what he is there for. You get a Reus on the flank instead of Ramsey, and Ramsey in the middle instead of Cazorla, and I think most of the offensive problems we sometimes have with defensive teams go away, even if Coquelin goes for a coffee when we have the ball. If not Reus, then Cavani instead of Giroud.

Diego Costa is obviously better than Giroud, but more than anything it is Hazard in Chelsea's front three who is the difference between us and Chelsea offensively. We need our own Hazard, and Reus would be ideal.

I also see a lot of people saying that had Coquelin been on the pitch we wouldn't have conceded that Swansea goal. It is funny, because quite a few of the same posters think we should get Gundogan in the team instead of Coquelin. I am quite certain that Gundogan is not the guy who would have helped Monreal or Bellerin to prevent either of those two crosses coming in.

est

Missed the game, but from watching the highlights-

How the hell did we manage to lose this?

y va marquer

Depending on how you view it: was an accident, a slow car crash of a freak goal by them and decent chances scorned by us
OR
their defensive set-up was top notch on the night, our attack got crowded, rushed, harried and blocked out of the game, our defence fell asleep and Coquelin wasn't on the pitch to stand guard.

est

Definitely looked like a freak game from the highlights. Can't believe we didn't take any of our chances.

flobaba

est wrote:
Missed the game, but from watching the highlights-

How the hell did we manage to lose this?

Otf and his hopeless match day threads

JazzG

Rex wrote:
I also see a lot of people saying that had Coquelin been on the pitch we wouldn't have conceded that Swansea goal. It is funny, because quite a few of the same posters think we should get Gundogan in the team instead of Coquelin. I am quite certain that Gundogan is not the guy who would have helped Monreal or Bellerin to prevent either of those two crosses coming in.

No but if he had been playing for us maybe we would have taken the lead earlier and then not need to worry about losing to a sucker punch like that. The problem was quite clear on the day, Cazorla + Coquelin's passing not really putting enough pressure on Swansea. IMO the game was ideal to play Ramsey + someone like Gundogan. Swansea were so deep so there was no need to have an out and out ball winner there. We needed someone who was intelligent enough to know when to move the ball right/left and keep them pressed back.

We are a team who plays on the front foot and need the best available to accommodate that. I do agree that having Ramsey on the right wasn't ideal either.

Rex

That's why we need another top class player in the front line, our own Hazard. That way we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we could still look to be defensively responsible by having a player like Coquelin in the team, and we would also have another player to deliver the goods at the other end of the pitch.

It isn't like this is the first time we faced opposition who played like Swansea did. We have had the same dilemma posed to us as a team for years and years; how do we break down a team that is playing very conservatively, and only look to sporadic counter attacks with two or three players? These days, which is something I feel is lost here, we usually DO manage to break the opposition down and score the first goal. However, for a long time the script often was that we dominated the game with sterile possession, created very few chances, and we're sucker punched on the break because we were being defensively naive. I for one would hate for us to go back to that, and I feel taking away the one player, apart from the CBs, who solely thinks in terms of defending out of the equation is a step in that direction. If we had a better front 3 v Swansea, then we would have scored. I just don't get that us not scoring is mainly due to the player whose job it is to protect the back 4.

Anzac

JazzG wrote:
Rex wrote:
I also see a lot of people saying that had Coquelin been on the pitch we wouldn't have conceded that Swansea goal. It is funny, because quite a few of the same posters think we should get Gundogan in the team instead of Coquelin. I am quite certain that Gundogan is not the guy who would have helped Monreal or Bellerin to prevent either of those two crosses coming in.

No but if he had been playing for us maybe we would have taken the lead earlier and then not need to worry about losing to a sucker punch like that. The problem was quite clear on the day, Cazorla + Coquelin's passing not really putting enough pressure on Swansea. IMO the game was ideal to play Ramsey + someone like Gundogan. Swansea were so deep so there was no need to have an out and out ball winner there. We needed someone who was intelligent enough to know when to move the ball right/left and keep them pressed back.

We are a team who plays on the front foot and need the best available to accommodate that. I do agree that having Ramsey on the right wasn't ideal either.

Agreed we did not need a ball winner as our deepest CM, but alternatively the place we needed the ball winner was higher up so as to cause mayhem deep inside their half as Spuds did against us, as our pressing game by our front line on their defence was simply not good.

Anzac

Rex wrote:
That's why we need another top class player in the front line, our own Hazard. That way we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we could still look to be defensively responsible by having a player like Coquelin in the team, and we would also have another player to deliver the goods at the other end of the pitch.

It isn't like this is the first time we faced opposition who played like Swansea did. We have had the same dilemma posed to us as a team for years and years; how do we break down a team that is playing very conservatively, and only look to sporadic counter attacks with two or three players? These days, which is something I feel is lost here, we usually DO manage to break the opposition down and score the first goal. However, for a long time the script often was that we dominated the game with sterile possession, created very few chances, and we're sucker punched on the break because we were being defensively naive. I for one would hate for us to go back to that, and I feel taking away the one player, apart from the CBs, who solely thinks in terms of defending out of the equation is a step in that direction. If we had a better front 3 v Swansea, then we would have scored. I just don't get that us not scoring is mainly due to the player whose job it is to protect the back 4.

We definitely need a genuine 3rd attacking option, and I don't count Rambo as being that option.

The question is does Sanchez address the Hazard question & do we need another similar style of player or someone perhaps who offers something different but also goals?

Rex

We basically need Reus or Cavani. We can get by with one of Giroud and Welbeck/Walcott/Chambo in the front line, but not in both positions. Not if we genuinely want to win shit.

We are exactly one injury to Alexis away from struggling for goals. We are also one injury to Coquelin away from having minimal protection to our back 5 in place as well. To me, it is very obvious that both those positions need filling ahead of anything else.

I hate to use Moron as any sort of example, but there is absolutely no way he would put out a team without Matic/Ramires/Mikel in the middle to give protection to the back 5. The difference is that they have Hazard in the front line. It means that they don't have to over commit players forward, regardless of opposition. They mostly rely on Hazard, Costa, Fabregas, Oscar, Willian and one of their FBs to be enough to win them games. They do this while still maintaining defensive solidity. Costa is a LOT better than Giroud, and they also have Hazard. We have Alexis who is on par with Hazard, but that's it. They have two world class players in their front 3, and we have one. We need one more. Then it matters little what Coquelin does when we have the ball, and that shouldn't be his responsibility anyway IMO.

QuincyAbeyie

Costa has not been a lot better than Giroud this season.

Rex

Costa's 19 in 23 is a lot better than Giroud's 14 in 19. Costa does everything Giroud does, and he also offers a lot more. Despite Giroud having his best season for us, he has still been inferior to Costa, and by a fair margin too.

QuincyAbeyie

He scores about 10-15% more than Giroud. I disagree that he offers a lot more (than Giroud) other than goals. Giroud is much better in the buildup.

flobaba

You might not have noticed Quince, but Rex is not the most objective when it comes to Giroud.

He prefers Welbeck

Rex

See, I really can't be bothered whether you or anyone else agrees with me or not that Costa is a much superior player compared to Giroud. It is what it is.

QuincyAbeyie

You seem to not be pleased with getting reactions to your opinion posted on an online forum.

Rex

It doesn't matter. To most people it is abundantly clear that Diego Costa is a much better player than Olivier Giroud. You speak about him 'only' being 10-15 percent better at scoring. That is a LOT IMO, and the difference between a good and a great player.

Put another way - Costa was sold last summer for £35m, and I am certain more than one club would have been willing to pay that amount of money for him. Giroud on the other hand has never, and will never, have other clubs being prepared to pay anything close to that for him. A blunt point, perhaps, considering deals for Carroll and Sideshow Bob, but still valid in this case.

« Previous Page Next Page »