I’d send Willock out.

That would leave Aubameyang, Lacazette, Saka, Martinelli, Willian, Pépé , ESR for 4 positions. Worry a bit about ESR. But hopefully Ceballos can spell him. If we do that, all the remaining kids could leave.

I think Artetas job now that ESR has slotted in so well is to pick his solution to not having ESR. I think playing Saka there and letting one of Pepe, Willian, Nelson play right makes the most sense.

Playing Saka there when ESR is out means Saka never rests. We probably need Ceballos.

Claudius wrote:

Playing Saka there when ESR is out means Saka never rests. We probably need Ceballos.

Not really it just means you don't get to play them together every time ESR starts. The squad has to be rotated. Ceballos doesn't have the tools to play AM in any way similarly to ESR. Maybe you could play him in part of a different type of 3 man midfield if we sign another CM.

Ceballos can't offer what ESR has.

ESR has covered the whole pitch, driven forward with the ball, and constantly been available. While Ceballos is good on the ball, and can play 1-2's, his problem is that he has to slow down the pace of the game so he can get involved. He's too slow to push/catch up to our forwards, and in turn we have to build up more slowly.

I'm with Qwiss, it would have to be Saka for me too.

I think Willock or Nelson are the closest types to replacing Smith-Rowe if we're excluding the chili though, but they're both better off in other positions. Willock has similar off the ball movement which is invaluable but he's not good enough technically to be a playmaker. Nelson is probably the best of the lot technically, but he seems to lack a bit of the drive the other two have to always move the ball forward quickly.

So...
... I think Saka is far and away the best placed player to repeat the ESR role. I just think he needs a rest. So when ESR is resting, Ceballos is the next best option.

I don't think Ceballos is the answer to anything that high up the pitch. Bloke's basically incapable of running ahead of the ball.

Have you watched his U20 games. He was excellent up top. And he played there before Madrid. He has good pitch vision. He’s not KDB clone ESR. But if we want to solve for a number 10 in the 20-30% of games ESR needs a rest, that’s what I would do. That allows us to maximize the number of games where we can field Saka and ESR together.

Yes but it's a bit different playing youth football or being dropped into Real Madrid where everyone around you is a full order of magnitude better than anyone in the opposition in your average game. If anything it was his workrate and good technique that stood out in Spain. I think it'll be a bit like dropping Willian in there. It's just not going to end well.

So you’d rather play Saka there and reduce the number of games we can play Saka and ESR together? Every game Saka plays there is a game Saka is not resting. And then you rest Saka and bring ESR back. What’s the least terrible outcome?

What do you mean reducing the number of games? Saka would start most of the time anyway in the attack, at least for me. I'm saying he could drop down to cover that position if Smith-Rowe needs rest or gets injured, and then you'd have Pepe, Nelson and Martinelli all vying for Saka's spot on the wing (and Willian too, but fuck him, genuinely).

Think what Claude is trying to say is in a 40-50 game season he'd want the majority of games to have Saka right and ESR central with both playing together. 

If Saka is ESR's replacement when he needs a rest, that means that Saka will have to be rested in games where ESR is playing meaning the total number of games they play alongside each other is reduced.

I can see the benefits both ways. On the one hand we are maximising the number of games they play together by resting around the same time results in us having our best team out the majority of the time but this leaves two big holes for the 10-20% of games they miss. On the other hand if they rotate each other we minimize the level drop down when either one is out but we reduce the number of games we have them on the field together.

Regardless both cases require both players remaining fit for the majority of the games otherwise it's all moot anyways.

Woulx we rather have Saka rest in the game where ESR isn't available/is also rested though? Seems like a better idea to spread out the resting of important offensive players than rest all of them at the same time.

Edit: Kind of what Willie says. But yeah, ESR is't exactly known for being available so not holding my breath.

Will: You are talking about a full season though. We don't have 50 games left. There are about 20 in the league and maybe 5-10 in the cups if we're really lucky, and Smith-Rowe hasn't made a start outside the last two weeks so I don't think it'll be too difficult to manage him. It's not like the tank is empty going into the new year.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

Woulx we rather have Saka rest in the game where ESR isn't available/is also rested though? Seems like a better idea to spread out the resting of important offensive players than rest all of them at the same time.

Edit: Kind of what Willie says. But yeah, ESR is't exactly known for being available so not holding my breath.

Honestly I think I'd prefer having our resting spread out over some of the easier fixtures as long as they're available for most of the important games. It minimises our bottom end whilst still keeping our top end playing most of the time.

But I can also see why one would want to top end to be available for the maximum amount of time possible if you can time the missing players to games you feel you can 100% win no matter the team, although that's easier said than done with our recent history.

Klaus wrote:

Will: You are talking about a full season though. We don't have 50 games left. There are about 20 in the league and maybe 5-10 in the cups if we're really lucky, and Smith-Rowe hasn't made a start outside the last two weeks so I don't think it'll be too difficult to manage him. It's not like the tank is empty going into the new year.

Oh yes, I agree. I guess it's more of a discussion with regards to future planning rather than just this season.

Problem is there is talk we are wanting to shift out the likes of Willock and Nelson - if so then they are not an option.

If we fail to sign anyone creative or progressive for either CM or AM then that leaves us with the likes of Martinelli, Nketiah, Willian, Pepe, Xhaka, Luiz, AMN, Cedric, Mari & Runarsson our bench/rotation core.

As such I don't think the 4231 is sustainable at an effective capability without the right signing/s.
Accordingly I'd look to change formation to something we do have the capability to sustain = 442.

Bottom line I can see the priority to shift players out coming back to bite us if we do purge but then fail to add and/or then compromise by a panic buy/loan much the same as seen with Cedric, Mari, Willian, Luiz, Sokratis, Lichtsteiner, Runarsson, Xhaka, Mustafi, Kolasinac.

West Ham sells Haller for 20m to Ajax, about half of they paid for him after just 1+ season. English clubs really like to get fleeced

Wait till we sell Pepe

Qwiss! wrote:

Wait till we sell Pepe

thought the exact same thing. many big 2019 buys are looking funny in the light, and not just at arsenal

most of the biggest transfers are fairly recent and just a by-product of how much money there is in the game, and tbf even i was dubious of all of those signings relative to their price tags, including pepe. back in the day united arguably overpaid for Rooney, Ronaldo, and ferdinand at the time, but time proved those signings to be bargains. sometimes you do have to overpay for potential greatness, and it is a big risk.

turkish journo claiming ozil has signed off on the fener deal

Gazza M wrote:

most of the biggest transfers are fairly recent and just a by-product of how much money there is in the game, and tbf even i was dubious of all of those signings relative to their price tags, including pepe. back in the day united arguably overpaid for Rooney, Ronaldo, and ferdinand at the time, but time proved those signings to be bargains. sometimes you do have to overpay for potential greatness, and it is a big risk.

Yep. Big money signings on average bring much more quality to your squad, but you need to be a club that can afford to make them consistently (or else you need to get lucky). That's how Barca and Real always get ahead, it's how hobo clubs like City and PSG and Chelsea built themselves up in a short few years, etc.

The hit rate is still about one signing in three that turns out really good, which is around what you'd expect from normal transfers too, but when that one signing is a player like Figo or Ronaldo or De Bruyne it's going to transform you. And then you go and sign three new big players over the next year, and you get a Zidane to add to the bunch, and so forth. Rinse and repeat. Liverpool beat the odds a little bit when both van Dijk and Alisson turned out so good for them, whereas we got unlucky with Pepe who has flopped quite badly relative to what was expected of him.

You see the same sort of trend in the next 10 where your Morata and Di Maria’s appear. Point is, it’s a difficult balancing act. While you do need to invest in super quality players to have a robust squad, it seems that clubs have an average record of getting big transfers right. For Arsenal it means that we need to be extra certain about where we are spending our biggest amounts. Does this player fit precisely in the squad plan and have we scouted all the intangibles well? These are all talented players. They’re not failing because they’re shit. Other factors are at play.

we're in a tough spot. take partey for example. that's a signing worth pushing the boat out for, but he's 27 and there's a chance he spends his time at arsenal toiling away with scant reward in a similar fashion to auba, while the club faffs about trying to correct all the mistakes of the last 5 years. we're circling the drain as an elite club and the next wave of recruitment basically has to be statistical anomaly, in that basically every signing has to be right AND our rookie coach has to deploy them correctly. if we go and get the sequels to lacazette, xhaka, and mustafi, say goodbye to another 5 years

Gazza M wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

Wait till we sell Pepe

thought the exact same thing. many big 2019 buys are looking funny in the light, and not just at arsenal

Just look at Hazard. No one was predicting how shit he'd be. Goes to show you never really buy a sure thing unless its someone in the Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, Neymar bracket and even then they come with their own issues which could go either way when you sign them.

Gazza M wrote:

most of the biggest transfers are fairly recent and just a by-product of how much money there is in the game, and tbf even i was dubious of all of those signings relative to their price tags, including pepe. back in the day united arguably overpaid for Rooney, Ronaldo, and ferdinand at the time, but time proved those signings to be bargains. sometimes you do have to overpay for potential greatness, and it is a big risk.

They even paid massive money for Carrick who was never a truly great player but he was the piece they needed at time and they were willing to pay for him. Thats what we need, get the right pieces for the system even if its expensive.

If you look at the Pepe transfer we should never have been spending £70m plus on a player for a manager who didn't really want him. To spend that money he should be a player the manager and board all agree is the right piece for the side. You should also be pretty confident in your manager at that point too as the next manager may not also want him which clearly wasn't the case with Emery.

Qwiss! wrote:

Gazza M wrote:

most of the biggest transfers are fairly recent and just a by-product of how much money there is in the game, and tbf even i was dubious of all of those signings relative to their price tags, including pepe. back in the day united arguably overpaid for Rooney, Ronaldo, and ferdinand at the time, but time proved those signings to be bargains. sometimes you do have to overpay for potential greatness, and it is a big risk.

They even paid massive money for Carrick who was never a truly great player but he was the piece they needed at time and they were willing to pay for him. Thats what we need, get the right pieces for the system even if its expensive.

If you look at the Pepe transfer we should never have been spending £70m plus on a player for a manager who didn't really want him. To spend that money he should be a player the manager and board all agree is the right piece for the side. You should also be pretty confident in your manager at that point too as the next manager may not also want him which clearly wasn't the case with Emery.

All of these things. An expensive lesson 

How much do you think we'd have been with Zaha?

Seems like we did well to avoid Lemar, overpaid for Pepe, but could have had slightly more in Zaha. But ultimately, I don't think signing Zaha instead of Pepe would have saved us from our woes over the last year(s).

Zaha is not an elite player. Anything more than £40m would be mad. Pépé is looking more and more like such a player as well

Fabrizio says that should Mesut go on loan for the rest of the season to Fener, we don't want to pay any of his salary. Seems unlikely.

Claudius wrote:

Zaha is not an elite player. Anything more than £40m would be mad. Pépé is looking more and more like such a player as well

Zaha might've surprised I feel, just like Jack Grealish this year with better players around him. He is much more physical than Pepe is and beats players more easily.  But yeah, his fault for signing a long term contract to screw over his chances from moving to a big club. 

Pepe would've looked better for a team that plays on the counter like Mourinho. He was a monster in those breaks/transition plays at Lille.

goon wrote:

Fabrizio says that should Mesut go on loan for the rest of the season to Fener, we don't want to pay any of his salary. Seems unlikely.

I don't get what there is to hesitate about from the club's point of view. It's not a great deal, but it'll still save us millions and he's not going to be registered anyway so he literally can't play. We should have made sure a deal like that was ready on January 1st.

Hopefully they're just trying to get Fenerbache to pay as much of it as possible.

you do the deals and suffer the pain and embarrassment, but you learn from it. never allow yourself to make those type of mistakes again. if we had gone through this pain last january maybe we don't sign a willian. we keep making the same mistakes over and over signing these unmotivated pensioners.

Claudius wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

They even paid massive money for Carrick who was never a truly great player but he was the piece they needed at time and they were willing to pay for him. Thats what we need, get the right pieces for the system even if its expensive.

If you look at the Pepe transfer we should never have been spending £70m plus on a player for a manager who didn't really want him. To spend that money he should be a player the manager and board all agree is the right piece for the side. You should also be pretty confident in your manager at that point too as the next manager may not also want him which clearly wasn't the case with Emery.

All of these things. An expensive lesson 

But it's an expensive lesson we haven't learned from years of repeating the same errors.

Unlike the Carrick example we have looked to compromise more often than not because of our shit cash flow from our frakking financial model, and because we always leave ourselves 'short' in terms of team/squad building.

Just like we haven't learned about allowing players to eventually leave as free agents = AW first spoke about not doing so after Flamini went to Milan in the summer of '08 ffs.

These current errors are going to cost us on and off the pitch for the next 3 seasons regardless of COVID because it will take our financial model that long to recover based upon our cash flow.

As a final point re not learning lessons and stubbornness/ostrich behaviour, the potential issues re cash flow were highlighted by DD prior to starting the stadium construction in '04, & COVID has stripped away the false security of our revenues.

Anzac wrote:

COVID has stripped away the false security of our revenues.

What do you mean by this?

Tam wrote:

Anzac wrote:

COVID has stripped away the false security of our revenues.

What do you mean by this?

Despite our revenues we have little available cash up front because of the way we have structured our financial model so as to be self sustaining.  Our 'strength'/priority is in using our revenues to convert expenditure into manageable ongoing operating costs at lower annual expenditure than compared to paying higher initial fees.  

Worst case scenario being that the ongoing operating costs become bloated if this becomes your way of conducting business. Without those same revenues you are massively exposed, and this is further complicated in a depressed market both in terms of fees and wages for those very same assets you became bloated for in the first instance.

COVID is possibly our absolute worst case scenario in terms of our financial structure and capability.

how the fuck has Haller gone for so much?