Has Arteta Truly Turned it Around?: Page 111 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Has Arteta Truly Turned it Around?

jones

Ricky1985 wrote:
jones wrote:
How is it then that Chelsea under Lampard looked as poor as we have and under Tuchel they went up to 4th, got to the FA Cup final and won the CL? It's extremely simplistic to say the players do what they do, players improve all the time at any point in their careers when they get a new coach telling them how to use their specific talents.

We scored 70+ goals under Emery in his first season in the league and some 30 or so goals in the EL on top. We scored 56 and 55 in Arteta's first half and full domestic seasons. There's very little to suggest that this is simply the players' quality at play here, clearly Arteta is A) a safety first manager and B) doesn't know how to coach attacking patterns and instill confidence in the final third.

Tuchel got more effort and application from the players, perhaps the players even suited his tactical methods better than they did Lampard's, but ultimately he has thus far won a cup competition in a season when there was no outstanding team, and scraped 4th by the skin of his teeth (not dissimilar from Arteta's first 6 months here). Let's see what he and Chelsea do next season, though, because I'm far from convinced by him and by them. Even if they have a much stronger squad than we do.

As for Emery, I don't think it's worth a discussion because we won't agree. I see him as a coach that doesn't build anything, whose teams lack identity, and more than that, I think we were dreadful under him for the majority of the time he was here. I don't care what points he managed or how many goals his team scored, and I see any relative success he did have here as his benefitting from the squad responding to the mere fact that he wasn't named Arsene. I'd give up on Arsenal altogether if we re-appointed him tomorrow.

You're contradicting yourself here. On one hand you're saying "we're playing good football when we get good players" dismissing the role of the coach, next thing you're claiming Emery's teams lack identity as if that were a defining factor to be set by the manager.

As you say though we won't agree here. Not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion of not being convinced by a manager who got 4th and a FA Cup final and a CL win in five months while thinking Arteta is learning from his mistakes after this car crash of a season 20 months in. Fair enough agree to disagree, but saying Tuchel's first half season is "not dissimilar from Arteta's first six months here" is an outrageous claim.

Qwiss

Big Willie wrote:
We did bring Ozil in that same summer though.

Exactly. That was a key mistake. We desperately needed a striker, we already had Cazorla, Wilshere, Ramsey and we brought in Ozil anyway because we wanted to make a big splash. We all lapped it up because it was the end of the window and we wanted some hope but it wasn't the signing we needed and it cost us massively ever since.

goon

I don't think Ozil was a massive mistake at all, the massive mistake was that we signed Yaya Sanogo and Flamini to compliment him. Aside from Sanchez, we following that by signing dross like Chambers, Welbeck, Debuchy, Elneny, Cech, Xhaka, Mustafi and Perez in the 3 years that followed. That period of transfers was a disaster, and we compounded it with more largely unsuccessful deals like Laca, Kolasinac, Mkhi, Torreira, Guendouzi and Sokratis.

Qwiss

We only signed Ozil after we gave up on Higuain and fucked up on Suarez. Either of them would have been much better signings for us at the time. Ozil was obviously good for a couple of seasons but he was the wrong player at the wrong time.

goon

I'm just saying that we didn't sign a striker wasn't on Ozil, if we had signed both a striker with him (lets say Suarez and Ozil), we'd have probably won the league at some point.

Anzac

Did AW ever spend good money on more than 1 player in a transfer window or season like an Ozil or a Sanchez?

Qwiss

goon wrote:
I'm just saying that we didn't sign a striker wasn't on Ozil, if we had signed both a striker with him (lets say Suarez and Ozil), we'd have probably won the league at some point.

We needed a striker more than anything that summer and we didn't get it, sure if we'd got one plus Ozil we'd probably have won the league but I'd equally argue if we'd got one and then didn't get Ozil we'd have probably won the league at some point too. Ozil was a luxury we didn't really need.

Clrnc

It's just terrible planning and bad management.

Ozil in his first season was still somewhat motivated but we manage to surround him with a few of the slowest players in world football. Even keeping Gervinho to get onto the end of his througuballs would have been more potent than that shit we served up in the 2nd half of 1314

Qwiss

He linked pretty well with Giroud but he was never top class and we absolutely ran him into the ground. By the time we even tried to solve CF by getting Laca Ozil had checked out.

speedy

Big Willie wrote:
speedy wrote:
He's selling those guys because they're been taken by richer teams.

No mate, you said you expected the last time anyone was happy with an arsenal manager was when we were the second richest team. I just explained many were still happy with Wenger well after 2003 when Roman took over Chelsea and even after the Emirates took over City. No one was saying Wenger out in 2008 after United, Chelsea and City were richer than us. No one was saying Wenger out when we were playing the type of football that saw us outclass Barca at the Emirates.

People started to question things around the time RvP was allowed to go to United to hand them the title and just because worse until we signed Cech only and gave up a free run to the title to Leicester. I reckon we all mostly understand the economics of football and the uphill task we've faced all these years to win a title. This isn't AFTV here. We've all knowledgeable enough and have watched football long enough to have realistic expectations (we can ignore heat of the moment ranting that can happen after a bad result regardless of whether you genuinely expected anything other than a loss or not).

I don't think people here expect to win the title every year. Not even a title challenge every year. But the least we should be doing is competing for the top 4 at a minimum every season. It's been howany years now? 5? 6? It's all a blur now, can't even remember. The fans now would be happy with a manager that gets us playing good football. They'd accept shitty football if it leads us to top 4. What they won't accept is shitty football with shitty results.

That was where Wenger really failed towards the end. He compromised his whole ethos towards the end and became more focussed on short term, experience and being more and more cautious in his lineups.

That power shift hurt more over time. Hughes buying santa cruz instead of milito didnt help city kick forwards. But the time the city money beefed up there squad and chelseas money had beefed up theirs. Our players were unhappy as they wanted to win things and that seemed less realisitc and the fans were unhappy to. We were finishing 4th or higher every season and fans were generally super unhappy.

Coombs

jones wrote:
Fair enough agree to disagree, but saying Tuchel's first half season is "not dissimilar from Arteta's first six months here" is an outrageous claim.

Agree with this, but mostly because it's an outrageous comparison. The situations each manager arrived in couldn't be more different. Tuchel found a stacked squad, with a whole lot of German talent suited to his game. That's what good management looks like at executive level. He didn't even have to do much, just played 5 at the back using conservative, defensive football and relied on talent up top to make the difference on the break.

It does sound a bit like Arteta, now that I think of it.

FEBravo

I'm not Arteta's biggest fan, and I think the comparison with Lampard is an apt one, in terms of how an experienced manager can make a difference, but it is equally true that he inherited a much better squad than Arteta. I am still convinced if we had gotten Tuchel when Chelsea did, and Lampard had stayed, we would have been much better off. How much better is what is unclear.

Burnwinter

goon wrote:
I don't think Ozil was a massive mistake at all

Not the player we needed, not a player we were trying to sign, and after a bright start turned into one of the worst headaches the club has had both on and off the pitch, negatively impacting our football, our morale and our bottom line over several seasons.

I wonder if we'll ever again witness an Arsenal player fall out with three successive managers*. He treated us with contempt.

Well maybe not fully with Wenger, but he was always a softie

Don Pacifico

FEBravo wrote:
I'm not Arteta's biggest fan, and I think the comparison with Lampard is an apt one, in terms of how an experienced manager can make a difference, but it is equally true that he inherited a much better squad than Arteta. I am still convinced if we had gotten Tuchel when Chelsea did, and Lampard had stayed, we would have been much better off. How much better is what is unclear.

I think you may have had a short-term new manager bounce. But if we're planning on replacing Arteta for the long-term, I'm not convinced he'd be great and I actually feel he'd make things even worse.

Klaus

What's longterm though? Very few managers last beyond 3-4 years at any club today (Arteta has been here more than half of that time already). If you're gonna plan for any longer than that you need to do it without giving them too much consideration. That's essentially what Chelsea are doing, and it makes it easier for them to hold managers accountable. They're not locked into anyone's pet project.

Don Pacifico

Yeah, I just don't think Chelsea are a viable comparison. Completely different level in terms of financial clout mean it's easier to overcome short-term managerial mistakes with top tier talent.

Klaus

Not talking about their financial means though, but the way they have the club structured. It's a little bit insane to back a manager for a 5+ year project when you don't know if he's going to do a good job or not - never mind when he's been performing like shit.

Don Pacifico

Klaus wrote:
Not talking about their financial means though, but the way they have the club structured. It's a little bit insane to back a manager for a 5+ year project when you don't know if he's going to do a good job or not - never mind when he's been performing like shit.

No, I get what you mean but what I'm saying is, I only think that works if you're able to consistently pump loads of cash into the squad.

goon

Klaus wrote:
Not talking about their financial means though, but the way they have the club structured. It's a little bit insane to back a manager for a 5+ year project when you don't know if he's going to do a good job or not - never mind when he's been performing like shit.

It’s very different when you want to utilise academy and youth players. There’s no incentive for a manager to make use of it otherwise. Chelsea probably have the most successful academy set up in the league for a while yet they hardly ever feature. Why would you if you know you’re out the door the moment you go on a bad run and have £250m at your disposal?

That doesn’t mean you have to stick with someone who’s doing a bad job, but you absolutely have to have a different level of patience.

goon

On a side note, interesting to see Chelsea have become flavour of the month model club that we should base ourselves on.

« Previous Page Next Page »