jones wrote:
Henry and Vieira are actually perfect examples why you would credit Wenger because their careers were going nowhere when he got them and turned them into world beaters. Similarly people won't give him as much credit for Cesc because he was good enough to play for most teams in the world at 16, it's a pretty normal method of evaluation. Doesn't mean Wenger didn't help him but it's difficult to ascertain how much of it if any was down to him.
ESR and Saka weren't given the chance to establish themselves by Arteta, that happened under Emery. I didn't list them anyway because it's not clear if anyone had any tangible effect on their development so far. If you want to give Arteta credit for talking ESR out of chocolate and fried chicken you're free to do that, I was thinking more of something along the lines of his widely reported work with Sterling or how what Klopp does to his team. Look at how much better Liverpool looked against us last Saturday and ask yourself how many players in their squad would you want in ours?
Smith Rowe played a few Europa and cup games under Emery before being sent to Leipzig, then another half dozen, again mainly Cup/Europa, before being loaned to Huddersfield. I wouldn’t say that’s Emery giving him the chance to establish himself.
Though I take your point on the impact he’s alleged to have had on Sterling and I’d agree, we’ve not seen anything to that level that I can think of.
My comment was more in relation to the lack of willingness to note any effect Arteta has had on Smith-Rowe’s development. It’s a ridiculous notion to suggest a manager can’t be given credit because of “sample size” when there are clear improvements. Granted, they’re not yet Sterling-like improvements, and Smith-Rowe isn’t the best comparison with Sterling anyway given their respective ages and experience when they’ve worked with Arteta. If Smith-Rowe keeps up the improved end product for the rest of the season though, it’s a good sign and would be harsh to claim Arteta has no bearing on it.
