Kurt Eisner wrote:
Because he's a prick. I think I even admitted that in that very thread, that it affects my judgement of him. If you go around banishing players left, right and centre, including a guy like Auba who's a beloved figure amongst big parts of the fanbase, and the only thing you say about it is that you're "100% the solution", you're going to be a polarising figure, especially after two consecutive 8th place finishes. So while that thread is probably too emotional and over the top in the assessment of Arteta, he has absolutely contributed to that kind of climate with his behaviour.
We all make our own interpretations of these things … I've referred to him as "Pep's Homunculus" for half the season and I think his interview commentary about his relationship with his super strict father is quite revealing.
On the other hand, as a fan I haven't minded our manager being a bit stiff-necked and authoritarian for a change. It's a breath of fresh air. Prior to the clear-out happening we had a ridiculous number of dickheads on the books, now we're down to one, Xhaka—if he goes we'll be in a pretty good spot.
The manner of Auba's departure was a shame, but it wasn't either a one-sided affair or an affair we have full information about. Every time since we've struggled to score, there's been an understandable return to the matter, but fact is we remain well within reach of securing top four and perhaps even getting past Chelsea. And in summer, we don't have to face the questions about Auba's exit we would now otherwise be facing.
Kurt Eisner wrote:
What are the conditions of Arteta's continued employment then? European football? Because they extended him right after we lost three straight and had not secured a place in the EL yet.
Right, and now we're sitting in fourth and have secured those things? Perhaps they just took a dispassionate look at how the club had performed all season and made their call, assumed that that run of losses would not extend, as it didn't. As far as I was aware or had imagined it, CL qualification was not a red line for KSE this season.
There was some "game theory" about the timing of the announcement in thread the other day where I presented my thinking about the timing of it being made public. It makes sense to me and lines up with how I imagine the machinery of a rationally managed club should operate.
Kurt Eisner wrote:
And my biggest gripe with Arteta's extension isn't even Arteta's performance, but rather that it indicates to me, once more, that he has the owners' convinced he's the man without anyone inside the club questioning it or criticising him. He has a lot of power for a rookie in his first job. I think that's a bad idea, unless you are convinced he's a transformative figure like a Wenger or a Klopp.
I don't think there's much evidence this is the case. They signed him up because he was an Arsenal talisman with a knack for coaching who'd done his apprenticeship with Guardiola and rocked his interview, twice … and we got exactly the sort of manager you would think that'd be: a bossy one with a prescriptive approach to tactics that requires a lot of high-functioning players, and with limited experience of how to manage people.
That said, what you look for when there's fire isn't where it starts, but which direction it burns. Every time there has been a conflict, the fire's been burning away from Arteta. Even when he was at loggerheads with Aubameyang there wasn't a murmur of dissent from the first XI. Is that really because they're all scared into submission by Arteta's reign of terror, or is it perhaps because things about that situation weren't quite as they have been publicly framed?
Kurt Eisner wrote:
Add to that the shameful way the club has conducted itself, firing employees in the middle of a pandemic, the way we reacted to Elneny's solidarity with the Palestine people, hiring consultancy cunts to fix our "culture", the corporate speak, the amazon cameras, and that's plenty of things I'm pissed off about. Personally, I cannot stand the Kroenkes, Vinai, Edu and Arteta, because they all act like the kind of people I despise and are moving the club away from what we used to stand for. I think it's fair enough that I'm unhappy with that and I also don't think it's outlandish to not think this season's performance of Arteta outweighs that.
Sure but you're talking about an apparatus of which Arteta is at worst the Eichmann, not the Hitler. He's not the one deciding our club has to be a Zionist outfit or firing the little people. We are a typical corporation. We'll post Black Lives Matter on our Instagram one day, and post our support for bloody imperialism the next, just like Pepsi. The content has nothing to do with Arteta, and barely anything to do with Arsenal, it's programmatic ruling class nonsense.
Kurt Eisner wrote:
And of course there's room for a little positivity! But it's not like I'm negative about the players
[snip]
So sometimes, when I haven't had enough coffee for example, it just rubs me the wrong way to be labelled as negative just because I don't like Arteta. And while I get the impulse to defend the manager if you feel differently about him, my impulse is to defend myself and other Arsenal fans when we get called negative, extreme and so on. It's football. I know the atmosphere from the fans has been brilliant this year, but I've been to plenty of football games, let me tell you, a shitload of people were having a moan in the Emirates yesterday, it just didn't stop them from supporting the team, just as it doesn't stop the likes of myself, jones or Clrnc from supporting the team.
We should all drink our coffee and avoid posting drunk or tired, but …
Perhaps, all things considered, you might accept that you are quite negative when it comes to Arsenal's present format. Let us imagine an Arsenal fan, assuming he's a man without loss of generality.
When there is indeterminacy about most questions, he interpolates with negative interpretations. When there is progress, he finds problems and criticises. When there's a setback, he catastrophises. When there's a challenge, he predicts a bad outcome. When there's a good result, he downplays it. When there's a conflict, he's inevitably partisan against the club's leadership. When a player has talent, the leadership is wasting that talent and putting it at risk. When a player's contract is in dispute, it is all down to the club's bad handling of the matter. Even though there's a decent number of incontrovertible positives he acknowledges so as not to simply be laughed at … if this can't be referred to as negativity, what should it be called?
Are we so sensitive that we cannot communicate using commonplaces of language? Or so unworldly that we don't understand that people mostly despise things intently because of the love and hope they have for them? I think not. We're just posters on a forum getting bored with each other and asking for better.
