I mean you guys are assuming that Calafiori prevented a far more expensive forward signing because the defence was prioritised. Considering we tried to sign Sesko right at the start of the summer well before Calafiori that seems unlikely.
Either we didn't fancy the names listed, they didn't fancy us, they were too expensive or we're keeping our powder dry for someone we have our eye on feel like more likely explanations.
And if that's the truth, we have made a massive mistake trying to waste one more year away.
goon most people have said buying one person typically doesn’t prevent others coming in. That the drivers of these deals coming through is usually issues of player availability, player desire to join Arsenal, and intensity of competition for his signature. Those 3 factors drive the speed at which deals are done - versus some general interest in getting the deal done by the team.
I mean, we paid an absolute fortune for Calafiori and Merino, and I don't mean together, I mean individually. I would argue that both cost "over the odds" in weird football parlance. For whatever reason, paying over the odds for an attacker is abhorrent, but doing so for journeyman midfield backups is acceptable. Its just bad squad building, end of story.
I can see the logic for buying Calafiori. Kiwior wasn't good enough to play there, Tomiyasu was right footed and a crock, Zinchenko is also a crock and not very good. We did need a left back. I have to think Calafiori's physical attributes dappled any of Edu and Arteta's concerns of his injury record.
Merino is a head scratcher though. He doesn't excel in any of the areas Jorginho and Partey excel at and is certainly not an upgrade on either.
We should go for Lookman
Dom I can see the logic for buying Calafiori.
Absolutely. He's an excellent footballer. Very classy, great forward drive, charismatic, strong, etc. But we paid for that, it wasn't like we unearthed some kind of bargain on the cheap. It was big money, and we knew he had a massive injury and that playing in the PL is just different than playing in Italy, especially at the volume we'd hope for. I think people forget how young he is, and how little football he's played - he hadn't even made 100 professional appearances in his whole career, or something like that. 42m is quite a significant gamble, and its the kind of gamble that we seem totally unwilling to make for the forward line - even when the odds are much better.
goon that isn't actually true, is it? I mean factually, it's wrong. So why bother saying it? The broader point is also wrong. Pedro Neto cost 51.3m, which is closer to Calafiori's reported price than Eddie's fee. Why couldn't we have taken that risk instead of or in addition to Riccy? Why is that too much of a risk, while Calafiori is rationalized? It makes no sense.
Coombs and its the kind of gamble that we seem totally unwilling to make for the forward line - even when the odds are much better.
You say that but we were a Chelsea madness away from splashing 90m on Mudryk.
I don't think it's that complex. £35m on a full back you love = £100m plus luck on a forward you love.
You could compromise and gamble and go for cheaper, more readily available forwards and hope they're better than what we have, because we're not looking for squad filler, but let's not compare apples and oranges.
goon you're the one comparing apples to oranges. I'm not saying spend 42m on a forward, I'm saying spend money on the forward line even if it means taking a few risks, which are relatively the same risks we took with Calafiori.
Where are you even getting 35m from? It's an irrelevant figure to this conversation.
It’s apples to oranges because Calafiori isn’t a risk on a player they’re not sure about, it’s a player Arteta adores, loves and has been tracking.
Point being, the forward equivalent probably isn’t Pedro Neto. Not because of his price, but because it’s probably not who Arteta has his eye on.
