We got Man City in the Carling.: Page 22 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

We got Man City in the Carling.

Timbob

The only 'first XI' players you can catagorically say would have made a definite difference to yesterdays game (but not the result necessarily), would be Santos and RVP. And imo, both of those players were in desperate need of a rest.

But at the end of the day nobody will convince me that the Carling Cup will ever be more important than securing CL football, and playing the same team 2/3 times a week will cost you valuable points in the long run. That's the reality of modern football.

Biggus

You are proceeding like it's an either/or scenario which it clearly isn't, I'm proceeding from an observation that winning creates an atmosphere in the whole squad that takes on a momentum of itself, when we win everybody wants to be involved.
You can't decide which games you'll try to win, confidence is not a tap you can just turn on and off or ration if in short supply, I thought Wenger learned his lesson last year but I was wrong.
Lets see what happens now.

Timbob

You dont decide which games you'll try to win, but you HAVE to rotate. Everybody does it-City, Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea...even the teams not playing in europe do it. And I would hope/think that one of the benifits of having a more experienced core of first team players is that their confidence doesn't drain away after one or two iffy results.

As you say, let's see what happens now. If we stuff Wigan looking incredibly fresh and full of running...I still dont think you'll say it was the right decision.

Tam

Amid all the talk of who was to blame, whether it be players for the goal conceded or the manager seemingly for anything from substitutions to the economic situation in Greece, I'd just like to add I thought it was a marvellous goal.

One, which had it been created by Vieira, Pires and scored by Henry instead of Dzeko, Johnson and Aguero, we'd be raving over non stop. We're going to concede goals, everyone does. When it's a goal of such quality it's pointless going over too much as sometimes it happens.

Gurgen

I'm glad to see the back of this pointless competition.

Gurgen

It's always pointless.

sabret00the

Thought our bright sparks were Chambo, Coquelin and Frimpong by a mile. The front three let themselves down. I felt like Park had some bright moments but was let down by the formation and the lack of attacking impetus but that's part and parcel of any team where you start with Chamakh who was the worst player on the pitch. Was surprised about the Benayoun love as I thought he was woeful. It was an old school Rosicky performance where a lot of running is mistaken as doing a lot of good things. I feel that if we'd have started the game with a decent left wing-forward and played Park through the middle in the Robin role, we'd have got some extra minutes for our younguns in the next round.

Captain

Benayoun for Gervinho would have been my halftime substitution.

Qwiss

Captain wrote:
Benayoun for Gervinho would have been my halftime substitution.

Why?

Captain

Because all of the space was wide and Benayoun spent almost the entire game coming inside (aside from that, his performance was poor for the most part).

Rex

My half time sub, and indeed later option, would have been Gervinho for Chamakh. Play Benayoun in the hole with Park as the CF. We reverted back to our usual shape when Gervinho came on, but would have preferred Park to Chamakh.

Biggus

Tim wrote:
You dont decide which games you'll try to win, but you HAVE to rotate.

Rotation is fine, it means changing 1-2 not sticking Squillachi Chamakh and Yossi in a team of kids and calling it "a good blend of youth and experience".

Gurgen wrote:
I'm glad to see the back of this pointless competition.

😆 Wenger doesn't need to be there you could give the team talks.

Claudius

Captain wrote:
Because all of the space was wide and Benayoun spent almost the entire game coming inside (aside from that, his performance was poor for the most part).

Maybe the space was wide because Benayoun was always so narrow.

Captain

Huh?

The space was wide because City changed their formation but not the tactical instruction to their fullbacks.

Humble Rex wrote:
My half time sub, and indeed later option, would have been Gervinho for Chamakh. Play Benayoun in the hole with Park as the CF. We reverted back to our usual shape when Gervinho came on, but would have preferred Park to Chamakh.

And reverting to that shape was the wrong thing to do.

Rex

You may think so, and I respect that, but I disagree. We looked dangerous down the right wing with Oxpot, but got nothing from the left flank due to Benayoun not being there and Miquel not being very good going forward. On top of that our two forwards were ineffective.

For me, Benayoun is a central player first, and I´d have taken him in the middle over Chamakh all night. Getting Gervinho on was good, but removing Oxpot was strange IMO, and why Wenger chose to persist with Chamakh ahead of Park when we needed a goal I´ll never know.

y va marquer

Unusually for an Arsenal defender Miquel looks like he likes to hang around at the back and defend.
I thought he really grew into the game after a shaky start.
He did look lost when he crossed into the City half though.
I think I noticed this mainly because I've gotten used to seeing Santos being so at home and comfortable as he's charging forward.

Captain

You're pre-supposing your tactical changes on player judgement rather than what works or the nature of the game.

Big Willie

Humble Rex wrote:
Getting Gervinho on was good, but removing Oxpot was strange IMO, and why Wenger chose to persist with Chamakh ahead of Park when we needed a goal I´ll never know.

Two strangest decision all game. Dunno what he was smoking. He should have brought on only noe of Gerv and Arsh and kept AOC and Park while subbing Chamakh. He was absolutely useless. Says a lot that I was actually shocked when I saw him take that shot instead of turning around to pass it back.

y va marquer

Wenger has a seemingly mad urge to persist with Chamakh.
It's beyond me.

Rex

Captain wrote:
You're pre-supposing your tactical changes on player judgement rather than what works or the nature of the game.

And in English that means?

« Previous Page Next Page »