Premier league 2014-15: race for ???????

[The_Roadrunner]

We had the same amount of players as last season and the same as Chelsea. End of story!

And somehow you think that proves our defense is "on par" or "better" than Chelsea. Which is illogical and one must wonder if you are just on a wind up because it makes no sense for you to say that.

 

[Jury]

 

[Thehulk]

And somehow you think that proves our defense is "on par" or "better" than Chelsea. Which is illogical and one must wonder if you are just on a wind up because it makes no sense for you to say that.

WE WAS TALKING ABOUT DEPTH YOU WIND UP MERCHANT!

 

[Thehulk]

I'm happy with our defense and the depth is fine, we are stacked for the future. Chelsea on the other hand could probably do with a player or two.

 

[The_Roadrunner]

WE WAS TALKING ABOUT DEPTH YOU WIND UP MERCHANT!

This is your argument regarding depth:

Chelsea's website lists them as having 8 defenders.
Arsenal's website lists us as having 9 defenders.
Therefore we had equal or better depth than Chelsea at the start of the season.

All you keep doing is counting numbers on a website and ignoring all the points everyone is making about dividing those "defenders" up into fullbacks and centrebacks, we didn't have Gabriel at the start of the season, one of those listed on the website is Hayden who made 1 total appearance in the league cup, and two of them Bellerin and Chambers were U21s and still mostly unknown qualities at the start of the season. Wenger even said he envision Chambers in defensive midfield.

 

[GG8]

@Thehulk is right to be fair to him. Depth wise we were the same if not better off than Chelsea in defence.

You can argue about the quality of the players, but numbers wise they were very similar to us.

They have 6 core defenders that they use. Terry, Cahill, Ivanovic, Azpi, Luis and Zouma. Their website has Ake as a defender as well but he is predominantly a midfielder and any minutes he has got have been in there.

Let's look at CB. If Terry or Cahill gets injured you would say Zouma comes in. A 20 year old, new to the league and just signed last summer. Chambers is our Zouma.

The other option they have is their RB moving into the middle - Debuchy or Monreal. ( I can't agree with people saying that Monreal is a terrible CB either, he was probably our best defender in the period he played there)

If Chelsea had lost Terry for a couple of months (Kos), and Ivanovic for practically the entire season (Debuchy) they would be lining up with a Azpi Cahill Zouma Luis back four and the only cover they would have had was a 20 year old Defensive Midfielder and an 18 year old with zero first team minutes for ANY club. That back four makes for an entirely different league campaign for Chelsea, no doubt. Someone posted a graphic on the last page about Arsenal with and without Kos. You have to wonder what Chelsea's would be like for Terry. But you won't get stats for this season as he has played EVERY minute of EVERY league game this season, how fortunate where Chelsea in that regard this season. Their captain, a 34 year old defender and arguably their best and most important player this campaign being on the pitch for every single minute whilst teams around them had players dropping like flys.

It wasn't a mistake bringing in Chambers either, it's pretty apparent that with a complete squad and the lack of minutes we now see him getting that he wasnt expected to play so much so early for us. People talk about the experience we lost in TV5 and how green chambers was, experience is no use if it can't even make the matchday squad. Give me a fit Chambers over a crocked TV anyday.

 

[bingobob]

Zouma had over fifty games before signing for Chelsea, Chambers had 22, also Zouma was coming in to learn of the best centre halves in the league, we still aren't sure what position Chambers is actually meant to be playing. That back four you speak off for Chelsea after injuries Had everyone Still in their natural position also. That makes a huge difference.

This is becoming a circular argument, did we have more than Chelsea yes, but they had better strength they also had a better spread of depth, 3 CBs 3 full backs as opposed to 2 cbs and 5 full backs

Not to mention the two world class keepers they have.

 

[Thehulk]

@Thehulk is right to be fair to him. Depth wise we were the same if not better off than Chelsea in defence.

You can argue about the quality of the players, but numbers wise they were very similar to us.

They have 6 core defenders that they use. Terry, Cahill, Ivanovic, Azpi, Luis and Zouma. Their website has Ake as a defender as well but he is predominantly a midfielder and any minutes he has got have been in there.

Let's look at CB. If Terry or Cahill gets injured you would say Zouma comes in. A 20 year old, new to the league and just signed last summer. Chambers is our Zouma.

The other option they have is their RB moving into the middle - Debuchy or Monreal. ( I can't agree with people saying that Monreal is a terrible CB either, he was probably our best defender in the period he played there)

If Chelsea had lost Terry for a couple of months (Kos), and Ivanovic for practically the entire season (Debuchy) they would be lining up with a Azpi Cahill Zouma Luis back four and the only cover they would have had was a 20 year old Defensive Midfielder and an 18 year old with zero first team minutes for ANY club. That back four makes for an entirely different league campaign for Chelsea, no doubt. Someone posted a graphic on the last page about Arsenal with and without Kos. You have to wonder what Chelsea's would be like for Terry. But you won't get stats for this season as he has played EVERY minute of EVERY league game this season, how fortunate where Chelsea in that regard this season. Their captain, a 34 year old defender and arguably their best and most important player this campaign being on the pitch for every single minute whilst teams around them had players dropping like flys.

It wasn't a mistake bringing in Chambers either, it's pretty apparent that with a complete squad and the lack of minutes we now see him getting that he wasnt expected to play so much so early for us. People talk about the experience we lost in TV5 and how green chambers was, experience is no use if it can't even make the matchday squad. Give me a fit Chambers over a crocked TV anyday.

Fantastic post mate exactly what I would have written if I could be arsed to type long posts.

Our Second choice back four is better than theirs and probably the best back up in the league.

Debuchy-Gabriel-Chambers-Gibbbs

That is better than anything we have ever had in back up, and certainly better than Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, United etc etc

So depth wise we are in a good shape, quality as well.

 

[GG8]

Zouma had over fifty games before signing for Chelsea, Chambers had 22, also Zouma was coming in to learn of the best centre halves in the league, we still aren't sure what position Chambers is actually meant to be playing. That back four you speak off for Chelsea after injuries Had everyone Still in their natural position also. That makes a huge difference.

This is becoming a circular argument, did we have more than Chelsea yes, but they had better strength they also had a better spread of depth, 3 CBs 3 full backs as opposed to 2 cbs and 5 full backs

Not to mention the two world class keepers they have.

You say 22 to 50 appearances. I say Zouma is about a year older than Calaum and that 22 appearances in the PL is comparable to 50 appearances in Ligue 1.

It's true that Calaum looks to be some sort of utility player at the moment, but a lot of Zouma's games have come in midfield as well. They are both here to do a similar role in their respective teams for me. To learn, to develop and to fill in when and where required.

Zouma is learning off one of the best CB in the league in Terry, likewise CC is with Kos. Cahill was actually dropped for Zouma at one stage due to his poor performances, he's probably looking to take his place permanently rather than learn from him.

I would also argue that despite 3 & 3 being a better spread than 2 & 5, 7 bodies trumps 6 and we have 3 full backs that our manager is happy to play at CB, Chelsea have one.

And the whole issue of natural positions is redundant anyway. Azpi has been one of the best players in the league all season and has played the entirety out of position. Some of Monreals best performances this season have been at CB. Zouma is used out of position regularly and is extremely effective.

 

[Thehulk]

I'm not a great fan of Mertesacker though, hopefully Gabriel takes over his first team spot.

 

[Thehulk]

You say 22 to 50 appearances. I say Zouma is about a year older than Calaum and that 22 appearances in the PL is comparable to 50 appearances in Ligue 1.

It's true that Calaum looks to be some sort of utility player at the moment, but a lot of Zouma's games have come in midfield as well. They are both here to do a similar role in their respective teams for me. To learn, to develop and to fill in when and where required.

Zouma is learning off one of the best CB in the league in Terry, likewise CC is with Kos. Cahill was actually dropped for Zouma at one stage due to his poor performances, he's probably looking to take his place permanently rather than learn from him.

I would also argue that despite 3 & 3 being a better spread than 2 & 5, 7 bodies trumps 6 and we have 3 full backs that our manager is happy to play at CB, Chelsea have one.

And the whole issue of natural positions is redundant anyway. Azpi has been one of the best players in the league all season and has played the entirety out of position. Some of Monreals best performances this season have been at CB. Zouma is used out of position regularly and is extremely effective.

You tell them son

 

[infineon]

The main difference is that if Chelsea suffer an injury crisis, Mourinho will adapt his tactics to make them as hard to beat as possible. Arsène will just play the same way regardless. We all know this.

 

[bingobob]

At the start of the season Gabriel wasn't there, this is the whole point of this discussion, we started the season short not finished it Short.

Zouma had 72 games before leaving for Chelsea including several European games he was more experienced than Chambers.

Anyway, your argument is sound if you think Monreal, who at the time was one of our worst defenders, was fine to start the season at CB, that an untested kid who never played Cb could also be relied upon then that's fair Enough, hard to argue against that. But I'll leave one final argument, since Chelsea are being used as a reference point who had the better defensive record, them or us?

 

[GG8]

I haven't factored Gabriel into any of this.

It doesn't matter what I think, it only matters what AW thinks, and he was happy to play Monreal at CB if needed, he was happy to use CC at CB if needed. Much in the same way he has been happy at playing Sagna at CB or TV at LB when needed in the past. He looked at our options and considered them adequate for cover. Wether you disagree with the ability of these players to play in different positions is a different matter altogether.

For sure, Chelsea have the better defensive record. If the tables were turned, and we had Kos and Debuchy for the entire season and Chelsea lost Terry for 3 months and Ivanovic for the season, would that still be the case? I'd argue not a chance in hell.

They have only conceded 5 goals less than us, and them and Southampton are the only ones with a better record than us. Not bad for a team with inadequate cover and a big injury record, eh?

 

[Thehulk]

At the start of the season Gabriel wasn't there, this is the whole point of this discussion, we started the season short not finished it Short.

Zouma had 72 games before leaving for Chelsea including several European games he was more experienced than Chambers.

Anyway, your argument is sound if you think Monreal, who at the time was one of our worst defenders, was fine to start the season at CB, that an untested kid who never played Cb could also be relied upon then that's fair Enough, hard to argue against that. But I'll leave one final argument, since Chelsea are being used as a reference point who had the better defensive record, them or us?

Monreal has been excellent, which again is credit to Wenger for using him as a utility player, his form has come from that as well.

There is no argument really, we have done well this season and have a good defense.

 

[The_Roadrunner]

@Thehulk is right to be fair to him. Depth wise we were the same if not better off than Chelsea in defence.

You can argue about the quality of the players, but numbers wise they were very similar to us.

Reducing a conversation on depth to simply counting the numbers of defenders is pedantic, misses the point and is useless.

The key questions when talking about depth is does the squad have the level of quality in starters and backups to achieve the goals the club wants to achieve that year and as bingo points out what is the spread of the depth because just looking at "defenders" is too broad to really give an accurate indication and can be quite misleading.

thehulk is arguing a strawman for the most part because just about everyone was specifically saying in the summer we lacked depth at CB. No one said we lacked depth at FB.

The difference between Zouma and Chambers last summer was that Zouma was a proven quality at CB. With Chambers we had no idea what position Wenger even intended him for. I posted the quote from Wenger when we signed Chambers with Wenger basically saying he envisioned Chambers as a DM. It sounded like Wenger, in the summer, thought Chambers might be this year what Coquelin turned out to be.

Going with a 20 year old who has started over 50 games at CB and was generally considered one of the best young CB prospects in the world as your 3rd CB is much safer than going into the season with no established 3rd choice CB and hoping for either one of your fullbacks covering or converting a 19 year old RB who you envision as a DM into a CB.

 

[blaze_of_glory]

#form

 

[Thehulk]

@jury will not like to see that lol

 

[albakos]

@jury will not like to see that lol

Neither would you if Özil was in that picture

 

[spartandre217]

We're not that bad defensively, especially when you consider the injuries we had trouble with earlier in the season.


We have the 3rd best defensive record in the league only Southampton and Chelsea have conceded less.

In terms of goals scored we're only 3 behind Chelsea too.

We're not far off.