Nabil Fekir

[OnlyOne]

Different players and positions if you ask me.

Exactly, we need a striker more than we need a CAM, which is why I thought Lacazette would be preferred.

 

[MutableEarth]

Exactly, we need a striker more than we need a CAM, which is why I thought Lacazette would be preferred.

Fekir is more forward than CAM. They've played upfront together, even though they're both around the same height.

 

[SuriGooner]

Exactly, we need a striker more than we need a CAM, which is why I thought Lacazette would be preferred.

Fekir is more forward than CAM. They've played upfront together, even though they're both around the same height.

He isn't a CAM in the traditional sense like Cazorla. He's more like Sanchez or Hazard IMO. I think that's the kind of player we can use very well since Wenger has massive trust in Giroud.

 

[OnlyOne]

He isn't a CAM in the traditional sense like Cazorla. He's more like Sanchez or Hazard IMO. I think that's the kind of player we can use very well since Wenger has massive trust in Giroud.

Fair enough, I thought he played CAM which is why I was abit confused, if he can play on the right that'd be great!

 

[Enoch]

He can play five positions really, versatility is one of his strengths, which position Wenger throws him in is another story. You would think the obvious choice would be on the right, he can play CM if Santi leaves next summer, but we have Ramsey and Wilshere there, has been likened in style to Hazard which is about right.

For a player of his height he's strong, can shield the ball very well. He's fast, technically gifted, intelligent, and is unpredictable, has a great work ethic, he'll track back or try and win the ball high up.

He'd be a great signing, a selection headache is what we like. Him and Lacazette would be nice, i wouldn't mind another French revolution here.

 

[spartandre217]

High praise , but Nabil is quite small isn't he ?

That's why I made the Aguero comparison earlier. Short sure, but he's not easy to push off the ball and he knows how to draw contact to ensure a foul, much like that c*** in Blue down the road

 

[onetowatch]

You'll always be a stepping stone until you consistently challenge for the league tbf. Even Man Utd was a stepping stone for Ronaldo.

Every club is a stepping stone to Real Madrid or Barcelona.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

I honestly thought Lacazette would be more preferred than Fakir, he hasn't been that good has he?

They both look pretty decent. There's been a lot of wishlisting of Lacazette, not sure how you've missed it!

 

[celestis]

Yup heard of Lacazette on here long time before I actually saw him . From all the hype thought he'd be taller

 

[scytheavatar]

Exactly, we need a striker more than we need a CAM, which is why I thought Lacazette would be preferred.

Lacazette doesn't have the attributes to play as a lone striker; that's why when recently Lyon moved from 4-4-2 to 4-2-3-1 Lacazette was being played as a winger. Fekir was attacking mid. If Lacazette comes to us he's almost certainly going to be played as a winger too, at least initially.

 

[Dokaka]

Yeah, Lacazette is a Walcott replacement, not someone who'd bench Giroud.

 

[spartandre217]

If we're looking to replace Walcott then arguably Fekir might be the better fit. Lacazette is a goal getter but he's not a playmaker like Ox or Fekir would be.

 

[SiMamu]

If we're looking to replace Walcott then arguably Fekir might be the better fit. Lacazette is a goal getter but he's not a playmaker like Ox or Fekir would be.

With only Özil, Rosicky, Wilshere and Cazorla, we are lacking a good playmaker. If Fekir's similar to Oxlade-Chamberlain, he's not bringing anything different to the table and would 'kill' Gnabry. Losing Walcott means we lose an outlet - Lacazette would be able to replace this but with more ability on the ball.

 

[scytheavatar]

With only Özil, Rosicky, Wilshere and Cazorla, we are lacking a good playmaker. If Fekir's similar to Oxlade-Chamberlain, he's not bringing anything different to the table and would 'kill' Gnabry. Losing Walcott means we lose an outlet - Lacazette would be able to replace this but with more ability on the ball.

Think Wenger doesn't start Walcott or give him seconds precisely because he doesn't want that "outlet" or something different to the table. Fekir is far above Chamberlain and Gnabry in potential, not to mention both of them have a lot of injury problems, so I don't see why he shouldn't be brought because of those 2.

 

[ArsenesNO1Fan]

I honestly thought Lacazette would be more preferred than Fakir, he hasn't been that good has he?

Fekir is only 21, he has a higher ceiling than Lacazette

 

[MutableEarth]

Fekir's not really a "playmaker" per se though, he's a forward who can dribble well. He seems to score more than he assists so he looks more of an Alexis than an Ox or a Walcott.

 

[spartandre217]

Fekir's not really a "playmaker" per se though, he's a forward who can dribble well. He seems to score more than he assists so he looks more of an Alexis than an Ox or a Walcott.

Not true.

Equal number of goals and assists this season. Think of him as a left-footed Hazard.

He really can do it all

 

[Trilly]

Wenger has been looking for his Pires type player for a while. I thought Sanchez would be the man but he's more of a goal scorer who chips in with assists.
My guess is he wants a player who can chip in with goals and assists while contributing to general build up play (unlike Walcott) but also not looking out of place on the wing like Cazorla did.

 

[Rex Stone]

Fekir is only 21, he has a higher ceiling than Lacazette

Players don't improve based on age. For example Giroud and Drogba didn't hit their peak until pretty late in their careers. While Michael Owen was done by 25.

 

[Taylor Gang Gunners]

It is Fekir isn't it? This thread title confused me momentarily. Sort it out @blaze_of_glory FFS