• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Granit Xhaka: 2019/20 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ewarwoowar

Well-Known Member
Happy to stop using it if people find it so awful but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as you’re making out, particularly given that it’s clearly said in jest on this forum.
Apologies if you think I may have singled you out, it was just a general observation and in a certain respect I hadn't gauged the room;

Also completely disagree that calling someone a ***** is up there with racist or homophobic slurs. There’s nothing wrong with differing ethnicities or sexualities, which (along with the historical context) is why abusing someone for it is so vile. On the other hand, there’s quite a lot wrong with being a ***** (sorry @GDeep™ ), which is why (a) it’s so obviously used tongue in cheek; and (b) it isn’t insulting /discriminatory to vast swathes of the population.
Try calling an actual * a ***** and watch how offended and defensive they become, they think it's a pretty dangerous word, it has been and can be a devastating slur, not only to the people whom have wrongfully been accused and whose lives have ended both figuratively and actually because of such allegations, think about what the dilution of such words as * and ***** might mean to those affected by it, when it's no longer taken seriously? It's pretty bad now I can tell you and yes ultimately does affect large swathes of populations.
 

Garrincha

Wilf Zaha Aficionado
Trusted ⭐
Happy to stop using it if people find it so awful but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as you’re making out, particularly given that it’s clearly said in jest on this forum.

Also completely disagree that calling someone a ***** is up there with racist or homophobic slurs. There’s nothing wrong with differing ethnicities or sexualities, which (along with the historical context) is why abusing someone for it is so vile. On the other hand, there’s quite a lot wrong with being a ***** (sorry @GDeep™ ), which is why (a) it’s so obviously used tongue in cheek; and (b) it isn’t insulting /discriminatory to vast swathes of the population.
Educate yourself on the matter.

 

Arseshavin

Active Member
Honestly, if we're gonna play Xhaka, play him high up field. He's not very mobile, and won't be much of a threat in the box, but he will be more likely to have some long shots, and he won't be that much of a liability defensively. We won't have the high pressing attacking midfielder that Emery likes, but that's a trade off I'm willing to try out, if we are gonna persist with playing Xhaka in the team. Besides, I think Xhaka is best suited to a central midfield three, and Laca should be a false nine, so Laca would do the pressing part that an attacking midfielder would do, in the setup I would have had Xhaka in.

I reckon this could be something we could try out:

Up-the-Arse.png

Now, in this tactic Xhaka would still have to defend, but I would have him in a more attacking role, like a box to box kind of player with less defensive responsibility, who's long shots would be the threat and not the runs into the box, kind of like Lampard, with Guendouzi the other box to box midfielder, with more defensive responsibility.

But also, I do believe that Torreira could become a great box to box midfielder, since he's very good at getting into the box when used in a more attacking role. The problem with using Torreira as a box to box midfielder is that we have no one better to play in the defensive midfield role. Maybe David Luiz ;)
 

samshere

Why so serieuse?
That's great, but we need footballing qualities. I think he's more detrimental to the team than beneficial.
I was replying to a question about his leadership qualities and why he seems to be so well liked within the squad. Footballing ability is a different discussion altogether.
And frankly with the way the fans have turned on him, I don't see him have a future here. He's got qualities but they aren't so obvious that'll make fans fall in love with him not when the team is performing as ****e as they are and the others in the midfield willock/guendouzi are youth players and generally better liked.
Now if the team was performing better, then the fans would've been more forgiving of him.
 

mpower2540

Well-Known Member
Honestly, if we're gonna play Xhaka, play him high up field. He's not very mobile, and won't be much of a threat in the box, but he will be more likely to have some long shots, and he won't be that much of a liability defensively. We won't have the high pressing attacking midfielder that Emery likes, but that's a trade off I'm willing to try out, if we are gonna persist with playing Xhaka in the team. Besides, I think Xhaka is best suited to a central midfield three, and Laca should be a false nine, so Laca would do the pressing part that an attacking midfielder would do, in the setup I would have had Xhaka in.

I reckon this could be something we could try out:

Up-the-Arse.png

Now, in this tactic Xhaka would still have to defend, but I would have him in a more attacking role, like a box to box kind of player with less defensive responsibility, who's long shots would be the threat and not the runs into the box, kind of like Lampard, with Guendouzi the other box to box midfielder, with more defensive responsibility.

But also, I do believe that Torreira could become a great box to box midfielder, since he's very good at getting into the box when used in a more attacking role. The problem with using Torreira as a box to box midfielder is that we have no one better to play in the defensive midfield role. Maybe David Luiz ;)

I see what you’re getting at but Xhaka categorically isn’t box to box. I’m not sure Guendouzi is either. They can’t coexist in this team together imo. Neither are particularly good at covering ground or reading danger. If Emery wants to play 4231, play one of them, or Ceballos or Willock next to Torreira with Özil at 10. Ceballos/Guendouzi/Xhaka are all practically the same profile of player. The only true box to box player we have in there is Willock unless Maitland Niles gets moved into there. It’s so infuriating to see that there’s options for Unai but he just refuses to use them.
 

Arseshavin

Active Member
I see what you’re getting at but Xhaka categorically isn’t box to box. I’m not sure Guendouzi is either. They can’t coexist in this team together imo. Neither are particularly good at covering ground or reading danger. If Emery wants to play 4231, play one of them, or Ceballos or Willock next to Torreira with Özil at 10. Ceballos/Guendouzi/Xhaka are all practically the same profile of player. The only true box to box player we have in there is Willock unless Maitland Niles gets moved into there. It’s so infuriating to see that there’s options for Unai but he just refuses to use them.
Sorry, I do not at all agree about Guendouzi. He could be a great box to box imo. For example he has arguably the biggest engine in our team and he is great at running with the ball though midfield when he does it. As for Xhaka, he is not very mobile, so I wasn't really thinking of him as a classical box to box midfielder, so maybe using that term was misleading. Attacking playmaker or something like that would be a better term to describe how I would use him.

And I think Xhaka and Guendouzi are very different kind of players. They do play kind of the same roles, which I think may be a reason people see similarities.
 
Last edited:

mavelous

Tinfoil hat aficionado
I guess it's not his fault that he shouldn't be anywhere near the starting 11 let alone captain. Why Wenger blew the best part of 40m quid on a player with a questionable attitude and an appalling disciplinary record is a mystery (Kante could've been got for the same money)
Torreira is much better suited to the role Xhaka is used in and would provide the fragile defence with a little more cover.
The popular and more or less accepted theory suggests that during the latter years Wenger didn't have much control over transfers.

It's unfathomable Wenger would be so horribly wrong in the space of a couple years on 4-5 players (over the 100m worth of "talent").

It's the biggest factor leading to his decline i reckon.
 

Big Poppa

Established Member
Trusted ⭐

Country: USA

Player:Saliba
Honestly, if we're gonna play Xhaka, play him high up field. He's not very mobile, and won't be much of a threat in the box, but he will be more likely to have some long shots, and he won't be that much of a liability defensively. We won't have the high pressing attacking midfielder that Emery likes, but that's a trade off I'm willing to try out, if we are gonna persist with playing Xhaka in the team. Besides, I think Xhaka is best suited to a central midfield three, and Laca should be a false nine, so Laca would do the pressing part that an attacking midfielder would do, in the setup I would have had Xhaka in.

I reckon this could be something we could try out:

Up-the-Arse.png

Now, in this tactic Xhaka would still have to defend, but I would have him in a more attacking role, like a box to box kind of player with less defensive responsibility, who's long shots would be the threat and not the runs into the box, kind of like Lampard, with Guendouzi the other box to box midfielder, with more defensive responsibility.

But also, I do believe that Torreira could become a great box to box midfielder, since he's very good at getting into the box when used in a more attacking role. The problem with using Torreira as a box to box midfielder is that we have no one better to play in the defensive midfield role. Maybe David Luiz ;)

What on earth... reading your words I don't think you even believe in such an idea. Moving him forward so he can have long shots. Wtf?

There's this warped logic that moving a player further away from goal makes them less of a liability.

Many goals we conceded start with sloppy play up top leading to counter attacks with everyone high up the pitch.
 

Arseshavin

Active Member
What on earth... reading your words I don't think you even believe in such an idea. Moving him forward so he can have long shots. Wtf?

There's this warped logic that moving a player further away from goal makes them less of a liability.

Many goals we conceded start with sloppy play up top leading to counter attacks with everyone high up the pitch.
It would utilize his abilities better imo. And I should also say I am not someone who favors Xhaka in our first eleven.

I seem to remember that Emery has also used Xhaka higher up the pitch in at least one match.

It's only natural that there is a bigger chance to make mistakes higher up the pitch because of less room to play in and less time to make decisions (this general rule is something Klopp is contesting by using gegenpressing). It is also logical that it's less dangerous to make mistakes higher up the pitch, especially if you don't go gung ho with no one to cover in midfield, which is why I say I would want Torreira to play as DM and cover in midfield. I agree, we have been hurt many times by mistakes high up the pitch, but that is in my opinion because our defense sucks and because Xhaka sucks at protecting the back four, and he's slow as ****. Guendouzi isn't very good at it either.
 

A_G

Rice Rice Baby 🎼🎵
Moderator
I'm so angry about his bollocks statement that I can trust myself to type a comment at the mo. I already had one deleted.

Suffice it to say, I want him out.
What did you say, it said you quoted me but I can't see it. Why did his statement anger you?
 

BigPoppaPump

Reeling from Laca & Kos nightmares
Happy to stop using it if people find it so awful but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as you’re making out, particularly given that it’s clearly said in jest on this forum.

Also completely disagree that calling someone a ***** is up there with racist or homophobic slurs. There’s nothing wrong with differing ethnicities or sexualities, which (along with the historical context) is why abusing someone for it is so vile. On the other hand, there’s quite a lot wrong with being a ***** (sorry @GDeep™ ), which is why (a) it’s so obviously used tongue in cheek; and (b) it isn’t insulting /discriminatory to vast swathes of the population.

I don’t get when this forum turned into so many racism and homphobic accusations. Most of the time people don’t even care they just want something to use against you. This place has become so juvenile.

Mods must be sick of it now, this forum has snitches that can’t fight their own battles.
 

Pepes blue pill

Well-Known Member
I don’t get when this forum turned into so many racism and homphobic accusations. Most of the time people don’t even care they just want something to use against you. This place has become so juvenile.

Mods must be sick of it now, this forum has snitches that can’t fight their own battles.

Reported for homophobia and racism
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arsenal Quotes

Team picking is a complicated and scientific matter requiring expert knowledge

Herbert Chapman

Latest posts

Top Bottom