Manchester City vs Arsenal| Saturday 17th October 17:30| Sky Sports

What will the result be?


  • Total voters
    101
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

yousif_arsenal

King of Twitter Rumours
Moderator
To be fair the game against city in fa cup our performance offensively was much worse we just had 4 shots but we were more clinical today 11 shots but we weren't clinical
 

Mo Britain

Doom Monger
Have always found this line of thought to be interesting. Even if sky were selecting pundits based on sexual orientation and race instead of qualifications, can you explain why its a bad thing?

Appeals to a wider audience, probably better commercially. Unless you just don't like seeing anything but straight white guys on your tele.
I find the idea of selecting people for anything on sexual orientation invasive and alarming.

As to qualifications I'll say what I always say, if I need a heart surgeon I want the best one money can buy and I don't give a damn if he/she comes from any particular race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc etc.

Whilst I am happy to see people helped in particular quandaries being given extra help, I do not agree with arbitrary quotas which discriminate against people for the colour of their skin or gender or sexual orientation. There is no positive discrimination, only discrimination.
 

Finesse

Well-Known Member
There is plenty of grit, that is not the problem. The problem is the lack of quality. There is a reason why we play three at the back, it is precisely that lack of quality. Arteta sees his, that is why we play this way. You go 4-2-3-1 toe to toe, and we will get hammered. The squad isn't good enough.

We “may” get hammered. It’s 3 points lost still. In addition we have shown a great improvement in defence. Our 3 at the back gives us shape and stability but restricts us to change shape to accommodate it. Hence restrictions on our forward play.

Now we have Gabby with added steel. Kieran with added steel. Partey TK protect the defence. Add the general team spirit and combativeness. That is a base good enough to shape the team to create more chances.

We must create more. We changed shape and took out our highest scorer Laca to accommodate a tactically defensive shape. Not good enough. You get the impression we should have gone a gear more adventurous than we did. Same sentiments against Liverpool
 

Makingtrax

Planes, Trains & Social Media Rants
Do we have a poorer squad compared to Leeds and Villa? 2 teams that played Man City and Liverpool toe to toe?
Every team gets a big win occasionally ffs. We've beaten City and Liverpool recently. But City will beat lesser teams more often than not. Our quality does not match theirs. A blind person could see that. And Leeds and Villa will lose next time. It's all about odds.
 

Dutch D

Well-Known Member
Do we have a poorer squad compared to Leeds and Villa? 2 teams that played Man City and Liverpool toe to toe?
I've seen more high quality attacks from Leeds than I've seen from us thus far this season. Couldn't watch this game, though, so I don't know how we did.

Curious to know if we got any nice open play chances through fast transitions or intricate passing play. My default guess would be no.
 

9jagooner

Well-Known Member
Every team gets a big win occasionally ffs. We've beaten City and Liverpool recently. But City will beat lesser teams more often than not. Our quality does not match theirs. A blind person could see that. And Leeds and Villa will lose next time. It's all about odds.
It's not about beating them. My post was in context of our game plan. Those two teams (and it seems many other teams except us) go to these big teams and show them too much respect. The person I was responding too said something about the fact that we do this because of the quality of our squad and my point is we do not have a poorer squad compared to these other teams so why should we show that much respect?
 

9jagooner

Well-Known Member
Leeds lost to City by the way but they gave them something to think about.
We are going to Man Utd and Chelsea and will end up playing same style of football
 

GoonerJeeves

Up The Terriers
Trusted
We “may” get hammered. It’s 3 points lost still. In addition we have shown a great improvement in defence. Our 3 at the back gives us shape and stability but restricts us to change shape to accommodate it. Hence restrictions on our forward play.

Now we have Gabby with added steel. Kieran with added steel. Partey TK protect the defence. Add the general team spirit and combativeness. That is a base good enough to shape the team to create more chances.

We must create more. We changed shape and took out our highest scorer Laca to accommodate a tactically defensive shape. Not good enough. You get the impression we should have gone a gear more adventurous than we did. Same sentiments against Liverpool

There is a reason we went for Aoar, but we couldn't land it. Perhaps four at the back would have been more viable with him, but at the moment, I don't think we are there, hence why we play the way we do.
 

Finesse

Well-Known Member
Leeds lost to City by the way but they gave them something to think about.
We are going to Man Utd and Chelsea and will end up playing same style of football

Exactly. We would play same style. We did same against Westham and Sheffield and only changed shape second half when it was stale.
 

Riou

A-M's Resident Jobber
Trusted
I can't believe people think we played badly, thought we matched them quite well.

Even at our best back in the day we had plenty of games like this (having better player helped us get better results though) some matches it's more of a battle.

Glad we are showing some competitiveness in these big games again, tired of just getting swept aside rather easily like the last few years...happy with the direction we are going.
 

say yes

Not Trusted
Trusted
Have always found this line of thought to be interesting. Even if sky were selecting pundits based on sexual orientation and race instead of qualifications, can you explain why its a bad thing?

Appeals to a wider audience, probably better commercially. Unless you just don't like seeing anything but straight white guys on your tele.
Huh? I mean I’m all for diversity and everything but I don’t get this argument at all.

I want to see the best pundits / hear the best analysis. Monday Night Football for example is the best show on tv, and that’s because they hired the two best pundits, even if they’re both white cis males.
 

amigo

Active Member
I've seen more high quality attacks from Leeds than I've seen from us thus far this season. Couldn't watch this game, though, so I don't know how we did.

Curious to know if we got any nice open play chances through fast transitions or intricate passing play. My default guess would be no.
We got two actually...
 

Rasmi

Well-Known Member
One thing is clear. Arteta has become what I feared the most with this tactic. Wenger did the same and was like this his last few years. Arteta decided to play with 5 at the back to cover the teams weakness. It was supposed to be temporary thing. But like Wenger he lost himself like this and was constantly obsessed with covering cracks and was constantly reactive instead of being proactive. He has to drop this 5 back defensive mentality. People are deluded if they think you can switch back and forth defensive to offensive football. We saw with West Ham how hard it is for us to have a fluent attacking game. We will drop far more points to lesser teams
 

littleboysilva

Well-Known Member
I find the idea of selecting people for anything on sexual orientation invasive and alarming.

As to qualifications I'll say what I always say, if I need a heart surgeon I want the best one money can buy and I don't give a damn if he/she comes from any particular race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc etc.

Whilst I am happy to see people helped in particular quandaries being given extra help, I do not agree with arbitrary quotas which discriminate against people for the colour of their skin or gender or sexual orientation. There is no positive discrimination, only discrimination.

In order to agree with what you're saying I would have to grant that pundits are indeed being selected by race/gender, which you can't prove.

My problem with this idea is that when I hear this the implication is that these pundits are terrible and wouldnt be in the job if not for their race. Which is usually not based in any fact. All i'm saying is pundits are probably still selected based on their punditry with a slight push for diversity on tv. I don't think its a pressing issue that there less white men on tv.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Match Prediction

  • Arsenal Win

    Votes: 23 52.3%
  • Draw

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • Sheffield United Win

    Votes: 14 31.8%
Top