Mikel Arteta: Aston La Vista To The Title?

[razörist]

Amidst Liverpool meltdown and our own mediocre season, would you trade in Arteta for Klopp?

 

[A_G]

It's crazy
Most burnley players aren't even good enough to make our bench and yet AM told me teams like Burnley have gotten stronger The likes of Chris Wood and peters won't look out of place in the championship.

What about West Ham? Aston Villa? Leicester? Leeds get promoted and instantly break their transfer record?

Nobody bats an eyelid when mid-table clubs spend £20m on a player yet people want to pretend the league has always been like this.

 

[Macho]

It's crazy
Most burnley players aren't even good enough to make our bench and yet AM told me teams like Burnley have gotten stronger The likes of Chris Wood and peters won't look out of place in the championship.

They famously didn't buy anybody this summer and janurary much to Sean Dyche's exasperation

The twerking is ridiculous *shrugs*

 

[Macho]

Have you finally taken me off ignore?

How did you manage to get him to put you on ignore? I'm jealous tbh.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

How did you manage to get him to put you on ignore? I'm jealous tbh.

Why? I almost never reply to you anyway.

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

When the amount of money clubs have to spend on a squad of players doubles like it has over the last years. A rich team that spent £400m on their squad 5 years ago now has £800m, that's £400m extra. A lower team that spent £100m now spends £200m, only £100m extra.

Of course much depends on the cost of players over the years. If it increases exactly in line with club spending on players there'll be no advantage to either. If it drops below then the richer clubs get a bigger advantage. Also some of the rich teams have more than doubled their squad investments. City £400m to £1000m, Pool £257m to £666m.

@American_Gooner can explain further I'm sure.

You obviously either didn't understand or more likely ignored what I said. I'm not disputing any of that data. It's your analysis of that data which is incorrect.

It's so clear what I any others have said is correct. I legitimately don't know how it can be explained to you in a more simplistic manner.

I will try one more time.

There is a limit to how good a football squad can be in terms of quality. Let's call that 100.

A club like Man City have a phenomenal squad. Let's say they're 90 on the quality scale.
To improve on the squad they have is exceptionally hard. If they spend £100m that's maybe 2 good squad players. Maybe they're a slight improvement on the players they're replacing. Let's say that pushes them up to 92 on their squad quality. That's a very marginal gain for a lot of money spent. That's not even taking into account the money a club that Man City have to spend just to stay stationery. High quality players age or lose performance and need replacing, that's a lot of money being spent just to stand still. Fernandinho and Aguero will be falling into that bracket soon.

Burnley are lets say a 30 on the quality scale. A relatively weak starting eleven and squad, I think we can all agree. Give them £50m. Let's say they buy two good players at £25m. Those two players are going to push Burnely up to maybe a 35 on the quality scale because they're a big upgrade on the players they're replacing quality wise.

The point is the lower you are on the quality scale the easier it is to improve your squad with money, like the Burnley example. The higher up you are on the quality scale the harder it is to improve your squad even if you spend a lot more money because there is a ceiling to how good any football side can be and a club like Man City are much closer to that limit.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

You obviously either didn't understand or more likely ignored what I said.

Makingtrax in nutshell!

 

[Kav]

Lamptey - Loftus-Cheek midfield pairing?

Think I'm finished with this forum.

You conveniently ignored the other options to show yourself as detestable, instead of discussing the issue at hand You spout nonsense and run off.

Carry on though. We see you for what you are.

Yes RLC is a better player than Xhaka and it can’t even be denied. Despite his injury record.

 

[<<reed>>]

Amidst Liverpool meltdown and our own mediocre season, would you trade in Arteta for Klopp?

What's the catch?

 

[Makingtrax]

You obviously either didn't understand or more likely ignored what I said. I'm not disputing any of that data. It's your analysis of that data which is incorrect.

It's so clear what I any others have said is correct. I legitimately don't know how it can be explained to you in a more simplistic manner.

I will try one more time.

There is a limit to how good a football squad can be in terms of quality. Let's call that 100.

A club like Man City have a phenomenal squad. Let's say they're 90 on the quality scale.
To improve on the squad they have is exceptionally hard. If they spend £100m that's maybe 2 good squad players. Maybe they're a slight improvement on the players they're replacing. Let's say that pushes them up to 92 on their squad quality. That's a very marginal gain for a lot of money spent. That's not even taking into account the money a club that Man City have to spend just to stay stationery. High quality players age or lose performance and need replacing, that's a lot of money being spent just to stand still. Fernandinho and Aguero will be falling into that bracket soon.

Burnley are lets say a 30 on the quality scale. A relatively weak starting eleven and squad, I think we can all agree. Give them £50m. Let's say they buy two good players at £25m. Those two players are going to push Burnely up to maybe a 35 on the quality scale because they're a big upgrade on the players they're replacing quality wise.

The point is the lower you are on the quality scale the easier it is to improve your squad with money, like the Burnley example. The higher up you are on the quality scale the harder it is to improve your squad even if you spend a lot more money because there is a ceiling to how good any football side can be and a club like Man City are much closer to that limit.

So it can’t work because City have maxed out. Well, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Sp**s haven’t maxed out for sure, which pokes a massive hole in that simplistic argument of yours. Re read it and have another think about it bro, check the maths, what you’re writing has more holes than a sieve and that imaginary quality scale is just a figment of your imagination. Try some real facts.

 

[Harz]

Maybe it's time to give Azeez a shout in the PL?

 

[Riou]

Maybe it's time to give Azeez a shout in the PL?

Unsure...think Xhaka needs another solid 10-15 games starting in a row, just to confirm if he is good enough or not.

 

[Harz]

Unsure...think Xhaka needs another solid 10-15 games starting in a row, just to confirm if he is good enough or not.

I mean he might be unready but looks sick in compilation videos.

 

[Oxeki]

They famously didn't buy anybody this summer and janurary much to Sean Dyche's exasperation

The twerking is ridiculous *shrugs*

 

[Iceman10]

Did I really see a comment a few pages back bemoaning the Partey transfer with some bobbleheads going along with it for no logical reason I can gather except for a tribal dynamic? This thread has been an incoherent mess going back at least ten pages or so.

 

[Rex Stone]

And give up on any chance of a decent end to the season?

I want us to upgrade on Xhaka / Elneny / Ceballos too, but it's pretty easy to just say "replace X!!" without coming up with any affordable replacements we could sign. Pretty harsh on Arteta too given that these players have been here for ages and he's only had one (incredibly difficult) summer transfer window to improve the squad.

And I'll bet whatever you want that any Xhaka replacement we sign will cost more than the transfer fee we receive for him?

There’s always options. We can’t hand wash all of Arteta’s decisions away saying it was either Xhaka or nobody. We were offered 26M and the possibility of getting 100k a week off our books when Covid was still just a minor news story in China. There’s any number of directions we could’ve gone.

£26M is still a lot of money and clubs who were previously “below” us but have overtaken us like Leicester would have moved him on without a second thought.

Yes the end to last season would’ve suffered and Arteta probably wouldn’t have been able to cut Guendouzi out but it was pretty ropey in the league anyway even with Xhaka.

Then in the summer who knows. We were apparently trying to get both Partey and Aouar who’s more of an 8 than a 10. We were close with Aulas so who knows maybe that extra 25M can help tip the balance.

In that scenario you can play AMN more (who don’t forget we also turned down 25M for) who’s looked pretty good as a DM at WBA alongside two of Ceballos/Aouar/Partey.

If you can’t afford Aouar we could have bought Eze for 16M, Raphinha for 17M, Bissouma has a release clause of 27M.

All those options would’ve been younger and on far less money with longer contracts than Xhaka. I don’t know at what point you just say he made a decision and he probably got it wrong.

 

[Makingtrax]

So Makingtrax been spending last years blaming players for the bad situation of Wenger but now apparently it's the manager's fault, not the players.

I’d be happy to blame the players if you and your buddy were holding Arteta to the same standards as Arsène. It was a big factor in why he couldn’t win a title, only spending 5th.

But blaming the players for coming 10th, when you’re spending 5th is beyond laughable.

 

[say yes]

There’s always options. We can’t hand wash all of Arteta’s decisions away saying it was either Xhaka or nobody. We were offered 26M and the possibility of getting a 100k a week off our books when Covid was still just a minor news story in China. There’s any number of directions we could’ve gone.

£26M is still a lot of money and clubs who were previously “below” us but have overtaken us like Leicester would have moved him on without a second thought.

Yes the end to last season would’ve suffered and Arteta probably wouldn’t have been able to cut Guendouzi out but it was pretty ropey in the league anyway even with Xhaka.

Then in the summer who knows. We were apparently trying to get both Partey and Aouar who’s more of an 8 than a 10. We were close with Aulas so who knows maybe that extra 25M can help tip the balance.

In that scenario you can play AMN more (who don’t forget we turned also down 25M for) who’s looked pretty good as a DM at WBA alongside two of Ceballos/Aouar/Partey.

If you can’t afford Aouar we could have bought Eze for 16M, Raphinha for 17M, Bissouma has a release clause of 27M.

All those options would’ve been younger and on far less money with longer contracts than Xhaka. I don’t know at what point you just say he made a decision and he probably got it wrong.

You say "the end to last season would've suffered" as if that's a minor consideration?

I'm not Xhaka's biggest fan but he was instrumental to our run-in & winning the FA Cup, which qualified us for Europe. That was worth far more financially than the loan + £26m obligation Hertha reportedly offered. Your numbers on financial benefit are just wrong when you take that into account.

But hey ho, if people think Arteta made a big error in failing to sell Xhaka in his first month in charge, and then using Xhaka to win the FA Cup & qualify us for Europe, then so be it. I disagree, but at least we can all admit he's far less culpable there than Wenger (signed Xhaka & didn't sell him) and Emery (didn't sell him), who both had far more opportunity to get rid (and couldn't get even him to perform).

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

So it can’t work because City have maxed out. Well, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Sp**s haven’t maxed out for sure, which pokes a massive hole in that simplistic argument of yours. Re read it and have another think about it bro, check the maths, what you’re writing has more holes than a sieve and that imaginary quality scale is just a figment of your imagination. Try some real facts.

I'm not trying to use this as some defence of Arteta, it explains why historically weaker clubs have become more competitive in recent times. That's all.

Man City haven't maxed out and I haven't said they have. The better your squad gets the harder it becomes to improve on however much money you have, it's not rocket science.

Arsenal have spent their money poorly generally over the past 4-5 years and that largely explains why we're not where we should be. Another argument you refuse to entertain. You look at it in such a black and white, non footballing way, £100m spent = £100m of talent in real terms added to the squad, when that's clearly not the case.

I know you're a stats and data guy, I'm like that with cricket, but sometimes you've got to put the charts and data away and look at things from a footballing perspective. A chart or data isn't going to give you the totality of a situation or the answers to everything, however much you want it too.

 

[ArtetaOut]

Abramovich had the balls and ambition to sack a fan-favorite manager who had underperformed in mid-season, and immediately appointed a replacement who has good CV and experience and they are already experiencing a revival. How about us? We chose this ****ing rookie over candidates like Ancelotti as well as Tuchel, and already a year have passed since then and we're now doing even worse than we were under Emery. And we still have some shameless corporate shill scums here fapping themselves over 10th place and Cone Boy's jacket, and still talking about "trusting the process". Yeah right, you shills can shove your process up your a*** and enjoy your prolonged mediocrity while more and more clubs overtake us.