• ! ! ! 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.

Was the Arsenal fanbase too hard on Giroud - France's all time leading goalscorer?

Were the fans too harsh on Giroud?


  • Total voters
    84

BigPoppaPump

Reeling from Laca & Kos nightmares
Rex, you know where I stand. Not gonna start this again.

PS : Other than Giroud, the one thing I got proven right all these years, Özil wasn't that much of a scoring goal threat. Ødegaard is well on his way as a better AMC.
Özil is a bit of a pandora's box so I don't want to go there but he was quite overr
People say Giroud would have been a good squad player but his ego would have never settled for that.

Demanded a move after only 6 months of being a backup here, and was also unhappy with his usage at Chelsea.
If I was a back up to someone like Lacazette I’d want to leave too. The guy who can’t even get a France call up benching France’s top scorer? Not having it.
 

MartiSaka

Well-Known Member
Just looked and his strike rate is actually more or less the same - about 0.4 goals per game.

That's absolutely mental to think about.
Understandable why he continued to get games when anyone who watched the PL thought France had better strikers on the bench.
 
We were probably too hard on Giroud, but we would have been too hard on almost any striker after having Henry and RvP. Hell, Walcott scored 100 goals for us, and the lasting image in my mind will always be him streaking in from the wing and putting a chance Henry would have buried into Row Z instead, and possibly being offside as well.

But we definitely under-appreciated Giroud. Sure he was infuriating at times. Incredibly streaky finisher. Missed sitters when we needed them. But also some divine flicks and headers to score goals that didn't look possible. (And there have been times in the last four years we've missed that aerial presence, when we couldn't break teams down and resorted to lumping balls into the box). But in the end, the man has--counting international matches--over 300 professional goals at about .4 per appearance, and more per 90 considering how often he was a substitute. Not an all-time great, but that's still one hell of a career.

I'm very high on Eddie (and all of our youth), but there's no way I'll predict anyone will score 300 professional goals. Giroud should have been more appreciated.
 

Melquiades

Well-Known Member
We were probably too hard on Giroud, but we would have been too hard on almost any striker after having Henry and RvP. Hell, Walcott scored 100 goals for us, and the lasting image in my mind will always be him streaking in from the wing and putting a chance Henry would have buried into Row Z instead, and possibly being offside as well.

But we definitely under-appreciated Giroud. Sure he was infuriating at times. Incredibly streaky finisher. Missed sitters when we needed them. But also some divine flicks and headers to score goals that didn't look possible. (And there have been times in the last four years we've missed that aerial presence, when we couldn't break teams down and resorted to lumping balls into the box). But in the end, the man has--counting international matches--over 300 professional goals at about .4 per appearance, and more per 90 considering how often he was a substitute. Not an all-time great, but that's still one hell of a career.

I'm very high on Eddie (and all of our youth), but there's no way I'll predict anyone will score 300 professional goals. Giroud should have been more appreciated.

Yup. He was a fine player who pretty consistently pounded in 15 goals/year but when you're used to absolute world class guys popping 25, it seems frustrating. He was the worst main CF option for the team in nearly 25 years dating back pre-Ian Wright to Charlie Nicholas, but holy hell were the guys in between good.

If he'd played 10 years for West Ham helping them to 6th in the table he'd probably get a statue there, but expectations are different at this club and for some guys who are merely 'pretty good' instead of great it can be unfair.
 

BIoodBrother

Well-Known Member
I don't believe much in hindsight and he did very well with Chelsea, Milan and France but in a time when we were still expected to fight for the title and needed to replace RVP we tried to do so by getting cheap striker after striker until Lacazette (failed) and then Aubameyang (too late and after Sanchez, Cazorla, Özil era was over) and that meant the many years of waiting continued throughout Girouds career here.
If we had somehow had the Jesus from now instead of Giroud back then, we would have won the league.
Giroud was too slow for our game. His technique and intelligence evolved so that he actually got better with time and he played for Chelsea when they struggled to replace Costa but even Chelsea knew that they needed a different main striker..
I never regretted that we got rid of Giroud. Lacazette just wasn't the upgrade we needed to spearhead our attack. Jesus finally is.
 

TheGreatWright8

Well-Known Member
I think Giroud should have been used as someone you pair with someone else, he never fit that lone striker well unfortunately.
 

Erlis

Only Came To See Granit Xhaka

Player: Xhaka
To me personally Giroud was a likable character, and no one can deny that he also is a good looking player. I would prefer when he retires to come and play the role, in a movie, for our national hero, Scanderbeg, because with his beard he surprisingly looks identical to his statues and pictures around the world. He is a medieval historical character.

I admired some of his skills in football, especially his headers, leaps and some very unique goals he scored for Arsenal. I also think he was making troubles to the opposition defenders with his height and strength. When he played as a substitute he would change the course of the game as well. It is good to see that he is doing well in Italy and for his national team.

I do think that people were harsh on him most of the time, but to who they are/were not? :facepalm:
 

sergio_giorgini

Well-Known Member
To me personally Giroud was a likable character, and no one can deny that he also is a good looking player. I would prefer when he retires to come and play the role, in a movie, for our national hero, Scanderbeg, because with his beard he surprisingly looks identical to his statues and pictures around the world. He is a medieval historical character.

I admired some of his skills in football, especially his headers, leaps and some very unique goals he scored for Arsenal. I also think he was making troubles to the opposition defenders with his height and strength. When he played as a substitute he would change the course of the game as well. It is good to see that he is doing well in Italy and for his national team.

I do think that people were harsh on him most of the time, but to who they are/were not? :facepalm:

Fs how is this relevant in any way???!
 

GDeep™

Reporting live from a Kremlin bunker
How were we too hard? Not like he was abused or treated badly, or had a volatile relationship with fans.

He was a limited player but it was what it was, signed him cheap and he did do his bit for the price. Not his fault we never had the cash to replace him with a star striker - closest we came was when Wenger had to pick between Özil and Higuain.

Credit where it’s due, he has developed into a good big man. Seems like Arsenal was his training ground.
 

Entropics

Well-Known Member

Player: Cedric
Fs how is this relevant in any way???!

It's the rare case of someone with pretty privilege still getting abused anyway

The season everyone mentions only him and Alexis got double figures in goals, but seemingly nobody else in the squad gets to be blamed, only Giroud
 

sergio_giorgini

Well-Known Member
It's the rare case of someone with pretty privilege still getting abused anyway

The season everyone mentions only him and Alexis got double figures in goals, but seemingly nobody else in the squad gets to be blamed, only Giroud

He gets blamed because he missed too many good chances in crucial moments while he was here. Then somehow turned into the French Ibrahimovic once he left.
 

dave_rwr

Established Member
I liked Giroud a lot. He's nowhere near an elite striker, but he worked hard and there was something about him that I really appreciated. But it's just that he's tailor made for the slower Italian league. He didn't thrive at Chelsea either and there's a reason why he's hitting his best strikes in that league and not here.
 

AbouCuéllar

Author of A-M essays 📚
Giroud reminding us about his big game nous here with that beautiful composure to put away that headed chance. Just like in the World Cup where he tore it up with his goal scoring.

🤣🤣🤣
 

Nunowoolmez

Well-Known Member
To answer the question, in my opinion, absolutely NOT !

He was never better than 1/3 for us & his total ineffectiveness cost us the league when Leicester won it.

He was capable of doing some nice touches & scored some great goals & he lived off that.

The fact we tried to sign Suarez & Higuain a season after we bought him tells you all you need to know.
 

Arsenal Quotes

When we won the league at Tottenham, they came back 2-2 in the last-minute of the game, and they're celebrating - because they're happy to draw against us, obviously. And I remember saying to Mauricio Tarricco who injured himself celebrating in front of me: "Do you realise we only need a point to be Champions?" And he was utterly shocked. So I said "Yes. Now watch as we're going to celebrate on your pitch. Bye bye!"

Thierry Henry

Latest posts

Top