As mentioned earlier, A midfield with Wilshere and Ramsey in the centre with Oxo and Cazorla on the flanks could really work It might be that we just need more numbers across the middle? I think with Diaby, Arteta in there too, we could make the MF work a bit more intelligently for us, rather than relying on a DM position that we don't really have.
I think it's a bit hasty to think Ramsey is the answer to our problems after a few decent substitute appearances.
Arsenal is just not good enough. there was no surprise for me with the performance and the outcome. I can't live on false hope because it's obvious Arsenal is regressing. our performance update, is definitely that of a mid-table teams. We will win games for sure but with performances like this it will be unconvincing. I am keeping my fingers cross hoping that tomorrow I'll see greener pasture at the Emirates.Bless, bless.
A DM position that Arsenal "don't really have" is the reason they are continually carved open. One ball, at any time, can bypass the midfield and put the back 4 under pressure. A DM is EXACTLY what Arsenal need. Someone to sit and break up the opposition attacks, or just slow them down so more players can get into position. What was evident yesterday was that the defensive positioning is poor, as is communication. Bould seemed on top of things in the first few games, what has changed!? Because something is seriously wrong.
On the plus side Wilshere was excellent in the second half and I can see ALOT of potential in a Diaby-Wilshere-Santi trio. It's hard to not like Giroud. The guy gives everything. However at times he seems so sluggish in and around the box - He just really lacks that sharpness needed at the top level. I truly hope Wenger brings in another striker.
Who knows what could have happened if we had not had the early red card? I quite liked the look of that side on paper and we did perform reasonably well in the 2nd half even with 10 men. Not enough though. We need players and we are in trouble with a threadbare squad and a host of very tough fixtures to come.
Why did Diaby start over Coquelin? You have a defensive-minded player on the bench, you need a DM on the pitch the break up City's attacks. Diaby was only half fit, coming back from injury, and would have been better as a half-hour boost toward the end. He is NOT a DM, and it alters the balance of the midfield when you don't have someone anchoring it who is always available for a pass. Coquelin isn't first-rate, but he is better than not having anyone there at all. If I were him I'd be handing in a transfer request. When a half-fit Diaby is preferred to you, you know you're sitting alongside Rosicky on Wengers infamous "Black List."
If I was an Arsenal fan paying the most expensive prices in the world for the privilege to watch Manchester City cruise to a 2-0 victory, I would be very, very angry. As good as City might be, they are not in the same class United never mind the team you have to face in a few weeks time, Bayern, and should the unexpected happen, quarter and semi-final opponents. We all know about Chelsea last season but they had more quality than you guys currently have. As you guys have said you have replaced your great players of 7, 6, 5 years ago with increasing mediocrity. The powers that be seem happy with getting 4th place. With the squad you have, seemingly having gone backwards from last season, there is no guarantee you will succeed this season. Indeed, finishing 6th could result in no European competition altogether if the Cups are won by teams outside the top 4, unless you win it. Could this be the catalyst to set minds thinking at management and boardroom level? The thought of finishing behind Tottenham for the first time since 198* (199*) must be unbearable for you!!
Wenger obviously doesn't trust Coquelin to start against City which begs the question, why is he still at Arsenal? And why is Wenger using Coquelin as an excuse not to buy another midfielder?
If we leave The Manchester clubs and Chelsea out of the equation who Arsenal claim they can't compete with you have to look at Spurs. The big, but only difference between the sides IMO is that Spurs have bought better and been coached better. Jol and even Redknapp and their staff have to take credit for that. In terms of ability I genuinely believe Arsenal are at least as good at Spurs but few could argue Spurs have got more out of Bale, Lennon, Defoe, Sandro, Walker, Assou-Ekotto than Arsenal have with Ramsey (albeit unfortunate), Gervinho, Walcott, Denilson, Bendtner etc.
There are an awful lot of sweeping statements made as if they are absolute fact. Again I'm not saying that you guys are not correct with your apocalyptic views on Arsenal, but there are reasons why I think that this kind of metaphoric self-flagellation every time we face defeat is not healthy. First of all,it is very devisive. As supporters and fans we do a better job supporting our club if we are united. I genuinely believe that if we ALL support the players, in the most literal sense of the word, then they will play better. Anyone who has kids knows the power of self-belief and how humans perform better when they are told they are good, as opposed to how they perform if they are told they are not. Second, Nothing the fans say or do is going to have any effect on the club, manager or players. There is simply no point in protests, riots or demonstrations. The people who run Arsenal, are not going to listen to fans when they make technical decisions running the club. I think that, in different circumstances perhaps, every fan would declare Wenger and the board crazy if they did so. If we held a vote for who should be on the team sheet every week say, or what formation we played? Does anyone seriously think the team would be better off that way? Thirdly, most of the facts that lead people to conclusions are in dispute. Even the fans criticizing Wenger and individual players can't agree on which are the spawn of satan and which ones can be saved somehow. Can Wenger be cured by a good mental health practitioner and healthy transfer budget? Is Koscielney any good, is Vermaelen? Would Our russian board member be a good owner? Even if you all manage to agree that every player at the club is rotten, and the manager, and the board, are you seriously suggesting that we have a chance, if we change them all at the same time, even if it is possible to do it financially? OK, I say 'all' but (from what I see) most of you think the club is at least 80% rotten, that may not be quite all, but it is a large percentage. So that is my problem with the whole anti-everything view. Even if we all agree that you are all very smart people, that you are totally right in absolutely everything you say, and then get the club to listen to you, it doesn't change anything. Practically speaking it gets us nowhere. All we end up with is poor support for the players, a club running on a very unsound principle, and are left executing a plan of universal change that is not going to lead to success.
What I'm saying fella is that we might be better to play 4-4-2 with two CM in the middle as opposed to wanting one DM to sit in the middle of a 4-3-3
I think the vast majority of the evidence proves that the very best managers in football today share this view. You need to have 3 midfielders capable of playing the ball, in order to bring the ball through the midfield against a well-executed press. If you have a DM who is not a good ball-playing midfielder and who does not step up into the midfield then it is likely that you will need him because you will turn the ball over a lot. I actually think that the 4-4-2 people have a better argument than the single DM people. If you go 4-4-2 and advocate a more long ball or direct approch to Giroud say, then midfielders are more defensive. The long ball, as we can see when it is used against us, is very effective against the press. I don't believe myself that we should go to a 4-4-2, but the argument is more sound than the "beast DM" argument - In my opinion.
it's very hard to take anything from that match, down to 10 men after 9 minutes, we gave ourselves no chance right from the off. How can you say diaby wasn't fit enough? he played 60 minutes for a team that had 10 men and came through unscathed. Would you have really started ramsey instead? The biggest mistake i thought wenger made was bringing on ramsey, he takes far too many touches on the ball and slows the game down. Kos was stupid to get sent off but with city's small players i thought that koscielney would have been better equipped to deal with them but we'll never know. Vermalen isnt an average defender, he just doesn't seem to have alot of support from either mertesacker or kos. And who would you give the captaincy to? WHY DOES WALCOTT TAKE FREE-KICKS? that is one thing i would like answered.
I wish the debate on here was of this standard all the time, and I wish I could tell you exactly why Walcott takes the free kicks, except that he is probably the least useful man in the team, on the other end of them perhaps.
One of Walcott's free-kicks gave us the goal in our 1-1 draw with Southampton just recently. Walcott got quite a few assists from corners recently too. Wilshere seems to take half of the free kicks lately anyway. I must say, his delivery is more... consistent.
