Bad sprain apparently. Lucky it's not a fracture or break, but it looks like he might be out for a while. I'd play Chambers there, I think he's good enough. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29194181
I think we could be in real trouble if we have to play Hayden as a CB in any competitive game. Like Miquel he's someone who I'm sure Arsene knows already won't make it in this club, but he had to promote him somewhat this season seeing as we had no choice. Jenkinson getting loaned was really stupid though as I said. When he had a run of games he covered competently for Sagna for almost half a season. Bellerin is a gamble.
I think Hayden might actually be a player who will make it. Defenders often peak later than other players, but I reckon by the end of the season he will will be ready. Chambers will play until Debuchy is back, although this will reduce our attacking ability down the right side.
It wasn't stupid when we were on track to get another CB in. If that'd happened and Chambers wasn't having to be our backup in both RB and CB, we'd be ok.
You know that for a fact or just basing it on paper heresay? Defenders moved. We didn't sign one. I can't see any evidence we were ever 'on track' to sign a defender. You're trying to find a non existent excuse for the abdominal decision to enter the season with 6 defenders, one of whom spends most of the time on the treatment table.
And it appears you're trying to find an excuse to pick fights with people. Wenger said we were in the market for a defender if Vermaelen left, and all the signs point towards us pursuing defenders. Nobody's making any excuses for it not happening. You've just spotted an opportunity to talk about how crap we are again, and have gleefully taken it.
Where have I said we are crap? Gent made a valid point that letting Jenkinson go on loan was silly. Anyone could see this was silly. If we were letting him go because we were getting someone else in then you get the replacement in FIRST. That's basic common sense. Letting Jenko go first before we got someone else was risky and not something that should have been done. We did it... And now we pay the price. It was a stupid thing to do. It's irrelevant if we tried to get anyone else in afterwards as we shouldn't have taken that risk in the first place.
Haven't seen confirmation either way of this... Anyone know? Seems a bum deal for the loaned team if true, why would they agree to it?! Anyway, even if we can it would seem the sort of stubborn AW move to NOT recall him I bet!
Season long loans usually have no recall clause. Debuchy will cover RB & if he's needed to cover CB Bellerin will cover RB.
There was weeks left to get another CB in. Not that risky. Evidently nobody foresaw that every single attempt to get a defender in would fall down, but these things happen. Other teams don't always wait around for you to get your replacements in. If we'd waited, that's equally as risky because you then have Jenkinson rotting in the reserves not able to get a game. End of story, really.
Not really. If he isn't good enough, he's still playing. Bit like saying "We'll have this can of beans for dinner, I think it's good enough" when it's the only thing you have to eat in the house.
Which defenders is there proof that we moved for where that move broke down? This is me genuinely interested, not trying just to pick an argument.
It always fascinates me that the "Is he good enough" question only seems to come up when we already own a player. If it is a hypothetical player, i.e. another RB/CB etc., then of course we should have signed one. It is always assumed that the incoming players would (of course) be good enough. No one says very often, "We could have signed a player, but he probably wouldn't have been good enough."
