What you mean the post saying that we're fine at LB and RB coz we've got 2 players in each - ignoring that 1 RB has been injured for 4 months, the other RB is a teenager who is covering CB, and two LBs who were injured going into the Southampton game. I'm not going to repeat what I said previously though...
Stop being such a wind up lol It's clear that arsenal have been negatively effected by injuries this season evidenced by viewing our back five and subs bench at basically any point of the season. We've had more injuries than any other team and are yet to field our best eleven once this season. We've clearly been effected by injuries. That isn't up for debate, it's just the way it is. Now of course as a team with good resources you'd expect us to have some squad depth to deal with those injuries. So far we've managed to do that despite having to rely on a LB at CB and had our fifth choice GK on the verge of first team action. I'm not entirely sure what it is you liverpool fans are trying to highlight? Any team with more than half of there best eleven out injured are clearly going to be effected by it regardless of squad depth. The same would apply to Chelsea and city who have the best squad depth in the league. As far as comparing our injury issues to Southampton, you'd have to consider a couple of things. Of course we have better resources to cope with injury issues, we have the deeper squad and more financial clout, but we've also had far more injuries. Were also expected to perform to a higher standard and therefor it's more difficult to have players of a similar level in the squad. I think you've totally oversimplified the issue of injuries and the only reason you have is to have a dig at arsenal and wind a few fans up!
Isn't that the reason for having a squad in the first place? Or are you wanting a squad on top of injured players...?
We had enough full backs, the problem was that one of them was also our only back up CB and predictably 2 of them got injured at the same time
I never denied you've been affected by injuries, it obvious you have. I just find it both ridiculous and amusing that some of your posters were claiming Southampton and Arsenal have equal injury problems effecting your match equally. That's clearly not the case, you can lose eight first team players and still have a very strong side full of quality international players. Southampton can't.
Chelsea - LB's (Azpilacueta & Luis) RB's Ivanovic & Azpilacueta City - LB's Clichy & Kolarov, RB's Zabaleta & Sagna United - RB's Rafael LB's Shaw Liverpool - RB Manquillo Johnson Flanagan, LB's Enrique & Moreno That's 4 other "big clubs" and their options for RB & LB. 2 players in each position is what constitutes a squad. That gives you 22 players with 3 spaces left for fillers. Are you saying you want 3 first team players for each of your positions then because no one else has that...
And all I'd say to that is, blame the management. Going into the season with only 2 recognised central defenders was always going to cause you problems. No team goes through without one of them getting suspended (especially as Kosceilny is prone to at least 1 red card a season), injured or having a bad run of form.
I can't understand why your having difficulty with the point I'm raising - we have 4 fullbacks, 1 is out injured for months, and 2 others aren't fully fit. So we have 1 fully fit FB (who is also our cover for CB), and yet you say we've got plenty of FBs? and that this shouldn't affect our performance!?!
There are two discussions happening at the same time, that's why. One is what you're getting at; injury's limited the first team options. This is fair enough as its clearly true. The other is about Arsenal's squad depth. Arsenal have as many FBs for each side as any of the other top sides in the league. You don't have a lack of depth, you have injury problems. Bare in mind that this discussion started because some were claiming you had equal injury troubles / concerns as Southampton, a clearly ridiculous claim considering the squads of the two clubs in question; Arsenal can have eight missing and still field quality international players, Southampton can't.
But were Southampton missing 8? While I see where your coming from with the fact that Southampton have a smaller playing budget and squad than us, and so will be more susceptible to an injury crisis. I think it's a bit flippant to say "ohh well Arsenal have the same amount of cover as any other top club so have a good strength in depth at FB." when we've had 75% of them (or 3 out 4 if you'd rather) injured or not fully fit.
It is flippant. But the original conversation wasn't a detailed discussion either. Of course it depends on what injury problems they are. We only have a couple of injuries but one of them (Studge) is a major one for us that puts us in a injury crises on its own I've already said you presently have difficulties at FB and your squad lacks CBs. Its about perspective. PS...no idea how many you or Southampton are missing btw, just pointing out its not the same or equal
Of course which is my point, we've only got 6 first team defenders, so when half of those are out injured, (which Kos, Debuchy and Gibbs have been recently) and our 1st and 2nd choice keepers have been out (and our 4th) then clearly that's a crisis, regardless of 'squad depth'. Then when one of your best players (Ozil), a player as good as Walcott and your captain and only true DM/Quarterback is out as well, then it does have an effect on the side and is a pretty serious injury run, and considering we've got a relatively small squad (except for CM) while being top/top 3 of the injury list for most of the season, then it's a fair reaction to get annoyed when people dismiss our injuries just because 'we're a big club'.
Defensive midfield. Flamini is the only one we have and he's simply not good enough. Arteta does a decent job - but its not really his natural role and he lacks the physicality to really excel.
Nobody dismissed your injuries, they laughed at the claims that Southampton having injury problems was no excuse when Arsenal have the same problems. You have a bigger squad and it was your (Wenger's) choice to go with just the six players you mentioned. In other words, moan about your manager, not injuries or the lack of depth.
But your argument that we can't use injuries as an mitigating factor because we chose to go into the season with only 6 defenders can be used for Southamton as well. If you use your argument then its Southampton's fault that they can cope with less injuries than Arsenal because they chose to sell most of their 1st team before the season started!
i find it odd that when we beat a team that has players absent because of injuries, then some people/media think it is the only reason that we won - despite ourselves having a long list of injured players !! and as to the fact that Southampton were down to 10 players is due to the fact that their manager substituted 3 players, so had no one to replace their injured player Alderweireld. yet if Tadic had stopped being such a ****er and pretending he was injured when he wasn't then perhaps he would have not been substituted, so when Alderweireld was genuinely injured he could have been replaced.
Thats about it all teams get em, you just have to cope with it. Just a point of interest, United have had by far the most injuries so far this season (43) but Newcastle have had the longest list throughout the season ranging between 12 and 9 consistantly.
That's a fair point to make but still not entirely fair when comparing the two clubs. Southampton didn't chose to sell their players, their players handed in transfer requests and we game them a several warehouses full of cash They were also managerless for a while too so their plan only started in the summer, your manager as been in post for eighteen years Sure, Southampton could have gone and signed more players but the concentrated on replacing the ones they lost (which they did very well I might add) whereas you guys sold a CB that was needed and signed a couple of attackers.
