I'm not a TY person, I say I want Wenger gone, BUT, I don't say dumb **** like he's a specialist in failure, or he sucks, I still say he's a very good manager, but, if we want to win trophies etc be at the top, then no unfortunately for that he is no longer best suited. BUT if you're looking to finish in the European places, have a solid good team, win the odd cups, then yes, Wenger is your man, and is one of the best still out there, far better than many of the wannabes being mentioned as supposedly better fixes than him, Bilic, Poch etc.
Calm down man. I think Treble was getting at the fact that the top 4 or 5 teams in the league (not every team) would not see Wenger as the man to take them forward at this point in his career, he was not getting at the mans past record or even his present ability.
Well I maintain my point, that's shortsigtdness based on one good year. Will Bilic be this good next year, or the year after? Will Poch? I go back to Pardrew, at one point he was winning game after game for C Palace, now look at them. The same for Rodgers, he looked like THE man in 2014, and then look what happened.
That the thing isnt it, you get rid of wenger and someone else struggles to bring that consistency you've become accustomed to, or you stick and be miserable knowing his limits are possibly holding you back. just out of interest, If you had you pick of any manager, regardless of any circumstances who would you replace wenger with right now?
I understand what you are saying there but only time will tell with the young managers (Pardew will never be any better). You cant compare Wenger to managers like Bilic or Poch at the moment because they are only just starting in the game, what you can do is look at what they are getting out of their teams and think hey, they are doing pretty good.
Klopp. As for the first point, it could happen, but I think if we get a top manager, someone younger, like a Simeone, it won't. I maintain if we had another top manager, Klopp, Anchelotti etc, with the resources and players we have, we would have been winning much more.
I think most would agree, and i think most gooner fans know that hence even more frustration, i can imagine its similar(but worse) to when we'd had enough of Rafa, the respect will always be there but when its time its time.
I'm yet to understand why Wenger getting the team to finish 4th is seen as a positive thing. Where else have we been expected to finish relative to our financial clout? Surely that should be the absolute bare minimum expected from us?
Money does not win football matches, tactics, skill and passion/pride do. Many teams have "financial clout" way below their performance levels and vice versa, as far as I know a pound coin has never scored a goal or saved a penalty
Money does win football matches. Not in its pure physical form obviously, but the whole point of having money is to acquire the best players that you can. If you have that money to pay transfer fee + wages, that puts you at a massive advantage against teams that do not have equivalent wealth. So Wenger gets credit for finishing 4th when that was where his Arsenal team were expected to finish anyway. Just because other richer sides have not been able to maintain that level of consistency of finishing 4th, it shouldn't make him look any better. It just means that the other teams have underachieved. Besides, it's not as if finishing 4th has done us much use in recent years anyway.
Does it mean the other "richer" teams have under achieved, or has Wenger continued to achieve? Who expected the richer teams to do better, most football supporters look at their team/players, not the cost or how rich the club are.
What kind of ridiculous question is this? Of course some of the richer sides have underperformed. Wenger's achieved par for the course in terms of league position. Given the resources at his disposal, 4th place should be expected from him at the very least. Yes. Most football supporters do look at their team/players. And most of their team/players are bought with money. There may be some academy players or some players that have been shrewd purchases, but the funds a club has is a major factor when determining success. You could argue it's the biggest factor. "Who expected the richer teams to do better?" - is this serious or are you deliberately asking silly questions? Richer teams are expected to do better because they can afford a higher calibre of player to put in their team that are expected to win them more matches. Richer teams can also attract a higher calibre manager to increase their chances of success. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Is money the only factor? Of course not, as we've seen this season. But there's no denying that it has a massive influence. In the last 10 years, it should come as no surprise that the three richest clubs in England have ended up winning the Premier League between each other. Leicester look like they're doing it this season, but this is an anomaly. An exception to the rule. It's fairytale stuff that probably will never happen again.
Sometimes I wonder why people can't understand this point. Of course there is no correlation between Real, Barca, Bayern and PSG having large amounts of wealth, with them being the best teams in their respective leagues. I'm also sure that Barca having three of the best strikers in the world and them being the best team in Spain and Europe is just a coincidence....
Don't worry Diego, the guy is a hot head with a peanut for a brain. I quoted the top 4 or 5 clubs so he goes on a meltdown about West Ham It's obvious the fans of the top 4 or 5 clubs whose ambitions ARE THE SAME as Arsenal's would not want Wenger, and neither should Arsenal fans. It's not fcking rocket science... or maybe it is for IQ87, just like tying his shoe laces.
If I am mentally challenged to tie my shoe laces, as in autistic, is that something you should be mocking? Makes sense, you are a United fan, where your own disabled fans are being left out and not being properly accommodated.
