Well its all relative. I guess you could say they've been the most consistent side (not brilliant to watch at times) but only results matter in football. Whether you win every game playing terrible or attractive football (who defines that anyway?) a win is a win. There are no points for style.
Who's been better than them this season? It doesn't matter if you have 11 World Class players on the pitch, if they don't play well as a team, they can't be regarded as the best team. Arsenal have played some good stuff and some not so good stuff. I'd say their league position and City's, Chelsea's and Manures is about right. They just aren't very good teams at the moment and the moment is what counts. Leicester and Spurs are the best teams in England and if they do the same next season and the other top teams continue to play the way they are, then it remains the same.
Both Leicester and Spurs are well balanced, well coached teams. Emphasis on the word 'team' In our case, we have scored more and conceded fewer than any other team. That's not down to the performance, or lack of, from one or two other sides.
If that was true then Wenger would have won the title and CL many times over during the late 2000's. They probably played the most attractive football, more so than the Invincibles, but if they ever played against each other, the Invincibles would beat them 9 times out of 10.
The reason the Invincibles were successful was because they had everything, the skill, street smarts, physicality, mentality, everything. This team has the skill. Beyond that, I'm not sure.
Being the best team doesn't necessarily make you a very good team. Could just be that you just weren't as bad as everyone else. If you lined up the last 10 premier league title winning first XIs against each other, this Leicester team would be one of the worst, up there with the United one of a few years ago.
Well obviously nobody has been better than them this Season. You cant argue with the points.. But I would say ourselves, City and Chelsea have better squads than Leceister. (but our performances have been terrible) Ranieri is a manager I have always rated. But they have been fortunate on two counts..1. No major injuries to key players and 2. Players peaking at the same time.
Being the best team consists of more than just putting the right pieces in the right place - something LVG seems to have an aversion to, incidentally. It's about balance, building and maintaining team spirit, coaching etc. it's having a well balanced group of players who all know their job and are all willing to work for the team. To put the team above any individual needs or ambitions. A real, properly organised team will always beat a collection of eleven supposedly superior players, IMO.
All true. But Leicester are still not a particularly great footballing team. They're the best this season, but they're not particularly great.
Both have been the most consistent. Most organised and well drilled. Talent can only get you so far. We have the talent, we don not have the organisation (poor management). This Arsenal squad can win a PL title with better management!
I don't think you have the balance right either. Although I agree about your management. IMO. Kante is just the sort of player Arsenal need. Which probably means that you won't bid for him!
I think in the middle with Coquelin and now Elneny we have 2 solid MF that can free the forward players to do their stuff. Wenger doesn't instill defensive discipline. He likes everyone flying forward leaving gaps all over the place.
When was the last time we had a great team winning the Premiership? It's been a fair few years and the last ones to have them were Arsenal, Manure and Chelsea (Maureen's first tenure). That was long ago.....
Who cares? We at Arsenal bang on about class (marble halls, Wenger, Chapman etc) yet I find this line of discussion distinctly lacking this quality as it started from the supposed merit or otherwise of the probable crowning of Leicester as PL champions. Leicester have showed us up for the flat track bullies that we are and Wenger as a washed up manager who has been superseded by a breed of more energetic managers with fresh ideas and greater tactical depth.
The last really great PL side was the United side containing Ronaldo IMHO (2008-09). Since then we've had a succession of teams who have been great, for a season, but no more. That United side on the other hand had an embarrassment of riches when it came to attacking talent.
He only needs excuses if you think he has failed. Is he supposed to quit if he doesn't win the CL every year or only when he doesn't manage to win the EPL every year? I'm only asking for clarity as to what exactly constitutes failure with regards an EPL manager's performance.
Failure is having an entire decade to build you up own team using millions and millions of pounds... to not be able to finish above Leicester. Failure is going below a Spurs team in the league who are using a team semi-built by a manager in his second year with a wage budget dwarfed by ours. Failure is not getting past the last 16 of the CL in god knows how long. Failure is bottling the league in the spring come what may whatever the circumstances and other challenges every single year. Failure is generally making zero progress whatsoever. Seeing Arsenal (or indeed Wenger) as a success can only possibly be seen by those who have low expectations. Low expectations keep people happy as everything is a pleasant surprise. But low expectations also keep people achieving little. Do you think Wenger has been a success the last 10 years?
