It suggests you cannot get to grips with the fact that : 1. most football supporters on forums like this post with either their "banter" or non-tribal hats on. 2. their opinions when wearing one hat does not represent their opinions when wearing the other.
I take it you were there then it was so special? No, course you ****ing weren't. You're no more a fan than Matth is mate, deal with it.
I was sitting In the Matthew Harding stand watching Ranieri and the team get the guard of honour with a standing ovation from the whole ground in a carnival atmosphere in the final game ... those memories will stay with me forever .... after 50 years of largely footballing pain .. difficult to describe the emotion.
I've seen Southampton mates posting anniversary tributes this week to them winning the FA cup in '76. The FA cup. Portsmouth have won the FA cup ffs, you're talking the league. How anyone tries to belittle it is beyond belief.
I'm not sure that is what we criticised Wenger for. It was more that he had teams that wanted to walk the ball into the net, when even the opposition are thinking shoot FFS. We criticised him for buying very, very similar players, all tippy tappy which can be pleasing to watch when done well, but can be a bit samey. Pace, full bloodied tackles, long balls to feet (GH trademark) those are part of what fans want to see. Frankly in his early days we would criticise because he was Arsenal (it was all we had), the Vieras, Petites, Overmars Henrys were wonderful players and he built wonderful teams. We were on stronger ground when he seemed to move away from those types of players. Pires and Ljunberg were his problem. They were great players but he seemed to always want those types - wingers with no pace but excellent technique. They worked for him originally but he never found players that good again.
Nobody has ever criticised Wenger for trying to play attractive football. Why would they? That makes no sense. He was criticised for having massive resources that were comparable to those he was competing with and yet not winning anything for years. He was also criticised for being a childish, petulant, smug arsehole who threw a tantrum whenever you lost. He started as Le Professeur, the aloof, studious tactician and slowly became Le Manteau, the manic zip lunatic. The presentation at Old Trafford summed it up. Would that have happened if you were still battling it out with Utd? No ****ing chance!
He's never had resources comparable with Utd or latterly City and Chelsea. But he still managed to win 3 titles, a record 7 FA cups, incl 2 doubles and an unbeaten season. As well as Top 4 for two decades. A great manager, who probably stayed for longer than he should.
Yes, he has. He's had absolutely tons of money and it's always played down, for some reason. He wasted loads of it on paying random squad players farcical amounts and buying Xhaka, Mustafi and the like.
Wasted loads I agree on Xhaka and Mustafi. Incorrect that he had resources comparable to Utd, City and Chelsea.
wasting money is his latter year thing. When he first came and had comparible sources to United he bossed it. Then chelsea and united spent way more than Arsenal and arguably liverpool spent as much if not more and thats when arsenal stopped competing.
He wouldn't be leaving if he was still battling it out, surely? Therefore, no, it wouldn't have happened. It would still have happened when he eventually left though.
