It is intriguing that the likes of ian Wright have stated that Wenger should be allowed to leave on his own terms when most people who support other clubs can see that it is the Frenchman that has held the team back. I always felt that the "Invincible's" team set the seal on his fate as that achievement was never likely to be repeated. For me, Wenger revolutionised football coaching in the 1990's but the game has caught up with him and, for my money, he does seem to impede the development of young talent, especially if it comes from the British isles. The intriguing thing for me is that I always recall Arsenal being a team made up of Scottish and Irish players in the 1970s and that these nationalities are largely absent from Wenger's schemes.
Agreed, which was why I mentioned "from Walcott onward" because they've never recaptured that steel or specialness as a team. Wenger seems to have a blind spot where that is concerned, and as for building a Wenger's Babes team, where he takes youngsters and improves them so they they knit into a title winning side, well that dream of his is so long it has passed into Saints supporters folklore, as in the reference to Wenger always being in the bushes at Staplewoood.
There's a pretty simple reason for this: there aren't many top-quality Scottish and Irish players kicking around. In fact, if one were to start at the top of the PL table and search for the first recent Scottish/Irish callup who plays regularly with their club, I believe Shane Long is the first you'd hit. Bellerin is turning into something of a monster at right back.
Wenger reminds me of George Lucas, who after making the first 3 Stars Wars, goes on to make another 3 years later; seemingly oblivious to understanding the essence of his own creation, it's workings, and what had made it special. It's bizarre to think that among Wenger's initial signing were Viera and Petit, followed not long after by Silva, and that a galumphing elephant has been living rent free in Aresenal's rather bare trophy room for the past decade.
I agree with what you have written but would add that 'The Invincibles' were built around their defense and he inherited that from George Graham. For all his dodgy dealings GG did a lot to bring through players and, frankly, Wenger did not have a lot to do in those early years in his own half of the pitch. I would further suggest that Arsenals decline thereafter probably occurred when that back-five (keeper included) reached their respective sell-by dates. He has struggled to find a solid defense ever since and, at times, spent transfer money on buying attacking players when he really should have been buying defenders and goalkeepers.
Trouble is players get older and styles change. Trying to find a new style is getting more and more difficult. Different players suite certain styles but not others. Trying to change good players to new styles takes time. So changes often mean changing styles to suite players rather than changing styles to suite players. If that makes sense. Wenger inherited good young players that suited the style he wanted to play and that in my opinion hasn't changed that much. Trouble is teams have changed their styles to combat Wengers and others and have progressed. Arsenals style has in the main stood still. As for Ox and or Theo.......sorry guys I just cannot see either returning to Saints I really can't.
I've often thought the same but I was reminded a while back that he didn't inherit the Invincibles defence from George Graham at all. The Arsenal back four for the majority of that season was Lauren, Campbell, Toure and Cole with Lehmann in goal. They were all Wenger players. The only defender he'd inherited who was still at the club was Martin Keown. Keown played three or four games at the start of the season but played a total of about 15 minutes in the league after the end of September, and that was only sentimental cameos to get him to the 10 appearances he needed to get a medal. I find it quite odd that Wenger was able to replace Seaman, Dixon, Adams, Keown, Bould and Winterburn but he hasn't been able to replace Campbell, Toure, Cole etc for exactly the reasons you outline. Maybe it was just luck.
There's another possible factor: the change in ownership. I've noticed that the American billionaires seem much more willing to splash money on attacking players than defenders...
Perhaps. Although the Invincibles defence only cost about £10m in total transfer fees. Sol Campbell was free, Cole was a youth product, Toure cost about £150k, Lehmann £2.5m and Lauren was bought for a mighty £7m or so.
Sure, though Campbell was hardly cheap even if he was free. My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that the perceived marketability gap between defenders and attackers is playing more of a role now...it's the only thing that'd explain the nonsensical fixation with having 17 attacking mids/fowards and two CBs that both Arsenal and Man U seem to share.
I think Wenger has had that tendency since before the American owners arrived. I don't watch Arsenal much but I get the feeling their problems are mainly in defensive midfield and up front. I definitely agree about their midfielders. There are so many of them but not one is a big powerful destroyer in the Vieira/Petit/Gilberto mould.
Our Captain Fantastic is trying to persuade Oxo to come home....What a legend! http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...amptons-alex-oxlade-chamberlain-chase-7726177 Edit: If he could do the same with Morgan and be successful, he should have a statue erected!
Next step is to get Chambo to agree to play in Kelvin's testimonial (if he hasn't already). Remind him what he's missing, introduce him to Ron.
Like your thinking! If Wenger lets him play in the testimonial then I would say that is an indication that he is prepared to let him go How about swop Ox for Big Vic?
I don't see him playing in the testimonial as any indication that Wenger will let him go! How did you come up with that?
