Melphis Amekia Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Danny Welbeck ruled out for 'months' after undergoing knee surgery last week. Funny how this news is only released after the window is closed. We should bring Akpom back from Hull. That might not be a bad idea, but I'd wait until Giroud gets a six-month injury otherwise he won't get his chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Danny Welbeck ruled out for 'months' after undergoing knee surgery last week. Funny how this news is only released after the window is closed. We should bring Akpom back from Hull. Hah. So much for a "minor" injury. Now we are even more short up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Hah. So much for a "minor" injury. Now we are even more short up front. What's worse is the fact Wenger lied about Welbeck's situation at his press conference before the Newcastle game. By all accounts, Welbz had the operation on Wednesday, and this is what Wenger had to say at his presser on Thursday: "Danny Welbeck is progressing well. He should be available if all goes well after the international break." Technically, not a lie. But what a wanker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 That is unlike Arsene, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 What's worse is the fact Wenger lied about Welbeck's situation at his press conference before the Newcastle game. By all accounts, Welbz had the operation on Wednesday, and this is what Wenger had to say at his presser on Thursday: "Danny Welbeck is progressing well. He should be available if all goes well after the international break." Technically, not a lie. But what a wanker. Yea, that's bad though I completely understand why he did it given the way Arsenal fans obsess over transfer news. And as we saw from the Anthony Martial deal, there was no strikers available that was better than Giroud/Walcott and why buy a player at the same level yet again and not be able to go after one when one comes available? Hope they use Iwobi more. He always seems dangerous to me when I've seen him play. Akpom needs the continued seasoning with Hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northernmonkey Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 So the actual figure is 36mil : Conditions that would increase the fee include Martial winning the Ballon d'Or award for the world's top footballer. Phillipe Auclair (well-respected French journalist) says that it's €50 million up front, plus €10 million when he gets 10 French caps, €10 million when he makes 25 appearances for United and €10 million if he finishes in the top 20 of the Ballon d'Or Voting. So essentially that's €70 million (£50 million pounds) guaranteed with possibly another €10 million to come. He's also only completed 90 minutes for Monaco 5 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 ...there was no strikers available that was better than Giroud/Walcott... Really? Not sure I buy that, especially during a window where Chicharito went to Leverkusen for a measly £7m. I'd take him over Walcott any day of the week. And speaking of Walcott, I know it's early days as he hasn't played up top all that much, but he is not going to win you any titles playing up front. He is not a striker, and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northernmonkey Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 And as we saw from the Anthony Martial deal, there was no strikers available that was better than Giroud/Walcott There were dozens of strikers available better than Walcott (who isn't a striker) and loads at the same level or better than Giroud. Off the top of my head Lacazette, Fekir, Benteke, Bacca, Jackson Martinez, Dzeko, Jovetic, Mandzukic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 The only person on that list who would definitely have improved Arsenal would have been Lacazette, although they could probably do with a Benteke, Bacca or Jackson Martinez they wouldn't fit the team as well as Giroud and so wouldn't be first choice, which wouldn't please them. Jovetic is a perma-cripple (and not an out-and-out striker), Mandzukic is past it, Dzeko is a good finisher but a lump, and Fekir isn't a striker. Certainly, there are players Arsenal might have bought (and our mad moment over Martial shouldn't be used as bar for anything) but strikers aren't a teeming field at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Yea, that's bad though I completely understand why he did it given the way Arsenal fans obsess over transfer news. I would imagine one reason for not putting that information out before the window closed was to ensure that we don't come off as desperate to potential sellers - Ornstein did report that we made a few enquires, but clearly that didn't come to nothing. I'm not even sure Lacazette is a signing that would genuinely improve us - with Alexis and Ozil, it was pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Moff Mithrandir Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I'm not even sure Lacazette is a signing that would genuinely improve us C'mon Raj, he's a goal scorer, you guys need a goal scorer. Having him rotate with Giroud would no doubt improve you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Nonsense! Liverpool alone were selling about forty seven well brilliant strikers this summer! Wouldn't it have been a thought to keep one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Double posting just to mention that Iceland has taken the lead against Holland. They really have been brilliant after Lars Lagerbäck took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Really? Not sure I buy that, especially during a window where Chicharito went to Leverkusen for a measly £7m. I'd take him over Walcott any day of the week. And speaking of Walcott, I know it's early days as he hasn't played up top all that much, but he is not going to win you any titles playing up front. He is not a striker, and never will be. That's desperation talking. No way Chicharito is any good for Arsenal. As for Walcott, he has a very specific skill set that can be utilized well and when it is, he makes us more dangerous. We saw that in the opening minutes against Newcastle and we've seen it in other games at end of last season. He's not the ideal striker but I think if he gets a good run of games, he'll score goals which he has generally done for the team. There were dozens of strikers available better than Walcott (who isn't a striker) and loads at the same level or better than Giroud. Off the top of my head Lacazette, Fekir, Benteke, Bacca, Jackson Martinez, Dzeko, Jovetic, Mandzukic. Meh. Only striker on that list who plays over Giroud is Lacazette and he clearly didn't want to leave his childhood team. No player you listed takes us from 3rd place to 1st. Arsenal needs a 9/10 type of player, not another 7/10 to rotate. We need a starter, not a player who plays every 3rd game while Giroud still is the #1 striker. Sorry that I don't feel spending 32m on a rotational player is worth it. The only person on that list who would definitely have improved Arsenal would have been Lacazette, although they could probably do with a Benteke, Bacca or Jackson Martinez they wouldn't fit the team as well as Giroud and so wouldn't be first choice, which wouldn't please them. Jovetic is a perma-cripple (and not an out-and-out striker), Mandzukic is past it, Dzeko is a good finisher but a lump, and Fekir isn't a striker. Certainly, there are players Arsenal might have bought (and our mad moment over Martial shouldn't be used as bar for anything) but strikers aren't a teeming field at the moment. Martial is a prime example of a market that was devoid of options thus inflating the price of a potential talent to ridiculous levels. United were desperate and he was the only striker they could get with a modicum of talent. The fact that they paid that much signals the market was barren given they're a team that plays CL football, has a rich history and can clearly afford any player in the world yet they ended up spending 36-50m on a 19 year old striker who has only completed 90 minutes 5 times and has a total of 11 Ligue 1 goals to his name. If that's all United could find, not sure who Arsenal was going to sign. I'm as disappointed as everyone else and would have been happy with any signing just for the sake of something new but I'm not at all surprised and when looking at the situation objectively, would rather not waste money on a player that wouldn't displace Giroud, a player who has been in the same system with same players for years. I want top quality, not just any body that plays in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Baleeeee! Can't say Wales deserved that and Bale was pretty poor for 80 minutes but I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskaral Pust Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 The paucity of strikers is more of a tactical problem. So many clubs now play with a lone striker that it requires too much of the striker to be top class: he has to be a finisher, the first line of defense in a high press, an outlet for long balls, making runs behind and in channels, good at lay-offs, flicks and short passes and he has to somehow stay healthy for long periods because his back-up gets too little playing time to be any good or to be willing to stick around if he is any good. Current tactics demand a wider skill set of strikers but fewer players are getting enough playing time as a striker to actually develop those skills. So either you need some wide forwards who can fill-in as a lone striker, at a pinch, when needed -- Walcott, Depay, Firmino, Welbeck -- or you set up to play with two strikers while both are available -- Sturridge/Suarez, Sturridge/Benteke -- and switch to just one when only one is available. If Arsenal regularly played with two strikers against the smaller teams then they would develop their back-up strikers and/or attract a better quality back-up striker. It's a bit much to blame the rest of the world for not delivering the perfect player you need for the price you want to fit the system you chose. Even when Liverpool had a dominant attacking force of Barnes, Beardsley and Aldridge/Rush, the back-up striker was only Craig Johnson or David Fairclough or someone like that. It was hard to maintain a top quality back-up even then. But they had decided that a #10 (called a #7 in the Liverpool system) was more important than a second striker and they stuck with that system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Martial is a prime example of a market that was devoid of options thus inflating the price of a potential talent to ridiculous levels. United were desperate and he was the only striker they could get with a modicum of talent. The fact that they paid that much signals the market was barren given they're a team that plays CL football, has a rich history and can clearly afford any player in the world yet they ended up spending 36-50m on a 19 year old striker who has only completed 90 minutes 5 times and has a total of 11 Ligue 1 goals to his name. If that's all United could find, not sure who Arsenal was going to sign. My point is that, even though the market is a bit bare, there are players with similar characteristics to Martial who are better or at least more proven who we could at least have tested for the price we're apparently paying. Lacazette is one of them. Mane and Aubameyang are two more. Griezmann would have been harder to swing, but given the money we've been throwing around I'm sure we could have afforded to persuade him if we'd really wanted. Arsenal would certainly have had a chance of signing any of the first three if they'd really been up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 That's desperation talking. No way Chicharito is any good for Arsenal. Right. Because pace, intelligence and a natural striker's instincts are the last things we need at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Everything Walcott is meant to do playing up front, Chicharito does better. If you spend any significant amount of time this year playing Theo central, then Hernandez would have been worth it. Although I do reckon Hernandez could play wide forward if you asked him, though, he's not exactly a sure bet, so his gametime would be limited which, increasingly, is a problem for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Little Pea is fucking garbage. I don't think I've ever know a player at a top club miss more sitters. Give Theo a little more time. He's starting to build an impressive collection of fuckups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.