Yes. Look at Scholes being subbed in. He is brought in for  18 (10 plus 8) mins to be the CLOSER. What do I mean by that?
To disrupt the flow of Arsenal, a 'crap' disturber, an agent provacateur. A 'sneaky 'can't tackle' specialist excused by the manipulative media. Did he accomplish his mission? Thats Fergie's  MO.
Reflect on the above.

I wasn't going to contribute this post in this forum. However my gunner friend insists I post my opinion even tho'  I believe you won't want to hear from me. He convinced me that my message is still conveyed if at least 50% of you agree even to at least 50% of what I shared.
Cheers.

I do not represent all Arsenal fans, but I would say you have very valid points there. It's the arts of defences and its dark arts. We, for many occasions, were too naive and too passive, in another word, we were to obedient, hoping that we would be always protected by the rules. However, I'd like to stress that being aggressive alone is one thing, tactical fouls and dark arts are another.
Besides the defense part, AW should review our attacking football. To be fair, I can see some improvement in our attacks. We move the ball into the center more often. However, when we are against stronger opponents, we lose our confidence and revert back to the square passes.
Our players are good enough, especially if you consider the prices we pay for their services. Well, it back to strategy-priority or players' potential priority argument.
Back our ManCity guest, please do continue posting your valid post. I believe our fellow arsenal fans here sensible and rational ones. We only react negatively towards immature and trolling comments.

Keyword = Taken over. Not as the same case as Wenger is in now right?

Firstly, the debt that Manchester United is having at the moment isn't caused by the club's expenditure and whatnot. It it because of the owner's debt that has been pile up on the club's name. It is pretty much the same case with Liverpool's one back then. So, apart from that debt, why can't United be a role model club? Just asking.

Secondly, I have posted before in MUST, Arsenal's downfall might be caused by there's no real leader on/off the pitch. You can claim that you have the youngest squad and we rely on on our senior players and all but little did you and Arsene knows that these senior players with vast experience are the ones will help your youngsters to push/move on.

Again this is my opinion. I know most of you will slate me for this. But, just take a good look at your invincible team and the current ones. Quality and skill wise, maybe this current one edges those invincibles but mentally?

haha... Another next season!! We are sick of it.

all those debates are pumped by the media somehow. They expect Arsenal to win trophies every season. To me, its normal. Every team has its up and down

Actually, they do when Arsenal in a driving seat to win a match or a cup. But when Arsenal fails, thats where the media hits them pretty hard. Something more of creating mixed emotion. This is what people want to hear, and the media are feeding them directly.
For example, media never really put City and Spurs in the limelight when they have quite a strong squad to compete for the title. They ain't that interesting, well nobody wants to know about these two clubs. Its more of manipulating words for which story could be sold best.

I do agree that during the era of Pires, Bergkamp, Henry and Viera was one of the best season that we ever had. But thats in the past, i sense that some of the fans hard to let go and move on. 6 years trophy less, look at Pool, they yet to win the BPL till today and they still sticking with their team like a glue even though criticize mainly by United fans.
I don't think Arsene need to change his philosophy, because thats what Arsenal should be look upon as. I don't see the need of following Chelsea, City or even Spurs footsteps of spending big. But i know that we could have used a couple more players in the squad, but definitely is a NO on changing policy of the club.

Something seriously wrong ? Funny statement i tell you, in a match the better team wins. Clearly, in the last 3 games we lost, the other team was better. I don't see a problem with that. When united fall to pool, does that means that there's something seriously wrong ? I don't think so, simply Pool outclassed united in that match.

"The last 6 years", i'm getting bored with this statement. TBH, i don't think Wenger is a major reason which cause this. Yeah, when the club don't do well, its easy to point out that the manager not good enough. I believe the players failed to take the oppurtunity. I admit that we lack of a real leader, a general in the squad. Plus few fringe players (Denilson,NB52) who never live up to expectation. I guess in this 6 years, he just wanted to bring the best out of a player, but looks like some of the players just failed. Its a risk manager takes on a player.

What do you reckon aside from becoming another Chelsea ? The problem with Arsenal is, we just cant compete financially in the market when clubs like Chelsea, City emerges, thus leading to hike in player prices. Few clubs take advantage of this situation hiking up a value of a player. We are so tight financially despite the board states that we could spent.
Building a squad takes time, may be we just gotta be a lil more patience.

If Arsenal win the premier league this season, will you change your perspective ?

Whenever Arsenal's players are more sedate in their comments, they are called a team lacking in guts and confidence. When they display some confidence, they are called a team lacking in it. Can't please everyone.
A change of philosophy is certainly needed if the philosophy has been deemed to fail. But what is the philosophy?

Is it not that you can build a sustainable youth system to create many players indoctrinated and trained from youth to a single playing style, rather than taking on a team of journeymen with past habits that may need to be suppressed to fit in the team? Of course it's the former. That is not to say the latter is not a formula for success, but Arsenal is trying the former.

On this basis, it is still too early to judge the success of the "philosophy". The average age of this squad is still far too small to properly say that this philosophy has failed. To set a criteria of having a young squad lose few critical matches is not fitting as yet.

Not that I'm saying it'll all eventually turn out well, but the whole vague notion that everything has fallen apart is merely down to being eliminated in quick succession in the past two weeks, rather than any objective, big-picture view of the club's policy. Wait another four years, then I think it's much easier to judge whether the long-term policy is a success or failure. Perhaps most fans won't have the patience, but Arsene is not gonna change radically his approach and we most definitely won't be able to line up a long-term replacement and expect instant results, so the best course of action is to stay the course.

The risks are huge, but the potential rewards enormous. If we get a strong production line up and running and keep enough players to their late 20s well, then you can have sustainable squad refreshes while maintaining experience. That was the idea then and it's still far too early to say it has failed.

Frankly, from a personal point of view, I love the spirit of pioneers, taking risks in trying something new rather than sticking with the status quo. Sure, there is a risk of failure, but also success and you never know until you try. I'm glad that Arsenal tries to forge its own identity and can ignore the status quo rather than cave in to pressure to conform to conventional ideas.

A point to note: Henry, Vieira and Ljungberg were brought in when they were aged 20-21. The change between then and now is that we try to get them before they become reliable young 20s players. I understand the point that this should be balanced with some older, experienced players, but I would hold out a couple more years before making such demands.

Arshavin came for £15m, Sagna for about £7m and Vermaelen £10m. No small purchases, these.

It is vital to remember that Arsenal's revenue has almost doubled in the last decade and gone from being Newcastle's financial equal and lagging behind Liverpool to runners up against Man Utd. This can only go up as the sponsorship deals are refreshed.

Secondly, Arsenal's spending is not based on absolute and arbitrary values (e.g. never spend more than £15m a year) but based on sustainable levels (spend 10% turnover on transfers). So we are not stuck in a low-spending policy, because revenues will increase and our buying power will follow.

Finally, of course, we are simply at less risk of financially imploding, breaking UEFA Financial Fairplay rules and definitely much less volatile against ownership change instabilities. Football as it is is highly unsustainable. No Premier League clubs can reasonably expect to make long-term profits at current market conditions and if football was not so much more linked to passion, it would have been a burst bubble long ago. But you wonder whether football can defy economic reality in the long term. Arsenal definitely can.

u got something to say? go back to your thread la.. *** lei

---

Added on April 3, 2011, 10:43 pm
huh? they still got champion league, fa cup, premier league.. leh.. u sure they can win? my *******. haha. someone going to break all MU defender legs
haha

manu fan is a disgrace towards football

Put those curses aside. No fan should wish another player doesn't matter from any clubs break their legs. Maybe from another club thread but not here.