Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13 MOD POST #232

Galvasean · 06-09-2012 10:38PM

Last I heard Arshavin was off to Dinamo Moscow. Do we really need/want him as cover though? We have plenty of attacking mid options right now.

amiable · 06-09-2012 10:40PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Last I heard Arshavin was off to Dinamo Moscow. Do we really need/want him as cover though? We have plenty of attacking mid options right now.

I thought Arshavin had turned down that move?

06-09-2012 10:40PM

Stupid fuckin international break.

HazDanz · 06-09-2012 11:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Stupid fuckin international break.

Watch Ireland/England tomorrow, it'll be horrendously good viewing.

iainconlon12 · 06-09-2012 11:55PM

amiable wrote: »

I thought Arshavin had turned down that move?

He did turn it down. Russian window is closed now anyway!

batistuta9 · 07-09-2012 01:13AM

gosplan wrote: »

Diaby's career was nearly ended by a thug who heard that Arsenal didn't like it 'up em, that's all. We've no idea if he's back long term or not.

Man U have been worse for injuries for the last few years I'd say.

jonny666 wrote: »

http://www.superbetting.com/forum/index.php/topic/28052-england-premier-league-suspended-and-injured-list-20102011/

if you look through that post I dont think our injuries are any worse really. Some smaller teams have smaller squads so less injuries but I dont think we fair that bad.

I know its not a great way of judging it but it gives ya a general idea.

I suppose teams train differently according to how they play too. So what one trainer might think is too much might not be enough for another depending on how the team plays

AdamD wrote: »

jonny666 wrote: »

We were third worst in the league by a bit. Not great but with Arsenal its made out to sound like our guys are actually doing something wrong and nearly hampering players recovery. If that was the case we'd be well top of that list

I don't know if arsenal get anymore injuries than other clubs, that table classifies a significant long term injury as anything over two weeks - not really what we're interested in.

For example if tottenham had 6 players get hamstring injuries that ruled them out for 16 days each & arsenal had diaby + wilshere injured for over 7 months each due to 2 injuries each, then tottenham would would be worse off in the table, 6 v 4 in the injury count.

so i think you are missing the point, it's nothing really to do with the number of injuries it's more the total length of them due to the recurring injuries etc.

diaby had 4 sub appearances in the league, 1 sub in europe last year
wilshere 0 apps last year
RVP's last 18 months at the club were his only injury free period
rosicky missed a whole season
there're others too

in the last post i gave the fact that diaby's trainer said he didn't complete rehab properly enough to resume training - who else's fault could that be other than the meds?

yes the reason for his injury was getting his leg broke but there's the possibility that his other injuries have come from being back training & not properly ready for it

so that's the issue, are players being sent back into training too quickly after injuries at arsenal, thus resulting in players missing for far far longer than expected with new injuries

EuropeanSon · 07-09-2012 07:29AM

batistuta9 wrote: »

I don't know if arsenal get anymore injuries than other clubs, that table classifies a significant long term injury as anything over two weeks - not really what we're interested in.

For example if tottenham had 6 players get hamstring injuries that ruled them out for 16 days each & arsenal had diaby + wilshere injured for over 7 months each due to 2 injuries each, then tottenham would would be worse off in the table, 6 v 4 in the injury count.

so i think you are missing the point, it's nothing really to do with the number of injuries it's more the total length of them due to the recurring injuries etc.

diaby had 4 sub appearances in the league, 1 sub in europe last year
wilshere 0 apps last year
RVP's last 18 months at the club were his only injury free period
rosicky missed a whole season
there're others too

in the last post i gave the fact that diaby's trainer said he didn't complete rehab properly enough to resume training - who else's fault could that be other than the meds?

yes the reason for his injury was getting his leg broke but there's the possibility that his other injuries have come from being back training & not properly ready for it

so that's the issue, are players being sent back into training too quickly after injuries at arsenal, thus resulting in players missing for far far longer than expected with new injuries

Read the table. It's ranked by total number of days missed. :rolleyes:

07-09-2012 08:10AM

Galvasean wrote: »

Last I heard Arshavin was off to Dinamo Moscow. Do we really need/want him as cover though? We have plenty of attacking mid options right now.

Well as we only have one main striker, i would say yes.
I'd rather Chamakh & Arshavin as cover, rather than just Chamakh.
As bad and as lazy as Arshavin has been in the past, he's never played under a Steve Bould "system", and the players and manager have recently come out praising the new system.
So give him a chance.

Drexel · 07-09-2012 08:23AM

batistuta9 wrote: »

I don't know if arsenal get anymore injuries than other clubs, that table classifies a significant long term injury as anything over two weeks - not really what we're interested in.

For example if tottenham had 6 players get hamstring injuries that ruled them out for 16 days each & arsenal had diaby + wilshere injured for over 7 months each due to 2 injuries each, then tottenham would would be worse off in the table, 6 v 4 in the injury count.

so i think you are missing the point, it's nothing really to do with the number of injuries it's more the total length of them due to the recurring injuries etc.

diaby had 4 sub appearances in the league, 1 sub in europe last year
wilshere 0 apps last year
RVP's last 18 months at the club were his only injury free period
rosicky missed a whole season
there're others too

in the last post i gave the fact that diaby's trainer said he didn't complete rehab properly enough to resume training - who else's fault could that be other than the meds?

yes the reason for his injury was getting his leg broke but there's the possibility that his other injuries have come from being back training & not properly ready for it

so that's the issue, are players being sent back into training too quickly after injuries at arsenal, thus resulting in players missing for far far longer than expected with new injuries

As EuropeanSon has said the table is ranked by total number of days missed. We prob are guilty of bringing players back too quickly but other clubs are prob doin the same. Remember Torres with Liverpool?

Players could be lying to the medics saying they feel no pain when they do and the medics then clearing them to play. We will never know I suppose.

Lets hope we finish lower down the list this year then we did last year. It could be the difference between a title challenge or a push for CL places.

As for Arshavin, I think he has pretty much got his chance. And another. And he never took his opportunity. I havent seen him have a decent game for Arsenal in a long time. We are stuck with him and I suppose we could have worse back up but hopefully he never has to start. The difference in work rate between Podolski and him is unbelievable

PDN · 07-09-2012 08:53AM

AdamD wrote: »

Trying to see a pattern there.

Man City and Chelsea have more quality players to allow for rotation - so that should be a big factor as players have longer between matches to recover.

It also looks, at first glance, as if teams that play a more direct style suffer less injuries on average than those who play a passing game. I've often thought that Arsenal's style, which I love watching, almost invites clodhoppers like Ryan Shawcross to lumber in with leg-breaking tackles.

So, if you want to avoid injuries, then get a billionaire sugar daddy to buy zillions of players - then play route one football and bore everyone to tears.

emergingstar · 07-09-2012 08:59AM

Re Arshavin I wouldn't mind throwing him in he is playing for a biggish team to pick him up next year surely he will have to try pull out a few performances

07-09-2012 09:03AM

emergingstar wrote: »

Re Arshavin I wouldn't mind throwing him in he is playing for a biggish team to pick him up next year surely he will have to try pull out a few performances

For sure, i'm not going to expect him to be a different player, but still i think i'd like to see how he can fit in beside the likes of Cazorla, Podolski & Giroud.

bad2dabone · 07-09-2012 09:06AM

i'd long been concerned about our medical set up and resultant injuries as I'd read somewhere that in previous seasons utd kept their keyplayers on the pitch some 25% longer than arsenal on average (this was a couple of seasons ago).
However this year I watched a video on Arsenal player about the investment gone into the medical centre at Colney and it's a seriously impressive set up.
I just hope that it's another sign of Arsenal learning from their mistakes and looking forward. Fingers crossed.

07-09-2012 09:13AM

PDN wrote: »

Trying to see a pattern there.

Man City and Chelsea have more quality players to allow for rotation - so that should be a big factor as players have longer between matches to recover.

It also looks, at first glance, as if teams that play a more direct style suffer less injuries on average than those who play a passing game. I've often thought that Arsenal's style, which I love watching, almost invites clodhoppers like Ryan Shawcross to lumber in with leg-breaking tackles.

So, if you want to avoid injuries, then get a billionaire sugar daddy to buy zillions of players - then play route one football and bore everyone to tears.

But then you look at Wigan who play similar football, drawing the big tackles and also have a small squad so can't rotate very much, yet they do fine in that table.

Arsenal1986 · 07-09-2012 10:04AM

On Arshavin - when was it exactly he 'lost it'? 08-09 when he came he was sensational, our best player in the run in that led us to 4th. First half of 09-10 he was really good too albeit a little inconsistent. I remember him playing as a striker for 3/4 games when we had an injury crisis around christmas time in 09/10 and he never really seemed to paly well after that. I dont think he had one good game in 11/12 with us did he?

07-09-2012 10:12AM

IIRC we had poor start and he scored the only goal of the game against Swansea.
Also against Sunderland, when Henry was on holiday with us, he setup Henry's goal.
Then went on loan shortly after.
So he wasn't useless

greendom · 07-09-2012 11:23AM

Great article in the Standard today. It sometimes feels a bit like Arsenal are Doomsday preppers, waiting for the cataclysm that is financial fair play to hit.

I really hope it hits because otherwise we are going to look pretty stupid held up in our bunker surrounded by 20 years of tinned food !

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/bacary-sagna-and-the-arsenal-fans-should-remember-in-arsene-wenger-we-trust-8116854.html

07-09-2012 11:27AM

FFP could be coming soon with the amount of votes needed, met.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/8057539/Wenger-in-favour-of-FFP

AnCapaillMor · 07-09-2012 11:45AM

Would love to see it, but can't see it happening, can see the formation of this euro super league that was banging around a few years ago, outside the scope of UEFA. surprised to see fulham and everton in the detractors, the other 2 i can understand.

07-09-2012 11:48AM

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Would love to see it, but can't see it happening, can see the formation of this euro super league that was banging around a few years ago, outside the scope of UEFA. surprised to see fulham and everton in the detractors, the other 2 i can understand.

Agreed, Fulham & Everton objections baffled me.
Maybe they are hoping a sugar daddy will come and help.

greendom · 07-09-2012 11:51AM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Agreed, Fulham & Everton objections baffled me.
Maybe they are hoping a sugar daddy will come and help.

I was thinking that was the reson behind Everton - haven't Fulham got one already with Al -Fayed ?

AnCapaillMor · 07-09-2012 12:02PM

Fayed started them off alright but hasn't pumped anything significant into them recently.

Quazzie · 07-09-2012 12:09PM

There is another way to think about it. We generate massive amounts of money, and thus profit because we sell our players for massive fees to clubs willing to spend the money. If we didn't have that option because other clubs were forced to spend responibly would we still make profit. Its all fine and well saying that we make profit because Man City throw loads of money at us every year for our wantaway stars, but if that gravy train was stopped then the profit for us stops.

emergingstar · 07-09-2012 12:21PM

Quazzie wrote: »

There is another way to think about it. We generate massive amounts of money, and thus profit because we sell our players for massive fees to clubs willing to spend the money. If we didn't have that option because other clubs were forced to spend responibly would we still make profit. Its all fine and well saying that we make profit because Man City throw loads of money at us every year for our wantaway stars, but if that gravy train was stopped then the profit for us stops.

Would players leave if they can't get an extra 100k a week elsewhere

07-09-2012 01:04PM

Most of the big teams support the FFP rules because it should secure their position at the top of the tree. The "new" rich teams could always start their own league but who'd watch it and who'd broadcast it if UEFA decided to play a little dirty? I don't see FFP making a huge difference except to cement the status quo.

07-09-2012 01:33PM

Quazzie wrote: »

There is another way to think about it. We generate massive amounts of money, and thus profit because we sell our players for massive fees to clubs willing to spend the money. If we didn't have that option because other clubs were forced to spend responibly would we still make profit. Its all fine and well saying that we make profit because Man City throw loads of money at us every year for our wantaway stars, but if that gravy train was stopped then the profit for us stops.

I don't think a reduction in profit would affect any Arsenal squad Wenger puts out on the field in performance or otherwise.
You're not suggesting our profit is the reason we have finished in the top four every season?;)

Galvasean · 07-09-2012 03:46PM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

For sure, i'm not going to expect him to be a different player, but still i think i'd like to see how he can fit in beside the likes of Cazorla, Podolski & Giroud.

I've never doubted Arshavin's skill, but rather his mentality. I don't think the change of personnel will change his attitude when you consider his European Championship performances. In the first game he was superb and people thought it must be Arsenal's fault that he plays so poorly for us. Then came the second game where he essentially threw in the towel, which was the beginning of the end for Russia's involvement in the tournament. The same old lazy Arshavin was back in force.

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

IIRC we had poor start and he scored the only goal of the game against Swansea.
Also against Sunderland, when Henry was on holiday with us, he setup Henry's goal.
Then went on loan shortly after.
So he wasn't useless

There's no point in playing well for one match and then being a complete liability for the following half a dozen matches. He did more harm than good half the time over the last couple of seasons.

Quazzie wrote: »

There is another way to think about it. We generate massive amounts of money, and thus profit because we sell our players for massive fees to clubs willing to spend the money. If we didn't have that option because other clubs were forced to spend responibly would we still make profit. Its all fine and well saying that we make profit because Man City throw loads of money at us every year for our wantaway stars, but if that gravy train was stopped then the profit for us stops.

Ah but conversely the market prices have now been inflated due to sugar Daddy teams, so when we try to sign ANY decent player the price is higher. Plus, we'd probably have made more money from winning competitions and be a bigger brand for making money due to said hypothetical success without those teams.