That wasn’t the point at all wether the manager had the right skills.

The question Bernard posed was dividing time in the role by trophies as a denominator to basically highlight if a manager was any good. It’s a statistic aimed to highlight wengers lack of achievement ignoring his time in the role is unprecedented for an Arsenal manager at 22 years.

You started off with an aimless dig then broke into real outlaw gibberish! Congrats

Eh? Seaman, Adams, Keown, Anderson, O'Leary, Rocastle, Merson, Wright, Limpar.

Not to mention Man Utd in their most successful ever spell.

Clough may not quite be the forgotten man, but he rarely gets a mention these days. His achievements from the mid-70s to early 80s were stellar.

It is one dimensional. I said as much in the post and after. But the time in the job is relevant. If somebody at a big club wins two trophies in four years, and another wins two trophies in ten years, that is relevant. It may be explained by a variety of factors. But it is relevant, in as much that it requires explanation.

Anyway, I did it as a response to OMOH who seemed to be using Wenger’s ten trophies to show him as wonderful after Decaf had implied he stayed in the job too long.

No I did not. Go and read the post again, post 519438, page 12986. In the very first paragraph I said the following. “There are other things that can determine how good, bad or indifferent a manager was, but OMOH had focussed on the ten trophies of Wenger.”

I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.

Have to say those ten trophies were wonderful to me. I still pinch myself in case it was all a dream. I also enjoyed most of the football we played under Arsene when not winning trophies.

For an aimless dig it seems to have hit pay dirt. Still enlighten us with your way of justifying how your hero Wenger is the greatest manager of all time. The list of characteristics of a good manager are subjective. Strangely if Wenger had left when we beat Hull in the Cup but the last years resulted in the club and him in particular running the squad into the ground. Those are all factors in whether they are successful managers.

You wrote

Anyway, here goes. I’m showing the name, tenure dates, trophy wins and days per trophy (the days in post divided by the number of trophies). I’m not attaching relevance to any perceived difference in the status of alternative trophies. For example the League Cup counts as much of a trophy as the old First Division or current Champions League.


.. regardless of what you wrote it’s clearly a statistic designed to use Wengers long unprecedented term againest him.

I was the first person on here to say we had to sack Arsene to move forward around 2010 and got dogs abuse on here for it but revisionism is nonsense.

There’s no point revising history to show that George Allison was a better manager than Wenger because of a calculation between time and trophies and wengers unprecedented 22 years in the role. It’s just nonsense

The rest ? Just gibberish

https://www.goal.com/en-cm/news/live/tr ... 9yzkai6jpw
Transfer news and rumours LIVE: Mustafi and Rudiger on Barca shortlist

It is not nonsense. One of the things that might explain thinking it is, arguably anyway, is an almost one dimensional understanding of football. The only way to judge a manager is how many trophies they won, regardless of their time in post. Sorry, that just doesn’t add up in any logical analysis. Similar in principle to the only measure of a midfielder being their assist and goal record. Now who seems to think that?

By the way, can I just remind you that Xhaka and Mustafi, two of the players you have devoted so much of your time on here to slagging off, (Xhaka much more than Mustafi to be fair), were both signed by Wenger.

No it is not. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote is staggering. That whole post was simply an attempt to point out that time in post has to be taken into account as a relevant factor, alongside total trophies won and various other things, when judging any manager. That is why, in the very first paragraph, I wrote:

“There are other things that can determine how good, bad or indifferent a manager was, but OMOH focussed on the ten trophies of Wenger.”

It’s as clear as day to anyone who can read English. You clearly want Arteta to be given more time. So do I. But if he left today, how would his tenure be assessed? My guess is some good things, like the improvements in defending and the FA Cup win, would be balanced against our results and some may say boring football this season. That’s the way it should be, although other things can be considered too.

But my point about this is that if Arteta is given a good length of time, say two or three more years, in the job, his tenure may well be assessed differently to how it would be if he left today. That, I suggest, indicates the relevance of ‘time in post’.

Course it doesn’t, doesn’t take into consideration the circumstances of the work done.

Do you acknowledge it would be somewhat easier to win the European cup at man united than at Nottingham forest?

That doesn’t account for managers who spent a long time at one club like Dario Gradi or Guy Roux. Their time at their clubs would work againest them.

As for the comments about Xhaka and Mustafi you have just made my point precisely. Other circumstances have to be considered rather than one specific statistic on time.

They were wonderful to me as well. But I can’t be so enthusiastic about the football we played in his latter years. Looking back, much of it seemed to me to be keeping possession in our own half with the defenders and keeper passing simple balls amongst themselves. Then when it reached a midfielder he or they passed it back to keep possession some more. I know keeping the ball can be important. But I do prefer a quicker style of play.

All personal taste though.

Well at least it seems you’re beginning to accept that trophy wins are not the only consideration of a manager’s tenure. If that is the case, it’s a good development. That was the point of my comment, in the very first paragraph that: “There are other things that can determine how good, bad or indifferent a manager was, but OMOH had focussed on the ten trophies of Wenger.”

It seems to me that my point on Xhaka and Mustafi has modified your views on this debate as you say “Other circumstances have to be considered rather than one specific on time.” My post was primarily about time, but I agree with that. I had hoped was to show that time in post is one of a number of relevant factors. That is explained, I thought clearly at the time although it seems you missed it, by the above quote in my first paragraph.

Your mistake was taking the post as me only thinking time in post is relevant. I never, ever did, as I intended to show in the very first paragraph.

Your comment about Xhaka and Mustafi which clearly a veiled dig at Wenger shows the statistic is clearly aimed at targeting his record.

You’ve shown your hand. Nothing much more needs to be said about it really now.

No it wasn’t. For a start I rate them both more highly than you. A lot more highly as I’m clearly in the Hazuki side of the debate on Xhaka and my thoughts on Mustafi being unfairly criticised here (with the extent to which it’s happened) is well known.

It was to point out that two players who really, really bother you, to an extent I simply don’t share, were signed by Wenger. The fact that you take my mention of their signing as a veiled dig at Wenger shows how much they bother you, although no further evidence for that is needed. It wasn’t a veiled dig on Wenger from me as I rate them both more highly than you.

Yeah and that point is irrelevant if you are doing statistical analysis on time and trophies unless you are deliberately wanting to attack wengers tenure because of his time.

I wonder why you omitted charity shields ? Because it would make wengers record look better ? Why not do statistical analysis from 2008 onwards and not consider wengers first decade. Come on

I explained why I omitted Charity Shields. OMOH didn’t even count them as he spoke of ten trophies, the league titles and FA Cups. They’re glorified pre-season friendlies. After I started going, I can name every single trophy, the year and manager at the time that Arsenal has won. I couldn’t tell you how many Charity Shields we’ve won.

Until the 2020 FA Cup I’ve been at every single title winning game and cup final since (and including) the defeat against Leeds in the 1968 League Cup final. I haven’t bothered going to all of Arsenal’s Charity or Community Shield games because I often don’t bother with friendlies, which in my view it is. That was the reason I omitted it. For me the club clearly hasn’t taken it as a priority either, as one thing I do remember is them turning down the opportunity to partake in the 1971 game after winning the double. As I said I explained all of this.

I did include Wenger’s first decade in my analysis???? To claim I didn’t is weird.

No need to discuss it further. The Mustafi comment told me all I needed to know.

That’s good. Self awareness can be a positive.

So after Vienna at home on Thursday it is the NLD. One we're all probably dreading. It made me think back to the days when Spurs were midtable nothingness for so long whilst we were riding high at the top of the table, how did their fans feel coming in to NLD day? But I also thought about how tough all those derbies were, even when we had a much better side. Spurs raised their game as the underdogs virtually every time, particularly from 2005 onwards when I'd bet our record against them is probably even or possibly in their favour.
So can our flaky team pull out an inspiring performance that may be ugly and dirty, but one that shows character and fight? We did it in an ominous trip to Man U, but with the only pair of central midfielders who are suited to a scrap of a match.

Perhaps it is the general malaise surrounding Arsenal fans right now but it has felt for so long that when teams are full of confidence and we're zapped of any, the result will only go one way, an Arsenal defeat. Whereas I've seen countless times when we should be the team in full flow, confidently taking the game to a down on its luck opposition and we never do it, we let that team get a foothold in the game, usually spurred on by a partisan home crowd ready to cheer even the most basic tackle or headed clearance. Arsenal wilt, they grow stronger and nick the game 1-0 with one chance and every man and his dog fighting for their life on that pitch, zero skill but more fight than us.

My tuppence worth on Bernard's post. Admirable work, but it did to me, seem to be based entirely on a metric chosen that would knowingly diminish Wenger's legacy. For me, he was the greatest, for everything he did aside to merely winning trophies and as TG says, through an unprecedented period in our history. No one has come close to his length of tenure so there's always going to be some kind of handicap against him based on that alone. Seems a bit of unnecessary, false equivalence if I'm being honest.

Correct.

It’s a piece of Fox News type propaganda you’ve knocked up there Bern,

Darren, I purely did it because OMOH made a thing of Wenger’s ten trophies. If he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have bothered because it took a while to do. I simply wanted to show the relevance of time in post for the assessment of any football manager, and I think I did it. My post clearly stated, in the very first paragraph, that the are various factors in judging a manager. Trophies is one of them. But even with that, the time in post is relevant. There are other factors too.

A long time in post gives more time to win trophies. Surely that cannot be denied. Who knows how many trophies Chapman would have won had he not died and had been manager for 22 years? Perhaps he wouldn’t have won anything else, or maybe he would have won more than ten? Exactly the same point can be made with other clubs and managers.

In my view there is no harm in pointing out the relevance of the time in charge. In fact more than that, it is important to take it into account.

True it wasn't caviar every time, but it was rarely very plain fare. I don't blame the current squad for not reaching Wengerball heights. Few English teams did or can. Whatever is going on at the moment I guess we can all agree the dearth of goals in the league is way out of line with our usual form. I happen to think Arteta has made a big mistake with Özil, our best creative midfielder. It is hard to see how sending him to Siberia has helped. I am probably in a minority with this view and anyway the deed is done. However, if we continue to flirt with relegation, and Arteta is moved on, it is a pound to a penny a new manager would soon reinstate Özil to provide the passes.

Not including Özil in the squad was going to be either a brave or a stupid decision. Really hope it will work out for Arteta. Not happening yet with Willock as AM and to make things worse, Partey is out injured. Would like to see more of the Tierney-Saka-Auba combo on the left that was quite successful for us towards the end of last season.

I just don’t see Arteta losing his job this season. I think at the end of the season we would actually have to be relegated for that to happen, not just flirt with it. Hence I can’t see a new manager coming in and reinstating Özil. We have to remember that on 1st July next year, Özil won’t even be an Arsenal employee any more (his contract expires on 30th June 2021). Only seven months away. As I said, I just can’t see Arteta going before then unless relegation actually happens.

I was a bit melancholy after the invincible season. I became an Arsenal fan by chance in the late 90s. Not knowing anything about us (or the sport and some would argue I still don't ) at the time but a 'cool sounding' name and a chance viewing of us losing 1-0 and big Tone pushing the squad. Didn't realize we were that big of a club (and a bit disappointed. I hate glory hunting).

We did play David to Man Utd's Goliath and that was exciting. I knew it was never going to get better than this (2004) and was proven correct. Although a CL final was a nice surprise later.

Wonderful memories at a time when life was a complete bore. In a way, Arsenal 'saved me' from a low point. We were the envy of the football world, weren't we?

If reports were true that Özil wouldn't (and I don't accept couldn't) do what Arteta wanted then I would go with neither brave or stupid but wise.

Allowing a player to play his way while the rest of the squad followed Arteta's direction is a bad precedent and a disaster waiting to happen.

Rich, the Mirror are suggesting Leipzig are the favourites to sign Szobozlai as they and Salzburg are both Red Bull clubs.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... dium=email

Enjoy Kevin Witcher’s new blog

This bit probably summarises best

“It's the result of years and years of incremental decline. Started in 2008, and has been very gradual. Too many poor decisions on players coming in and the handling of contracts. Arteta needs another transfer window, but as said, these players should be better than 14th place.”

Three of our recent managers thought Özil good enough at the very least for a squad place. Arteta seems to be certain he is not. We struggle creatively but have limited our options. I can't see any other Premiership manager closing the door in that way. All very strange to me.

We were, and it was because the club sort of reinvented itself under Arsene Wenger. People can criticise him as much as they like, but the fact is the style of football he encouraged took Arsenal's reputation to a new level around the world.

Some fans would argue we are having a pretty disastrous time right now.

Just asked Mourinho about Kane, Reguilon, Lamela and Vinicius missing training. He confirmed they are all injured: "Erik Lamela I don't believe has a chance for the weekend. Harry, Vinicius and Sergio I believe there is a chance for the weekend [to face Arsenal]."

Of course we know they'll all be fit, especially Kane. The guy is always a doubt but plays or comes back early just for the Arsenal game.

Hi Bernard, Yes unfortunately it was always a likely destination. I think I read 18 players have made exactly the same move in the last 3-4 years.
Perhaps he can be lured by more money at Arsenal and the chance to play with.....um....

I read something pitting Szobozlai against Eriksen as two possible Arsenal January transfer targets and the writer saying it will be a good test to see if Arsenal have learnt anything from the last 2 years

I find these quotes from Arteta a bit awkward
He added: “I think it’s first time in the Premier League that we put 33 crosses.
“I’m telling you that if we do that more consistently we are going to score more goals.
“If we put the bodies we had in certain moments in the box, it’s maths, pure maths & it will happen.”

It will happen if we have a striker who thrives on crosses or start getting multiple players in the box. There are plenty of average strikers, or average height strikers who score lots of goals from crosses because they are a) determined to get on the end of it and b) have good movement to gamble on being in space. If you're not in space - and it only has to be a yard or so in the box, you won't score from crosses, then you need to get numbers in there, it is pointless crossing to 1 striker, you need 4-5 people rushing in to the box, 1 of them at least will always end up unmarked, numbers and movement and early accurate balls in. With Tierney and Saka and Willian and Pépé we have good crossers. Our best forward for this is probably Nketiah because even though he's the smallest he has more desire and natural striker instinct to suddenly come alive inside the 6 yard box. He's clearly not perfect but there is a reason his 10 goals from us have come at an average of 5 yards from goal

Without a doubt Goonie.