So pointless speculating about the likes of Fitov Klée?

What's the difference? Is it that they are allowed to bring sticks to the fight in the former?

He would rate about 6 on the Pantheon scale ... somewhere between Wiltord and Ljunberg. Nowhere near the Henry level, but way better than even the most legendary tea-lady.

Well I always prefer to go local and I like what I'm hearing about Antony Goode from Leyton Orient's youth scheme.

Gus Caesar. And who was that other player, Bernard, whose mum conferred legendary status upon him?

It was Omar Riza, although I don't know if his Mum does. Maybe she doesn't. The point was simply that it's for the individual to confer legendary status on someone because as far as I'm aware there's no accepted criteria in awarding it. After all, both you and Exiled said you saw Gus Caesar as an Arsenal legend whereas Hazuki and I didn't. If Riza's mum wants to, at least her son didn't cost Arsenal a cup final defeat.

Pretty sure I didn't talk specifically about Caesars status as a legend. The points I made was more general, about how not anyone can be called a legend just because there is no complete list of criteria that everybody agrees with.

I'm pretty sure you said you didn't consider Caesar a legend.

Gaius Cassius Longinus was no fan.

I think you're confusing me with you.

Ah yes you're still persisting in your error which is unlike you.

Render unto Bernard that which is Bernard's.

Sky reporting that the Ox is likely to leave. As much as I like him when he's really on his game, he's still horribly inconsistent and injury prone. That first touch is always a 50/50. Ox has scored a total of 20 goals in all his time at Arsenal. Theo for all the hate towards him scored 19 just last season, and wasn't even a regular.

Can you tell me where there is a generally accepted criteria for counting a player as a club legend? I'd like to read it. If you are so firm in that opinion, there must be one after all.

Would like to keep him, but wouldn't be devastated if he left either. We're in a bit of a tricky spot with regards to homegrown players though. If we were to make a 25 man squad with what we've currently got (excluding players who are not in the squad for the Australia trip), I make it 24 players over the age of 21 as of 1/1-2017. 9 of those are homegrown, but that includes Ox, Wilshere and Walcott whose respective futures at the club is in question.

Only one more place available for a non-homegrown player over 21, but then again Cazorla might not be included if he's out for the season.

Bernard, if you go back in forum history a couple of years you will both see that I didn't say Gus Caesar wasn't a legend, and find a response to the point you've just made.

I'll have to take your word for it that you didn't then, because there's no way I'm going to go back to find the debate. My forum search engine presumably doesn't work as well as your one. If you didn't I apologise, but I am surprised as I genuinely thought you did say you didn't see Caesar as a legend. Do you then?

I also therefore won't be able to find the accepted criteria for counting players as club legends, if you're saying there is one. I presume it isn't just on the forum though, so where is it?

If I was drawing up the criteria myself, I'd include things like appearances, my perception of a player's quality, my perception of how they represented the club, and the time they spent at the club for starters. Maybe even a one-off contribution as I've heard Linighan and Morrow described as legends, although I don't see them as such. There are no doubt other things that could influence my judgement. But I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to accept the ones I just gave.

For example, how somebody left the club may come into it for some people. Although I count van Persie as a legend because of how I perceive his quality as a player, I've little doubt many don't because of the way he left. Campbell would be the same for many Tottenham fans. There's no way in a million years I'd consider Caesar an Arsenal legend, but some have said they do because the term 'legend' may not always or necessarily be a positive. But I think the term has developed in football in such a way that it is used as a positive description. If I'm in the car and Talksport introduced an interviewee as a club legend, I would automatically see it as a positive.

There is also the issue that it's a term bandied around for many players these days. Didn't Babu once point out that Omar Riza did represent a team called 'Arsenal legends'? Arsenal, as a club, have struck me as calling practically any former player a legend. I still remember my surprise at some of the names who walked round the pitch as legends after the last game at Highbury, even though I can't recall who they were. In some ways, perhaps it's arguably become a slightly cheapened term. So if Omar Riza's mother wants to call her son a legend, like whoever set Babu's team up, who cares? Not me.

I think that's a little unfair, Sab, considering he was arguably our best player in the second half of last season.

We don't have many players with his pace, athleticism or dribbling ability and he's pretty decent technically. Hence, he gets asked to play in several positions during the season. His versatility is important to us although like many so-called "utility" players he probably would prefer a settled position.

I think it would be a mistake to sell him. The wingback role may be increasinly important if we persist with the three CB system and he can cover that role reasonably well.

I can understand him wanting to be an automatic starter, though, but I'm not sure CM is that position just yet.

This is of course Goya's famous painting of futile mutual destruction in a bog called "Un debate con Bernardo".

No need to apologize Bernard, there were a lot of people involved in that debate. I still don't understand why there has to be an 'accepted' criteria. The definition of the word is what it is, no matter if people disagree.

And before anyone jumps in - it's not even pre season yet! Nothing is happening.

If you want a new Arsenal topic, Lacazette has been given the cursed no 9 shirt. Will he do better or worse than Park?

Very strong statement from Wenger regarding Sanchez. As long as Sanchez doesn't start trouble I don't see how we can back out of it.

Why? Because he was so bad? Does that make Eddie McGoldrick an Arsenal legend too? How about Jeff Blockley? Or because he gave a cup final goal away? Wouldn't that make Ian Ure an Arsenal legend? Does it have to be cup final goals? Do you blame Clichy for slipping in a 4-4 draw against Tottenham? If so, you presumably see him as an Arsenal legend.

Maybe because despite having an incredibly short Arsenal career Mr Ceaser's only memorable contribution was a horribly inept performance which resulted in Arsenal losing a final. At least Eddie McGoldrick had a mediocre career at the top level and can proudly show his grandkids his wonder goal he scored in Europe.

I suspect the only way he can get away with selling Sanchez is if someone makes an offer that is simply too good to refuse or we sign Mbappe. Both of which seem unlikely at this juncture.

That's was my thinking too but then I just read this quote from Wenge and you can't help but roll your eyes...
“I am open to get some more signings, but it is not easy to find the players who can strengthen our squad, because we have top-quality players."

But when I hear someone referred to as a football legend outside the forum, it always seems to mean something positive. I'd agree the dictionary definition of legend includes an element of notoriety, but is that how's it's generally taken in football?

Probably not generally

I'd say it's routinely beyond 'not generally'. When I hear people called legends for their club outside the forum, I don't ever remember it being used as a polite way to say he was crap.

But did sod all else. I seriously think mcgoldrick was the worst player I've seen play for Arsenal. When I say that I mean regular established players not prospects, youth etc. We paid a million quid for him and he was complete toilet.

Yep mcgoldrick the worst arsenal player of all time. Fact

All jokes aside young Decaf ......I see appeal in both codes , a lot of Kiwis derisively refer to Aussie Rules which is similar to Gaelic football as "aerial ping pong' but when you have crowds at the Melbourne Cricket ground of 80,000 for a club match 100,000 for a final and in the Irish case 50 something thousand for the same you have to think maybe if I removed the blinkers there might be something in this .

One thing's for sure neither Irish code is short of action ; there is always going to be something to cheer about .

The same can't be said for some of the dross Arsenal served up last season .

There's no shortage of dross in hurling and Gaelic football, Kiwi. Over the last 7/8 years the football has become ultra-defensive. Some games make tippy tappy look like a thrill a minute. Hurling is still very expansive and the skill levels are through the roof since they changed the ball 10/15 years ago. Both codes suffer a great deal from one-sided matches though and the structure of the hurling championship in particular is bonkers. A bit like your gripes with rugby, there is a fair bit that could be improved.

Gus Casear IS an Arsenal legend. Independent of anything we might thing about his quality and because of the meaning of the word. His name has passed down generations due to his exploits and has become synonymous with a particular moment in our history. In Caesar's case this is condensed to one match I'm particular. He has entered collective memory and discourse in a way that Riza has not. The degree to which we measure this is akin to a beard: there is no precise point where one more hair makes a beard, but there is fairly broad agreement as to whether somebody has one or not.

The problem you are struggling with, Bernard, and let me help you out here, is that you have redefined legend to mean "an outstanding player". You are right that is a matter of opinion, the problem is that it is not what legend actually means.

Hey Daz, regarding Gus Caesar, I always think of Nick Hornby's brilliant assessment of his career in Fever Pitch, which only adds to the legend of Gus. Here's the final paragraph:

'Even so, I think there is a real resonance in the Gus Caesar story: it contains a terrifying lesson for any aspirants who think that their own unshakeable sense of destiny (and again, this sense of destiny is not to be confused with arrogance - Gus Caesar was not an arrogant footballer) is significant. Gus must have known he was good, just as any pop band who has ever played the Marquee know they are destined for Madison Square Garden and an NME front cover, and just as any writer who has sent off a completed manuscript to Faber and Faber knows that he is two years away from the Booker. You trust that feeling with your life, you feel the strength and determination it gives you coursing through your veins like heroin ... and it doesn't mean anything at all.'

I'm pretty sure it was Babu who highlighted that Omar Riza had played in some charity game as an Arsenal legend. I simply brought his mother up because I can't imagine many others, if any others, would see him as an Arsenal legend.

I genuinely don't think I do, certainly not on its own. I actually see Perry Groves as an Arsenal legend (just), and 'outstanding player' is the last term I'd use to describe him. Having said that, I do firmly think that when someone is called a legend in football, it is routinely used in a positive sense about the player. You may not think it should be but when I hear a player described as a legend, as far as I can make out it's practically always meant in a positive sense. So I certainly suspect many people do use their own perception of someone's quality as a player, which of course is often debatable anyway, as one of the factors that define legends. I genuinely believe you would be in a minority, quite possibly a small one, of Arsenal fans who see Caesar as a legend. Doesn't mean you and John are wrong and he isn't. But I'd be surprised if many do because of the positivity now associated with the term.

Overall, I suggest it's grown to be such a loose term with no accepted criteria for judging football legends, that it's inevitable people are going to make their own individual judgments on particular players. From that, a player's perceived quality is definitely not the only factor that can influence the judgement. As well as being ultra close to the top of the tree regarding great Arsenal central defenders, I reckon Sol Campbell would be equally close to that status for Tottenham. But my guess would be that there are very few of their fans who see him as a Tottenham legend (just from the fair number I've spoken to about him, I can say 'none' but that doesn't mean there aren't any at all), even though they all accept he was a brilliant player for them. Hence my point that there are a number of things that may contribute to legendary status. I mentioned a few that came into my mind yesterday and while a player's perceived (and debatable) quality was one, it wasn't the only one. Moreover, if I thought about it some more I'd probably think of some other factors as well, in addition to those I mentioned yesterday.

Well, the simple answer to that is that a lot of people are wrong about what legend means.

As for your reply to John, it's a bit more flexible than that. You can become a legend because of how useless you are, but not every useless player will become a legend. You can become a legend because of how great you are, but not every great player will become a legend.

Growing up as an Arsenal supporter, I heard about Gus Caesar from an early age. I read Fever Pitch, I've heard him mentioned by older Arsenal supporters etc. Outside this forum (where it's more of a running gag than a serious debate), I've not heard anyone talk about that slip from Clichy since it happened. That's the difference.

I fully accept not every great player is a legend, and nor is every useless player a legend - and I'd be surprised if any fair minded people would see Clichy as useless. But the flexibility of the term surely has to mean it's often open for debate as to who is or isn't a legend. Yesterday didn't you question the need for an accepted criteria? Fair enough, but without one people will make their own minds up. That means there will be players who some fans see as legends but others don't. I fully accept there is an element of notoriety as well as positivity in the dictionary definition of the word legend. But I firmly believe the term in its footballing sense has developed into routinely meaning something positive about a player. Whether or not you think that's wrong, I'm certain it's what has happened.

This made me laugh.

He did indeed make the comment about pissing on an Arsenal fan. When I think of steady Eddie I always think of his penalty Miss v sampdoria and I can vaguely recall with my sketchy memory him doing some stupid running the clock down in Copenhagen and losing the ball.