|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 30, 2015 9:31:44 GMT
So in the last 10 years what have they won? The FA Cup a few times. They've hardly threatened the league in that time too. Winning "the FA Cup a few times" is a laudable achievement. I'm not sure why the goalposts are shifted at every level of achievement. Arsenal were once ridiculed as deluded and arrogant for their seeming apathy towards the cup competitions when Wenger prioritized CL qualification, but suddenly, they're almost supposed to feel ashamed to "only" win the FA cup? With Wenger's arrival, Arsenal went from a drab, boring, defensive team of mid-table cloggers in the early to mid 90's to 3 titles in 7 years between '97 and '04. The subsequent arrival of billionaire owners and a short-term financially crippling stadium move naturally saw their ambitions curtailed in that period. At worst - at absolute worst - you could call their achievements "par" for expectation. To say they're underachieving on the pitch is ridiculous. In Wenger's time at Arsenal, it's actually a fact that no team with a less expensive squad has ever finished above Arsenal. There is not ONE single team in the division that can say that. For a club who's won the league 11 times not challenging for the league over the last 10 years is under performing. Just look at the calls from Arsenal fans over the last 5 years for Wengar's head. "With Wenger's arrival, Arsenal went from a drab, boring, defensive team of mid-table cloggers". So George Graham's last few seasons: '88-'89 Champions '89-'90 4th '90-'91 Champions '91-'92 4th '92-'93 10th '93-'94 4th '94-'95 12th You won the league 3 times in the next 10 year. Since then, not even close. So yes, underperforming. Why is an Afghani Arsenal fan commenting on a Stoke forum?
|
|
|
Post by sheriff on Jul 30, 2015 11:58:58 GMT
For a club who's won the league 11 times not challenging for the league over the last 10 years is under performing. Just look at the calls from Arsenal fans over the last 5 years for Wengar's head. "With Wenger's arrival, Arsenal went from a drab, boring, defensive team of mid-table cloggers". So George Graham's last few seasons: '88-'89 Champions '89-'90 4th '90-'91 Champions '91-'92 4th '92-'93 10th '93-'94 4th '94-'95 12th You won the league 3 times in the next 10 year. Since then, not even close. So yes, underperforming. Why is an Afghani Arsenal fan commenting on a Stoke forum? It's actually 13 league titles. And it's about as relevant as Forest's 2 European Cups. The club has to deal with new challenges in a new football order. There is no Henry or Viera anymore. City aren't scrapping in lower league footy anymore. Chelsea aren't the team who almost went bust under Ken Bates anymore. Your logic is absurd. And some Arsenal fans calling for Wenger's exit (the majority are behind him) proves nothing about underperformance. Charlton fans wanted Curbishley sacked. That has worked out brilliantly for them. A lot of your fans here have slated Hughes a lot. I guess I should deduce from it that you've woefully underperformed, eh? In what world haven't Arsenal challenged for the title? We led the table for over 3 months until March 2 seasons ago and finished 7 points behind the winners, City. We went even closer in '07/08 leading for 27 rounds of matches before finishing 4 points behind Man U. How do you measure a title "challenge"? Have you predicted Arsenal to lift the title anytime since 2005? Do you predict them to this season? If not, on what planet is failure to win the title in that period "underperformance"?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 30, 2015 12:49:18 GMT
For a club who's won the league 11 times not challenging for the league over the last 10 years is under performing. Just look at the calls from Arsenal fans over the last 5 years for Wengar's head. "With Wenger's arrival, Arsenal went from a drab, boring, defensive team of mid-table cloggers". So George Graham's last few seasons: '88-'89 Champions '89-'90 4th '90-'91 Champions '91-'92 4th '92-'93 10th '93-'94 4th '94-'95 12th You won the league 3 times in the next 10 year. Since then, not even close. So yes, underperforming. Why is an Afghani Arsenal fan commenting on a Stoke forum? It's actually 13 league titles. And it's about as relevant as Forest's 2 European Cups. The club has to deal with new challenges in a new football order. There is no Henry or Viera anymore. City aren't scrapping in lower league footy anymore. Chelsea aren't the team who almost went bust under Ken Bates anymore. Your logic is absurd. And some Arsenal fans calling for Wenger's exit (the majority are behind him) proves nothing about underperformance. Charlton fans wanted Curbishley sacked. That has worked out brilliantly for them. A lot of your fans here have slated Hughes a lot. I guess I should deduce from it that you've woefully underperformed, eh? In what world haven't Arsenal challenged for the title? We led the table for over 3 months until March 2 seasons ago and finished 7 points behind the winners, City. We went even closer in '07/08 leading for 27 rounds of matches before finishing 4 points behind Man U. How do you measure a title "challenge"? Have you predicted Arsenal to lift the title anytime since 2005? Do you predict them to this season? If not, on what planet is failure to win the title in that period "underperformance"?
So you were a club who use to regularly win the Premier League, and now you don't. And that doesn't mean you're underperforming? Yes football has moved on, you haven't kept up with your peers and you think that's not underperforming.
" lot of your fans here have slated Hughes a lot. I guess I should deduce from it that you've woefully underperformed, eh?". Nope. Very few have slated Hughes. Very few indeed after he settled in.
When we (sorry Stoke) went down to the 3rd Division, we were underperforming.
So you say "In what world haven't Arsenal challenged for the title?" and "Have you predicted Arsenal to lift the title anytime since 2005? Do you predict them to this season? "
So nobody predicts Arsenal to win the title but Arsenal do challenge for the title?
The point is, given the size of club Arsenal are, their recent history, the money you've spent ("Henry or Viera" cf. Sanchez and Ozil - in money terms) you should be challenging and winning the title. Not just leading the league very very occasionally.
Are Man Utd not underperforming then?
|
|
|
Post by sheriff on Jul 30, 2015 14:37:54 GMT
So you were a club who use to regularly win the Premier League, and now you don't. And that doesn't mean you're underperforming? No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means better teams with greater investment and greater players have outperformed us. History is no reflection of what a team's potential is. That's why Chelsea and Man City are top dogs, while Arsenal, Man U and 'Pool lag behind. City didn't win the league because of their amazing history. They did it because they bought the best players at great expense on big £200k+ per week wages. When you have Aguero who can score out of nothing and another team has the immobile Giroud upfront, the difference shows. I'm really not sure what is so difficult to grasp about the concept. Your strange definition of underperformance seems to be performing to one's actual potential. Your reference to our spending is your typical argument without context. Yeah, let's forget over the past decade or half-decade that City, Chelsea, United and even Liverpool have blown us out of the water. Even when we spent a record sum on Ozil, his was our only spent fee that summer compared to the big sprees elsewhere. As if we spent big money and other teams were observing with folded arms. This is a case of being argumentative for the sake of it when you made a glaringly inaccurate point, just so you believe you've "won" the argument by dogmatism over substance. Clearly, you've never favoured us to win the title in the past decade. You're probably even one of those who regularly tipped Liverpool or Spurs to displace us from the top 4. And yet our failure to win the league is "underperformance"? How do you reconcile the contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 30, 2015 14:39:22 GMT
Am I read in thinking that if the Coates' hadn't of wrote it off we'd be about 100m in debt to them?
So we're not that different.
Morally we're excellent mind!
|
|
|
Post by sheriff on Jul 30, 2015 14:47:24 GMT
Are Man Utd not underperforming then? Man U are by far the biggest club in England and the biggest sports brand in the world with incomparable revenue streams. Unlike Arsenal, they've always matched the sugar daddy clubs in spending and have eclipsed everyone by a mile over the last seasons. Yet they finished 8th and 4th in the last 2 seasons with no trophies and not even European football. Comparing that with Arsenal is absurd. Just give it up.
|
|
|
Post by bounderboy on Jul 30, 2015 19:43:24 GMT
So you were a club who use to regularly win the Premier League, and now you don't. And that doesn't mean you're underperforming? No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means better teams with greater investment and greater players have outperformed us. History is no reflection of what a team's potential is. That's why Chelsea and Man City are top dogs, while Arsenal, Man U and 'Pool lag behind. City didn't win the league because of their amazing history. They did it because they bought the best players at great expense on big £200k+ per week wages. When you have Aguero who can score out of nothing and another team has the immobile Giroud upfront, the difference shows. I'm really not sure what is so difficult to grasp about the concept. Your strange definition of underperformance seems to be performing to one's actual potential. Your reference to our spending is your typical argument without context. Yeah, let's forget over the past decade or half-decade that City, Chelsea, United and even Liverpool have blown us out of the water. Even when we spent a record sum on Ozil, his was our only spent fee that summer compared to the big sprees elsewhere. As if we spent big money and other teams were observing with folded arms. This is a case of being argumentative for the sake of it when you made a glaringly inaccurate point, just so you believe you've "won" the argument by dogmatism over substance. Clearly, you've never favoured us to win the title in the past decade. You're probably even one of those who regularly tipped Liverpool or Spurs to displace us from the top 4. And yet our failure to win the league is "underperformance"? How do you reconcile the contradiction? Sherif you have to remember who your audience is here - if you want unbiased soccer opinion it aint gonna happen here. Being a club football fan is tribal and that means supporting your club even if it means shouting in the face of logic. Also under or over-performing is not really quantifiable and can only be based on opinion. Obviously there are statistics too but they can used to back the opinion of choice. To me the facts are Stoke and Arsenal are good examples of well run clubs - perhaps Arsenal now have a longer heritage of being well run and consistently performing and Stoke have in recent times being performing to their potential and improving especially with changing the philosophy under Hughes. Sure none of us want to see Stoke to go back to the Pulis days (even if it was effective and perhaps necessary for survival) Wenger will be remembered by most football fans, players, pundits as one of the great managers for the rest of time for a lot of good reasons. But don't expect a Stoke fanboard to like it :-)
|
|