Arsenal - are they actually evolving into a better side without Henry?

Originally Posted by violater™

dont tell me them them.

ha ha

Henry looks to have lost a little bit of pace. A couple of years ago, if he got a defender one on one, he would invariably go past him. That is happening less and less.

His role is different as well, in the past he played from the left wing a lot, a lot more of a central, almost traditional striker now. That could be linked to him slowing down or a change of tactics.

Arsenal are an impressive team, Hleb, while not that effective is almost impossible to get the ball off, he is a rubber man, finds ways out of tight situations an awful lot.

Impressed by the lad Denilson as well, talented player, very much in the Fabregas mold.

No Henry, and they look better already.

Originally Posted by Tropical

No Henry, and they look better already.

typical £#%&!ing arsenal, though. a decent ref would have had that wall a few steps further back. you can bet there's some @#%&! out of shot to the left standing over the ball pretending to be talking to the ref, too.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

You can get relegated playing good football.

No. Good football does not include conceding lots of sloppy goals and being unable to break down defences. No matter how "pretty" it supposedly looks it is not good.

Originally Posted by jem

there was a time when people might have marvelled at their free-flowing football and been taken seriously (although not as seriously as arsenal take themselves as the purveyors of watchable football.... these days, anyhow). that time has passed. anyone who thinks this season's arsenal is playing good football needs his head examining.

think you're a little bit obsessed with them dude!

If you could channel half of that energy into supporting United you'd be a less twisted fella

Originally Posted by dodger

No. Good football does not include conceding lots of sloppy goals and being unable to break down defences. No matter how "pretty" it supposedly looks it is not good.

Really. Where did you get this definitive definition of what constitutes 'good football'? It's possible to win ugly and lose pretty. It's possible to win the the league not playing good football. It's also possible to get relegated playing good football...it's also possible for united to not win the league for 26 years but still have a reputation of playing good football,despite conceding sloppy goals.

In my book anyway.

Originally Posted by Red Rum

think you're a little bit obsessed with them dude!

If you could channel half of that energy into supporting United you'd be a less twisted fella

you're right. with a thread title like this one has, I should really have posted about chelsea.

i tend to agree that from the very little I've seen of the goons - and from their league results - they don't seem to have played very well this season. And even when they thrashed Liverpool 6-3 they might have lost that game with the chances Liverpool had.

It also occurred to me that the goons didn't do that well without Henry in Paris. But then thewy did only have 9 men for most of the game. Arf.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Really. Where did you get this definitive definition of what constitutes 'good football'? It's possible to win ugly and lose pretty. It's possible to win the the league not playing good football. It's also possible to get relegated playing good football...it's also possible for united to not win the league for 26 years but still have a reputation of playing good football,despite conceding sloppy goals.

In my book anyway.

But when were spending 26 years not winning the league we got very little credit for our good football, were certainly not purred over in the media and as fans we spent half our time tearing our £#%&!ing hair out over our ineptitude in front of goal and/or watching Viv Anderson ponderously bring the ball out of defence while another attack breaks down etc. Fun it may have been (especially to look back on) Good? Well that depends on your point of view.

As far as relegation is concerned it is not a matter of opinion, if you score less than 40 points in a season you've played a lot more shite than good football, regardless of style. That does not depend on you point of view.

They've had a bad season, as can be expected, its a transitional phase just like we had.

They're growing stronger though, looking quite good now. Summer will be important for them.

That Denilson looks quality. Diaby is the next Vieira according to Jem. Lots of potential, but we play the better football. They play the prettier football in terms of movement and intricate passing.

Like comparing a dynamic concerted attack by a pack of tigers on their prey to a swan taking flight. Both graceful and "beautiful" - but very different.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

If you're saying good football is only about getting maximum points and not conceding then you end up with a very pragmatic approach.

Obviously it depends how you personally define good football - good to watch or good in the sense you don't get beaten ?

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that if you win you play good football (or that good football is measure by points) but if you get relegated you have, by definition, been playing shit football.

Originally Posted by dodger

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that if you win you play good football (or that good football is measure by points) but if you get relegated you have, by definition, been playing shit football.

No,I understand you completely.I'm just flipping your coin. On the one hand you say that letting in goals and losing is not good football. Therefore the qualities you are praising are clean sheets and not losing - this is great if you are George Graham or even our great friend, Jose.

I am saying who defines the line between winning football and good football?

It's perfectly possible to play good football and lose matches. A team that comes up can go down whilst trying to play entertaining,quality,attacking football where the ball stays on the ground. They can have lots of matches where they are unlucky ,or the other team has far better players who rip them to shreds.

I just think there are differences between effective football and good football and it cuts both ways - Blackburn won the league and did not play good football. Ipswich went down under Burley even though they tried to play, and frequently did,good football.


Obviously teams that get relegated have done a fair bit wrong but it doesn't mean they haven't necessarily played,or tried to play,good attacking football. I remember us having many seasons where we achieved little but still managed,in the main,to play good football.

To me good football starts with your ethos ..how you try to play the game..even if it doesn't always work out how you planned on the pitch.

While far from past it, we haven't seen Henry leaving players trailing in his wake at the rate of previous seasons. If you deny he ever did this, just pop around YouTube. It might be fair to say he has lost a fraciton of a step.

Arsenal as a side, for all their supposed free-flowing football, have one clear weakness in attack: they are appalling shooters. Rosicky, Hleb, Walcott, Fabregas, and Adebayor are all incapable of hitting the target from any kind of distance. And yet they keep trying, especially Rosicky, who is good for 3 or 4 off-target squibblers per game.

It takes quality to play good football. Quality teams don't get relegated.

if you're talking about trying to play good football then that's different. You can try and play good football and get relegated because you're actually pretty shit at football, I suppose.

Fine but before you say 'It takes quality to play good football' define good football. write a paragraph that we can all agree is a comprehensive definition of 'good football' and then we'll talk about what you need to play it.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Fine but before you say 'It takes quality to play good football' define good football. write a paragraph that we can all agree is a comprehensive definition of 'good football' and then we'll talk about what you need to play it.

Can't we just look at some pictures or something?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Can't we just look at some pictures or something?

Well,seeing as you've been a good lad, you can bring your toys in tomorrow and go home at lunchtime!

good football is entertaining football. if you are entertained, its good.