You're saying no manager has ever won it without averaging 80 points prior to the season they won it?

You're saying no manager has ever won it without averaging 80 points prior to the season they won it?

I'm saying you need 80+pts to win it, realistically and historically.

Again: it's possible we'll win the league, but highly unlikely. Not only because of Wenger's consistent mid-70s average, and not only because of the fact that we're actually on a steady decline of about 4pts per season...but also because our injury record, squad depth, failure to strengthen key positions, etc.

I don't know why on earth you think Arsenal would be able to improve on last season's points by a massive 10pts just by adding Xhaka.

Proper banter

It's simple as for example Ox doing better than he did last season. Or Theo or anyone for that matter. Or opposition doing worse etc. For some reason you think that players/managers etc are constants in a formula which will always yield one and the same result if you don't change them. Not everything is related to coding Ix!

With your logic Vardy should still be playing non league football.

It's simple as for example Ox doing better than he did last season. Or Theo or anyone for that matter. Or opposition doing worse etc. For some reason you think that players/managers etc are constants in a formula which will always yield one and the same result if you don't change them. Not everything is related to coding Ix!With your logic Vardy should still be playing non league football.

But listen...

We've had plenty of players come and go. Many of them shit, many of them fantastic. They have all gone in and out of form.

Our average didn't change.

Our main rivals have also gone in and out of form in the last 20 years. Chelsea became a thing, so did Man City...Man Utd turned from world beaters to horse poo, Leicester turned from horse poo to league winners.

Our average didn't change.

We've fired and hired physios, scouts, coaches...we've replaced our board and ownership.

Our average didn't change.

So yes, we can have an outlier season, but there is no evidence to suggest this being likely. We have lost four points per season in the last three years and ended on 71 points last season despite all our rivals underperforming throughout the season.

So I ask again: what is the basis of your assumption that Wenger will suddenly improve our league record by 10 points when he has only done this four times out of 20 attempts? We can realistically only lose about 4-5 games this season to do that, and we've already lost one.

The basis of my assumption is that we're managed by one of the best in the world. And I trust in some of our upcoming players such as Ox and I also expect Theo to contribute.

The basis of my assumption is that we're managed by one of the best in the world.

According to what metric though?

You can't base it on trophies. You can't base it on league position. You can't base it on transfer activity. You can't base it on tactics. So what are we talking about? Diplomacy? Charm?

According to what metric though?You can't base it on trophies. You can't base it on league position. You can't base it on transfer activity. You can't base it on tactics. So what are we talking about? Diplomacy? Charm?

Why not ?

Why cant we base it on the trophies he won in the past, why do you have right to delete his achievement from the past?

Why cant we base it on constant league position, that show he is able to sustain position under pressure and don't fluctuate like some amateurs, or send title wining team in to relegation battle ?

Why is his tactic bad? Because you and British media and are banging on the 4-4-2 holy grail?

Why cant we base it on play style that i find it enjoyable to watch. Just because he is not some top hot manager of the week/month in the media and some fans eyes, dosn't take out the credibility he have as great manager he was and he is.

I can see why you would disagree with his tactic and transfer activity, or want change, new manager bring changes that can go better with current squad even if they are not radical. Even change for the sake of change,(even if i dont agree with such view).

But nothing of this should or could degrade Arsene credibility as manager.

Why not ? Why cant we base it on the trophies he won in the past, why do you have right to delete his achievement from the past?

Because what you did 12 years ago has little bearing on what you are capable of today. The climate has changed. External factors have changed. You need to be a much better manager today than you did 12 years ago. There is more money involved, so you need to be more willing to spend more on players. There is greater tactical variety, so you need to be more adaptable.

Football has grown very complex, and Wenger hasn't grown with it. He still stubbornly refuses to adapt to opposition tactics, and on the rare occasion it happens he or his players openly admits it was just a fluke. He refuses to spend market value on players, instead whining about silly money.

So it's not about deleting from the past, it's about not resting on what you achieved 12 years ago. It's like saying to your bf/gf: "I was faithful to you for ten years, so now I should be allowed to fuck other people for ten years because of what I achieved in the past".

Why cant we base it on constant league position

Because you don't win a trophy for being consistently not first.

that show he is able to sustain position under pressure and don't fluctuate like some amateurs

The best managers on the planet fluctuate at times, it's a bi-product of being willing to take risks. It's what results in trophies. Sure you can have a blip, but you can also win trophies.

Why is his tactic bad? Because you and British media and are banging on the 4-4-2 holy grail?Why cant we base it on play style that i find it enjoyable to watch.

It's not necessarily the formation that is bad, although I would like to see a 4-4-2 as I think it would be more enjoyable to watch as players are unlocked mentally and it allows for quicker transitions. It's the unwillingness to adapt to opposition tactics that bothers me the most.

Just because he is not some top hot manager of the week/month in the media and some fans eyes, dosn't take out the credibility he have as great manager he was and he is.

Key word: was.

But nothing of this should or could degrade Arsene credibility as manager.

Credibility is based on what you do right now.

So right now United have appointed an expert at taking top clubs into relegation battle.

So right now United have appointed an expert at taking top clubs into relegation battle.

Also an expert at winning the league. He takes massive risks, which for the most part results in him winning the league.

So there's a timelimit? How long must one not win the league for him to become a nonleague winner manager in your formula?

So there's a timelimit? How long must one not win the league for him to become a nonleague winner manager in your formula?

In the example of Mourinho he has won the Premier League more times than he has not. 60% success rate. 23 trophies overall in a 16 year career. Wenger spent 10 of those winning absolutely nothing.

If Lewis Hamilton spends the next ten years never getting on the podium, is he still a world class driver? No. If Andy Murray spends the next ten years never getting into a grand slam final, is he still the best tennis player on earth? No. If Lionel Messi spends the next 10 years not scoring a single goal or making a single assist, is he still the best player in the world? No.

Jose also is the first manager to spend a billion quid on transfer alone. Add that to your equation.

Probably more down to Chelsea, Man Utd and Real wanting superstars than Mourinho needing them to be fair. He won just fine without spending a lot at Porto or Inter.

I thought what managers did way back means nothing now?

I thought what managers did way back means nothing now?

Wouldn't say that two years ago is "way back". You don't see the difference between winning the league two years ago and winning the league 13 years ago?

But you clearly see no difference between one guy spending 1 billion on transfers alone while other is handicapped in the transfer window and constantly loses players he was planing to build the team around.

But you clearly see no difference between one guy spending 1 billion on transfers alone while other is handicapped in the transfer window and constantly loses players he was planing to build the team around.

He's not handicapped, he has access to literally hundreds of millions of pounds if he chooses to. We are one of the richest clubs in the world, our reluctance to spend is a choice, not an actual restriction. Losing players is down to ambition, or lack thereof.

You are the one who generalized all 13 years and if you suggest he had hundreds of millions to spend on transfers all this time then I don't know what to tell you. And in other thread you just explained why we lost those players and none of your reasons included "lack of ambition" but now you're saying it was lack of ambition. Consistency Ix you're looking like Mike Dean out here...

You are the one who generalized all 13 years and if you suggest he had hundreds of millions to spend on transfers all this time then I don't know what to tell you.

Just look at our balance sheet, then compare it to clubs like Man City, Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea...and then look at how much they are spending without going bankrupt. We have hundreds of millions to spend if we want to. But we don't want to. Or rather, Wenger doesn't want to. He even admitted to being scared about big signings because he's worried about getting stuck with high-salary players, as if he can't just sell players who aren't performing very well - the market for flops is actually pretty healthy.

And in other thread you just explained why we lost those players and none of your reasons included "lack of ambition" but now you're saying it was lack of ambition. Consistency Ix you're looking like Mike Dean out here...

I explained why we lost those three in particular from our perspective. Van Persie even publicly explained that it was lack of ambition. Was he wrong? Everything he said in that open letter has been proven correct.