Vincenzo Morabito Appreciation (aka Transfer) Thread

[dynamo_gunner]

iirc, from browsing the Manc board during that time, they did.



Does that mean we get to parade around like a bunch of D-Bags once we win a trophy?

I'm still a bit concerned with depth. One of our biggest flaws, I think, in my own opinion, not stating it as fact.........

Is lack of veteran mental toughness and seasoned depth. I'm still a bit worried about it.

[Martin Daoust]

I know and agree that Arsenal need more depth. I would love to see Wenger be slightly less cautious in augmenting the team. I just don't believe that spending assloads of money on overvalued 'galacticos' during the transfer window is a ticket to success.

But - for the 1000th time - no one who is avdocating spending more is advocating a "galacticos" policy. - Please name one instance where someone here has suggested such a policy. We have suggested spending more of the money available to spend to simply give the team additional depth and proven quality depth. Would you compare the team mr. Wenger built from 1999-2001, which became the 2002-2005 side, was built with a "galactico" policy, or radically higher investment as at Chelsea or Real Madrid or Juventus?

AC Milan hasn't won a title in several years and spend big. Same with Juventus. Liverpool bleeds money and have squat to show for it.

AC Milan won the Champions League two years ago and are current World Club Champions, Juventus did - well, I don't know what Juve did with alkl the bribery and all, but they did "win" the Scudeto a couple of times this decade...

And Liverpool have won as many trophies as we have since 2004 including winning the Champions League. So I'd say they got some return on their investment on the pitch.

Just because you spend big doesn't mean you're going to win big.

I think its indisputable though that it increases the likelihood that you will or will have the chance to...Like I said earlier name the last Champions League or major domestic league winner to spend as little as we do....

[ugen64]

I don't think injuries doomed either - injuries happen. Our inability to cope effectively with those injuries doomed either effort.

As for what happened at Liverpool - our lack of quality depth along the back four was absolutely fatal that night. Senderos was purely at fault for Hyppia and Torres's goala. The Hyppia goal was particularly moritfying, as Hyppia is one of the few professional footballers as slow or slower than Senderos. Hyppia lost him by taking in step backward then one step foirward - unreal really. I just think he isn't up to covering players like Torres, but if Toure had been in there instead of Senderos that goal isn't as certain to happen.

By the same token maybe if Eboue is at right back instead of Toure maybe that penalty decision is never made as the natural right back - even a poorer natural right-back - is better positioned and equipped to deal with Babel and his pace there. You could argue that if we had gone and got a proper right winger that Toure would have been at center-half and Eboue at right-back and Liverpool score two or three fewer goals that night.

So while we still would have had to play a semi with Chelsea who knows how we would have done - the same goes if we'd made the final - if we had bought those extra players of course.

I don't think Wenger made the decision to play Toure at right back because we needed Eboue at right wing, like you are implying. I think he noticed that Toure was playing very badly at the time and decided Senderos would be a better option, but obviously then you have to play Toure somewhere and he is a decent choice at right back. I think if Wenger really wanted to play Eboue - Toure - Gallas - Clichy he could have managed it somehow... for example you could move Flamini to right wing and bring in Gilberto (I know Flamini got injured during the match, but I mean the starting lineup).

or else he could keep Eboue at right wing and bring Hoyte in at right back, or move Flamini to right back and bring in Gilberto again... it was 100% Wenger's decision to bring in Senderos, he was not forced to do that.

and as for injury problems - the fact is, there are not many players in the world better than Rosicky and van Persie that we can afford. in Rosicky's case, he had surgery to repair his injury (I think that hamstring was the cause of many of his problems for the past few years). for van Persie, the biggest problem is that he was too eager to return and we rushed him back. obviously we had little choice because we were still trying to win the Premiership at the time. young players can seem injury prone but they can just be unlucky (look at Clichy, he was badly injured twice during one season if I recall correctly, now he played nearly every game for Arsenal this season). we have to trust Wenger not only because he is an experienced and good manager, but because he sees these players in training every day, and his physios / team doctors know more about these players' injury histories than we do.

[Martin Daoust]

I don't think Wenger made the decision to play Toure at right back because we needed Eboue at right wing, like you are implying. I think he noticed that Toure was playing very badly at the time and decided Senderos would be a better option, but obviously then you have to play Toure somewhere and he is a decent choice at right back. I think if Wenger really wanted to play Eboue - Toure - Gallas - Clichy he could have managed it somehow... for example you could move Flamini to right wing and bring in Gilberto (I know Flamini got injured during the match, but I mean the starting lineup).

or else he could keep Eboue at right wing and bring Hoyte in at right back, or move Flamini to right back and bring in Gilberto again... it was 100% Wenger's decision to bring in Senderos, he was not forced to do that.

Interesting points. I think if you want to suggest Mr. Wenger was playing Eboue for defensive reasons you might be onto something. That said I think after a 1-1 draw at home that wasn't the really the best option. In fact I remember after going down 1-0 feeling utterly unmoved as we were out if stayed 0-0 other than being stunned at how poor a job Senderos did defensively there. Mr. Wenger chose - for whatever reason - to use Senderos. But to say he wasn't forced is not entirely true, as again the choice not to piurchase one more proven center back(Senderos could be first choice against some teams but shouldn't even be fourth choice yet in a situation like this against the likes of Liverpool), so the lack of an adequate third central defemnder helped force the choice on Mr. Wenger

and as for injury problems - the fact is, there are not many players in the world better than Rosicky and van Persie that we can afford. in Rosicky's case, he had surgery to repair his injury (I think that hamstring was the cause of many of his problems for the past few years). for van Persie, the biggest problem is that he was too eager to return and we rushed him back. obviously we had little choice because we were still trying to win the Premiership at the time. young players can seem injury prone but they can just be unlucky (look at Clichy, he was badly injured twice during one season if I recall correctly, now he played nearly every game for Arsenal this season). we have to trust Wenger not only because he is an experienced and good manager, but because he sees these players in training every day, and his physios / team doctors know more about these players' injury histories than we do.

I understand but disagree here - I think if we are willing to expand the wage structure we could have gotten Ribery for 12-18 million and that is not beyond our means, as 18 million has been mooted for reported targets Barry and Huntelaar. But even if you are correct wqe could have bought a veteran striker for less in January - even copied United and done a loan deal, or the same with a winger. Using Diaby and Eboue out wide was suicidal, hurt us going forward and forced us to play other players they could have covered for more than they were up to, especially Cesc who was gassed from November or December on....

[TheImposter]

I understand but disagree here - I think if we are willing to expand the wage structure we could have gotten Ribery for 12-18 million and that is not beyond our means, as 18 million has been mooted for reported targets Barry and Huntelaar.
Not by anyone at Arsenal.

I'm not as passionate about the money stuff as some are, and I have absolutely no training in economics (I mean, like not even micro-econ 101), but I have a hunch about part of what may be going on here. AW has said several things over the past 6 months or so about the possibility that the transfer market could collapse because of the Webster ruling and such. I wonder if he looks at the current situation as a bubble, and refuses to pay current prices because he sees that bubble bursting and doesn't want to have assets that are worth much, much less than he paid for them.

And my speaking in those terms does not mean I'm not interested in Arsenal winning football matches.

[Martin Daoust]

Not by anyone at Arsenal.

I'm not as passionate about the money stuff as some are, and I have absolutely no training in economics (I mean, like not even micro-econ 101), but I have a hunch about part of what may be going on here. AW has said several things over the past 6 months or so about the possibility that the transfer market could collapse because of the Webster ruling and such. I wonder if he looks at the current situation as a bubble, and refuses to pay current prices because he sees that bubble bursting and doesn't want to have assets that are worth much, much less than he paid for them.

And my speaking in those terms does not mean I'm not interested in Arsenal winning football matches.

I have heard that elsewhere, Imposter. But again its not his job to worry about that. The manager's job is to spend the funds made available to them. I know he is an economist and thus much better educated in those specific matters than you or me :D , but again its not his job to worry about that. And another thing to consider - that unless the other clubs are run by better economists than Mr. Wenger they will be in the same or worse shape as us, so why he would focus on what might happen when its not his job to and no other manager is is utterly baffling - if that is the case. And why a Board with any ambition to win silverware would allow that is similarly baffling...

[DougG_ATL]

Would you compare the team mr. Wenger built from 1999-2001, which became the 2002-2005 side, was built with a "galactico" policy, or radically higher investment as at Chelsea or Real Madrid or Juventus?

Ok, 1999-2001: No silverware since the double, but respectable league finishes. Several key players making their exit (Overmars, Petit, Anelka, Winterburn). Wenger signs several young potentials (Henry, Ljungberg) and a couple of backbone veterans (Campbell, Pires). Arsenal win Premiership in 01-02.

2005-08: FA Cup, Champions League final appearance, no other silverware. Several key players making their exit. Wenger signs several young potentials and a couple of backbone veterans.

Similar situations; one we know the result of, one has yet to be seen. But Wenger's approach is consistent and has served the club well. That's my point.

I concede that spending money for depth helps a team be competitive. I just think that, as Arsenal fans, we envy clubs whose names are tied to every big transfer target, a list that's actually very small.

[Martin Daoust]

Ok, 1999-2001: No silverware since the double, but respectable league finishes. Several key players making their exit (Overmars, Petit, Anelka, Winterburn). Wenger signs several young potentials (Henry, Ljungberg) and a couple of backbone veterans (Campbell, Pires). Arsenal win Premiership in 01-02.

2005-08: FA Cup, Champions League final appearance, no other silverware. Several key players making their exit. Wenger signs several young potentials and a couple of backbone veterans.

Similar situations; one we know the result of, one has yet to be seen. But Wenger's approach is consistent and has served the club well. That's my point.

I concede that spending money for depth helps a team be competitive. I just think that, as Arsenal fans, we envy clubs whose names are tied to every big transfer target, a list that's actually very small.

Sorry but calling Henry a young potential is utterly ridiculous. he was a young potential before going to the World Cup and being the World Cup winners top goal scorer. Was he the Henry that left Arsenal? Certainly not. But you are comaring signing him to signing Nik Bendtner and that's just silly and sounds really questionable so just drop this one now before more people read it...

I don't think we envy other clubs so much as feel that if we spent more than we did or even a bit closer to what they did we could achieve more than we have and more than they did. I think that we spend so little given what is available is far more frustrating than how much more they spend.

[antifan]

Sorry but calling hnery a young potential is utterly ridiculous. he was a young potential before going to the World Cup and being the World Cup winners top goal scorer. Was he the Henry that left Arsenal? Certainly not. But you are comaring signing him to signing Nik Bendtner and that's just silly and sounds really questionable so just drop this one now before more people read it...

I don't think we envy other clubs so much as feel that if we spent more than we did or even a bit closer to what they did we could achieve more than we have and more than they did. I think that we spend so little given what is available is far more frustrating than how much more they spend.
You should be a revisionist historian.

[bigINTERNETTOUGHGUY]

You should be a revisionist historian.

Should be?:rolleyes:

[TheImposter]

I have heard that elsewhere, Imposter. But again its not his job to worry about that. The manager's job is to spend the funds made available to them. I know he is an economist and thus much better educated in those specific matters than you or me :D , but again its not his job to worry about that.
I'm guessing he doesn't agree with you on that.

[Martin Daoust]

I'm guessing he doesn't agree with you on that.

He may not - but is it his job? Maybe the Board should betelling him that it isn't because really it isn't. Do you see Sir Alex Ferguson or Jose Mourinho or Bernd Schuster studying all these things every day as part of their job.

I think it can bebeneficial to have a more economically responsible mamnger - indeed I think that's eactly what we had from 1998-2005. I think now if that's the case(and I don't believe it is - not to such an extent)then someone needs to remind the manager his job is to deal with the team - the Board's job is to provide him with the money to do so - and really that's that.

As I say though I think that's similar misdirection ala the the credit crunch warnings the Board are issuing now....

[DougG_ATL]

Sorry but calling Henry a young potential is utterly ridiculous. he was a young potential before going to the World Cup and being the World Cup winners top goal scorer. Was he the Henry that left Arsenal? Certainly not. But you are comaring signing him to signing Nik Bendtner and that's just silly and sounds really questionable so just drop this one now before more people read it...

I'd say Henry as a 21-year-old winger with less than five years' pro experience was still a young player with potential. Same with Ljungberg. At ground zero, those signings were not unlike that of Adebayor or Eduardo.

[BTV802]

I'd say Henry as a 21-year-old winger with less than five years' pro experience was still a young player with potential. Same with Ljungberg. At ground zero, those signings were not unlike that of Adebayor or Eduardo.

Man I wish Henry was just a 21 year old winger about to sign for Arsenal.

sigh...

[DougG_ATL]

Man I wish Henry was just a 21 year old winger about to sign for Arsenal.

sigh...

Back in '99, he was!! That's why we have to have some appropriate patience. They're not all going to become Henrys, but Wenger has more success with his "diamonds in the rough" than with the Reyes/Petit type signings.

It's funny how we fuss about spending - imagine being a Boro supporter, where the likes of Aliadiaiaiaiaiaoxenfree is a big addition.

[Martin Daoust]

I'd say Henry as a 21-year-old winger with less than five years' pro experience was still a young player with potential. Same with Ljungberg. At ground zero, those signings were not unlike that of Adebayor or Eduardo.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree - though if you wish to make that comparison, it is certainly a bit more reasonable.

But again Henry was a budding star after World Cup 98, not merely a promising talent whose move to Juve didn't work out for him or Juve. But his pedigree was already clearly established - as were the pedigrees of Eduardo and Adebayor. They were young stars - maybe not World XI youngsters ala Messi, but they weren't unproven either, though Henry was well ahead of either of them when signed - look at how quickly he progressed by comparison after a slow start.

I would agree on Ljungberg as he wasn't nearly so established as Henry when he signed.

All you have to do is consider how many Gooners were salivating over the possibility of signing Henry right after France 98, including me, for the record...

[rwb44]

Ok, I usually just lurk, but between the pile on Martin and the utter and complete BS by Doug, I had to jump in.

1) NO WAY NO HOW are a 21 year old from Juve who played for FRANCE and led the WC in goals is the same as Eduardo or Ade. BULLSHYTE! You couldn't find a person outside the little "arsene knows" contingent here that would agree with that, and I doubt many of them would agree. NEVERMIND that Henry was almost 11 mm quid IN 1998, which is almost more than what we paid for Eduardo and Ade combined, how you could compare Ade to Henry at that moment is intellectually dishonest, or just stupid. A more apt analogy would be gourcuff. Both he and Henry were at Italian giants, each were french youth stars, and each found Serie A a tough time. That said, Henry still played for the WC champions and led them in scoring.

Is Torres an up and comer like Ade and Eduardo too?

You also ignore Martin's statement about titles and spending. In fact, the only club to win ANYTHING since 1998 and spend as little as us is.......US. Juve won the CL in the 2000's as well as 4 scudettos before they had to forfeit them. Milan, Barca, Pool, Man U, heck, even Porto have spent more cash than us.

Don't conflate "we need to spend for depth" with 'we must sign Eto'o and more galacticos."

People like Martin, although redundant, make this TRANSFER THREAD interesting. Otherwise, it'd be a big wank with everyone jerking the other off moaning...ARSENE KNOWS.....OHHHH ARSENE KNOWS....

[kanonier]

Ok, I usually just lurk, but between the pile on Martin and the utter and complete BS by Doug, I had to jump in.

1) NO WAY NO HOW are a 21 year old from Juve who played for FRANCE and led the WC in goals is the same as Eduardo or Ade. BULLSHYTE! You couldn't find a person outside the little "arsene knows" contingent here that would agree with that, and I doubt many of them would agree. NEVERMIND that Henry was almost 11 mm quid IN 1998, which is almost more than what we paid for Eduardo and Ade combined, how you could compare Ade to Henry at that moment is intellectually dishonest, or just stupid. A more apt analogy would be gourcuff. Both he and Henry were at Italian giants, each were french youth stars, and each found Serie A a tough time. That said, Henry still played for the WC champions and led them in scoring.

Is Torres an up and comer like Ade and Eduardo too?

You also ignore Martin's statement about titles and spending. In fact, the only club to win ANYTHING since 1998 and spend as little as us is.......US. Juve won the CL in the 2000's as well as 4 scudettos before they had to forfeit them. Milan, Barca, Pool, Man U, heck, even Porto have spent more cash than us.

Don't conflate "we need to spend for depth" with 'we must sign Eto'o and more galacticos."

People like Martin, although redundant, make this TRANSFER THREAD interesting. Otherwise, it'd be a big wank with everyone jerking the other off moaning...ARSENE KNOWS.....OHHHH ARSENE KNOWS....

Isn't that a good thing?

[DougG_ATL]

Ok, I usually just lurk, but between the pile on Martin and the utter and complete BS by Doug, I had to jump in.

1) NO WAY NO HOW are a 21 year old from Juve who played for FRANCE and led the WC in goals is the same as Eduardo or Ade. BULLSHYTE! You couldn't find a person outside the little "arsene knows" contingent here that would agree with that, and I doubt many of them would agree. NEVERMIND that Henry was almost 11 mm quid IN 1998, which is almost more than what we paid for Eduardo and Ade combined, how you could compare Ade to Henry at that moment is intellectually dishonest, or just stupid.

I never said they're the same; I'm saying there are parallels to the approach Wenger has taken in building the club.

Henry at Juve had not yet blossomed into the amazing player he would become; Wenger paid Juve what they'd paid Monaco.

Didn't Wenger just pay a handsome fee for another young player on the cusp of stardom?

[Martin Daoust]

What rwb44 said - except that last sentence. I'm gonna have trouble sleeping after reading that fighting to keep that image out of my mind....

And I don't mean the thing about me being redundant....;)

Seriously, cheers, rwb! We'll try to keep it interesting. I don't know whast to tell you about the redundancy though!