Ever had is past tense. . . .it doesnt mean he's the best manager to have now.

Funny seeing this Mourinho meltdown though. . . .each press conference reeks of desperation - always looking for someone else to blame.

4llerbuntu:

meanwhile, no one is ranting on this thread for once .......... feels strange

Wait for the next loss or draw and they'll be back in droves. Heck one even blamed Wenger for trying to get rid of Flamini after we won against Spurs.

Some guys only enjoy coming on this thread when things are dire.

Pikaboo you need to repent.

So now it's Wenger that wanted to get rid of Flamini? You know this how exactly?

Anything to criticize Wenger - even the success is in spite of him, but failure is all his fault eh?

What's the comparison between a mistimed tackle by Barnes and unprovoked thuggery by Costa?

Matic ran to the player and pushed him over - did Gabriel do the same?

Nothing to compare here. If you're referring to pushes, how many times did Costa push Gabriel without being punished for it?

Timbuktou:


So, we can say the FA not rescinding Matic's red card last season was bias or incompetent or inconsistent? Or the rules have been changed in line with the new season?

I don't know what happened in Matic's case so I can't compare. What I do know is that Mike Dean had a terrible game and two of his errors have now been retrospectively fixed by the FA.

Timbuktou:


What do you mean ruined? Was Gabriel's conduct not deserving of a red card, or Santi's either?

If Gabriel's conduct was deserving of a red card the FA would not have rescinded it.

Good to see Gabriel win his appeal. . . .I'll be happy to have him against Spurs and give him more of a run in the side.

proudlysports:

I'm still not convinced enough to play Walcott upfront. I believe he is more effective coming from the right hand side. Alternatively, if he must play upfront, we can bring him on second half when the opposition defence is tired.
I don't know why we've not really taken advantage of Alexis' pace. He seems to do a lot of defending and doesn't really take part in many of our counter attacks.

As for Spurs, I think they'll take the initiative on their home ground which will provide space in behind. Walcott coming on late against so called tired defences isn't a policy that particularly works in my opinion, especially if we need a goal and the sides are sitting deep and there's no space in behind.

Alexis upfront would appear to be a waste right now - his finishing has been abysmal so far this season.

Personally I'd start Walcott again in this game, we'll be under the cosh for a lot of the game and we'll need speedy counter attacks.

I doubt there'll be much benefit in the appeal for Gabriel, but worth trying anyway considering the foolishness of Mr Dean.

Personally I'm not too fussed by Gabriel's behaviour - we have too many 'nice guys' in the squad and though he was foolish in the end I'd prefer teammates standing up for each other than allowing bad behaviour.

My personal view is that we'd likely have lost even 11 against 11 so I'm not particularly bothered - another game is nearly upon us so no time to dwell too much on a bad week. Beat Spurs and things will feel a lot better. . . .lose again and the pressure will become quite severe.

Can't wait.

edoyad:

Come on! How many of those failed conversions are owned by Alexis, I'm not even worried about him cos I know he will come good eventually ?

Favouritism and bias is not a good thing. Because Sanchez is a 'hustler' he gets away with so much - the same Sanchez fluffed multiple chances against Palace as well didn't he? Yet Walcott can't get credit for actually scoring. Yes he missed a number of chances, but prior to this game he was even struggling to get into goal scoring positions so the improvement is evident.

And as for Theo, hmmmm, we hate for it to happpen but how many games are left till his next surgery? These are things we all know

Well, I don't know and I hope he stays fit. He will get sharper and score more goals. I hope he starts against Zagreb and gets a few more.

Nihilist:


Man City have significantly strengthened this season by playing only one new player in the 4 league wins prior to this weekend....

I did not know kwashiokor also affected the brain...

Heck by that measure Arsenal too have significantly strengthened. Keep doing the Lord's work bro.

^^ I don't think this is a January issue. Alexis hit the post twice against Stoke alone. . . .that will not keep happening as he regains sharpness.

Ditto for Theo - yes he missed quite a few chances but I'm confident getting one will increase his confidence.

So no one here mentioned Walcott today?

Like I said, folk enjoy misery more than success on here.

pickabeau1:


He still lacks the basic rudiments of playing football

He lacks the basic rudiments of playing football yet features as a professional footballer for England and Arsenal eh?

In the attempt to make a point you make yourself look quite silly with this pointless hyperbole.

Gombs:

The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

There it is in your own words - Jesus teachings are not for us to live by, since Jesus teachings are part of the Old Testament by your definition.

Gombs:


It's amazing how you lot twist someone's writings to suit your misconceptions.

The above bold is a figment of your imagination, I never said Jesus' teachings are not to be followed, I said.. Jesus couldn't really teach any new revelation, a feat i asked you to produce new revelations taught by Jesus, a feat you failed with flying colours.

There is no misconception - if you say Jesus' teachings which are captured in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are part of the OT and say at the same time that OT teachings are for learning not for following, what other conclusion can be reached?

I've shown you a whole paragraph of new revelations yet you've not come back to say which one wasn't a new revelation. Are you to be taken seriously or are you just trolling?

Jesus said to us all that He was sent to the Jews o (Mat 15:24).. Is it that difficult to understand?

Please explain to me what Jesus meant. . . .it is difficult for me to understand what interpretation you're taking from that.

Fact is, they didn't even believe Him enough (don't come and say that I said they didn't believe Him o) ... They were even surprised to hear he was not in the tomb, even after He told them He was gonna rise again.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. (2 Corinthians 5:16) They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again.

It was during Jesus' ascension (not before His death as you falsely claim) that He told them to make disciples of the nations, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever He commanded them:

Jesus made them his disciples before his death. Who mentioned 'disciples of nations'?

They knew Him after the flesh.. Simple.

No they didn't - they beheld His glory as that of the only begotten son of God. John 1:14. The same disciples by the inspiration of the Spirit declared He was the son of God. Mark 8:9, Luke 9:20.

Can you point anywhere I said the validity or application of Jesus' teachings should be in doubt? Thanks

Your opening statement stating that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in the OT which are for 'learning from' casts doubt on the validity of Jesus' teaching.

Goshen360:


Yes! You're right in the sense that, Jesus' teaching (even though it's in\under the old testament) are revelation and truth that him, being mediator of the new covenant came to establish that will take effect and carry into the new covenant. You'll agree that most of his teaching are new to the folks then to the point the marveled at his teachings as called it "new teachings"....in other words, teachings strange to what they've been taught. These teachings and more are what was expanded as revelation by the Apostles after Christ. So, we also need to put Christ's teaching in a proper place in the old testament.

I'm not very interested in where the line is 'drawn' to separate old and new testaments, that is of secondary importance to me.

However, any claim that seeks to treat Jesus' teaching as not to be followed and just for us to 'learn from' is wrong, regardless of what 'testament' you place it in.

Jesus' teaching was to his disciples - the ones walked, talked, lived and learnt from Jesus, the ones who received the Holy Spirit in the upper room. They considered what Jesus taught them before his death as instructions to be followed, not just learned from. Granted they may have been limited in their understanding or even ability to follow them without the Holy Spirit, but the validity/applicability of those instructions to Christians today should not be in doubt.

Pataki:
Very true, we seem to have forgotten about Joel Campbell. He even gave an assist for his national team some days ago.
We need to just focus on our game on Saturday and the goals will come naturally.

Campbell will get his opportunity in the cups, so will Walcott at CF. I agree we are short on numbers with Welbeck's injury - that's my main issue; However since we didn't let Campbell leave on loan and actually have Walcott fit right now, numbers-wise we're slightly better upfront than we were last season at this stage.

proudlysports:
This isn't about comparing the players like for like. It's about the quality available. Despite the quality of Henry, Bergkamp and even Kanu, AW still brought in the highest goal scorer in France at that time - Wiltord and for a record fee too! A record that was not broken till we bought Arshavin 9 years later. And I didn't even mention our youth team players.

Today that same AW is telling us we have enough quality. Where is the quality abeg? Quality when we have to now pray that Giroud finds his scoring boots and doesn't get injured till at least Christmas?

I will like to see our team list when we play in the League Cup and FA Cup. Would we risk starting Giroud in those games too or will Alexis be our go to man or even Walcott?

There is enough quality - provided you're not relying overly on strikers for goals, which is what Wenger has been saying since the start of the season. He wants more goals from his midfielders and is looking for an improvement there. Even with how 'terrible' Giroud was last season, I repeat we only scored 3 goals less than the champions.

My assertion is that a team scoring only 3 goals less than the champions cannot be described as not having quality.

proudlysports:
Again putting it in perspective, before this current set we had a team with RVP, Adebayour, Eduardo. That is without including Bendtner, Vela, Jay Simpson and others who played in the League Cup and some FA Cup games when called upon. Interestingly even at that time, we didn't think it was sufficient especially after Edu's injury.

So I don't get how AW can look at his past strikeforce and current one in terms of available quality and still say he's fine with what he has.

You're completely missing the point by name-checking again. You're calling names of players, not relaying how many goals they scored nor the league position we finished in.

With Giroud and the current crop we finished 3rd last season and scored a mere 3 goals less than the champions with 71 league goals. If the gap with the current crop to the champions was 3 goals, why are you so confident that the issue is needing more strikers?

How many goals and what league position did your illustrious set above achieve to make you think they were better?

proudly9ja:
What I don't get is, the same Wenger who once had Henry, Bergkamp, Kanu and Wiltord in the same team asides the myriad of upcoming young players, is now saying Giroud,Welbeck will win us the league

E go better

What's not to get? Was the strike force that won Chelski the league even comparable to that? Yet they won. Even Citeh's strikeforce the season before wasn't as good as that one up there, yet they won as well.

Not saying Giroud and Welbeck are sufficient y any means, but y'all need to stop making unrealistic comparisons to a bygone time which in all likelihood will never be repeated.

I've not gone awol by any means. . . just unable to engage in lengthy rebuttals right now.

Back to Arsenal talk abeg. . . I've been reading a number of articles talking about playing Alexis as more of a striker and less of a winger.

I think this might help in certain games but I'd be interested to see what others think.

I personally think it could work, especially if you play him with Walcott wide and they interchange and cause some commotion. In games like that Giroud could be put on the bench as an alternative option, but this would only be on certain occasions, especially away where the home team wants to attack and there's room for lightening quick counter attacks - the types we saw against Palace that a rusty Alexis failed to score from.

raumdeuter:

Nice try but still fail
Per and Poldi won the world cup barely playing they were deployed as mascots All those 3 were not key players in their team

Ozil nko? also a mascot? I didn't know mascots actually played games at world cups like Per did.

Same with Torrs, Mata Silva. In those winning squads you can list 7 players more important than them. thats how irrelevant they are.

Mascots that scored 3 of the four goals in the final, one mascot ended the tournament as highest goal scorer. Do you hear how ridiculous your assertion is?

Your second reason. We have had France win the World cup and Euro, We have had Brazil win the world cup multiple times and none of these have a particularly strong home league nor did their home league contrbute the major key players who won
E.g in Brazil 2002 World cup winning team. The 2002 world cup final, Only 3 players were from their local league. The key players like Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Cafu, Carlos Ronaldinho played outside
If we check France 1998 too The core of the French team played outside France

Both France and Brazil have weak domestic leagues hence majority of best players tend to play outside the country. The same does not apply to Germany, Spain or even Italy. My point remains valid.

When choosing the best player and top scorers it doesnt even have to come fom the winners but like I showed for over 20yrs none of the top 3 best player or top scorer at a world cup has been from the EPL
This is shocking

Euro 2012 joint top scorers - Torres and Balotelli were from the EPL. Euro 2004 top scorer Milan Baros was a Liverpool player, Euro 96 top scorer Shearer was from the EPL.

So stop being selective and picking only WC when you want and adding Euros if you want to.

Also for other top teams, they atimes buy these Nations into their team, Bayern bought Neuer and Boateng , Madrid bought Sergio Ramos and Isco. Nothing stops the top English side from buying these English players too. man utd bought Rooney, Shaw etc, Arsenal bought walcott.
So why are they not leading the team to trophies

You still miss the point - the Barcelona, Bayern and Real Madrid teams are predominantly Spanish or German. This does not apply to ANY of the top English teams, due to the lower quantity of quality English players being produced.

raumdeuter:

Ahh ok. You don repent? Good to know. Unlike those days when you were Romance section mod and would ban girls
To unban them you would ask them to get on cam and flash b00bie.
Shey na stoke una dey play. Thats awesome. A home defeat and 3 broken legs is okay

DK you sabi lie sha. I never did any such thing.

^^ Na why Terry don lose form be dat.

raumdeuter:


Dobolawin, bawo ni nkan

Wo enu e pelebe bi igba wara



Is your thread ready to host the next party?

I don repent abeg, no dey call me that name again.

Celebration party after we beat Stoke? Yeah we are. . . .just bring peppered snail and gangan drums to celebrate with us.

Gombs:


Read through, Son!... But, a quick quiz now, shall we?

Q1. When does a testament take effect?

A. Before the death of the testator.

B. During the lifetime of the testator.

C. After the death of the testator.

After the death, if we are talking about a last will and testament. However your treatment of testament in this context is flawed - who died for the old testament to come into force?

Q2. Could Jesus teach any new revelation in His lifetime? If yes, kindly list any two.

(i)...........................................................................................

(ii)..........................................................................................

I'll give you a chapter of them - go and read Matthew 5 for starters.

raumdeuter:
^^Show me the World cup trophy any of them won while in the EPL

Ozil, Per and Poldi won a WC in the EPL

Torres, Mata, D Silva won the Euros in the EPL

The prime reason for WC/Euros winners not being made up of predominantly EPL players is because the winners often have very strong domestic leagues hence there is no need for majority of their squads to play abroad.

Furthermore, as coogar mentioned, the lopsided rules for domestic players (and their ridiculous costs) in England leads to the best players at the top teams in England being mostly foreigners, unlike what applies in Spain and Germany for the most part.

Top Chelski players (no particular order) Hazard, Costa, Cesc, Courtois, Ivanovich, Terry

Top Arsenal players (no particular order) Alexis, Ozil, Cazorla, Cech, Giroud, Ramsey

Top Citeh players (no particular order) Aguero, Silva, Toure, Hart, Kompany

Compare that to say Bayern - Neuer, Lahm, Muller, Ribery, Robben

Or Barcelona - Messi, Suarez, Neymar, Iniesta, Xavi, Alba

Thank heavens the weekend isn't too far away. . . .this madness of irrelevant arguments needs to stop on all the footie threads.

MuttleyLaff:
Kenny4lyfe goshen360 debosky
Interesting that, as it was then, so it still is today
Yes, Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations,
because the folks of then could not receive it,
because they had not the Spirit to KNOW THAT the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), and not to live by.

Jesus couldn't teach new revelations?

You might ad well give up now.

Gombs:
Alot of times, when we say "in the old Testament,..." people tend to shift their minds towards the books
The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

I disagree with this cut-off point. Jesus' teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are for us to live by, not just to learn from. We cannot discard those as only for us to learn from.