Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,019
- Location
- Surrey
yeah it was at home and it was since 2001.
***Midweek Football***(Spoilers within)
- Thread starter Greenlizard0
- Start date
yeah it was at home and it was since 2001.
Personally dont think Gibson should have played - he doesnt have the composure yet unless he is the youthful part of a 5 man midfield (ie he really needs to other "central" midfielders either side with lots of experience
He was pretty dreadful against Everton in the FA CUp last season from what I remember also
Too many outh players all at once was the problem - Obertan looks great and he deserves to play on merit, and would have prefered to see Macheda behind a more recognised striker, rather than the inexperienced Welbeck (who more often than not plays on the wing for the 1st team anyway)
The real problem I have with last night is while we have qualified- I still think we need a point to qualify first, and before mucking about with youth players you should get that point on the board (even if that means playing the youth players from the start away from home against 2nd in the group)
Admittedly this year seams dangerous qualifying first or 2nd, but I still think it would be better to be 1st anyway
I think it was any match in the CL since 2005 at OT, and any match in the Group since 2001 at OT or something like that
He was pretty dreadful against Everton in the FA CUp last season from what I remember also
Too many outh players all at once was the problem - Obertan looks great and he deserves to play on merit, and would have prefered to see Macheda behind a more recognised striker, rather than the inexperienced Welbeck (who more often than not plays on the wing for the 1st team anyway)
The real problem I have with last night is while we have qualified- I still think we need a point to qualify first, and before mucking about with youth players you should get that point on the board (even if that means playing the youth players from the start away from home against 2nd in the group)
Admittedly this year seams dangerous qualifying first or 2nd, but I still think it would be better to be 1st anyway
I think it was any match in the CL since 2005 at OT, and any match in the Group since 2001 at OT or something like that
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I really dont' get this rush to qualify for top spot, at some stage you have to beat someone good anyway, you never know what might happen, you could meet Barca in the quarters due to coming 2nd, and they have Henry, Messi, Xavi out injured and beat them, where as in the Semi's due to being 1st in the group, they are all back and its a harder game you lose.
You qualified, you rest players and avoid injuries, thats how you win leagues. Likewise if maybe you could only afford to play a youth team in one of the last two games, would it be better to play that weak team against Besiktas where they lose 1-0, or against a far better team they lose 8-0 too, there was a better chance of the youth team winning and gaining confidence, aswell as less chance of losing badly enough to scare them into never playing well again.
After seeing Gibbs rushed back in and ending up out for months, and Gallas picking up some knocks and maybe a longer injury, right before our game against Chelsea, I can tell you I would have prefered an all youth team that got beaten, than losing 1 and maybe a 2nd key player for the Chelsea clash.
You qualified, you rest players and avoid injuries, thats how you win leagues. Likewise if maybe you could only afford to play a youth team in one of the last two games, would it be better to play that weak team against Besiktas where they lose 1-0, or against a far better team they lose 8-0 too, there was a better chance of the youth team winning and gaining confidence, aswell as less chance of losing badly enough to scare them into never playing well again.
After seeing Gibbs rushed back in and ending up out for months, and Gallas picking up some knocks and maybe a longer injury, right before our game against Chelsea, I can tell you I would have prefered an all youth team that got beaten, than losing 1 and maybe a 2nd key player for the Chelsea clash.
The way I see it, if Barca are top of their group, make sure you are too, any other team in Europe is beatable if you have a good game (maybe not Chelsk, but they're top too)
By the way dm, I think you might need some kind of treatment, how do you think up such crazy things? Gibbs shouldn't have been played? I don't get it? Should Wenger have predicted that Mangala was going to be absolutely filthy and run around making horrendous challenges? Are you really criticising Wenger for not being able to read the future?
By the way dm, I think you might need some kind of treatment, how do you think up such crazy things? Gibbs shouldn't have been played? I don't get it? Should Wenger have predicted that Mangala was going to be absolutely filthy and run around making horrendous challenges? Are you really criticising Wenger for not being able to read the future?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You do know Gibbs massively bruised that foot a week before, and had a suspected break of the bone thats now broken, I guess you do know that right. So I think its fairly safe to say, the foot was weakened, which didn't help in the challenge. There was no need to risk him, he very much almost broke that same bone a week ago, you have the Chelsea game coming up which also offers him 3 more days to rest/heal the foot.
I don't think its a huge leap to suggest that bad tackle + weakened foot = break, plenty of bad tackles go on without breaking anything.
But this is the point, we played a WOEFUL team, Clichy is already hurt, Gibbs is young and played in the under 21's, even if he hadn't hurt himself against the under 21's, he's going to be playing a lot of games, or would have, before Clichy's back from injury, I would have been protecting him anyway and wouldn't have been playing him against a truly awful team, at home, in an unimportant game even if he hadn't almost broken his foot a week ago.
The second Clichy got injured Gibbs became our first choice left back, when someones just sustained a suspected injury, you'd never rush them back for a game you'd often not play first choice players in anyway. he's a kid, whose never played lots of competitive games consistantly, he was expected to play a lot over a very short space of time due to CLichys injury, I wouldn't be playing him against Liege, or Wolves, or any other bottom 8 team right now. We did, he's injured, bad tackles happen, every game risks people being injured from bad tackles, theres no crystal ball to know that. The fact he had a weakened foot meant it was a serious risk that he could hurt it, from running, let alone from a bad tackle, it was an immensely stupid risk to take with a HUGE game 5 days later.
AS for Barca, we have no idea if they'll top their group, before tonight they'd look distinctly average in both league and Europe. If anything I'd want to face them as early as possible before Ibra clicks with the team and the team clicks with Ibra better. Barca can have a bad game like anyone else, I don't know how you can go into a cup and try and win it, but convince yourself theres one team that you can't beat.
I don't think its a huge leap to suggest that bad tackle + weakened foot = break, plenty of bad tackles go on without breaking anything.
But this is the point, we played a WOEFUL team, Clichy is already hurt, Gibbs is young and played in the under 21's, even if he hadn't hurt himself against the under 21's, he's going to be playing a lot of games, or would have, before Clichy's back from injury, I would have been protecting him anyway and wouldn't have been playing him against a truly awful team, at home, in an unimportant game even if he hadn't almost broken his foot a week ago.
The second Clichy got injured Gibbs became our first choice left back, when someones just sustained a suspected injury, you'd never rush them back for a game you'd often not play first choice players in anyway. he's a kid, whose never played lots of competitive games consistantly, he was expected to play a lot over a very short space of time due to CLichys injury, I wouldn't be playing him against Liege, or Wolves, or any other bottom 8 team right now. We did, he's injured, bad tackles happen, every game risks people being injured from bad tackles, theres no crystal ball to know that. The fact he had a weakened foot meant it was a serious risk that he could hurt it, from running, let alone from a bad tackle, it was an immensely stupid risk to take with a HUGE game 5 days later.
AS for Barca, we have no idea if they'll top their group, before tonight they'd look distinctly average in both league and Europe. If anything I'd want to face them as early as possible before Ibra clicks with the team and the team clicks with Ibra better. Barca can have a bad game like anyone else, I don't know how you can go into a cup and try and win it, but convince yourself theres one team that you can't beat.
Last edited:
Err do your research. Also, if you consider Liege to be WOEFUL you should stop watching football as there are only a few teams around that you'd consider average
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
We're a top 4 team in one of the two best leagues in the world(imho the best league) compared to US most teams are poor, lots of teams are woeful and there are a handful of better teams and they aren't hugely ahead of us.
Are, I don't know stoke a terrible team, no, they are in the premierleague against ALL teams in the world I'd rank them pretty highly, but against the top 4 in the league I'd give them a 1/10 chance to beat any of them, at best. Compared to Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal and even Pool, I'd say they weren't very good. Same goes for Liege, get over it, they were poor, offered nothing and were beaten easily. Gibbs wasn't required to play his best game ever to beat them, hence playing him was stupid.
Last edited:
Why is it so hard for people to admit they are wrong, there was no reason to rest Gibbs especially, using your logic, why aren't you FUMING that Fabregas, Song, Gallas, Vermaelen, Almunia, Arshavin, Theo, Nasri all played too? They could all have been injured.
Brilliant isn't it, he just keeps on goingIt was the other foot he injured previously.
Arsenal said:
Arsenal said:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Because I'm not wrong, I got the wrong foot, boo hoo, that doesn't actually make me wrong.
I STILL wouldn't have risked playing him because he DID have a bad foot, it doesn't matter if he broke his left wrist in a bad fall, he got injured in a game I wouldn't have played him in, had he not played in that game he wouldn't have broken that bone, correct? Or can you not admit that?
It was an unnecessary risk to play him in that game full stop, and as per usual Wenger blindly walks into it. It was a game we could have lost with zero consequences, I wouldn't have played Cesc, Gallas, Gibbs and probably a couple others. It was an easy game that our youths would have had a great chance of winning, with a crucial game coming up.
I wouldn't have played those players, and two of them wouldn't have been injured in the game, others might, theres always a risk, thats life. But now we go into the Chelsea game without a left back, Traore against Sunderland wasn't very good at all.
Why field any players ever, they could have all been hit by a marauding beach ball and caught Infantigo.
Gibbs injury for the Under-21's had no effect on his injury on Tuesday. I'd prefer him to have played at Left Back for a game and then face Chelsea, rather than his last 90 minutes playing as a number 10 as he did for the Under-21's.
Gibbs injury for the Under-21's had no effect on his injury on Tuesday. I'd prefer him to have played at Left Back for a game and then face Chelsea, rather than his last 90 minutes playing as a number 10 as he did for the Under-21's.
Yes, using his theory I'd play my best XI for the important games (Man Utd/Chelsk etc. etc.) and then get 11 lads from down the road to play the unimportant ones as god forbid anybody gets injured when a game isn't important in dm's eyes.
Unfortunately starting XI's aren't devised from worrying about who might get injured, as quite frankly it's one of the silliest things you've ever said
Unfortunately starting XI's aren't devised from worrying about who might get injured, as quite frankly it's one of the silliest things you've ever said
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
How is it Wenger's fault that Gibbs injured his foot? Gibbs had to play because at the moment our first choice is out injured so he's the stand in. What do you suggest, that we had picked Traore or Silvestre instead? Man Utd played a bunch of kids last night in what was an 'unimportant game' and they lost. If Wenger played a bunch of 3rd or 4th choice players in what was an 'unimportant game' and lost, then you'd be the first person to come on here and complain about his team selection.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,019
- Location
- Surrey
DM would just put the arsenal team in a little glass box and look at them. Might as well stick the janitors on the field to avoid the stars getting injured.