Arsenal Not Good Enough?

[Marco10]

Lets look at the positives, not alot of them unfortunately. Arsenal kept the ball really well and created good chances. That's about it.
...and now the negatives: well there's plenty of them.
- defence coudn't handle Drogba,
- Sagna and Clichy aren't world class fullbacks going forward with their crosses and Clichy got caught out to many times
- Song is becoming a complete nusiance. Alan Hansen reviewed it on match of the day for the free kick that led to the second goal every Arsenal midfielder was forward. Arsenal are too vulnerable and Chelsea are class at counter attacking as you saw on sunday
- Song and Diaby aren't good enough in my view.
- tactics were wrong in my opininon; Diaby should have been alongside Song and Arsenal maybe would have have competed in the midfield a bit better and Jack Wilshere would have created more if he played where Diaby played.Diaby didnt really create any chances when he had the chance shoot he tried to pass and vice versa
- Arshavin doesn't work hard enough at helping Clichy so Clichy had really hard game against Chelsea plus he loses the ball too many times
- Chamakh doesn't have a cutting edge which arsenal needed. Thats where rvp if he stays fit could help arsenal and they lose their concentration too mnay times
- and last, Arsenal overplay too many times they just pass pass and no end product they need to be more direct they need to shoot more from outside the box and take people on and just cross the ball for Chamakh.The old arsenal passed it a lot but were efficent and direct and scored a lot goals from outside the box for how much arsenal were in Chelsea's half they should have at least had 20 shot or more instead they had 13 with 3 on target so Arsene need's to practice shooting and not just pass pass!!!!!.

Let Me Know Your Thoughts?

Edited to make this passage easier to read. Thanks so much for writing mate but just do your best to organise and punctuate as it is very difficult to follow a text with no full stops or sentence breaks. - Curt.B

[Curt.B]

This is all accurate and is unfortunately all the same issues that we have bemoaned for years now. It will not change until Wenger leaves.

[Marco10]

agreed and the staff he has got they are all idiots!!!

[Sinbad]

We have not been good enough for years.

People "think" because we play "good" football we are a great side?? Wrong... Great sides WIN things

[Marco10]

great point sinbad i agree totally!!!

[Curt.B]

Also, what is 'GOOD' football?

When did 'pass pass pass shoot? no, pass again' become the yardstick for GOOD football. Chelsea play the best brand of football, like our old Wenger sides did. Brutal on defence, lethal on the counter, lightning fast, didn't over complicate things.

There is no rule that says because you have more possession and more pass completion, you deserve to win. Hell, it doesn't even suggest you were the better team. Lots of people, including blogs like Ladyarse, suggest we 'played Chelsea off the park.' What a load of bollocks! Quite clearly we did nothing to bother Chelsea, but they did a lot to bother us.

We're footballing snobs who have deluded ourselves for years. Honestly, I'm not even that entertained anymore.

[Marco10]

exactly and chelsea take shots from distance which for some reason arsenal barely do but nasri arshavin rosicky fabregas are good from distance just look at when arshavin had go he nearly scored for us from about 25 yards out!!!!!

[Craigie]

Under Mourinho, Chelsea played rubbish football. Now Chelsea play rubbish football only against Arsenal. Why? Because it works. A great side playing rubbish football against us = 3 points. Chelsea play AMAZING football against every other team because that works too.

A side with Lampard/Drogba/Malouda/Anelka/Essien is always going to play "good" football. This is very annoying. In my opinion we can still even at this level outplay United, but Chelsea play just as good football as us but with strength and discipline which is why I think they're the best side in the world.

Our football is only good against bottom 5 teams. We can romp Blackpool with pass and move. Walcott can look like a world beater against amateur defences, but when we play a real team they can utilise an "anti-arsenal" game plan and get success against us. Chelsea could take a risk and play us at football and they would probably win, but what's the point of "probably" if they can definitely get 3 points by "anti-arsenal"ing us.

For a team with so much talent we are very very predictable. I fear that our problem now is simply just management. Our players are good enough. Clichy has been dodgy for a year now but we know he has it in him to be a great fullback, could another manager bring this out in him?

[damir]

it's not a problem to beat Arsenal,you only have to put two lines in front of the goal and wait for counter-attacks,in that case the midfield is too crowded,we don't have RB or LB who can croos a decent ball in the box,we don't have some tall players or good jumper for the headers,so we don't have much choice in the attack !the real problem is cause we aren't learning anything from defeat,we have lost 5 games in a row against Chelsea in the same way,and we will lost another 5 games if we don't change our tactics

[stevedon]

OUR DEFENCE IS SH1T so we won't win the league.

So far we have conceded 10 goals in 8 premier league games. Chelsea have conceded 2 and Man City 5. We are heading for conceding 47 or 48 for the season at this rate. The winners always concede less than 30 in the season - last time we did that we won the league.(2003/04).

Barca have conceded 6 goals from 7 games - much better than us. We are sometimes compared to Barca because of our attractive passing game, but they know how to defend and we don't.

It's embarrassing.