For once and for all...

[Craig_H]

Does Wenger consistently challenge for the title? By my reckoning he has only challenged for the title in half the seasons he's been at Arsenal. Congrats also to Wenger for winning the double in his first full season, when he inherited a very goo dsquad and only had Man U to overcome. Rafa also won CL in his FIRST FULL SEASON, (which also happened to be his first season) with probably one of the worst squad of players ever to win that competition in that guise but hey, forget about that.

Anyway **** this ****. As fun as it is going around in circles with you I'm off home.

Kinell, i'd LOVE Rafa to challenge just ONCE, let alone in half his seasons.

You're sitting here almost demeaning Wenger's ability to challenge in half his seasons. God, i wish Rafa could 'only' challenge half the time...

Rafa inherited a squad that was 4th best in the league, he didnt inherit a bunch of relegation fodder...

The CL win has little or no bearing on a conversation about league performance. There's a big difference between 15 games and 38.

[tomasjj]

I dont dispute that. Keeping their spine more than us = maintaining more stability than us.

They're also wise enough to change their teams at sensible times, and not just according to the 'set rota' that Rafa seems to have.

Can you actually back that up?
Does he have a set rota, or does he rotate when the opposition is inferior?

I understood his rotation/subs against Reading, but that was more due to the upcoming CL game and the sad indictment on how dependent we are on that money.'

[tomasjj]

Does Wenger consistently challenge for the title? By my reckoning he has only challenged for the title in half the seasons he's been at Arsenal. Congrats also to Wenger for winning the double in his first full season, when he inherited a very good squad and only had Man U to overcome.

BTW Rafa also won CL in his FIRST FULL SEASON, (which also happened to be his first season) with probably one of the worst squad of players ever to win that competition in that guise but hey, forget about that.

Anyway **** this ****. As fun as it is going around in circles with you I'm off home.

You see, the cups are just a nice bonus... Arsene won the PL, and that got him years to build, where as Rafas CL win counts for nada.

[Craig_H]

You see, the cups are just a nice bonus... Arsene won the PL, and that got him years to build, where as Rafas CL win counts for nada.

In terms of a discussion about PL challenges, then yes it does count for very little, i'm afraid.

[Craig_H]

Can you actually back that up?
Does he have a set rota, or does he rotate when the opposition is inferior?

I understood his rotation/subs against Reading, but that was more due to the upcoming CL game and the sad indictment on how dependent we are on that money.'

Well when he plays Torres for a Carling Cup tie, but not for a tricky league trip to Pompey (for example), you cant help but wonder.

[red g]

Kinell, i'd LOVE Rafa to challenge just ONCE, let alone in half his seasons.

You're sitting here almost demeaning Wenger's ability to challenge in half his seasons. God, i wish Rafa could 'only' challenge half the time...

Rafa inherited a squad that was 4th best in the league, he didnt inherit a bunch of relegation fodder...

The CL win has little or no bearing on a conversation about league performance. There's a big difference between 15 games and 38.

He inherited a team that was nowhere near Premiership winning quality, the same cant be said of Wenger, His team he took over was old but quality, not a pile of ****.....that was comfortably fourth in the league and look at what scum and chelsea have spent since......unfair to compare

[JohnDoe]

Right, so removing the stability of the team by chopping and changing players and systems has NO impact?

What you are describing is a gross exaggeration of what Rafa's implementing.

If we had a defence that was good on the ball, wingers who can win matches and another striker other than Torres who can score goals, we would have won a lot more points this season and people wouldn't search for reasons why we haven't done as well as we wanted. It's simple, when the opponents sit back, we can't break them down because we are ineffective starting attacks from the back, we don't have wingers who can consistently take on defenders and create things out of nothing and once Torres is marked out of the game we aren't going to score because Kuyt is concentrated at passing the ball sideways to a team mate 40 yards from goal.

Can you get that in your head?!

[tomasjj]

Well when he plays Torres for a Carling Cup tie, but not for a tricky league trip to Pompey (for example), you cant help but wonder.

Yes, but we won the CC game and drew away at Pompey, which at that time was good as they were unbeaten there-

But, I did wonder why.

Do you think he has a set rota, or did you just make that up?

[JRC]

It's not a matter of judgement, it's a fact.

Settled players DO feel more comfortable and do perform better.

What next, i say they play on grass and you say Rafa's in a better position to 'judge' that too?

It's not a 'fact'. A player in a settled team can become complacent. A settled team is easy to prepare against - the same 'common sense' that approves the same 11/settled team approach is also used in the 'teams have learned how to play against them' argument to explain 2nd season syndrome. It's an opinion, and may be true, but you have not by any means established it as a fact.

Going back to your La Liga stats; did the managers of the teams Rafa finished above change their teams more or less than Rafa? Because whilst it may be true that you can afford to drop more points and still win La Liga, you still need to drop fewer points than your opponents - and if Rafa managed that whilst rotating/disrupting more than them, then your stability leads to better results argument is questionable; although the truth is that with both your argument and its refutation, the 'fact' is that there are almost certainly too many other variables to draw a meaningful conclusion either way.

Ultimately I go with the evidence (as I see it) proving that Rafa has been succesful previously, and that is not because he is a one-trick pony, but a clever, analytical manager, prepared to consider and try different methods, systems and tactics; and deserves further backing in the PL. I groan inside at the implicit xenophobia of him being 'Good - Brilliant even - in Europe' but not up to the PL task - as if every European team offers the same challenge whether Spanish, Italian, German, Czech, Turkish or French - yet the complexity and sophistication of the English game is beyond him.

[sonsofthedesert]

It's not a 'fact'. A player in a settled team can become complacent. A settled team is easy to prepare against - the same 'common sense' that approves the same 11/settled team approach is also used in the 'teams have learned how to play against them' argument to explain 2nd season syndrome. It's an opinion, and may be true, but you have not by any means established as a fact.

Going back to your La Liga stats; did the managers of the teams Rafa finished above change their teams more or less than Rafa? Because whilst it may be true that you can afford to drop more points and still win La Liga, you still need to drop fewer points than your opponents - and if Rafa managed that whilst rotating/disrupting more than them, then your stability leads to better results argument is questionable; although the truth with both your argument and its refutation, the 'fact' is that there are almost certainly too many other variables to draw a meaningful conclusion either way.

Ultimately I go with the evidence (as I see it) showing that Rafa has been succesful previously, and that is not becasue he is a one-trick pony, but a clever, analytical manager, prepared to considder and try different methods, systems and tactics; and deserves further backing in the PL. I groan inside at the implicit xenophobia of him being 'Good - Brilliant even - in Europe' but not up to the PL task - as if every European team offers the same challenge whether Spanish, Italian, German, Czech, Turkish or French - yet the complexity and sophistication of the English game is beyond him.

Well put and hard to argue against, but I'm sure someone will.

[Ketario]

The fact that we didn't get Heinze and the injury to Agger. If we need to assign a reason as to why we've struggled since early season I don't think we need look much further. We simply didn't have the strength in depth, it's not like Rafa didn't know this either. Rotation and everything else is moot by comparison.

[kris90210]

It's not a matter of judgement, it's a fact.

Settled players DO feel more comfortable and do perform better.

What next, i say they play on grass and you say Rafa's in a better position to 'judge' that too?

So what would you have us do? Play the same 11 players, the same formation continually for the whole season? Wenger doesnt do that, Ferguson doesnt and neither did Mourinho.

Benitez aspires to the same thing your boyfriend Mourinho does - 2 quality players for every position. He would rotate just as much as Rafa if he was to take over. Oh, and he is also a cautious, defensive manager.

You want to talk fact but discount the only facts that really matter in football - results. Rafa's record is up there with the very best. He hasnt won the premiership YET because its not as simple as some internet warrior saying "lets win the premiership, all we need to do is play with settled players all the time". There are millions of things going on behind the scenes that you dont have a clue about - and I am sure that Rafa could defend any decision he has made in terms of tactics and changes hes made to the team.

The premiership has never been harder to win. Rafa is moving us forward every year. If you cant see that then theres nothing more I can really say to you.

Out of interest, do you sing along to that song of ours?

[Red_Polo]

It's halfway through the FOURTH season Dhavlos, you speak as if he's had no time whatsoever to challenge, like he's only just joined.

And as for your wenger example - no i WOULD NOT have had him sacked because, for the five hundred millionth time, HE WON THE DOUBLE IN HIS FIRST FULL SEASON and consistently challenges for the title.

Season Ending: -- Finished: -- Points off top:
'96 --------------- 5th --------------- 19
'97 --------------- 3rd --------------- 7 (Wenger took charge in Oct)
'98 --------------- 1st --------------- n/a (First full season)
'99 --------------- 2nd --------------- 1
'00 --------------- 2nd --------------- 8
'01 --------------- 2nd --------------- 10
'02 --------------- 1st --------------- n/a
'03 --------------- 2nd --------------- 5
'04 --------------- 1st --------------- n/a
'05 --------------- 2nd --------------- 12
'06 --------------- 4th --------------- 24
'07 --------------- 4th --------------- 21

I think one thing we can take from that is progress is not necessarily linear, in fact there are two periods of 3 years there where Wenger's side seems to be getting worse in the league, only for things to improve considerably afterwards - assuming they continue to challenge this season.

Results of the recent past alone are not always the best indicator of prospects for the future. An understanding of what a manager is trying to achieve, how he's trying to do it, and then an appreciation of how he is progressing with that implementing that is sometimes more helpful than making an evaluation solely on points output. Sometimes a painting doesn't look all that great until it's finished.

It would be wrong to sack Rafa as things stand. He has proven himself an excellent manager, and people don't get to such a high level by being stupid and unable to learn from mistakes. Sometimes Rafa does my head in and leaves me feeling baffled, but at the end of the day he is a quality manager who is up against tougher competition than Wenger had to deal with when he first took over, and although results have been disappointing of late he really is building something here.

[Red_Polo]

Generally speaking, it's a fair conclusion to reach that consistently changing things disrupts the stability.

I cant believe i'm even having to make this point

So basically, what you've done there is repeat you know you're right and imply I'm stupid for thinking otherwise. It's always others who step out of line first though, right?

[JRC]

It's a tautology to say that 'constantly changing things disrupts stability' - and it says nothing at all about the value or otherwise of said stability.