He made a pretty interesting comment (paraphrasing) - ‘in the past 5 years United have made 5 finals in 5 years whereas Arsenal have reached none’
This is supposed to be the best Arsenal side since the heyday of Wenger but have they really achieved anything when our worst ever sides have won more?
My question really comes down to how we can define achievement in its purest form. You’d think if Arsenal don’t win the league next season their fans will probably demand Artera moves on and his time will be considered a relative failure imo.
I’m not suggesting in any way we’re better than Arsenal - of course not - but is what Henry saying right? And how do we judge success? Have Spurs for example achieved more than say, City in third place? Or have Newcastle achieved more than Arsenal?
Thierry Henry - United vs Arsenal
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Sir Charles Lampwick Carruthers (U22980)
posted 46 minutes ago
Football is about winning trophies not how much profit the club generates etc.
Tottenham had a better season than Arsenal because they won a trophy. In fact they had a better season than the 16 clubs above them in the PL with the exception of Liverpool
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most ridiculous thing I have heard. The prem is the bread and butter.
You can't just ignore 22 games lost. That's a disgraceful stat
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I think fans confuse progress and success. Arsenal have made great progress under Arteta but, apart from the FA Cup, has anything else they've achieved under Arteta something that Arsenal fans would be happy to repeat forever- e.g finishing 2nd every year, CL semis?
We've had success winning trophies but our seasons have basically been failures since SAF left.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Castor Troy (U8700)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Sir Charles Lampwick Carruthers (U22980)
posted 46 minutes ago
Football is about winning trophies not how much profit the club generates etc.
Tottenham had a better season than Arsenal because they won a trophy. In fact they had a better season than the 16 clubs above them in the PL with the exception of Liverpool
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most ridiculous thing I have heard. The prem is the bread and butter.
You can't just ignore 22 games lost. That's a disgraceful stat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its all relative.
Say somehow over the last 5/7 years in one of the season Southampton finished 1 point behind 1st place (for eg Man City) then IMO Southampton had a much better season than Man City did.
Its all relative to how you view the team in question. If you consider 17th and a europa league as better than being the 2nd best team in the country then it must mean you view your team as having considerably lower standards than the team in 2nd.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by 130 reasons why ours is better (U22832)
posted 11 minutes ago
I think fans confuse progress and success. Arsenal have made great progress under Arteta but, apart from the FA Cup, has anything else they've achieved under Arteta something that Arsenal fans would be happy to repeat forever- e.g finishing 2nd every year, CL semis?
We've had success winning trophies but our seasons have basically been failures since SAF left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes if you ignore the success then all is left is failure
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
First of all, getting to a cup final when you are a club the size of United or Arsenal isn't all that. Winning is the key and I can think of at least 3 of the 5 where United lost. Neither of the teams put much stock on the domestic trophies at the start of the season, it is just a bonus (or a fall back) if they win one. United have gone from 2nd to 15th in that time, Arsenal from 8th to 2nd - losing a couple of Europa finals you should have won isn't making up for that, sorry Thierry.
In simple terms, winning a trophy is better than not winning one.
Equally, Boreham Wood can say they have had a better season than Arsenal and United because they won a 6th tier play-off final.
Whitstable Town can say they have matched Spurs, Palace and Newcastle because they won the FA Vase.
And congratulations to all of them. Winning a cup, winning a league or winning promotion are all great days of celebration.
But football is fast moving and in a couple of months the struggle will start again.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
The issue with Arteta's Arsenal - which is an issue Spurs had under Poch as well. Is that as good as the league seasons are, there really needs to be a trophy to show it - as it can be tough to sustain success as 'nearly men'.
The FA Cup helps a little, but I'm not convinced Arsenal are better than they were three years ago - and with injuries finally catching up with them to about a league average level they have been way off the pace.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Spurs had the better season but Arsenal in a much better place
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
The FA Cup helps a little, but I'm not convinced Arsenal are better than they were three years ago - and with injuries finally catching up with them to about a league average level they have been way off the pace.
Still end the season in second place.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Not making any claim as to who's season is better but some observations from a neutral.
The EPL is a weird beast. Last year City earned £400k more than Arsenal in 2nd place. In turn Liverpool earned £4.5m less than Arsenal. Not seen this year's figures yet. But when you consider these differences as percentages the delta is negligible.
Securing a CL place is the real gravy with making the knockouts earning an English team c. €100m and winning it c. €160m.
19th place EPL is c. £50m down on the champions but obviously the CL place gets that back in spades.
Point is it's a money game. Outside earnings come into it obviously but over the piece those with the most money do the best.
The domestic cups that the big teams field reserves in is because it earns them fack all. OK if they make the final they might make an effort but really these competitions are in the grubber. Money talks.
Conclusion - any discussion about who had the better season is really just a pound league and Arsenal win it comfortably because the ropey cup brings shat income compared with CL - unless you count next season's money as this year's earnings which is a valid argument.
It also emphasises that a CL place is a real prize so obviously Spurs having way better a season than MU even if the latter had finished one spot below CL entry in the league.
Cold
Hard
£
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
If you are winning cups on a fairly regular basis, but not doing well in the league (like Utd), then you start to pine for better league positions.
If perhaps like Spurs, you haven't won a trophy for a while, then that can become more important.
But pretty much any fan wants both, and it's all about what is a realistic expectation for your club.
If Arsenal continue to finish top 3 without winning the title, and aren't winning many cup trophies either, there will come a point where the board will say, thanks Michael, you did a good job but didn't quite get us there and they will look somewhere else.
I guess for any club, especially for those at the top, is maintaining that hunger for success, because it can change so quickly from season to season.................