There are arguments to both sides of this view. We see the Pullis, Pep, Jose, LVG, Wenger, Martinez, Rodgers and Klopp type manager who have a style and force it on their side and buy players to tweak the style as they see fit. It took Wenger years to get Arsenal to play his style.
I agree with that. The Schmidfield + Herrera works quite nicely at times, however as soon as one of them is injured we have to resort to Fellaini. This is far from ideal. The difference between Schweinsteiger or Fellaini playing is the difference between our midfield being one of the best of the league or being about as good as Spurs'.
That last point is the basis of some of us believing his 3 year tenure is purely to put in place a balanced infrastructure on which someone can build. I am sure there are limits in that we must be CL and seen to be making a challenge for the title, but a trophy is icing on the cake. It may be a realization that the infrastructure had suffered under investment. They chose someone like LVG because he would deliver on that, whereas a younger manager may be more focused on the short term. Just a feeling, that can easily be shot down.
Even with Schweinsteiger playing, it's about as good as Spurs' midfield.
I wouldn't even give the twat a bottle of Buckfast.
No it didn't. They instantly improved from a defensive team to a genuine threat to Utd on all fronts and were great going forward. They were double winners in less than two years.
They played a totally different style of football when he first got here. They were a very physical side, that pressed and bullied teams into submission. Hence the intense rivalry with united as we had had players who could give as well as take the physical side. Wenger bought big strong players who were ideal for the PL at that time, but they were certainly not the tic tac passing machine that they became. He then started to buy players who would be able to implement the style that Arsenal have played for the last 10 to 12 years. He continues bringing in players that fits his style.
He was successful. Any comparison to Van Gaal's struggles end there.
You make it sound as though Wenger just turned up, all of a sudden it was rosy, beautiful entertaining football instead of the kick them off the park football they actually played. The number of red cards was testimony to that. Even when he won the league in his second year it was largely due to United throwing an 11 point lead away, so it obviously wasn't going too well at the beginning.
feck off - you mean the 10-12 yrs they haven't won feck all but a couple FA Cups? yep let's wait for this cnut to get us to that point. AW won right away and didn't mind a bit kicking lumps out of other teams right up to now. get fecking real. you can't believe what you write.He came in and they instantly improved. How can that even be disputed? They were double winners within two years. Were players like Vieira, Petit, Anelka, Overmars etc not players for his system? I never claimed him to be the bar. I'm just saying it's nonsense to say it took him years.
Have you even read the thread. No one is even talking about keeping LVG. It is about whether a manager coming in can make an instant change when the team is in disarray.
If you go back to the original point we were discussing, it was whether a manager choose his style and brings in players or plays a style that fits his existing players. Wenger's early years were the latter, then in 99 he changed to the former. Wenger's early Arsenal were nowhere near his style. He had a very aggressive backline and frontline. He then brought in Petit and Viera to provide the aggression in midfield. When he brought in his own style he brought in different types of players, more technical.
