I'm interested in the Arsenal build-up thoughts that are coming through this week. The general consensus is that we're not all that great, our two strikers are winning us matches, our midfield is shite (that's another thread by the way), we haven't played anyone great yet, Arsenal are better and will dick us.
Stop me if I've missed anything.
I'd agree with most of that, and for the most part I concur with the general theme that we're not the greatest side, but we do have two great forwards who are winning us games we maybe shouldn't. That's fair.
I'm interested though, as to whether that's an issue? Does it matter that we're overly reliant on a few players? And even more so, in 2013 do you even need to have a great team to be successful or even win the league?
I don't think you do.
Here's the evidence:
Barca. That back 3/4/5 aren't great. Mascherano as a CB? Do me a fucking favour. Pique is as slow as erosion, and Alves is no defender whatsoever. But do they need to be? When your other 7 or 8 are that good, and you keep possession that well, and tire out the opposition as much as they do, why would they even need a top drawer defence? They don't. In fact, they probably sacrifice having great defenders (in the traditional sense) for having great ball-players at the back. Pique, Busquets, Alves - all super on the ball.
United last year. How that team won the league fuck knows. I'll tell you how; they had 4 or 5 players in scintillating form; Van Persie, Carrick, Ferdinand, Evra, and Rooney to a lesser extent. That was not a good team. Valencia, Giggs in midfield, Nani, Rafael, Evans, De Gea just aren't great footballers. But they didn't need to be.
Same with the United team that had Ronaldo in it. He won them the league.
Look at the top teams in the Premier League this year:
Arsenal - Mertesacker, Sagna, Gibbs, Sczesny, Koscielny. That's a fairly shite back 5, they concede goals and they make mistakes every week. But their front 6 are astoundingly good. Ramsey in the form of his life, same for Giroud, and then you throw in Cazorla, Ozil, Wilshere who are all unbelievable and that wins them games. That same back 5 was playing last year and Arsenal were shite. You add in a few world class players up front and it makes up for the deficiencies.
City - Again, the keeper and the defence have been balls, but they've got Silva, Toure and Aguero and that gets them through.
Us - We're largely shite apparently, but we've got two of the best strikers in world football and we're joint 2nd.
The gap between us getting from 7th to 2nd wasn't all that was it? We just got our two best players on the park playing togethor. The rest of the side is pretty much the same.
So, do you need to have a team of greats, or can 2 or 3 bits of mindboggling talent get you through? Bayern are about the only exception I can think of, and someone with a better knowledge of German football than me could argue Dortmund I suppose, but I look at this week - and whilst I agree that we're not that great - I still think neither are Arsenal, and they're fucking top and everyone's spunking all over them.
You don't need a great side to win the league.
Stop me if I've missed anything.
I'd agree with most of that, and for the most part I concur with the general theme that we're not the greatest side, but we do have two great forwards who are winning us games we maybe shouldn't. That's fair.
I'm interested though, as to whether that's an issue? Does it matter that we're overly reliant on a few players? And even more so, in 2013 do you even need to have a great team to be successful or even win the league?
I don't think you do.
Here's the evidence:
Barca. That back 3/4/5 aren't great. Mascherano as a CB? Do me a fucking favour. Pique is as slow as erosion, and Alves is no defender whatsoever. But do they need to be? When your other 7 or 8 are that good, and you keep possession that well, and tire out the opposition as much as they do, why would they even need a top drawer defence? They don't. In fact, they probably sacrifice having great defenders (in the traditional sense) for having great ball-players at the back. Pique, Busquets, Alves - all super on the ball.
United last year. How that team won the league fuck knows. I'll tell you how; they had 4 or 5 players in scintillating form; Van Persie, Carrick, Ferdinand, Evra, and Rooney to a lesser extent. That was not a good team. Valencia, Giggs in midfield, Nani, Rafael, Evans, De Gea just aren't great footballers. But they didn't need to be.
Same with the United team that had Ronaldo in it. He won them the league.
Look at the top teams in the Premier League this year:
Arsenal - Mertesacker, Sagna, Gibbs, Sczesny, Koscielny. That's a fairly shite back 5, they concede goals and they make mistakes every week. But their front 6 are astoundingly good. Ramsey in the form of his life, same for Giroud, and then you throw in Cazorla, Ozil, Wilshere who are all unbelievable and that wins them games. That same back 5 was playing last year and Arsenal were shite. You add in a few world class players up front and it makes up for the deficiencies.
City - Again, the keeper and the defence have been balls, but they've got Silva, Toure and Aguero and that gets them through.
Us - We're largely shite apparently, but we've got two of the best strikers in world football and we're joint 2nd.
The gap between us getting from 7th to 2nd wasn't all that was it? We just got our two best players on the park playing togethor. The rest of the side is pretty much the same.
So, do you need to have a team of greats, or can 2 or 3 bits of mindboggling talent get you through? Bayern are about the only exception I can think of, and someone with a better knowledge of German football than me could argue Dortmund I suppose, but I look at this week - and whilst I agree that we're not that great - I still think neither are Arsenal, and they're fucking top and everyone's spunking all over them.
You don't need a great side to win the league.
