[Archived] Protest March 17.09.11

[Amo]

It's not ridiculous to look at the teams you've played and look at where they're at.

Without doubt Arsenal have a lot of very good players, but at the moment, they're not a very good team. Exactly as Liverpool were, when we played them last season. That's just the reality of the situation. Ignore it if you wish, but it is the truth.

.

But we're "not a very good team" either with an even weaker squad of players, yet we put them to the sword.

So how does that work?

[tony gale's mic]

But still a lot stronger than us

The strength of a football team is about a hell of a lot more than just the team on paper.

16 points from 16 games tells the whole story. 16 games is plenty of time in which to judge how a team has been performing and that is the team we were playing. Actually, it was even weaker since a Fabregas, Clichy and Nasri were in the side before this season started.

[BuckyRover]

The strength of a football team is about a hell of a lot more than just the team on paper.

16 points from 16 games tells the whole story. 16 games is plenty of time in which to judge how a team has been performing and that is the team we were playing. Actually, it was even weaker since a Fabregas, Clichy and Nasri were in the side before this season started.

How do you explain Arsenal's three wins since February?

Poor manager?

[tony gale's mic]

But we're "not a very good team" either with an even weaker squad of players, yet we put them to the sword.

So how does that work?

What are you even arguing here?!

No one - not me, den or anyone else - is claiming this wasn't a very good result.

Just that it's nothing like the great result it'd be if Arsenal were the force they were not that long ago.

Teams can have one off very good results every once in a while, even Kean is capable of that.

How do you explain Arsenal's three wins since February?

Poor manager?

Poor team morale, losing key players without reinvesting in new ones, weak defence plus all sorts of factors behind the scenes which we likely aren't privy to.

Wenger has been at fault aswell, however given everything he's achieved, the Arsenal board are giving him a bit more time than if he were a new manager because they're still hopeful he'll turn it round. Not a poor manager, but one who may have lost the team and lost his touch a bit. Entirely logical to give him a bit more time, if Torres hadn't the record he has, Chelsea would have dropped him a long time ago.

Football's actually quite simple if you think a bit Bucky.

[Amo]

What are you even arguing here?!

No one - not me, den or anyone else - is claiming this wasn't a very good result.

Just that it's nothing like the great result it'd be if Arsenal were the force they were not that long ago.

Teams can have one off very good results every once in a while, even Kean is capable of that.

So why the pointless addendum? We won and that's all there is to it. Enjoy the result and look forward to the next game.

Arsenal did more than enough to win that game, so you can hardly argue that they weren't at the races. Rovers were the ones who took their chances, and that's all that matters at the final whistle.

We've beaten Arsenal in their pomp before, and had to rely on Friedel having a blinder to seal three points. There's almost always an element of 'luck' involved when the underdog beats one of the big guns.

[chris]

I just find it odd that certain posters can move from one camp to another game by game.

Now, I am no Kean fan, but I appreciate he isnt going anywhere, so I am getting behind the side, doesn't change my opinion on his managerial ability. A sustained run of results? Well it might just.

And I see you still seem to put little of your own opinion on the matters in hand yeti.

The poll said, sack Kean now or give him more time.

The fact we won, we played well, a Kean signing was the star man, Venkys were there and the players gave everything.

It's pretty hard to not vote give more time.

I don;t think voting for more time means you like Kean, I'm pretty impressed he did the interview on radio because I didn;t think he would have the balls to face the fans, but I want results all competiotns its 3 wins 1 draw 1 defeat, win at Newcastle and we go top 9 potentially.

Nobody should commit themselves so so much that they can never go back.

I like Oztheman he talks a lot of sense but I think he is overcommiting to a point where he will be disappointed if Kean does well.

I know I got to a point with Harford and Hodgson where I was glad they lost because it meant they got sacked.

Some people are there already.

[tony gale's mic]

So why the pointless addendum? We won and that's all there is to it. Enjoy the result and look forward to the next game.

Arsenal did more than enough to win that game, so you can hardly argue that they weren't at the races. Rovers were the ones who took their chances, and that's all that matters at the final whistle.

We've beaten Arsenal in their pomp before, and had to rely on Friedel having a blinder to seal three points. There's almost always an element of 'luck' involved when the underdog beats one of the big guns.

But it's not a pointless addendum is it? What is it with people on here thinking you can't have more than one emotion at the same time?

"Don't protest against Kean, support the club"

"Don't make the accurate point this was an especially weak Arsenal side, just enjoy the result"

I did enjoy the result. I am looking forward to the next game. However this is a discussion board where we all give our opinions, and this particular thread is about the protest and by extension about Kean's performance in light of the protest. My opinion on Steve Kean's achievement in beating Arsenal is obviously different depending on the strength of the Arsenal side we were facing. Surely this is just logical?

Arsenal might be a big name, but they havent been playing like big guns for a long time now. I still think we had a great second half and Kean had a part to play in that. But that doesn't prevent me from having a more considered analysis of the game, something clearly some on here are incapable of doing.

I want results all competiotns its 3 wins 1 draw 1 defeat

Results don't mean wins against lower league opposition. It's still one league win.

[den]

But we're "not a very good team" either with an even weaker squad of players, yet we put them to the sword.

So how does that work?

What's your point and who said anything about the result being deserved or otherwise?

Arsenal were a virtual replica of Liverpool last season. They were always a threat going forward, but left huge gaps when their play broke down. That's something that neither of those teams did previously and that worked in our favour for that one game last season when Liverpool were nowhere near their best, and it worked in our favour last weekend.

If you only want to say what the scoreline was and ignore what actually happened on the park, there's no point in a debate.

[chris]

Results don't mean wins against lower league opposition. It's still one league win.

don't worry i'm not kidding myself, a loss against Newcastle and then Man city and I fear what will happen.

Think we will beat Newcastle and then its best to look at the positives.

[Amo]

But it's not a pointless addendum is it? What is it with people on here thinking you can't have more than one emotion at the same time?

"Don't protest against Kean, support the club"

"Don't make the accurate point this was an especially weak Arsenal side, just enjoy the result"

Because it sounds like you're giving begrudging praise to the team (and the manager).

I did enjoy the result. I am looking forward to the next game. However this is a discussion board where we all give our opinions, and this particular thread is about the protest and by extension about Kean's performance in light of the protest. My opinion on Steve Kean's achievement in beating Arsenal is obviously different depending on the strength of the Arsenal side we were facing. Surely this is just logical?

And I'm calling you out on that opinion, as I have every right to do. I wouldn't give us much chance against any of the Top Four even when they're playing in the first gear, such is the gulf in class between the top clubs and the also-rans. Any points we can get against them are a bonus. So I'm not going to measure my opinion of the result against whether Arsenal were 'really good' or just 'kinda good'.

Arsenal might be a big name, but they havent been playing like big guns for a long time now. I still think we had a great second half and Kean had a part to play in that. But that doesn't prevent me from having a more considered analysis of the game, something clearly some on here are incapable of doing.

Like I said, Arsenal did enough to win the game. Robinson kept them at bay and helped us secure the three points. It was overall a great team effort to beat a side technically superior to us all over the pitch, who created enough chances and had enough possession to beat us. They were not an Arsenal side of old, but they were no pushovers either.

What's your point and who said anything about the result being deserved or otherwise?

Seriously? You'll see many a poster trying to belittle our achievement on Saturday because apparently Arsenal are pushovers now, despite the fact we're the ones relegation bound.

Arsenal were a virtual replica of Liverpool last season. They were always a threat going forward, but left huge gaps when their play broke down. That's something that neither of those teams did previously and that worked in our favour for that one game last season when Liverpool were nowhere near their best, and it worked in our favour last weekend.

It can only work to our favour if we have the guile and cutting edge to exploit them.

If you only want to say what the scoreline was and ignore what actually happened on the park, there's no point in a debate.

Would you be saying the same if we had lost on Saturday? I thought it's only the end-result what matters?

[OZTHEMAN]

How do you explain Arsenal's three wins since February?

Poor manager?

Poor decision making on behalf of the manager, didn't get defenders when he knew he needed them and even worse decision making on behalf of the team! bad defending..

[den]

Seriously? You'll see many a poster trying to belittle our achievement on Saturday because apparently Arsenal are pushovers now, despite the fact we're the ones relegation bound.

You're talking to me Topman, not "many a poster", - and I haven't belittled the performance anywhere. In fact I haven't commented at all, so I still don't follow why you're so touchy when it's pointed out that Arsenal defended very poorly.

As for "many a posters" views, some have said we were lucky, some have said we weren't. I can see it from both angles. Rovers were lucky in some ways because Arsenal scored three goals and could have had at least another three. On the other hand, I've always said that a team can't concede four goals, as Arsenal did - and claim to be unlucky.

[Amo]

You're talking to me Topman, not "many a poster", - and I haven't belittled the performance anywhere. In fact I haven't commented at all, so I still don't follow why you're so touchy when it's pointed out that Arsenal defended very poorly.

As for "many a posters" views, some have said we were lucky, some have said we weren't. I can see it from both angles. Rovers were lucky in some ways because Arsenal scored three goals and could have had at least another three. On the other hand, I've always said that a team can't concede four goals, as Arsenal did - and claim to be unlucky.

You said Arsenal aren't a very good team at the moment, Den. I beg to differ. Form is temporary, class is permanent. They showed enough class on Saturday to win the game. It took some last-ditch defending and Robbo's heroics to keep them out. If Arsenal had come to Ewood and showed next to nothing going forward and capitulated then, maybe, I'd see your point.

[den]

You said Arsenal aren't a very good team at the moment, Den. I beg to differ.

PL away game, previous to the rovers game

Man Utd 8 Arsenal 2.

Arsenal aren't, at the moment, anywhere near as good as they were. As Liverpool weren't when we played them last season.

Everyone knows that.

[imy9]

Man Utd 8 Arsenal 2.

Arsenal aren't, at the moment, anywhere near as good as they were.

Minus how many first 11 players? I think they said 8 players either starting or on the bench.

[Amo]

Man Utd 8 Arsenal 2.

Arsenal aren't, at the moment, anywhere near as good as they were.

Not strong enough to compete with United, but they would still play most teams off the park in this league.

They did so against us on Saturday, yet Rovers took the spoils because we took our chances and defended resolutely.

[den]

Minus how many first 11 players? I think they said 8 players either starting or on the bench.

OK imy.

Arsenal are still the fantastic side that they've always been. At Ewood defensively they were brilliant, but rovers were just out of this world.

Goodnight.

Fine.

Not strong enough to compete with United, but they would still play most teams off the park in this league.

They did so against us on Saturday, yet Rovers took the spoils because we took our chances and defended resolutely.

Well at one time they were strong enough to compete with United. Now they're not and that's my point. Arsenal, at the moment, aren't the side they were. Any football commentator would agree with that.

We got beat by 7 at OT and you want the manager out. Arsenal get beat by 8 and they're still a great side.

Get real Toppers.

[imy9]

OK imy.

Arsenal are still the fantastic side that they've always been. At Ewood defensively they were brilliant, but rovers were just out of this world.

Goodnight.

Fine.

Well at one time they were strong enough to compete with United. Now they're not and that's my point. Arsenal, at the moment, aren't the side they were. Any football commentator would agree with that.

We got beat by 7 at OT and you want the manager out. Arsenal get beat by 8 and they're still a great side.

Get real Toppers.

Talk about throwing a strop!lol.

You said 8-2 showed arsenal are no where near as good as they were, my counter is that may be the case but with most of their players fit they are not as bad as a 8-2 to man utd, there is a medium and that is where arsenal are, lets see where they end up this season, guarantee they will be top 5.

[tony gale's mic]

Because it sounds like you're giving begrudging praise to the team (and the manager).

And I'm calling you out on that opinion, as I have every right to do. I wouldn't give us much chance against any of the Top Four even when they're playing in the first gear, such is the gulf in class between the top clubs and the also-rans. Any points we can get against them are a bonus. So I'm not going to measure my opinion of the result against whether Arsenal were 'really good' or just 'kinda good'.

Like I said, Arsenal did enough to win the game. Robinson kept them at bay and helped us secure the three points. It was overall a great team effort to beat a side technically superior to us all over the pitch, who created enough chances and had enough possession to beat us. They were not an Arsenal side of old, but they were no pushovers either.

Seriously? You'll see many a poster trying to belittle our achievement on Saturday because apparently Arsenal are pushovers now, despite the fact we're the ones relegation bound.

Ah, I see you're using the classic "strawman" arguing tactic here. Inventing an argument on my behalf and arguing against that, rather than addressing what I'm actually saying.

You use the word "pushovers" twice there. At no point did myself or den use the word "pushovers", or even imply they were. For my part I stated what their form was for the last sixteen games and said they havent been playing like big guns for a long time.

Your view on Arsenal in that game is so one sided it's not even funny. Yes they created enough chances to win the game. They also gifted us two own goals and defensively were an absolute shambles. Arsenal weren't and haven't been "very good" or "kinda good", they've been a poor Premier League team since February (as backed up by their record) and were poor again on Sunday. Yes when big clubs are beaten by smaller clubs it's because they're not at their best, but usually they havent been in relegation form for almost half a season, and usually they dont gift two own goals. Arsenal losing to us was part of a much bigger picture than, say, the Man United losing to Burnley. Can you not see that?

Arsenal weren't pushovers, they've got plenty of talent in their side, but theyre a team in crisis and in shocking form. We did very well in the second half to exploit this however.

Not strong enough to compete with United, but they would still play most teams off the park in this league.

They did so against us on Saturday, yet Rovers took the spoils because we took our chances and defended resolutely.

Nice that you forgot to mention their defensive shambles and the two own goals there.

Your opinions are totally invalid because you refuse to acknowledge certain factors.

[Amo]

Well at one time they were strong enough to compete with United. Now they're not and that's my point. Arsenal, at the moment, aren't the side they were. Any football commentator would agree with that.

So you've said, yet you're constantly avoiding the issue.

Arsenal, even a poor Arsenal side, are still leagues ahead of Rovers. And the stats will back up that they did indeed play well, dominated possession and created plenty of chances.

We got beat by 7 at OT and you want the manager out. Arsenal get beat by 8 and they're still a great side.

Get real Toppers.

Never once called for Sam's sacking, even after that result.

Get some new material, Den.

[tony gale's mic]

So you've said, yet you're constantly avoiding the issue.

Arsenal, even a poor Arsenal side, are still leagues ahead of Rovers. And the stats will back up that they did indeed play well, dominated possession and created plenty of chances.

And their defending was to the standard that even League Two sides would be ashamed of.

[Amo]

And their defending was to the standard that even League Two sides would be ashamed of.

Which is why Rovers were limited to just 5 shots on target?

[yeti-dog]

Ah, I see you're using the classic "strawman" arguing tactic here. Inventing an argument on my behalf and arguing against that, rather than addressing what I'm actually saying.

You use the word "pushovers" twice there. At no point did myself or den use the word "pushovers", or even imply they were. For my part I stated what their form was for the last sixteen games and said they havent been playing like big guns for a long time.

Your view on Arsenal in that game is so one sided it's not even funny. Yes they created enough chances to win the game. They also gifted us two own goals and defensively were an absolute shambles. Arsenal weren't and haven't been "very good" or "kinda good", they've been a poor Premier League team since February (as backed up by their record) and were poor again on Sunday. Yes when big clubs are beaten by smaller clubs it's because they're not at their best, but usually they havent been in relegation form for almost half a season, and usually they dont gift two own goals. Arsenal losing to us was part of a much bigger picture than, say, the Man United losing to Burnley. Can you not see that?

Arsenal weren't pushovers, they've got plenty of talent in their side, but theyre a team in crisis and in shocking form. We did very well in the second half to exploit this however.

Nice that you forgot to mention their defensive shambles and the two own goals there.

Your opinions are totally invalid because you refuse to acknowledge certain factors.

Or perhaps we forced them into conceding those og's rather than having them gifted to us.It's a subtle difference and I appreciate you struggle with subtlety but og's are often not 'gifts' but when the dam breaks due to pressure being put on it.

I'd say he has some spot on observations making his opinions perfectly valid despite your dismissive comments.

[tony gale's mic]

Which is why Rovers were limited to just 5 shots on target?

OK, if you want to think that Arsenal's defence was good or even average in that game, you can stand in a corner on your own.

Plus your logic is extremely flawed. On one hand you say we defended resolutely (which is true to a fair degree), and yet talk about how many shots Arsenal had on target. On the other hand, you claim Arsenal didn't defend badly and point to our 5 shots on target as evidence of this.

Or perhaps we forced them into conceding those og's rather than having them gifted to us.It's a subtle difference and I appreciate you struggle with subtlety but og's are often not 'gifts' but when the dam breaks due to pressure being put on it.

I'd say he has some spot on observations making his opinions perfectly valid despite your dismissive comments.

Ah, a bit of footballing discussion from you rather than just pure trolling. This is a nice surprise.

One of the OGs was partly caused by an excellent counterattack (Koscielny). However this would not have hit the back of the net without the error.

One of the OGs was a pure gift - the freekick from the right wasn't particularly good and should have been dealt with easily.

"When the dam breaks due to the pressure being put on it?" :lol: We didn't put them under that much pressure though did we? In which case you'd have to question the strength of the dam.

It was a great result and a very good second half performance, but that doesn't change the fact Arsenal were awful defensively.

[roverandout]

my view is the arsenal result was rather lucky, we were gifted two own goals, they should have had a penalty at the end, we played reasonably well, gave it all but as has been said, the arsenal of a year ago, with the likes of cliche, nasri and fabregas would have walked all over us, in my opinion. Arsenal's achilles heel has always been their defence, they have never bothered to sort it out but they got away with it because they had the likes of henry, viera, pires, nasri, fabregas, the days when arsenal had the likes of adams and keown to fall back on are long gone. If they had, had samba in that defence, they would have won, simple.