Tony Adams: Graham was a better coach than Wenger

[Tony Tuesdays]

Tony Adams interview: Sorry Arsene, but George Graham was a much better coach than you

No wonder Arsenal have not won a trophy for six years – their favourite son Tony Adams reckons George Graham was a better coach than Arsene Wenger.

The former Gunners skipper, who won two titles under Graham and the Double twice under Le Professeur, is worried that the little empire he is building in Azerbaijan may never meet Arsenal in the Champions League – because Wenger is facing a battle to keep them in the top four.

And Adams, a north London legend who organised Graham’s offside trap, admitted he could never envisage working under Wenger because he would want a bigger say in coaching methods.

Crikey, that will ruffle more feathers at the Emirates than a fox in a hen house.

Adams, 44, is back in London attending three funerals and a christening – “It sounds like a film, doesn’t it?” – before pre-season training begins next month back in the Caucasus at FC Gabala, the unlikely outpost where he is honing his management skills.

He plans to deliver the domestic Azerbaijan title to wealthy backer Tale Heydarov within two years, which would put him on a potential collision course with Wenger in the Champions League.

But with a mischievous twinkle in his eye, he speculated that the Gunners might not even be flying in such lucrative orbits by 2013.

With Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester City all spending big this summer, so far Arsenal’s only reinforcement is a Finnish kid from Charlton.

“I love Arsenal and I will always be proud to walk through the door as an Arsenal man,” he said, immaculate in a blue pinstripe suit which made him look more stockbroker than football boss.

But he knows whatever happens in the future, his playing record as a Gunner will always be a source of pride.

“If I went back there as a disaster, I would be a disaster as a manager, not as a player, so I’ve got no fear of going back there one day and doing it my own way – good, bad or ugly.

“Maybe not this year, but next season, I might have a chance of winning the Azerbaijan league title with Gabala and going into the Champions League qualifying rounds.

“We could even play Arsenal, but they are struggling to get in the top five now, aren’t they? Who knows?”

After a short-lived spell as boss at Portsmouth, a club on the brink of meltdown, Adams has travelled 2,500 miles to reboot his career – and it is clear he is modelling himself more on Graham’s frugal methods than Wenger’s fantasy idealism.

He said: “We kept 21 clean sheets in 32 games last season, including 11 on the spin, which I believe is the 89th best in the history of football.

“Good back four, everyone behind the ball, good at set plays, very George Graham. No disrespect to Arsene, but George’s coaching ability, defensive structure and technical ability, for me, is far better.

“No injustice to Arsene, but it’s his strength, and that was George’s particular strength.They say coaches are the best thieves and I think he stole it off Terry Venables.

“I think Arsene Wenger is a magnificent physiologist and psychologist. Those are the areas where he excels. He’s a lovely man and he has the respect of all the players he’s ever worked with.

“George was an outstanding coach – I think I won six or seven trophies under him, including the Cup Winners' Cup against Parma with a team including Ian Selley and David Hillier in midfield and Steve Morrow at the back.

“You kind of think the guy has got something.

"That back four – Lee Dixon, Steve Bould, Nigel Winterburn and myself - doesn’t happen by luck. We worked hard on organisation. Morning and afternoon. We hated George for it, but we were on top of our game and we reaped the benefits.

“We won the League in 1989 and 1991 but we should have done so much more – we under-achieved with that squad.

“I’ve been working at my job in Azerbaijan and when I came back at Christmas, during our winter break, I went to the Man City game at the Emirates and it was great looking at the madness back in England – the greed, the fear and the managers’ average shelf life of one year, three months.

“More than 50 coaches have lost their jobs in English football since I went to Azerbaijan.

"I love the anonymity and I don’t think working in England is for me – apart from the Arsenal.”

***

Culture shocks come in all shapes, sizes and deposits in Azerbaijan.

First-time visitors to the capital, Baku, are surprised to find backward Soviet grimness has been replaced by spotless squares and a European flavour, while one of Adams’ first training sessions at Gabala was interrupted by a bovine intruder leaving a cowpat in the centre circle.

But at a club which is outstripping even the pace of change in the country, Adams is building a Little Arsenal in an outpost with a population of just 13,000.

On the former England captain’s instruction, all the training pitches at Gabala’s new complex are exactly the same dimensions as his old Highbury stamping ground.

It was Adams who set the £3.5million wage budget for his squad next season – wealthy backer Tale Heydarov, the son of a government minister, was happy to trust his manager’s judgement and sign the cheques.

And with a cosmopolitan mix of Brazilians, Argentinians, Portuguese, French, Russian and Azeri in the dressing room, Adams keeps his team talks brief as a matter of necessity. But he is blissfully happy to far from the madding crowds of the Premier League.

He misses family, and nights out at West End theatres – he recommends Betty Blue Eyes – but would not have missed his Azeri adventure for the world.

“I could have stayed at home in Gloucestershire and smelled the flowers," he said, "but I have to drive in and out of cows on the school run over here – in Azerbaijan they have more sense.

“At Gabala I’ve got everything I need. I’ve bibs, balls, grass pitches, artificial pitches, an indoor dome, I’ve a satellite dish in the back garden so I can watch 10 games a week. What more could I need?

“They are an emotional people. I wouldn’t like to cross them. Berti Vogts, the national team coach, got toilet rolls thrown at him during a press conference the other day.

“But they are more respectful in their culture. Everyone calls me 'Mr Tony' and the players see me as the big boss.

“They would never dare go through a door before me, and there are no Friday nights going down the pub and getting smashed out of their heads.”




Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Tony-Adams-interview-Sorry-Arsene-but-George-Graham-was-a-much-better-coach-than-you-article746017.html#ixzz1Oqm6WYX5
Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here

[Kano]

better technical ability

he must be back on the sauce

[Japan Shaking All Over]

better technical ability

he must be back on the sauce

either that he has been kidnapped by Azerbaijanian militants who have created a diety in the image of Gorgeous George and are making Tony read from a script........I wanting for the ransom video to posted on youtube before I am bvelieving this

second thoughts Tuffnutz he's probably lashed up!!!!

[Tony Tuesdays]

It is his opinion. Just like some folk think we'll still win trophies with this philosophy.
In fact had it not been for Graham's defensive cornerstones Wenger wouldn't have had much of the early success he gained. He might not even still be here were it not for Graham's philosophies....
Anybollocks, I agree with his assertion that Graham's squad under-achieved. That squad should have won more titles and trophies than they did.

[Hump]

Oh, deary deary me. Adams was a triffic palyer, but his off-field problems and post playing career have been a bit of a car crash - fascinating to watch from the outside. And as a commentator on the game he is nowhere near as banal as most, but so far wide of the mark on so many occasions that you can't really take him seriously. Who knows where he will pop up next - possible as head of a cult religion whose acolytes commit mass suicide when they take one step off a cliff with their right arms in the air and glancing to their left.

Adams, Mr Bonkers.

[Power n Glory]

We've got guys here that still can't cross, pass under pressure, play a ball behind defenders, shoot, tackle, track back, clear a ball without scuffing it or header. I think he may have a point.

Bendtner has come through the youth system and has been here for many years and still has a dodgy first touch. In most cases, we try to sign players with great technical ability, Wenger can't take all the credit. When scouting young players he tries to make sure they're up to scratch. It's why he has avoided English players for so long.

[Letters]

Better defensive coach, obviously.
But who would I rather have as manager between Graham and Wenger?
Wenger every day of the week and twice on Sundays ##

[Letters]

In most cases, we try to sign players with great technical ability, Wenger can't take all the credit. When scouting young players he tries to make sure they're up to scratch.

Which is why Wenger can take all the credit when they are. :doh:

[Özim]

He's kinda right though, AW can't coach for sh*t when it comes to the basics.....as above players can't cross at all, the defense is a shambles, the workrate is poor by some players (and yet he defends them), shooting is not great on the whole (bar one or two), tracking back is again not so good by some players...goalkeeping has been a mess for a while.

AW has his strengths but coaching and motivating aren't really some of them, he's great at getting teams to pass the ball well and linking up well enough, but he's not good at the basics that all the successful teams have.

You only need to look at the current problems and those that have plagued us for 6 years to see he's not good at coaching.

AW seems to need players on the pitch who do the talking for him as in his first few years, when that's not there the results speak for themselves.

His teams are no doubt more technically gifted than George Grahams (in most cases) but there's a lot more to football than that.

[Marc Overmars]

Graham was better at the fundamentals but having heard about how turgid the team was back in the early 90's I think Wenger is a step up.

[Özim]

Better defensive coach, obviously.
But who would I rather have as manager between Graham and Wenger?
Wenger every day of the week and twice on Sundays ##
Well it kinda depends, would I believe an George Graham team is more likely to win something....in short yes.

I don't believe in AW or his team at all now, whereas I always believed George Graham's teams could upset the odds and win, they might not have played pretty football but they could get the job done.

A mix of the two would be ideal, they're two extremes really and at this stage I don't Wenger here anymore (many others feel the same) and that suggests he's not doing a good job.

[Kano]

they cant cross as he puts players that aren't wingers

every manager needs players that do the talking for them on the pitch

[Özim]

they cant cross as he puts players that aren't wingers

every manager needs players that do the talking for them on the pitch
That's bad management then, moreover the full backs can't cross for toffee either yet he's one of the people who loves full backs that get forward, if they can't cross they shouldn't bother getting forward.

As for players doing the talking, yes and no...a good motivator can get the best out of his players....look at Ferguson, Wenger is awful at that and makes it worse by bringing in players with no voice or leadership....they're like lemmings.

[Power n Glory]

Which is why Wenger can take all the credit when they are. :doh:

We're talking about coaching.

Players like Cesc and RVP walked in the door with great technical ability. It's not as if Wenger coached that into them. We've got guys that have been here a long time and still have fundamental flaws in their game. Guys like Djouoru, Bendtner, Denilson, Diaby, Eboue...they make the same mistakes from game to game without correction. Maybe Wenger thinks they're not progressing because the problem is psychological when it's really a technical issue.

[Letters]

Graham was better at the fundamentals but having heard about how turgid the team was back in the early 90's I think Wenger is a step up.

Graham did have a knack of getting the team to be more than the sum of its parts, Wenger doesn't seem to be able to do that. When we've won stuff it's because we've been brilliant. On the other hand Wenger has built brilliant sides, which makes it frustrating that they're unable to win stuff.

Agree with Zimm/ItsMe above, a mix of him and Wenger would be pretty good.

[Ernesto]

Behind the scenes, anyone would think Wenger worked marvels with Adams. He opened up to his team-mates while Wenger was in charge and confirmed he was an alcoholic. He motivated Big Tone into winning trophies again. Yet, with Graham, Adams has once publically said that he was close to walloping him!

At first, this article seems another case of "kick Wenger while he's down" and "let's needlessly revisit past glories", but if anyone knows, it's Adams. I trust 'Mr Arsenal' enough to make an objective assessment.

[Letters]

Behind the scenes, anyone would think Wenger worked marvels with Adams. He opened up to his team-mates while Wenger was in charge and confirmed he was an alcoholic. He motivated Big Tone into winning trophies again. Yet, with Graham, Adams has once publically said that he was close to walloping him!

He also said Wenger extended his career.

[Ernesto]

He also said Wenger extended his career.

This.

[Toronto Gooner]

In most cases, we try to sign players with great technical ability, Wenger can't take all the credit.
Yet, he is given all the blame.

[Toronto Gooner]

I agree with his assertion that Graham's squad under-achieved. That squad should have won more titles and trophies than they did.
You mean to say that the George Graham Arsenal underachieved like some people are accusing Wenger's Arsenal of doing? Surely that cannot be possible, it is only the influx of the namby pamby foreigners that has led to this precipitous decline in Arsenal's fortunes and character.

[Joker]

Graham laid the foundations without which I doubt Wenger would have achieved what he has. For example, Wenger inherited the back 5, so his lack of defensive coaching ability didn't affect us. However, now that Wenger himself has had to construct a defence, we've seen the consequences. Various reports suggest that Wenger barely works on defensive organisation (not just with the back 4, but in terms of midfielders tracking back and coordinating efforts etc) and the repercussions of this is clear whenever you see us concede silly goals through a lack of defensive solidity.
Wenger is very good at the technical side of coaching (in terms of developing a pass and move game, ensuring players are at peak fitness, their diets are optimal etc etc) but he does seem lacking when it comes to the "bread and butter" so to speak. It must also be said that, in recent years, even his much famed ability to develop players has to be questioned. Has he really been able to improve players like Diaby, Denilson, Bendtner, etc as he promised?

[Toronto Gooner]

Graham laid the foundations without which I doubt Wenger would have achieved what he has. For example, Wenger inherited the back 5, so his lack of defensive coaching ability didn't affect us. However, now that Wenger himself has had to construct a defence, we've seen the consequences.
One consequence of Wenger's inability to create a defence was that disastrous Arsenal squad of 2003/04. They were hopeless, despite having two leftovers from the Graham era.

[Joker]

One consequence of Wenger's inability to create a defence was that disastrous Arsenal squad of 2003/04. They were hopeless, despite having two leftovers from the Graham era.

The Campbell-Toure defence worked well, but that was really the case only for one season. The next year, we were defensively poor and that contributed to us losing the title to Chelsea (who were admittedly very strong), and we barely came third the season after. So yes, the defence was somewhat of a success in 2003-2004, but it was not a sustained success, and even then it was clear that we had defensive problems that in some ways the extremely dominant midfield that season covered up. Compare that with the famous back 5 which built up a reputation by delivering stability at the back for a long period of time.

[Letters]

You mean to say that the George Graham Arsenal underachieved like some people are accusing Wenger's Arsenal of doing? Surely that cannot be possible, it is only the influx of the namby pamby foreigners that has led to this precipitous decline in Arsenal's fortunes and character.

Wasn't it the influx of the namby pamby foreigners that led to a sack of trophies, records and the best football most of us have seen, certainly at Arsenal?

[Toronto Gooner]

The Campbell-Toure defence worked well, but that was really the case only for one season. The next year, we were defensively poor and that contributed to us losing the title to Chelsea (who were admittedly very strong), and we barely came third the season after. So yes, the defence was somewhat of a success in 2003-2004, but it was not a sustained success, and even then it was clear that we had defensive problems that in some ways the extremely dominant midfield that season covered up. Compare that with the famous back 5 which built up a reputation by delivering stability at the back for a long period of time.
Okay, let's compare the glorious defence of the Graham years with the hopeless defence of the Wenger years, just to see how they stack up. Here is a list of the season each manager was in charge, with (in sequence) the number of games played, games lost, goals against and goal difference. I chose that list as I believe that it addresses the defensive aspect of the teams reasonably well.

Graham
1986/87 42 – 12 – 35 +23
1987/88 40 – 10 – 39 +19
1988/89 38 – 6 – 36 +37
1989/90 38 – 12 – 38 +16
1990/91 38 – 1 – 18 +56
1991/92 38 – 8 – 47 +34
1992/93 38 – 16 – 38 +2
1993/94 38 – 7 – 28 +25
1994/95 38 – 17 – 49 +3

Wenger

1996/97 38 – 8 – 32 +30
1997/98 38 – 6 – 33 +35
1998/99 38 – 4 – 17 +42
1999/00 38 – 9 – 43 +30
2000/01 38 – 8 – 38 +25
2001/02 38 – 3 – 36 +43
2002/03 38 – 6 – 42 +43
2003/04 38 – 0 – 26 +47
2004/05 38 – 5 – 36 +51
2005/06 38 – 11 – 31 +37
2006/07 38 – 8 – 35 +28
2007/08 38 – 3 – 31 +43
2008/09 38 – 6 – 37 +31
2009/10 38 – 9 – 41 +42
2010/11 38 – 8 – 43 +29

Graham: 9 seasons; total games = 348; total goals against = 328; average goals against per season = 36.4; average goals against per game = 0.942; best season = 18; worst season = 49
Wenger: 15 seasons; total games = 521; total goals against = 521; average goals against per season = 34.7; average goals against per game = 0.914; best season = 17; worst season = 43

[The Verminator]

Not to mention Graham had Seaman in his best years.

[Kano]

thats what happens with old age

[Cripps_orig]

We conceded 18 in 90/91 not 10

[Toronto Gooner]

Oops, I will adjust the figures then. Thanks.

[Toronto Gooner]

With the correction to the 90/91 season, I think that we can all see that despite the perception, Wenger's Arsenal beats Graham's Arsenal in the key defence stats:

Average goals against per season: 34.7 vs 36.4
Average goals against per game: 0.914 vs 0.942
Best season: 17 vs 18
Worst season: 43 vs 49

[Özim]

With the correction to the 90/91 season, I think that we can all see that despite the perception, Wenger's Arsenal beats Graham's Arsenal in the key defence stats:

Average goals against per season: 34.7 vs 36.4
Average goals against per game: 0.914 vs 0.942
Best season: 17 vs 18
Worst season: 43 vs 49
The difference is when we needed to defend well we could.

There's no doubt our defence then was better regardless of the stats, the fact is we have a lot of possession these days, we didn't use to so naturally teams would have more chances to score.

If a teams attack more naturally they will also score more, technically we weren't as good but defensively we we far superior.

We didn't have the old 1-0 to the Arsenal song for nothing.

[Power n Glory]

Lets cut the crap. If he's a better defensive coach than Graham then he should be able to sort the defence out for next season.

[Toronto Gooner]

The difference is when we needed to defend well we could.

There's no doubt our defence then was better regardless of the stats, the fact is we have a lot of possession these days, we didn't use to so naturally teams would have more chances to score.

If a teams attack more naturally they will also score more, technically we weren't as good but defensively we we far superior.

We didn't have the old 1-0 to the Arsenal song for nothing.
I hate to date myself but 1-0 to Arsenal was a song way before George Graham was manager.

[Coney]

next season, I might have a chance of winning the Azerbaijan league title

Now why did that make me laugh out loud?? :unsure:

[Toronto Gooner]

Lets cut the crap. If he's a better defensive coach than Graham then he should be able to sort the defence out for next season.
This is something I will agree with. I put together those stats to try and show that Graham was not some defensive super coach, and the Fabulous 5 was not some super human defensive unit.

But, what I will also say is that in my opinion I do not necessarily think that Wenger is that good of a defence coach.

[Toronto Gooner]

Now why did that make me laugh out loud?? :unsure:
You have a well developed appreciation of the absurd and farcical.:)

[Kano]

Now why did that make me laugh out loud?? :unsure:

cos he wont even achieve that

[Letters]

With the correction to the 90/91 season, I think that we can all see that despite the perception, Wenger's Arsenal beats Graham's Arsenal in the key defence stats:

Average goals against per season: 34.7 vs 36.4
Average goals against per game: 0.914 vs 0.942
Best season: 17 vs 18
Worst season: 43 vs 49

I think Graham was undoubtably the better defensive coach.
Those figures are deceptive because they don't account for the fact that we're a much better side than we ever were under Graham. Our defence in terms of goals conceded is actually one of the best in the PL right now. But it's the worst in the top 4 and there's the point. We're now comparing ourselves with the best in the country and are found wanting.
Plus the way we concede goals show bad defensive organisation and coaching. We concede far too many from set pieces or long straight balls, situations which a Graham defence would cope with all day.
If we were 1-0 up in a tight game with 10 minutes to go and under the cosh under Graham then you could guarantee that more often than not we'd see it out and win the game.
These days if it's 1-0 with 10 minutes to go then even if we're not under the cosh (and we rarely are these days) there's a constant worry that we'll cock it up. And we do with depressing frequency.
In the Graham days, especially near the end, we were fairly mid-table and our goals conceded was still one of the best in the country. It wasn't pretty but we were pretty tight at the back.
Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.
And that's because for all his faults, for all the frustrations, Wenger is at a completely different level to Graham as a manager.

[Toronto Gooner]

I think Graham was undoubtably the better defensive coach.
Those figures are deceptive because they don't account for the fact that we're a much better side than we ever were under Graham. Our defence in terms of goals conceded is actually one of the best in the PL right now. But it's the worst in the top 4 and there's the point. We're now comparing ourselves with the best in the country and are found wanting.
Plus the way we concede goals show bad defensive organisation and coaching. We concede far too many from set pieces or long straight balls, situations which a Graham defence would cope with all day.
If we were 1-0 up in a tight game with 10 minutes to go and under the cosh under Graham then you could guarantee that more often than not we'd see it out and win the game.
These days if it's 1-0 with 10 minutes to go then even if we're not under the cosh (and we rarely are these days) there's a constant worry that we'll cock it up. And we do with depressing frequency.
In the Graham days, especially near the end, we were fairly mid-table and our goals conceded was still one of the best in the country. It wasn't pretty but we were pretty tight at the back.
Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.
And that's because for all his faults, for all the frustrations, Wenger is at a completely different level to Graham as a manager.
Letters, I completely agree with what you are saying here. I only put up those figures to show that Adams' assertion (along with some fans) that Graham was a better coach/manager is not accurate.

[Power n Glory]

If Tony Adams was a playing under Wenger as a young developing player, he'd probably end up like Senderos. I can understand why he'd prefer Graham. He learned the basics from him.

[Özim]

I hate to date myself but 1-0 to Arsenal was a song way before George Graham was manager.
Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.

[Özim]

I think Graham was undoubtably the better defensive coach.
Those figures are deceptive because they don't account for the fact that we're a much better side than we ever were under Graham. Our defence in terms of goals conceded is actually one of the best in the PL right now. But it's the worst in the top 4 and there's the point. We're now comparing ourselves with the best in the country and are found wanting.
Plus the way we concede goals show bad defensive organisation and coaching. We concede far too many from set pieces or long straight balls, situations which a Graham defence would cope with all day.
If we were 1-0 up in a tight game with 10 minutes to go and under the cosh under Graham then you could guarantee that more often than not we'd see it out and win the game.
These days if it's 1-0 with 10 minutes to go then even if we're not under the cosh (and we rarely are these days) there's a constant worry that we'll cock it up. And we do with depressing frequency.
In the Graham days, especially near the end, we were fairly mid-table and our goals conceded was still one of the best in the country. It wasn't pretty but we were pretty tight at the back.
Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.
And that's because for all his faults, for all the frustrations, Wenger is at a completely different level to Graham as a manager.
I'd argue that in 90-91 we may well have been better than this side to be honest, we were superb that year and had some flair as well, we were devastating going forward too.

[Coney]

Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.

I'd have taken 6-5 to the Arsenal in the match up at St James' Park.

[Özim]

I'd have taken 6-5 to the Arsenal in the match up at St James' Park.
Should have finished the game at half time to be honest, there should be a rule that if you score 4 before half time then the game ends then.

[Toronto Gooner]

Maybe so but it's Graham that really gave substance to that song, don't think we sing that much any....and not sure 6-5 to the Arsenal works.
But 6-5 win is worth the same number of points as a 1-0 win.

Graham's Arsenal may have given "substance" to the song but the stats do not give it as much credence as people might think. One comparison I did not put up there is that in 15 seasons, Wenger's Arsenal have lost 10 or more games only once, whereas the Graham Arsenal did that in 5 of the 9 seasons.

[Özim]

But 6-5 win is worth the same number of points as a 1-0 win.

Graham's Arsenal may have given "substance" to the song but the stats do not give it as much credence as people might think. One comparison I did not put up there is that in 15 seasons, Wenger's Arsenal have lost 10 or more games only once, whereas the Graham Arsenal did that in 5 of the 9 seasons.
Did you see the players he had though?

There's no doubt the talent wasn't really there, we had Limpar who was as good as anything we have now and of course Wright apart from that though not a huge amount.

Graham's Arsenal were far superior defensively there's no question about that.

[Letters]

I'd argue that in 90-91 we may well have been better than this side to be honest, we were superb that year and had some flair as well, we were devastating going forward too.

I'd give you that. But you're comparing our best season under Graham with our worst under Wenger.
Overall we've been a much better side under Wenger than Graham, that's pretty much impossible to dispute.

[Özim]

I'd give you that. But you're comparing our best season under Graham with our worst under Wenger.
Overall we've been a much better side under Wenger than Graham, that's pretty much impossible to dispute.
Yes true but you did say


Anyway, the key sentence of my ramble is that we're a much better side now than we ever were under Graham.

Wenger has built much better sides yes, in his earlier days those sides were amazing, last 6 years or so though there's not been too much of that. Those sides have not got the basics right and I've said many times I haven't really enjoyed watching them very often.

[Toronto Gooner]

Did you see the players he had though?

There's no doubt the talent wasn't really there, we had Limpar who was as good as anything we have now and of course Wright apart from that though not a huge amount.

Graham's Arsenal were far superior defensively there's no question about that.
I think that the analysis I posted here would cause most people to question the assertion "far superior defensively". Better maybe, but far superior is a stretch.

For example, if we take the last 6 Wenger seasons, the Graham Arsenal beat the goals against total (which I think can be considered a bit of a benchmark for defensive capability) in just 2 of the 9 seasons.

[Japan Shaking All Over]

TG:good:

[Özim]

I think that the analysis I posted here would cause most people to question the assertion "far superior defensively". Better maybe, but far superior is a stretch.

For example, if we take the last 6 Wenger seasons, the Graham Arsenal beat the goals against total (which I think can be considered a bit of a benchmark for defensive capability) in just 2 of the 9 seasons.
I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.

[gunsofashburtongrove]

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.
The counter argument to that could be that our midfield makes enough errors and do not protect the defense sufficiently. I think those days we were better as a defensive unit, but then we didn't score as freely either.

[Özim]

The counter argument to that could be that our midfield makes enough errors and do not protect the defense sufficiently. I think those days we were better as a defensive unit, but then we didn't score as freely either.
That's true it does, but again because the opposition have less of the ball they have less opportunity to score. In the Graham days we didn't have too much possession, not on the deck anyway :lol:

The famous back 5 (6 if you include Bould who was a great defender) were phenomenal much much better than the defence now, it's really not comparable despite the stats.

It's a bit like comparing the best Wenger attacking teams with the average attacking Graham teams, simply no comparison.

[Mr. Lahey]

Graham laid the foundations without which I doubt Wenger would have achieved what he has. For example, Wenger inherited the back 5, so his lack of defensive coaching ability didn't affect us. However, now that Wenger himself has had to construct a defence, we've seen the consequences. Various reports suggest that Wenger barely works on defensive organisation (not just with the back 4, but in terms of midfielders tracking back and coordinating efforts etc) and the repercussions of this is clear whenever you see us concede silly goals through a lack of defensive solidity.
Wenger is very good at the technical side of coaching (in terms of developing a pass and move game, ensuring players are at peak fitness, their diets are optimal etc etc) but he does seem lacking when it comes to the "bread and butter" so to speak. It must also be said that, in recent years, even his much famed ability to develop players has to be questioned. Has he really been able to improve players like Diaby, Denilson, Bendtner, etc as he promised?

I agree with your post mate.

However I always laugh when people say Wenger came in and changed the fitness and diets of athletes in football. Wenger for one is not a personal trainer nor is he a nutritionist. Did he tell players that he doesnt want them to drink, he probably did but thats down to common sense not being revolutionary when it comes to fitness and training.

[Kano]

the ironic thing is that both rice and primorac were defenders whilst graham was an attacking midfielder

[gunsofashburtongrove]

The defenders that we had back then were classical stoppers (I rate Bould above Keown :)), The only good defender that Wenger has bought in that mould is Campbel. The others including the current lot are more of sweeper backs if anything with good ability on the ball etc. This suits the present system which is more attack oriented as the old defense suited the old system which was based on a solid defense. Personally i would pick Arsene's teams over Grahams, largely due to the style of play. I might not like the possession football that much, but in full flow the team plays some crisp passing game The most balanced teams that we had was during 1999 to 2005 which had most of Grahams defensive line up for at least a few years, but Wenger did get some more than decent replacements in Sol,Cole and Lauren.

BTW was Keown used often by Graham. Thought he was loaned out for long spells. Any way i remember him only after Arsene took over

[Toronto Gooner]

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the two defences.

If compared side by side you'd see the difference, our current lot can't really defend as I've said it's only our possession play that restricts the goals scored against us.

The Graham team could go 1-0 and hold on to it even when under real pressure.

I maintain they were far superior, this defence we currently have only has favourable stats due to the fact they face less attacks against them when they do though, they're a total shambles.

If they were playing in one of the lesser sides, they'd concede a hatful simply because a lot more attacks would come their way.

In a sense our defence is our passing and attacking.
Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

[Kano]

The defenders that we had back then were classical stoppers (I rate Bould above Keown :)), The only good defender that Wenger has bought in that mould is Campbel. The others including the current lot are more of sweeper backs if anything with good ability on the ball etc. This suits the present system which is more attack oriented as the old defense suited the old system which was based on a solid defense. Personally i would pick Arsene's teams over Grahams, largely due to the style of play. I might not like the possession football that much, but in full flow the team plays some crisp passing game The most balanced teams that we had was during 1999 to 2005 which had most of Grahams defensive line up for at least a few years, but Wenger did get some more than decent replacements in Sol,Cole and Lauren.

BTW was Keown used often by Graham. Thought he was loaned out for long spells. Any way i remember him only after Arsene took over

graham rarely used him at first and bought him back from everton for his last two years at the club so im not sure how much credit he can take for being part of that defence.

gus ceaser and o'leary were used a lot, the latter was there before graham

[Darth Vela]

Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

I think you're onto a loser there, rose-tinted spectacles always flat out beat logic and statistics.

[Marc Overmars]

I understand what Zim is saying. We are one of the best teams in the league now so naturally you think we would be conceding less than a team who finished midtable on a few occasions like the Graham's did. So I agree with our attack being the best form of defence now, which doesn't reflect the actual ability of our defence IMO, it shows what an effective attacking outlet we are compared to the team in the 90's.

Our defence was statistically better than United's before we hit the self destruct button last season. At no point though did I think we were a more drilled defensive unit than them.

I don't recall anything pre 1995, but did Graham's team ever consistently let leads slip to the extent we see today and in such an explosive manner? The way I picture it, is that we simply weren't a very good team back then, no one approached us with any fear and were more inclined to have a go. Today we are a good outfit and most teams come to the Emirates with little intention of troubling us thus making it easier to defend, however when placed under any sort of remote pressure we turn into an absolute wreck and I'm not entirely sure that can be said of the famous back line, and that right there is where I see the difference IMO. They didn't gain the reputation for being a robust defensive unit for nothing just how the team today isn't heavily criticised for nothing for being a soft touch at the back.

As for Adams, I don't think he's said anything radical anyway. Well maybe the "technical ability" thing, but I reckon he has a different meaning for that to what we have.


“Good back four, everyone behind the ball, good at set plays, very George Graham. No disrespect to Arsene, but George’s coaching ability, defensive structure and technical ability, for me, is far better.

“No injustice to Arsene, but it’s his strength, and that was George’s particular strength.They say coaches are the best thieves and I think he stole it off Terry Venables.

“I think Arsene Wenger is a magnificent physiologist and psychologist. Those are the areas where he excels. He’s a lovely man and he has the respect of all the players he’s ever worked with.Sounds like fair comments from someone who has first hand experience of the management style he played under, I don't think I'm going to question that.

[Tipsychubbs]

Better defensive coach, obviously.
But who would I rather have as manager between Graham and Wenger?
Wenger every day of the week and twice on Sundays ##

Right now?

I'd take a defensive coach any day of the week. You have to start off by being organized, well structured and difficult to beat, before you play the pretty stuff. Once that foundation is there, you can mix it, especially in a league like the Prem. This is not South America or Spain, where technical stuff, passing and possession is the priority, and where you get time on the ball. The fast paced and physical nature of the premiership should be taken into account.

Trying to outscore the opposition with the purest form of attacking football you'll ever see with a 'you score 3 we score 4' attitude is a failure, when you can't do simple things like defending setpieces, or having the well trained discipline to defend as a team.

Wenger is trying to emulate Barca, but without the hard work that goes with it on the training pitch. Watch their workrate off the ball, and then watch ours :banghead:

[Özim]

I understand what Zim is saying. We are one of the best teams in the league now so naturally you think we would be conceding less than a team who finished midtable on a few occasions like the Graham's did. So I agree with our attack being the best form of defence now, which doesn't reflect the actual ability of our defence IMO, it shows what an effective attacking outlet we are compared to the team in the 90's.

Our defence was statistically better than United's before we hit the self destruct button last season. At no point though did I think we were a more drilled defensive unit than them.

I don't recall anything pre 1995, but did Graham's team ever consistently let leads slip to the extent we see today and in such an explosive manner? The way I picture it, is that we simply weren't a very good team back then, no one approached us with any fear and were more inclined to have a go. Today we are a good outfit and most teams come to the Emirates with little intention of troubling us thus making it easier to defend, however when placed under any sort of remote pressure we turn into an absolute wreck and I'm not entirely sure that can be said of the famous back line, and that right there is where I see the difference IMO. They didn't gain the reputation for being a robust defensive unit for nothing just how the team today isn't heavily criticised for nothing for being a soft touch at the back.

As for Adams, I don't think he's said anything radical anyway. Well maybe the "technical ability" thing, but I reckon he has a different meaning for that to what we have.

Sounds like fair comments from someone who has first hand experience of the management style he played under, I don't think I'm going to question that.
Great post and to be honest it's a joke we're even comparing the two defences because one was rock solid whilst the other is a complete shambles and makes errors consistently.

Put this defence in a team who doesn't control the ball as much as we do and they'd probably not be far off relegation, just look at the amount of basic errors they make.

How many defences give away 4 goal leads after all, or even lose after being 2-0 up (in one season as well)

[Letters]

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/1992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.

[Özim]

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/1992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.
Can't really disagree with any of that, I'd have Wenger of his earlier years with his counter attacking teams though :lol:

[Toronto Gooner]

As much as I love using stats to back up arguments this is an example where they are being misused. If the best 'keeper in the country was at, say, Blackpool last season he'd have conceded a shedload. Not because he's crap, just because he's behind a terrible defence and would be constantly exposed.
You couldn't just use goal against stats to demonstrate how poor he is.

If we take the (thoroughly enjoyable) 92/93 season as an example:

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/1992-1993/table

Yes, we could raise it for the odd cup game, and we did, but we were a very dull, mid-table side that year. We finished 10th, 28 points off the title, only 7 points off relegation. We only won 15 league games out of 42, we drew 11 and lost 16. We only scored 40 goals!

But, and here's the point, we only conceded 38 league goals that year. Fewer than this season's 43 (and we only have 38 games now). Despite our general mediocracy we had the 2nd meanest defence in the league.

Right now we're a top 4 side with a mid-table (at best) defence. We tend to dominate games so we don't concede that many but we concede far more than the rest of the top 4, the teams we should be comparing ourselves to. We concede far too many goals from set pieces and long balls - the sign of a poorly organised defence. And we regularly crumble under pressure and drop points from winning positions.

Back in the season I'm talking about we were a mid-table side with a title-winning defence. Yes, they sometimes conceded more goals than Wenger sides often do but for their mid-table level they did exceptionally well. For our current top 4 level our defence does exceptionally poorly.

Bottom line if you're 1-0 up with 10 minutes left which defence in its prime would you want out there? Graham's all the way.

But overall I'd pick Wenger over Graham as manager in a heartbeat.
As I said earlier, I was not trying to prove that Wenger's defensive capabilities were better than Graham's; just that the much vaunted Graham defence was not the all dominant group that some keep promoting. In all honesty, the defence of Graham's defence comes across as being as blinkered as those defenders of Wenger who are now derisively called AKBs. [Puns intended.]

Anyway, it is interesting that you chose 1992/93 because in that season Arsenal lost 5 home games 1-0; won only 1 home game 1-0; lost 3 away games 1-0; and won 3 away games 1-0.

[AKBapologist]

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..

[Toronto Gooner]

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..
Sorry, I did not see your earlier attempt. I am glad that I can be of assistance in making the point.

[Boss]

Not sure any point has been made.

Letters post shows why such comparisons are meaningless.

[Özim]

As I said earlier, I was not trying to prove that Wenger's defensive capabilities were better than Graham's; just that the much vaunted Graham defence was not the all dominant group that some keep promoting. In all honesty, the defence of Graham's defence comes across as being as blinkered as those defenders of Wenger who are now derisively called AKBs. [Puns intended.]

Anyway, it is interesting that you chose 1992/93 because in that season Arsenal lost 5 home games 1-0; won only 1 home game 1-0; lost 3 away games 1-0; and won 3 away games 1-0.
Not really, Graham's defence really was that good, they're not remembered as one of the best defences around for nothing, like I said we many times upset the odds through the ability to defend narrow leads.....that requires a great defensive unit. We won trophies due to our ability to keep superior attacking teams at bay.

This current lot are average, you don't give away 4-0 leads without there being something seriously wrong.

Incidentally you seem to have completely ignored Letter's post which clearly shows why your analysis is flawed, if you had put the current defence in that team from 92-93 we'd have been relegated IMO.

The difference between the two defences is huge.

[Özim]

Tried to make Toronto Gooner 's argument before one time, was totally shouted down by the rose tinted brigade..
There's a very good reason for that though, simply because that Graham defence was amazing, I watched them enough times to be able to see how good they were...it doesn't take a genius to see that this Wenger defence is average at best.

You can simply thump a ball over the defence and beat it, you can stick a high ball in the air give it loads of problems, it makes basic errors fairly regularly and it doesn't play as a unit at all.

It really isn't very good at all, the evidence from this season just adds further strength to the argument.

With some decent coaching it cold be a lot better of course, as it does have a couple players at least who have ability.

[Coney]

Not sure any point has been made.

Letters post shows why such comparisons are meaningless.

There is another reason is is meaningless and that is because the opposition we faced in Graham's era is not the same as we are facing now and have been in the last few years - the game has changed considerably. Graham did not have to face Ferguson's manu which, I hate to say, is the strongest team overall for the last 10+ years. Also, the way refereeing is done these days, a lot of the hard play of the Graham squad would have resulted in lots of red cards - again, the comparison is not possible to make for certain.

All you can say is that in Graham's era the team was reasonably successful in the environment of that time and the Invincibles were successful in their era. How Graham would have faired in these times is impossible to be certain.

[Özim]

There is another reason is is meaningless and that is because the opposition we faced in Graham's era is not the same as we are facing now and have been in the last few years - the game has changed considerably. Graham did not have to face Ferguson's manu which, I hate to say, is the strongest team overall for the last 10+ years. Also, the way refereeing is done these days, a lot of the hard play of the Graham squad would have resulted in lots of red cards - again, the comparison is not possible to make for certain.

All you can say is that in Graham's era the team was reasonably successful in the environment of that time and the Invincibles were successful in their era. How Graham would have faired in these times is impossible to be certain.
Yes true but we're purely talking about Graham's defence, this was around for a while whilst Wenger was manager and they were top notch then too (Adams retired in 2002).

Man U of 99 were exceptional, they had top quality players and won the treble of course, Man U were weaker for a spell in when they won nothing for 3 years and this year when they've looked average despite winning the title, the rest of the time they've been top quality.

[Niall_Quinn]

Unless things have changed recently, the object of a defence is to prevent goals being scored: pure and simple. Thus, in only 2 of 9 seasons did the much vaunted George Graham defence beat the leaky and hopeless Arsene Wenger defence of the past 6 seasons.

I am not trying to make Wenger out to be some genius when it comes to creating or organising defences. I am trying to stop people making the George Graham defence out to be better than it was.

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.

[fakeyank]

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.

Most of this I agree with though I do not think AW is completely dumb.. what I think is AW's problem is his stubborn nature. He took up this whole youth policy and wanted to prove to the world that he can win titles with them. Project youth is a FAIL and if he can get his head out of his arse, I think he can do a decent job. I do not think any incompetent coach couldve won the title without having lost a game the entire season. He is an academic and he definitely knows the problems that Arsenal face on the football field... question IMO is, is AW going to accept that project youth failed and move on?

[Power n Glory]

Like a mad scientist, he's trying to convince the world that his theory works in practice. This job will tip him over the edge if he keeps this up. Maybe he's just a masochist and enjoys the torture. When asked about what it takes to be manager, his response was 'you have to be prepared to suffer and sacrifice everything'. That's a bleak outlook. He thinks about football 24/7 so he knows what is what but he's stubborn.

[Toronto Gooner]

Wenger is utterly incompetent in terms of coaching and organising the defence. As a result our defence is utterly incompetent. We don't need to compare opinions or statistics to know this is true, we just have to look at what goes on on the pitch. That's what ultimately counts. Our defensive statistics appear to be decent under Wenger but this is entirely misleading. Our outfield players are far more effective defenders than the abject shit we have at the back, and that includes the dross we've had in goal for years. We now play a possession game. If the opposition can't get the ball they can't score. That's where your statistics are built, on our possession game not on the capability of our defence. Graham is head and shoulders above Wenger as a coach. Plus elbows, arse and ankles too. Wenger couldn't coach a fly to land on shit, that's why we've ended up with a team of talented players who can't win. This is all self evident, just watch what goes on on the pitch. That's all you need to do to get your answers. Statistics lie but chucking away four goal leads against inferior opposition is unfortunately all too real for a Wenger "coached" defence. In all honesty it's not a question of who's the best coach, the question should be whether Wenger is a coach at all. And the answer is no, plainly not.
Thanks for the balanced and reasoned response to the discussion. As I said, I was trying to show that Graham's defence were not the all conquering gods that people make them out to be.

[Marc Overmars]

No one thought they were all conquering gods, just better than the "unit" we have today.

[Toronto Gooner]

I was exaggerating for dramatic emphasis.

But what struck me upon re-reading the original articles was the following:
We won the League in 1989 and 1991 but we should have done so much more – we under-achieved with that squad.

It would seem that Arsenal as a club has a tendency to under-achieve irrespective of the manager.:)

[Niall_Quinn]

Thanks for the balanced and reasoned response to the discussion. As I said, I was trying to show that Graham's defence were not the all conquering gods that people make them out to be.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to say that Wenger is a competent defensive coach? A good or great coach even? Okay, I'll do it but only if you can provide a shred of evidence it's true. As far as "balanced" and "reasoned" goes, who was saying Graham's defence consisted of all-conquering gods? Anyway, Graham has gone and Wenger's in the hot seat now. Statistically it can be misleadingly argued he's competent at organising and coaching the defence. I told you why the stats are lying but you decided that was unreasonable. Shame, maybe it was a mistake to base my argument on the facts and what we have been watching week-in, week-out. Want to beat Arsenal, just lump it over the middle and out-muscle the defence, or rack up the set pieces. It's not difficult, everyone's doing it. Upshot is that's not the signature of a good defence and neither is it the mark of a good coach. Graham wouldn't have allowed it in a million years. For Wenger it is normal. Where's the comparison? There isn't one.

BTW, I didn't say Wenger was a bad manager, I said he was an incompetent coach and if you look at his terrible substitutions, his inability to change the play, his insistence on having players out of position, his blind faith in mediocre players, his total failure to correct the mistakes that have cost us time and again it underlines the case against him. You can't level any of these charges at Graham, he was the superior coach beyond a shadow of doubt. On the other hand, it turned out he didn't have Wenger's character. It's also doubtful he could have brought the squad to the higher levels Wenger achieved in his early years, mainly through the acquisition of big, pacey and talented players perfectly suited to the league (a policy now abandoned). So in some areas Wenger's been the better manager. But a better coach? No way, it's not even close.

[Dog Toffee]

Looks like ol' Tony's back on the sauce again if he thinks Grahams a better coach than Wenger, but then again Adams is a shit thick fuckwit.

[Marc Overmars]

Not sure why Adams' opinion is being ridiculed, it's far more valid than any of ours.

[Cripps_orig]

Not sure why Adams' opinion is being ridiculed, it's far more valid than any of ours.

Exactly.

Played under both.

Was captain for 2 titles under both

If anyone should know, Adams does

[Power n Glory]

Not sure why Adams' opinion is being ridiculed, it's far more valid than any of ours.

Oh no, stats prove Wenger was the better defensive coach, despite what Adams says. Never find the fact that he played under both managers and is a top defender. Men lie. Women lie. Numbers don't! Lol

[Marc Overmars]

All he does anyway is allude to Graham focusing more on the fundamental aspects of the game, the same aspects many of us think are currently missing from Wenger's side.

:shrug:

[Dog Toffee]

Not sure why Adams' opinion is being ridiculed, it's far more valid than any of ours.

Because he's talking crap. Better technical ability? Come. On.

[Power n Glory]

Coaching technical ability. He's played under Wenger and Graham. Have you?

Nobody knows how much time is spent doing what in training. There is also a technical side to defending that isn't all about a silky first touch and passing. Many old Arsenal players say Wenger doesn't give players instructions or try to teach them what to do on certain situations. He leaves them to figure it out for thenselves so they develop a natural game. May be worth digging out the quotes if anyone can find them.

[latewinner]

Graham would have been much better than Wenger in the champions league. He was unlucky in his first attempt at it.

[Özim]

Because he's talking crap. Better technical ability? Come. On.
Seems to be talking sense to me, just look at the shambles our defence is in, that just highlights poor coaching methods, couldn't say that during the Graham era, we may not have always been that good due to having average players in areas but the coaching couldn't be questioned.

I'd trust Tony Adam's opinion on coaching over most people seeing as he's played under both and knew exactly how to defend himself.

[Özim]

Graham would have been much better than Wenger in the champions league. He was unlucky in his first attempt at it.
Tactically Graham was superb, given the number of chances and the quality Wenger has had at his disposal I don't doubt he would.

Wenger is a proven failure in Europe, he's had so many attempts at winning a trophy and never won any. Tactics are important, you can't just send your team out to play their own game and ignore the opposition.

[Japan Shaking All Over]

wonder if George would be interested in taking Pat Rice's place?

[Toronto Gooner]

All he does anyway is allude to Graham focusing more on the fundamental aspects of the game, the same aspects many of us think are currently missing from Wenger's side.

:shrug:
This is what Adams' is quoted as saying:
No disrespect to Arsene, but George’s coaching ability, defensive structure and technical ability, for me, is far better.

Well, no disrespect to Arsenal's most successful captain but is anyone going to say that George Graham's Arsenal sides were technically superior to Arsene Wenger's? When it comes to defensive structure, yes Graham's teams were better but they were also simpler: ball there, kick ball away; opponent in the way, apologise after kicking him.

Let's be honest, Wenger has developed the Arsenal football style way beyond anything players like Adams could have played. It is much more of a European/World style.

Graham's was a simpler system for a simpler (British) league in which Admas and co thrived. I will go out on a limb here and say that if Adams was CB now, he would NOT be signed by Arsenal because he does not have the technical ability to survive. [The same could be said for some of Arsenal's current defenders, I know.]

As I said earlier, and will repeat here, my intent was not to prove that Wenger's defence is better than Graham's, I wanted to show that Graham's defence was not as good as some have made it out to be.

Right now, everyone knows and accepts that Arsenal's defence needs to be strengthened. The fundamental question is whether the players coming in should be Adam's like (technically limited, kick first, Stoke-like) or Vermaelen like (technically skilled, pass first, World/European)?

[Toronto Gooner]

Not sure why Adams' opinion is being ridiculed, it's far more valid than any of ours.
I am not certain anyone is ridiculing his opinion: just challenging it. And why should his opinion be given greater credence than any others?

[Japan Shaking All Over]

This is what Adams' is quoted as saying:
No disrespect to Arsene, but George’s coaching ability, defensive structure and technical ability, for me, is far better.

Well, no disrespect to Arsenal's most successful captain but is anyone going to say that George Graham's Arsenal sides were technically superior to Arsene Wenger's? When it comes to defensive structure, yes Graham's teams were better but they were also simpler: ball there, kick ball away; opponent in the way, apologise after kicking him.

Let's be honest, Wenger has developed the Arsenal football style way beyond anything players like Adams could have played. It is much more of a European/World style.

Graham's was a simpler system for a simpler (British) league in which Admas and co thrived. I will go out on a limb here and say that if Adams was CB now, he would NOT be signed by Arsenal because he does not have the technical ability to survive. [The same could be said for some of Arsenal's current defenders, I know.]

As I said earlier, and will repeat here, my intent was not to prove that Wenger's defence is better than Graham's, I wanted to show that Graham's defence was not as good as some have made it out to be.

Right now, everyone knows and accepts that Arsenal's defence needs to be strengthened. The fundamental question is whether the players coming in should be Adam's like (technically limited, kick first, Stoke-like) or Vermaelen like (technically skilled, pass first, World/European)?

:gp:

TG going all the way to prove his point on this one

[Özim]

Let's be honest, Wenger has developed the Arsenal football style way beyond anything players like Adams could have played. It is much more of a European/World style.

Graham's was a simpler system for a simpler (British) league in which Admas and co thrived. I will go out on a limb here and say that if Adams was CB now, he would NOT be signed by Arsenal because he does not have the technical ability to survive. [The same could be said for some of Arsenal's current defenders, I know
Sorry but that's simply not true, Adams played under Wenger and thrived in a far superior side to today's (one that played better football too).

His ability defensively more than made up for any lack technically, he was superb under Wenger.

The only reason he wouldn't be signed by us is that for some odd reason Wenger seems to think passing the ball around is more important than ability to defend for a defender, that's why we've barely got a decent defender today.

Also I'd choose an Adams type player over Vermaelen in a heartbeat, a defender's primary job is to defend not venture forward looking to score goals leaving wide open gaps behind him. Vermaelen after one half decent season (was good to start off with but tailed off badly in the 2nd half of the season) is being hailed as some sort of defensive leader and rock by some, that's yet to be proven.

[Toronto Gooner]

Sorry but that's simply not true, Adams played under Wenger and thrived in a far superior side to today's (one that played better football too).

His ability defensively more than made up for any lack technically, he was superb under Wenger.

The only reason he wouldn't be signed by us is that for some odd reason Wenger seems to think passing the ball around is more important than ability to defend for a defender, that's why we've barely got a decent defender today.

Also I'd choose an Adams type player over Vermaelen in a heartbeat, a defender's primary job is to defend not venture forward looking to score goals leaving wide open gaps behind him. Vermaelen after one half decent season (was good to start off with but tailed off badly in the 2nd half of the season) is being hailed as some sort of defensive leader and rock by some, that's yet to be proven.
So are you saying that Wenger does have the ability to coach defenders well?

We will have to agree to disagree regarding which type of defender to buy.

[Özim]

So are you saying that Wenger does have the ability to coach defenders well?

We will have to agree to disagree regarding which type of defender to buy.
Absolutely, it's pretty clear AW's understanding of the defensive game in severly lacking. Unless he has someone doing it on the pitch for him the defensive game under him is a shambles.

His philosophy is all about attacking, defending doesn't really seem to be a consideration from recent evidence.

With regards defenders, I just want to see someone who is committed and loves defending, not a playmaker at the back, players who love defending go in where it hurts and make it much harder for the opposition.

We've got too many of those players who want to play ball and don't really get those last ditch tackles in.

I loved seeing Campbell playing for us again last season, the difference between him and the others was obvious, he may have been past his best but he's the kind of player we should be looking at...a leader at the back who knows how to defend and is 100% commited.