Unai Emery

[PaulWinch again]

Unai is a brilliant manager and has done a brilliant job. Anyone who wants him out is nuts, but we are not playing well enough at the moment and haven’t been for a while. He needs to sort that.

[Risso]

Unai is a brilliant manager and has done a brilliant job. Anyone who wants him out is nuts, but we are not playing well enough at the moment and haven’t been for a while. He needs to sort that.

Name one poster who's said that they want him out?

[Clampy]

Give me Champions League Unai Emery over 'Oooh Stevie G' anyday.

[Drummond]

It's the same as ever, lose a game and everything, and everyone except the players not in the team, are shit. The coaches, players, Directors etc. all worse than what came before, all worse than the ones who haven't joined yet, all worse than the ones not in the team, who were in the team, but were worse than the ones that replaced them.

And keep making the same points over and over, despite them being debunked., and eventually actually believing it.

And I'm dull because I don't agree with it.

Well as things stand, given how poor we are, how generous our defence is, how toothless our attack has become, we sit in 6th place in the Premier League, 3 points from the Top 4 and we're 5th in the Champions League table, having beaten Bayern Munich, Juventus, RB Leipzig and Bologna and having only lost once because of stupid moment.

Under Gerrard, some were happily defending him when we flirted with the relegation places. Knocking Smith when we were rebuilding after being promoted. Now, after the best season we've had since the first season of the Premier League in 92/93, yes after that 2nd place , the best was also 4th under Little in 95/96, we're only 6th so we must be shit and the world is caving in.

I suggest taking stock, thinking before posting crap and being abusive towards others who aren't feeling as desperate, and realise we're in the best and most consistent form in 30 years.

You're really, really dull, and you might want to take your own advice instead of posting stuff like "I know right, looks like relegation." Childish, beyond belief. "Best and most consistent form in 30 years. No, we're not." But honestly, don't bother replying, I'm not remotely interested in anything you've got to say in future.

You read that one though. And seemingly follow every post I make, given how quickly you reply.

As for childish, well "don't reply' is a bit like the child trying desperately to have the last word, just for the sake of it.

You don't like it when people disagree with you and seemingly are now resorting to insults to try and win. Signs of a desperate man who knows he's wrong.

Anyway, have another sleep, get Christmas out the way and I'm sure you'll feel better. Heaven forbid you feel any worse

[PaulWinch again]

Unai is a brilliant manager and has done a brilliant job. Anyone who wants him out is nuts, but we are not playing well enough at the moment and haven’t been for a while. He needs to sort that.

Name one poster who's said that they want him out?

At least one poster said “Emery out” after the Chelsea game, but I wasn’t being pointed in any case it was more a general point that anyone who thinks he’s not up to the job is far too premature.

[wince]

Emery out. Because I’m at home in my own bored and want to shit stir! 😉

[Percy McCarthy]

It's the same as ever, lose a game and everything, and everyone except the players not in the team, are shit. The coaches, players, Directors etc. all worse than what came before, all worse than the ones who haven't joined yet, all worse than the ones not in the team, who were in the team, but were worse than the ones that replaced them.

And keep making the same points over and over, despite them being debunked., and eventually actually believing it.

And I'm dull because I don't agree with it.

Well as things stand, given how poor we are, how generous our defence is, how toothless our attack has become, we sit in 6th place in the Premier League, 3 points from the Top 4 and we're 5th in the Champions League table, having beaten Bayern Munich, Juventus, RB Leipzig and Bologna and having only lost once because of stupid moment.

Under Gerrard, some were happily defending him when we flirted with the relegation places. Knocking Smith when we were rebuilding after being promoted. Now, after the best season we've had since the first season of the Premier League in 92/93, yes after that 2nd place , the best was also 4th under Little in 95/96, we're only 6th so we must be shit and the world is caving in.

I suggest taking stock, thinking before posting crap and being abusive towards others who aren't feeling as desperate, and realise we're in the best and most consistent form in 30 years.

Well said Drummond.

[Paul.S]

I made this comment on the match thread. We are a squad mainly still made up of players who flirted with relegation, overachieving massively. Even the players we bought at the prices we paid are squad level players at top sides playing well above themselves. There are exceptions but in the main that’s what we are. The manager in his time with us has worked miracles. But what we are seeing now it a topping out of our potential and some players are being exposed. It happens and it ultimately creates the turnover that is needed to push on to the next stage. The tough part under the financial rules is can we do it fast enough? Emery needs top talent in a few areas rather than punts on the likes of Rogers or Philogene. Rogers has done amazingly but we are relying on overachievement versus known and proven quality.

I think you’re spot on with this.

[Percy McCarthy]

How can he not fix the defence? Kamara back and in great form, the "world's number one" in goal, a £50m defensive midfielder on the bench, and it's still like Laurel and hardy at the back. It's getting beyond a joke.

Uh oh.

He has a point though. The defence has not been anywhere near good enough this season perce

When you see some of the individual mistakes made then it’s very difficult to sort out. You can coach shape and positioning but a lot of the mistakes are unbelievable. We’ve got to accept that a few just aren’t good enough to maintain a standard and need replacing.

That’s all very well, but it doesn’t really explain why certain posters think we should pick the very worst combination of defenders we can.

First things first, pick Konsa and Mings together. We know that works. If you can’t pick those two, pick Carlos and Pau with Konsa at RB. We know that works more often than Konsa and Pau with Cash at RB. Well, those who can count do.

Just using your goals conceded stat as a metric, not any other factors that make a successful team or defence as outlined to you by an OP on yet another thread...

Cash at RB - 8 - Brentford (1), Chelsea (3), Palace (0 after h/t), Spurs until injury (1), Bournemouth (1), Fulham (1), Man United (0), West Ham (1)

Without Cash at RB -17 - Forest (2), Soton (0), Palace (2), Liverpool (2), Spurs (3), Everton (2), Leicester (1), Arsenal (2), Wolves (1), Ipswich (2)

Good work shrinking the sample size to suit. You missed out the CL games and last season, but you still managed to point out that the only clean sheet Cash has kept for more than half a game was when Carlos was playing. Cash’s first one since Chelsea last January, since when Carlos has helped keep 15.

Straw man anyway. I’m banging on about the central defensive partnerships (Carlos/Pau, Konsa/Pau), being weak with traditional full-backs either side, and the former needing propping up by playing a better one-on-one defender (Konsa) on the right. The silliest thing you post is when you go on about the ‘dreaded Konsa experiment’. It’s worked v Man City, Arsenal (twice), Bayern Munich, Juventus, Bologna etc. and is responsible for getting ys the points needed to qualify for the CL. And yet every time this defence is selected, you trot it out yet again, I assume as a wind-up, because you’d have to be an idiot to really dread it after the results it’s got.

[Sexual Ealing]

Excuse me, I didn't see the game yesterday and, having understood what happened, I'm in no mood to relive it. But I came on here  - to this thread in particular - to enjoy a set-to between premature Emery Outers and those of a more stable disposition. You all have a responsibility to your audience, which doesn't come here for statistics. Now buck up, all of you.


Watkins out!

[Olneythelonely]

Watkins out!

You fuck!

[wince]

Sexual Ealing out!

Win yesterday and we would all be feeling the chrimbo spirit. But come on fellas it’s nearly Christmas

[pauliewalnuts]

How can he not fix the defence? Kamara back and in great form, the "world's number one" in goal, a £50m defensive midfielder on the bench, and it's still like Laurel and hardy at the back. It's getting beyond a joke.

Uh oh.

He has a point though. The defence has not been anywhere near good enough this season perce

When you see some of the individual mistakes made then it’s very difficult to sort out. You can coach shape and positioning but a lot of the mistakes are unbelievable. We’ve got to accept that a few just aren’t good enough to maintain a standard and need replacing.

That’s all very well, but it doesn’t really explain why certain posters think we should pick the very worst combination of defenders we can.

First things first, pick Konsa and Mings together. We know that works. If you can’t pick those two, pick Carlos and Pau with Konsa at RB. We know that works more often than Konsa and Pau with Cash at RB. Well, those who can count do.

Just using your goals conceded stat as a metric, not any other factors that make a successful team or defence as outlined to you by an OP on yet another thread...

Cash at RB - 8 - Brentford (1), Chelsea (3), Palace (0 after h/t), Spurs until injury (1), Bournemouth (1), Fulham (1), Man United (0), West Ham (1)

Without Cash at RB -17 - Forest (2), Soton (0), Palace (2), Liverpool (2), Spurs (3), Everton (2), Leicester (1), Arsenal (2), Wolves (1), Ipswich (2)

Good work shrinking the sample size to suit. You missed out the CL games and last season, but you still managed to point out that the only clean sheet Cash has kept for more than half a game was when Carlos was playing. Cash’s first one since Chelsea last January, since when Carlos has helped keep 15.

Straw man anyway. I’m banging on about the central defensive partnerships (Carlos/Pau, Konsa/Pau), being weak with traditional full-backs either side, and the former needing propping up by playing a better one-on-one defender (Konsa) on the right. The silliest thing you post is when you go on about the ‘dreaded Konsa experiment’. It’s worked v Man City, Arsenal (twice), Bayern Munich, Juventus, Bologna etc. and is responsible for getting ys the points needed to qualify for the CL. And yet every time this defence is selected, you trot it out yet again, I assume as a wind-up, because you’d have to be an idiot to really dread it after the results it’s got.

Have you seen this, out of interest?

^^ Have you told lies before?

Shall we say you ‘mis-spoke’? Or would that make it hard for you to deflect?

How about this.. If we were on opposite sides of the Watkins/Duran debate, and I said ‘I prefer Watkins because he has scored more goals than Duran this season’ despite the fact that I know he hasn’t, what would you call that? Whatever word you choose to describe someone who would do that, we’ll go with it.

I don’t have a horse in this race either way, and this is clearly a crusade that means enough to you to bring it up several times. However, since semantics are involved:

a) that’s a false equivalence. The hypothetical Watkins debate is about number of goals, so clearly that’s a narrow quantitative metric with a clear answer. The debate is about which back 4 makes the better unit/team, not about which back 4 has conceded fewer goals.
b) While fewer goals usually means better defence, and statistics can paint a good picture, this isn’t some conclusive, objective, incontrovertible truth that you make it out to be. There’s a lot more to consider, especially if you’re going to make it a purely statistical argument.
c) the sample sizes you’ve used are decent, but not large enough to account for skews such as individual clangers etc
d) correlation is not causation. Your back 4 may have contributed to a tighter defence which concedes fewer goals, but that doesn’t imply causation in its entirety. Quality of opposition, our set up in those games, how well the midfield screened them, how well Emi played etc all contribute, amongst other a whole bunch of other things.
e) if it’s going to be part of a wider discussion about our best team, we also have to consider how that back 4 impacts our attack, not just a stat about goals conceded.
f) the beauty of football is that, unlike baseball, there are a whole lot of qualitative lenses through which holistic judgements need to be made, as opposed to a singular quantitative metric, even if that metric does play an important role in making said judgement

My wholehearted apologies to the rest of the site for drawing this argument out even further…

[Beard82]

rooboy is correct - I said something similar, but not as well, on another thread. 

[brontebilly]

How can he not fix the defence? Kamara back and in great form, the "world's number one" in goal, a £50m defensive midfielder on the bench, and it's still like Laurel and hardy at the back. It's getting beyond a joke.

Uh oh.

He has a point though. The defence has not been anywhere near good enough this season perce

When you see some of the individual mistakes made then it’s very difficult to sort out. You can coach shape and positioning but a lot of the mistakes are unbelievable. We’ve got to accept that a few just aren’t good enough to maintain a standard and need replacing.

That’s all very well, but it doesn’t really explain why certain posters think we should pick the very worst combination of defenders we can.

First things first, pick Konsa and Mings together. We know that works. If you can’t pick those two, pick Carlos and Pau with Konsa at RB. We know that works more often than Konsa and Pau with Cash at RB. Well, those who can count do.

Just using your goals conceded stat as a metric, not any other factors that make a successful team or defence as outlined to you by an OP on yet another thread...

Cash at RB - 8 - Brentford (1), Chelsea (3), Palace (0 after h/t), Spurs until injury (1), Bournemouth (1), Fulham (1), Man United (0), West Ham (1)

Without Cash at RB -17 - Forest (2), Soton (0), Palace (2), Liverpool (2), Spurs (3), Everton (2), Leicester (1), Arsenal (2), Wolves (1), Ipswich (2)

Good work shrinking the sample size to suit. You missed out the CL games and last season, but you still managed to point out that the only clean sheet Cash has kept for more than half a game was when Carlos was playing. Cash’s first one since Chelsea last January, since when Carlos has helped keep 15.

Straw man anyway. I’m banging on about the central defensive partnerships (Carlos/Pau, Konsa/Pau), being weak with traditional full-backs either side, and the former needing propping up by playing a better one-on-one defender (Konsa) on the right. The silliest thing you post is when you go on about the ‘dreaded Konsa experiment’. It’s worked v Man City, Arsenal (twice), Bayern Munich, Juventus, Bologna etc. and is responsible for getting ys the points needed to qualify for the CL. And yet every time this defence is selected, you trot it out yet again, I assume as a wind-up, because you’d have to be an idiot to really dread it after the results it’s got.

The sample size is every PL game this season! If conceding goals is your only variable, unless you have now switched to clean sheets > conceded goals, sure it's crystal clear we are a far superior defence with Cash at RB.

Hoisted by your own petard it would seem.