Olivier Giroud

I’ve read that as well.
That is vey unlike Wenger to say something like that.
Unless he means because we have several cup games coming up.

1 Like

I say it on football manager all the time. Give them a start, then a bench, then a start, then back to the bench forever.

Wenger’s finally learning how to manage properly.

1 Like

Don’t think Giroud was ever willing to be a bench player full time. I think he was expecting to earn a starting spot in light of the competition.

People constantly complain about the poor mentality in this squad. We should be praising players who are demanding to be starting rather than happy to collect wages on the bench.

A smart manager leverages Giroud’s wishes for the benefit of the club.

1 Like

I guess you’re trying to make a good point here, but it really falls down because Giroud is literally this player.

He had the option of moves in the summer, Wenger told him he could leave which is not something that a manager says to a player who is key. He chose to reject offers and stay in London.

He was benched for almost all of last season where he lost his place as a striker to a winger. Players like Welbeck and Walcott were starting games while he was available but on the bench. He only got a few games once injuries started hitting.

His new contract was announced in January, after he had started a grand total of three league games despite being fit for the season. If these things do take time to sort out as we’re led to believe, then he chose to start talking about a new deal at a time when he hadn’t started a Premier League game for months.

Then Arsene Wenger goes and signs a striker for a club record fee and surprise surprise, he has not started a league game all season.

If he thought he was getting his place back after all that, then he’s an idiot.

3 Likes

Well he’s evidently not because he wants to start now and is considering a loan move in order to do so. The £50m striker currently isn’t pulling up any trees, people right now would not be outraged of Giroud started against West Ham, it’s hardly with merit if he did.

The team in the first half of 16/17 were in good form, he probably accepted his bench role on that basis despite the fact that he was still contributing meaningful goals despite the lack of starts.

This whole idea that Giroud is happy to be a bench player is based on very suspect evidence.

Considering Giroud’s personality I think he backed himself to get back into the first 11. It would not be the first time in his Arsenal career he’s fallen out of favour.

I think the London thing is overblown too. There’s a whole load a variables involved you couldn’t possibly be aware of. Some players do value the opinions of their partners and situation regarding children etc a move to Merseyside might not have been reasonable

Then again that came out of Koeman’s mouth whose to say what he said accurately reflected the situation? Could have been saving face because simply wasn’t interested. Even then on the other hand if Giroud was “in the building” it obvious he strongly considered a move

It’s certainly not a crazy idea Giroud decided to back himself to compete with Laca. He starts regularly over him with France after all

1 Like

Nah, it’ll be more like how predictable our attacking play is with him, how shit he is in build-up and link-up play, etc.

1 Like

Unleash chorizo and that chilean boy. It’s your time!

@sevchenko Guess what Giroud is still shit.

2 Likes

Like I’ve been saying, pretty sure he’s had negative value for the season. The couple pts he’s rescued us are not worth the pts he’s lost us today or in the other games where he’s come on way too early for Lacazette and been his usual shit self. Should’ve been sold this summer but Wenger gonna Wenger.

3 Likes

Thought his performance was pretty average tbh. Not bad but not particularly good either.

Had a few good moments of work in the final third especially that head down for Jack which should have been a goal.

Iwobi and Alexis far worse offensively, objectively

Jesus christ if that’s an average performance for you then what the fuck is bad one? Giving a pen and then injuring one of your teammates?

Giroud was absolute shit and was without an inch of doubt the worst player on the pitch.

3 Likes

It’s a bit much to say he cost us the points today. He wasn’t the only one who was total shit. Us generally being total dog shit away from home is not down to him. We’ve had loads of similarly shit performances without him starting, this was his first start of the season after all.

The sentiment behind your posts is fine, thinking Giroud should have been sold and hinders good football. You just take it too far and start sounding ranty and make him your whipping boy. Our malaise is caused by far more than Giroud, but I know you know that and are frustrated.

2 Likes

Nowhere in my post did I say that Giroud alone cost us the pts today. But trade Giroud for Lacazette and our chances of getting 3 pts today surely double or more likely triple.

Nowhere in my post did I say that either. Scanned for the word alone and I couldn’t find it.

You said the points he cost us today, how more fucking blatant can it get that you were blaming him for a loss of points tonight.

We’ve had enough performances that are just as bad with Lacazette playing instead of Giroud that I think saying it’s most likely our chances of winning triple is just anither clear example of your hyperbole and scapegoating. Did you watch that match of football we played last week? I’m not even referring to it being Giroud who saved the point, but the fact that Lacazette started. How much more recently do you want evidence?

Why can’t we start Laca and Giroud together once just to see what it’s like ffs.

Fuck Alexis off to the bench and go 4-4-2

3 Likes

Nah, tbf, I didn’t. But this was Moyes’ West Ham, we were camped in their half all game, but our play in the final-third was as it is as always when Giroud is on the pitch: shit. From the highlights it seemed Southampton was a rather different game.

I don’t see why some make it so complicated with Giroud: his use is for the 75th minute and on when you are desperate for a goal and can afford to play shit–or playing shit is even sometimes convenient–and hope for a defender mistake or a headed goal. He should never play before then, even in Europa as we’ve seen, where Nketiah surely would’ve done as well or better at 18 yrs old.

But for that use, well, use the value you’ve afforded him by letting him play 4 years as the starting striker for Arsenal and having a dupe like Deschamps pick him so much for the NT, sell him, and buy someone like Charlie Austin who can serve the exact same function.

I seem to remember hearing this before about an eighteen year old reserve striker/youth striker being guaranteed to come in and do better than Giroud.

For what it’s worth I would have liked to have seen Nketiah get more minutes too, at least a fucking start in that last match.

It’s basically a matter of fact that Giroud is the best back up, bring off the bench and"put it in the mixer" for a goal striker in the league. Saying Charlie Austin can perform that exact same function isn’t true, that’s you doing Giroud an undue disservice, again.

I don’t want to go too back and forth with all this too much tbhbecause there is plenty in your posts I agree with, especially the bit about having had him as first choice/featuring heavily for so long, I’ve never been a proponent of that. The fact we haven’t signed a reasonably young up and comer in the central striking position in fucking years is embarrassing, bringing through someone like that used to be the one fucking thing you could rely on Wenger to do.

Is it? “It’s basically a matter of fact” because Wenger finally hit on that role for him the last couple seasons, and other players haven’t had a similar opportunity. Tbh, though, I think if you gave those same minutes to Walcott–or Chicharito, or Charlie Austin–and he hadn’t been such a silly boy coming out with that declaration about not seeing himself as a striker, that he’d score the same amount of goals. Maybe even create a few more with his movement.

As a starter, with the form Giroud was in at that time, he did do better in those games.

This sort of post is why I can’t you seriously. If criticism was fair and objective I wouldn’t have an issue but to call him the worse player on the pitch last night is ridiculous. No statistical or visual evidence backs that up.

It’s seems like you’re hating for the sake of hating. It’s not really logical or fair and it’s seems extremely petty. Seems like you don’t like Giroud and will rationalise anything he does in a negative light to further your bias

2 Likes

Yeah, you think that, but in the absence of any evidence it’s nothing but conjecture.

Conjecture just like saying we are most likely three times more likely to win if Laca plays yesterday instead of Giroud, which was you just pulling a number out your arse.