He damages our style of play. He can’t press, he can’t beat a man, he can’t run the last defender. Sure he’s amazing in the air but we aren’t a Pulis side. He gets goals yes, but no where near enough for being an Arsenal frontman. An Arsenal CF should be aiming for 30 goals in all comps every season with the possession based game we play.
I do get it, he’s likeable, adorable even, but he’s a goddamn second striker at a top club every day of the week. Problem is, under Wenger we aren’t a top club and he’s likely to start.
He isn’t as bad as you are making out. He can do some of the things you are saying he can’t. And also as I have repeatedly said I don’t think he should be starting for us but as a back up, he is pretty good. And he does a great job.
I think this is at least partially exaggerated… we have looked fairly meh for significant portions of the last few years, with or without Giroud in the lineup. He IS limited, but there have been some fabulous moments when he was used more in combination with other players and their movement and in fact it was some of our most scintillating football of the last 5+ years.
Having said all that, we need better players in attack… but Giroud as #2/#3 option as striker is less of an issue for me than Walcott as #1 option wide.
For a non-starter, getting a goal every ~70 minutes is pretty damn awesome.
After he was re-inserted into the starting lineup for a long run of games. Giroud is fine as a back-up, no one is arguing that. (Though it took him at least 2 seasons, 3 really, to become serviceable as a back-up…those numbers that you cite @ljungbergkamp were very different in his first 3 seasons here…)
His role during that period when he was a bit ‘angry’ according to Wenger was precisely the one that he should be in, and which it took Wenger 4 years to put him in. That he was unhappy with it is totally fine as a footballer needs to back himself and believe in his abilities, but it’s worrying that Wenger, as many of us predicted, inevitably found a way to get him back into very much the regular first XI.
What top side has a player as limited as Giroud as their starting CF? Not one. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum one, the question is not if you have to be a Pulis side to exploit a player of Giroud’s abilities.
Furthermore, is that what Arsene built Arsenal to be over the last two decades? He developed his own philosophy, if he wants to betray it by saving money and not looking for an applicable CF to suit his own style then so be it. Just one more reason for me to happy the day Arsene finally finds the exit door. Hopefully he’ll take Giroud/Theo/Ox/Ramsey/Coq with him.
correct. Dzeko at city was the same sort of player and played his part in winning a title.
Just that the supporting cast was much stronger and he didnt have to shoulder as much responsibilty as Giroud does here.
I understand @Castiel, because without Giroud we have more attacking options to explore to score a goal, our action is much fluid and we can see a nice football like in the past. I’m with him and understand his point of view, but this guy is so important for Arsenal.
Today he didn’t scored, but his obscure work has been excellent. His assist to Monreal has been superb, because of his body he needs to start a war with other defenders every week, is important for the corners (offensive and defensive), is good in the air but has a tecnique good enough to be very important with the ball on the pitch, he is capable to score goals and assist. He is a mix of an old number nine striker plus the qualities of a modern forward, despite his body is against him because at the moment the example of the modern striker is Luis Suarez (180 cm more or less) with exceptions like Olivier, Lewandowski and Diego Costa.
Concluding my post, is Arsenal more nice to watch without Giroud on attack? Yes. Have Arsenal more options to attack without Giroud? Yes. Can Arsenal change more tactic without Giroud? Yes. Is Giroud one of the most important players in the squad? Yes. Should Giroud be a perfect squad player for Arsenal, especially against teams like Burnley? Yes. Should Giroud be only a squad player for Arsenal to use ONLY for the final 20 minutes? Absolutely not.
I know it’s difficult to keep track of different poster’s viewpoints, but yeah mine is absolutely not that Giroud should be starting games. Not all games, anyway. I see an important role for him in matches at home to league fodder, where this supposed super-duper lightning interchange between your ‘fluid front 4’ too often achieves the sum of diddly squat. I wouldn’t start him at Stamford Bridge though.
I’m happy to stick up for Giroud as he gets a baffling amount of stick for what he actually contributes, probably on a similar level to the likes of Chamberlain who flop on a consistent basis. I’ll defend him (just maybe not quite to the death! @Phoebica )
Thats sort of making my point. Dzeko was capable of playing his part because of Aguero.
Giroud will never be far from the starting line up here as we havent got anyone outstandingly better or consistant.
Well yeh man I get where you’re coming from. If we had Aguero starting upfront or even Alexis back in that position I wouldn’t say anything about Giroud coming on as a super sub.
Giroud starting upfront is going to cost us sooner or later though, we should be looking to play our best hand first and that’s simply Alexis upfront.
Comedy gold this. He scores 5 in 5 appearances and then doesn’t score in one game despite having virtually no chances and zero service and the clowns are out in full force.
He’s not the reason for our slow build-up at home against mid-table and relegation fodder sides, but that’s a story for another day.
People parsing various arguments on the merits of Giroud, Walcott, etc. - this is deck chairs/titanic stuff… we have 2 top attacking players and we need more… Giroud, Walcott, etc. are all decent squad options but should not be starting for a top side like ours period. Ozil and Sanchez need more quality around them if we want to be more fluid, exciting, and effective.
In general, I would rather a more mobile and versatile striker rather than a “target man” but this is also a simplistic categorization of player - Giroud isn’t a pure target man even though he is significantly limited… Is Lewandowski a target man b/c he isn’t that mobile? The attacking options Barca has is a great illustration of this exact point - they are all a bit different in what they do and how they play - the common thread is that they are top quality, brilliant footballers - and in their case can also take on players 1v1 and finish.
Yeah those are this season, but it sort of supports the notion that he IS an effective option this year. Like I have said a million times, we need better, but there is a reason AW is putting Ollie up top and Sanchez wide - and I think it has something to do with our collective attacking options and finding the right personnel to maximize our results - I am 100% sure AW isn’t actually thinking that Ollie is the better striker nor do I think anyone here believes that.
It’s definitely more fluid, but it’s probably time we accepted it’s not always the most goal-threatening option. The Cazorla-Coquelin partnership was, as well as the role of Bellerin, an integral part of the success of that front four earlier in the season. We saw against Spurs at home, United, Everton and City away that the system can be easily stifled without the rest of the team being complete.
It’s clear we need to look at the whole XI to make our team tick. That fluid front four without the missing pieces behind it can be just as ineffectual as a team with Giroud leading the line.