'Not Good Enough for That Club'

[Guest]

You quite often hear people say this isn't good enough for this club. Quite often you hear it about man utd recently. 

Personally I'm not sure if I agree with it for the most part. I mean you could argue clubs should do better if they have spent more but the fact is history doesn't matter. If a club had a period where it was dominant that doesn't mean the club should always be at that level. Man utd are a good example. Before Alex Ferguson came in they weren't the most successful club in England. Liverpool and arsenal had won more league titles. Although I think arsenal and utd were level in overall trophies.

Saying a club should be doing better doesn't make sense for me unless you are basing it on money spent. 

 

[Eco]

When Inter overspent on Pandev, my first thought was...he isn't good enough to start for this club, and that showed immediately.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Eco said:

When Inter overspent on Pandev, my first thought was...he isn't good enough to start for this club, and that showed immediately.

I'm not sure if you get my point. 

Why was he not good enough for inter? Why do inter have the right to be at a certain level? 

[Cicero]

Context is everything. 

[Stan]

Saying history doesn't matter is quite naive to say in my opinion. What happened in history can influence a side's reputation. Hence you get people saying that Man Utd and Arsenal aren't doing good enough because it's based on how they were pretty much engrained in the top 4 for such a long period of time. The emergence of Man City, Tottenham more recently) and Chelsea since early 00s kind of upset the applecart. If any of the traditional top 6 don't finish in the top 6 in the next few years for whatever reason you'd have to say that it's not good enough for them. They all have the most money and the best infrastructures and the reputations to pull in the best players so I don't see it as unfair or unjust to say they're not doing good enough if they don't finish there. 

And you could say the same about the plethora of clubs who try to break in to the top 6 and be best of the rest - Everton, Leicester, West Ham, (now) Wolves, Watford - it's not good enough if they finished below mid-table or find themselves battling relegation. Their stature is built on several things (player investment, facilities, financial wealth) but any sane fan would think it's not good enough if they were trying to actively avoid relegation or be in that battle. 

 

Where a club should be isn't just based on one thing. Transfer activity and actually having an owner who invests sensibly in the club I'd say is usually the biggest thing but I don't think it's fair on any club to just ignore history. 

[Eco]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I'm not sure if you get my point. 

Why was he not good enough for inter? Why do inter have the right to be at a certain level? 

Easy, because he was ineffective and his style didn't match ours. 

If Inter go out and sign Freddie Adu, there is no fucking way he is good enough for Inter. There is a standard of play that is expected at Inter Milan and there are quite frankly only 1% of the football players in the world good enough for the club. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Lazar Markovic, Salif Diao, Paul Konchesky, that other player Hodgson signed that was abysmal - no not Joe Cole - the other one, Joe Cole, Alberto Moreno, there's shitloads for Liverpool

[Mel81x+]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Lazar Markovic, Salif Diao, Paul Konchesky, that other player Hodgson signed that was abysmal - no not Joe Cole - the other one, Joe Cole, Alberto Moreno, there's shitloads for Liverpool

Jovanovich? Do I have that name right? He was utter dogshit.

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

Jovanovich? Do I have that name right? He was utter dogshit.

Oh yeah... him too lol. But no I was referring to the old Danish midfielder we'd signed from Juve. He probably would have been a good signing about 5 years before we signed him, but his legs were well gone.

And Hodgson fucking loved starting him and leaving a gaping hole in the midfield.

[Dan+]

Saying someone isn't good enough is simply because they don't meet your ambitions. Pretty simple really.

[Dan+]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Oh yeah... him too lol. But no I was referring to the old Danish midfielder we'd signed from Juve. He probably would have been a good signing about 5 years before we signed him, but his legs were well gone.

And Hodgson fucking loved starting him and leaving a gaping hole in the midfield.

Poulsen?

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Dan said:

Saying someone isn't good enough is simply because they don't meet your ambitions. Pretty simple really.

Yeah this really. Or we could lower the bar even more, not just failing to reach ambitions but also failing to reach expectations out of what you'd expect for a player at the level you'd expect your club to be at.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

Saying history doesn't matter is quite naive to say in my opinion. What happened in history can influence a side's reputation. Hence you get people saying that Man Utd and Arsenal aren't doing good enough because it's based on how they were pretty much engrained in the top 4 for such a long period of time. The emergence of Man City, Tottenham more recently) and Chelsea since early 00s kind of upset the applecart. If any of the traditional top 6 don't finish in the top 6 in the next few years for whatever reason you'd have to say that it's not good enough for them. They all have the most money and the best infrastructures and the reputations to pull in the best players so I don't see it as unfair or unjust to say they're not doing good enough if they don't finish there. 

And you could say the same about the plethora of clubs who try to break in to the top 6 and be best of the rest - Everton, Leicester, West Ham, (now) Wolves, Watford - it's not good enough if they finished below mid-table or find themselves battling relegation. Their stature is built on several things (player investment, facilities, financial wealth) but any sane fan would think it's not good enough if they were trying to actively avoid relegation or be in that battle. 

 

Where a club should be isn't just based on one thing. Transfer activity and actually having an owner who invests sensibly in the club I'd say is usually the biggest thing but I don't think it's fair on any club to just ignore history. 

That's actually a very good answer. However I don't agree with you in everything. When other clubs come along and get a good infrastructure in place it pushes other clubs back. E.g man city have become a very rich and very well run club. That pushes other clubs back. Man utd before city came along could probably get any player. Now suddenly they have a rival who can match them in finances. You can no longer say utd should be ahead of them. They should be able to compete with them but city would feel they should be able to compete as well.

I also think infrastructure is a very important point. Aston villa would be a good example. They use to be a good club and Bournemouth use to be in league 2. However bournemouth with investment have worked their way up the league's. Where as villa have gone the other way. So bournemouth have a better infrastructure. In my opinion villa can't say they should be ahead of Bournemouth they are a better run club than villa and so have a better infrastructure.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah this really. Or we could lower the bar even more, not just failing to reach ambitions but also failing to reach expectations out of what you'd expect for a player at the level you'd expect your club to be at.

I have an interesting question. Where do you think Liverpool should be at and why?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I have an interesting question. Where do you think Liverpool should be at and why?

 

 Challenging for the league and going on cup runs.

Because we're a big club with a massive fanbase, rich owners that have more resources than most clubs except for the other big clubs, we get better deals from sponsors than most clubs just based on the fact it's a big club than most other clubs do. And we're no longer looking like a team in transition.

It was different a few years ago, when we'd fallen pretty drastically from the best days of Rafa. Then the expectation was qualify for the Champions League... but we were failing to consistently do that. Now we've done that twice, which really doesn't feel like a lot, but the progress made this season has us in a place we'd actually been dreaming about being in.

So now the expectation is we keep up this form. Keep challenging for the title, keep going on at least one good cup run a year (a domestic cup run would be good). And the ambition is that we win something, preferably something big like the league or the CL - but I'm not picky, I'll take winning anything that's an actual trophy. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 Challenging for the league and going on cup runs.

Because we're a big club with a massive fanbase, rich owners that have more resources than most clubs except for the other big clubs, we get better deals from sponsors than most clubs just based on the fact it's a big club than most other clubs do. And we're no longer looking like a team in transition.

It was different a few years ago, when we'd fallen pretty drastically from the best days of Rafa. Then the expectation was qualify for the Champions League... but we were failing to consistently do that. Now we've done that twice, which really doesn't feel like a lot, but the progress made this season has us in a place we'd actually been dreaming about being in.

So now the expectation is we keep up this form. Keep challenging for the title, keep going on at least one good cup run a year (a domestic cup run would be good). And the ambition is that we win something, preferably something big like the league or the CL - but I'm not picky, I'll take winning anything that's an actual trophy. 

So essentially it does come down to resources? Which is what I agreed on. 

[The Artful Dodger]

1 hour ago, Gunnersauraus said:

You quite often hear people say this isn't good enough for this club. Quite often you hear it about man utd recently. 

Personally I'm not sure if I agree with it for the most part. I mean you could argue clubs should do better if they have spent more but the fact is history doesn't matter. If a club had a period where it was dominant that doesn't mean the club should always be at that level. Man utd are a good example. Before Alex Ferguson came in they weren't the most successful club in England. Liverpool and arsenal had won more league titles. Although I think arsenal and utd were level in overall trophies.

Saying a club should be doing better doesn't make sense for me unless you are basing it on money spent. 

 

Manchester United and Liverpool have expectations, some may say arrogance, that Arsenal do not have. They are European giants in a way Arsenal are not, and never have been. Obviously all that matters is how you're doing on the pitch but those two are seen as the two traditional giants of English football, I think that's where the somewhat haughty opinions and entitlement come from.

[Lucas]

I think a good example is Harry McGuire.

Man Utd have been linked to him in the past. A few years ago, you'd probably hear people say McGuire wasn't good enough for them.

Currently, he'd walk into a centre back slot there because he's the type of personality and character they need.

[The Artful Dodger]

4 minutes ago, Lucas said:

I think a good example is Harry McGuire.

Man Utd have been linked to him in the past. A few years ago, you'd probably hear people say McGuire wasn't good enough for them.

Currently, he'd walk into a centre back slot there because he's the type of personality and character they need.

They probably said something similar to Robertson at Liverpool. Although I do agree that McGuire probably isn't a top level centre back.

[Lucas]

6 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

They probably said something similar to Robertson at Liverpool. Although I do agree that McGuire probably isn't a top level centre back.

That's a really good example actually with Robertson, I totally agree and I think many Liverpool fans on here would admit to not being impressed initially with that signing.

McGuire isn't a top level centre back but equally United aren't top level either, especially given they cannot qualify for Europe's elite competition.

He'd be a solid acquisition there IMO.

[Dan+]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah this really. Or we could lower the bar even more, not just failing to reach ambitions but also failing to reach expectations out of what you'd expect for a player at the level you'd expect your club to be at.

It's all to maintain standards. Those standards naturally need to gradually rise.

[Dan+]

36 minutes ago, Lucas said:

I think a good example is Harry McGuire.

Man Utd have been linked to him in the past. A few years ago, you'd probably hear people say McGuire wasn't good enough for them.

Currently, he'd walk into a centre back slot there because he's the type of personality and character they need.

To me that would show that they have fallen. I don't even think he's our best centre half - he's second to someone Man Utd deemed not good enough a few years ago.

[Dr. Gonzo]

41 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Manchester United and Liverpool have expectations, some may say arrogance, that Arsenal do not have. They are European giants in a way Arsenal are not, and never have been. Obviously all that matters is how you're doing on the pitch but those two are seen as the two traditional giants of English football, I think that's where the somewhat haughty opinions and entitlement come from.

For a decade or so the league title was only contested by Arsenal and Manchester United. Everyone else were just pretenders.

Arsenal are one of the biggest clubs in the country. I think they've just fallen into a trap of overconfidence, even in their fanbase. For a long time it was unthinkable they wouldn't be contenders, then they slipped and it was unthinkable they wouldn't qualify for the CL, then they kept slipping.

I think most Arsenal fans have been realistic though about how far they've fallen... well after they'd fallen too far for their comfort so I think (on here at least) they've been pretty realistic about Emery having growing pains.

42 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

So essentially it does come down to resources? Which is what I agreed on. 

I think it's part resources, part just realism of where your squad actually is. Arsenal have similar resources, all of the big clubs do in England with Citeh just having unlimited resources (or what seems like unlimited resources). But Arsenal's squad has fallen behind the competition, so this year has been a year of transition.

And your defense is fucking crap lol. Mustafi, for example, is a player I'd say isn't good enough for Arsenal.

[The Artful Dodger]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

For a decade or so the league title was only contested by Arsenal and Manchester United. Everyone else were just pretenders.

Arsenal are one of the biggest clubs in the country. I think they've just fallen into a trap of overconfidence, even in their fanbase. For a long time it was unthinkable they wouldn't be contenders, then they slipped and it was unthinkable they wouldn't qualify for the CL, then they kept slipping.

I think most Arsenal fans have been realistic though about how far they've fallen... well after they'd fallen too far for their comfort so I think (on here at least) they've been pretty realistic about Emery having growing pains.

I think it's part resources, part just realism of where your squad actually is. Arsenal have similar resources, all of the big clubs do in England with Citeh just having unlimited resources (or what seems like unlimited resources). But Arsenal's squad has fallen behind the competition, so this year has been a year of transition.

And your defense is fucking crap lol. Mustafi, for example, is a player I'd say isn't good enough for Arsenal.

Arsenal are a huge club no doubt, but they're simply not on the same level as Manchester United and Liverpool. Mainly due to their pitiful record in the top European competition, and the fact they've never properly dominated in the same way.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

Arsenal are a huge club no doubt, but they're simply not on the same level as Manchester United and Liverpool. Mainly due to their pitiful record in the top European competition, and the fact they've never properly dominated in the same way.

Most clubs don't do well in Europe though. And tbf when Arsenal did make the CL final, they were up against a Barca side that were probably the best side in the world at the time.

They've at least made a CL final and are likely to be in a European final this season... with a manager that's got a good record in that competition. That's better than most clubs in Europe can say tbh.