Well that’s why a loan +\- option was the right move for me. It’s mutually beneficial, provides depth but no hard feelings if it doesn’t work out right? Surely an auxiliary forward to take minutes off Havertz if we’re up and cruising in a home fixture just made sense even without an injury?
Well, the players factor in here too. They’re going to prioritize the options that give them more time. But per Ornstein Arteta didn’t want that, I think he wanted someone who’d actually make an impact.
I accept that the specific examples of players who have been signed may not have worked, but it’s a struggle to believe that across the whole of world football there wasn’t a loan +\- option deal to be made for a usable injury cover and rotation player across our frontline.
Well for me I think it goes back to the original point I was asking - is the perfect being the enemy of the good? Were our criteria too stringent for what we looked for vs. what you could argue we needed via a loan cover move? I don’t know - but there’s a lot of football til Saka comes back, I worry
But this goes back to the original point of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good no? What was ‘the ask’ so to speak? As I said I can’t know what was looked at, but objectively don’t you find it hard to believe absolutely no one was available as ‘project buy’, ‘proven buy’ or ‘loan cover’?
I think the club was willing to permanently buy someone they thought would meet their long term objectives, or loan someone who’d make an impact and fit the system. You can argue until you’re blue in the face about guys like Asensio but I don’t see the impact
See I think that’s perhaps where we disagree. I didn’t even necessarily think we needed someone to ‘make an impact’ at this point. We needed injury and rotation cover to take minutes off our knackered players. We have 5 players for 3 positions which include a 17 yr old and a potential busted flush.
I’m not saying Rashford or Asensio was specifically an option for us but these are pretty good examples of the sort of player we should have been looking at in my opinion if not a signing. A no/low risk loan move saying ‘if you’re good enough you’ll play and you might win a PL/CL to boot.’
Arteta said himself he doesn’t want a just a body - Rashford is perhaps good enough but not suited to the demands of the role nor the role itself (rotation attacker)
We were in the, we need a body territory, especially at CF. Him saying otherwise was just him putting on his company man hat. He's said on numerous occasions we were short.
It covers whoever was responsible for bringing someone in. It's the Wengerism of only wanting 'top top' quality.
We needed someone competent enough to take the load of Havertz. That bar was not a hard one to clear. It only becomes hard when you decide to move on the 13 Jan.
Comments
The alternative forces you to assume / accept that Arsenal's front office is not being run correctly.
We needed someone competent enough to take the load of Havertz. That bar was not a hard one to clear. It only becomes hard when you decide to move on the 13 Jan.