Olivier Giroud


Drop him from the first team but make him a guaranteed sub at the 65th minute every game.

Best of both worlds.


So you’re telling me that he managed to score, in 5 straight games, playing as the starting striker for Arsenal in front of Alexis, Iwobi, and Özil, against the likes of Swansea, Preston North End, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, and West Brom? :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

He’s not the reason for our poor build-up play at home against mid-table and relegation fodder sides, no, but he doesn’t help…a team that already crosses far too much and is already far too likely to play an overly direct ball is not helped by a player that encourages this type of play hugely, who is not good for the team retaining the ball in the final third/opponent’s half, and by a dynamic between him and Alexis on the left that is rather repetitive and stale.

Haha it just means strawman argument but people say I’m being overly-intellectual or whatever when I say that too… :wink:

Well, not exactly re: Robincito, he took it from not being a Pulis side to ‘needing to be a Pulis side to exploit someone in the air’.


So let me try and understand this

Vs. Swansea he scored the opener in a tight game till then
Vs. Palace again the opening goal in an even tighter game
Scored the winners vs. West Brom and Preston
And had 2 assists and a goal vs. Bournemouth after being 2 goals down

All this with a record of a goal every 90 minutes on the pitch do far while discounting his goals vs. the likes of PSG and United and 5 assists he already has.

Now I get why he’s the biggest problem with the team right now. Thank you sir, you are a genius to have figured this out.


Never said he was the biggest problem with the team (he isn’t), and none of the above refutes any of my points at all, really. That those games were tight as they were is an indication of the football we were playing, which is a big part of the discussion for those of us who prefer a line-up without Giroud.


One other comment around Giroud is that people are exaggerating the Giroud = style point too much. There are plenty of games where we were saying “FFS cross the damn ball, we have a giant in the middle” and really didn’t play at all like everyone seems to be implying.

Giroud isn’t good enough but I think the equating of him to style is wrong. It contributes to the problem perhaps but I think the blame for our style is more management and challenges with wing and CM play more than Giroud. I think Cazorla mitigates this a bit as well but he is out.


No doubt, it’s manager, manager, manager, manager, manager, centre midfielders, and then forwards when we’re talking about list of reasons.

Doesn’t mean there’s no point talking about the forwards, doesn’t mean that Giroud’s presence doesn’t encourage just the type of behaviour we don’t want/is not productive for us. When a manager gives as loose instructions as Wenger in some ways it’s even more important the players themselves and their natural tendencies/qualities on the pitch.


He’s not the most mobile and gifted striker and all that. In a system that depends on movement and proper technical talent, he’s not the smartest choice. Not at all. That goes for multliple players. I’m quite suprised Wenger thinks the current squad can play pre-2011 Arsenal football.


Reductio ad absurdum and straw man are actually different mate :nerd:

So don’t worry, no danger of anyone thinking that you’re overly intellectual here :yum:


In the case in point they are the same/used the same.


No they aren’t.

Robin saying we don’t have to be a Pulis side to benefit or utilise from Giroud’s aerial ability by definition is not a straw man because he was responding to someone who said that “Sure he’s amazing in the air but we aren’t a Pulis side”

Dude just stop digging yourself any deeper :sweat_smile:


You’re digging yourself deeper. :wink:

From being a Pulis side to suggesting that people are putting forth the idea that ‘you need to be a Pulis side to utilise an aerial presence’ there is a leap. Hence why it’s a strawman and reductio ad absurdum, whichever you want to use, reductio ad absurdum because it’s intensifying the implication and bringing it to a further strength/extreme of the initial idea, strawman because no one was saying that you have to be a Pulis side to use an aerial presence.


@AbouCuellar is one poster who, even when proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt, will still find a way to try and argue his way out lol. Admirable but you’re wrong on this one mate.


I’m really not, actually. And I’m willing to admit I’m wrong (Wenger, Coquelin), moreso than other members actually, even when I’m not wrong (Ramsey, Giroud).

Here, I’ll break it down for you fellas :nerd: :

Imagine some West Brom fans are talking about a Ball-Playing GK. One fan says: I don’t want Ball-Playing GK, we’re not a Guardiola side.

Another says: You don’t have to be a Guardiola side to make use of a Ball-Playing GK.

Another is making a strawman and reductio ad absurdum argument. Both can be valid arguments and co-exist…the latter is an intensification/not a direct refutation of the former for the sake of argumentation.

@JakeyBoy in this case it really did for all intents and purposes, you’ll have to take my word for it (if I didn’t know the difference I promise I’d tell you), I could’ve used strawman or reductio ad absurdum. When I said it’s just a strawman I was just using a term that many are more familiar with here so to not be accused of using fancy latin/spanish words like mediapunta/reductio ad absurdum.


I think this gif is appropriate? Ya know what, nah fuck it can we just go back to calling people dick riders?


“Sure he’s amazing in the air but we aren’t a Pulis side.”

This absolutely implies that Giroud’s aerial ability isn’t particularly useful to us, Robin replied to say that you don’t have to be a Pulis side to make use of said trait. That just isn’t a straw man argument from Robin.

You can also try and say that both reductio ad absurdum and straw man fallacy could be applied to his post, but that doesn’t make them the same thing, which is literally what you said. “it just means strawman argument”

So you are definitely wrong lol

Anyway this is a semantic argument that others will just find ridiculous so I think we can leave it now given the thread its in haha (I know you’ll be itching to reply so I’m not telling you that you can’t :slight_smile:)


Yeah but the problem with Giroud is more about his overall quality than his direct effect on our STYLE of play imho. Give Giroud Vieira, Ljungberg, Pires, and Ozil and our style would be fantastic hehe.

Anyway, done here… we need more attackers who are awesome.


No doubt, but when we’re talking about his effect on our style of play we’re taking into account his quality or lack thereof. Of course, if he were Ibrahimovic (:cech::santi2:), this would not be the same argument.


Roger that… I was definitely trying to separate the issues. We are on same page more/less wrt Monsieur Giroud.


Just broken my mouse from Liking your post too many times, cheers for that


I guess you really do like your strawmans (/reductio ad absurdum arguments :santi2: ) then Robbo, because that post is just one big, long one.