Have to say I really rate the Mullah look by Giroud.
Looks like a real Maulvi.
I’m a bit angry that if not for constant mismanagement and overplaying Giroud for the past 4 years, he would quite possibly be the most loved player on the team, a real cult hero.
Last season when Walcott was hot showed that when Giroud can come on late to add real chaos to the team has scores bucketloads of goals.
And this one. This is how Giroud should always have been used. If RVP wasn’t such a cunt, to reduce and manage his minutes as best as possible. Even if he was, then to get that striker to spearhead the attack supported by Giroud.
He could never do that for us. Bless him, he has done his best in that role but you could see that that was not him.
Well, i hope he at least is managed like this from now on so everyone is happy.
In fairness I hadn’t seen that when I replied to you, only afterwards which was when I saw (and liked) Shammy’s post, in which he made one of the same points I did.
Glad we seemingly agree that it’s a case of you wanting Giroud to be sold rather than it being a necessity
But if we had signed a CF then we wouldn’t have been continuing with the false nine experiment, and Alexis would still be playing on the left. So then it would come down to whether we had Theo or Giroud as back up.
You’d prefer Walcott to be that back up, I’d much prefer Giroud be that back up option. So yeah, it’s pretty simple, it’s a case of you wanting to sell Giroud, not a case of it being a necessity.
Maybe we hold just stop lol, this is going round in circles now.
[quote=“Mercenary, post:116, topic:92, full:true”]
I’ve always said that Giroud is a perfect plan B striker. For once, he came on as a sub and we adopted a different plan of crossing the ball out from wide. It worked perfectly for Oli.
[/quote]Welcome back to the Forum mate
Not necessarily, totally depends on who the striker was.
No, I wanted a striker with movement and mobility and possibilities for interchange to be that back up. Given that the Sánchez experiment (which I was a big fan of when we signed him, but gave up on it because, well, Wenger gave up on it) looked totally binned going into this season and no one could’ve predicted that Wenger would return to it, and before Walcott’s comments about being a RW–which were totally key and related to Alexis being chosen as the #9 in the fluid front 3/4–we thought he was the option as this striker to play as the nominal striker role in a fluid 3/4. Sánchez simply replaced him, due to the movements within the club.
Like I said, pretty simple.
Given that we didn’t sign a striker of stature, I absolutely didn’t want us to sell Giroud…It’d only be a necessity (for his career) if we had.
You see what I just said about this getting circular?
All I said is that I disagreed with people who said we should sell Giroud. Then you come in speaking on behalf of all of them telling me what their logic was. You have your reasons, but I’d be surprised if you can remember what everyone else’s was.
I’ve long held the opinion that he would be a very good back up striker/option from the bench. I feel that today is just another bit of evidence that supports my long held opinion. That’s it, I really haven’t got much more to say.
And yet most of OA want him gone. I don’t get it… 17, 22,19, 24 aren’t stellar numbers. But they’re more than adequate for a team that should be getting about the same numbers from across the front line.
I don’t think they want him gone, they just want him as number two to a top quality striker.
He has scored a decent amount of goals for us but playing in front of Ozil, Sanchez and Cazorla, most strikers would be scoring as many goals as he has.
No club wins the PL or CL without a world class striker, and Giroud does not fit that description.
Adequate is a better description of him.
