How would long-term Arsenal target Adrien Rabiot fit in?

Leave a reply

Long term reported Arsenal target Adrien Rabiot has announced that he is set to leave PSG on a free transfer at the end of the season.

The 23-year-old central midfielder was linked with Arsenal over 6 years ago; when he was just a 17-year-old who had yet to play a game.

Over the years, he has been in and out of the PSG team and missed out on France’s World Cup success after refusing to be put on the reserve list.

A tall, elegant central midfielder, he has never really fulfilled his potential that he showed as a teenager – with PSG preferring the midfield partnership of Blaise Matuidi and Marco Verratti as he struggled to break through.

Last season under Unai Emery he played 50 games – starting 27 in the league and 8 in the Champions League.  He has continued to be first choice under Thomas Tuchel.

With Aaron Ramsey set to leave Arsenal as a free transfer, Arsenal could well see Rabiot is an indirect replacement.

Signing Rabiot would mean that Arsenal could cash in on Mohamed Elneny and line up with midfield options of:

Grant Xhaka
Lucas Torreira
Adrien Rabiot
Matteo Guendouzi
Ainsley Maitland-Niles

It would be an exciting group of central midfielders with plenty of strength and would more than cover Emery’s preference of playing 2 deep midfielders; with one out and out defensive and the other box-to-box in his favoured 4231 formation.

A sticking point would be as to what role Rabiot would play.

Emery has previously spoken about Rabiot being a defensive midfielder rather than a box-to-box; with the Frenchman believing he is more box-to-box.

Emery said: “Let’s talk about Rabiot. He’s a central midfielder, who is more comfortable playing as a defensive midfielder rather than a creative one. Even if he remains more of box-to-box, rather than a defensive midfielder.

“When you want to play with a defensive, creative and box-to-box-midfielders in fixed positions, Rabiot finds himself confronted to a problem. He has to run, run, run and not play in a fixed position statically. And even less so with his back turned on the action.

“Rabiot doesn’t really like playing as a defensive midfielder, he likes playing as a box-to-box, but I prefer him as a defensive midfielder. That’s why after the elimination against Real Madrid [in the 2017/18 Champions League], I told him he would play as a defensive midfielder.

“In that position, he can be faced with play and switch around with [Marco] Verratti. He is more competitive in these conditions. With certain players, you can’t impose a strict idea. You have to adapt yourself to their characteristics in order to win in individual and collective competitiveness.”

Another sticking point could be salary.

BeIN Sport reported earlier this month that Rabiot had turned down a new contract for a third time, with PSG reportedly offering him £6.32m a year to remain with the Ligue 1 champions. That works out to a little over £120,000 a week.

Granit Xhaka is reportedly on £90,000 a week; Lucas Torreira on £75,000 a week.

All 3 players are equally as talented, and would be in a fair fight for the 2 central midfield roles. What would it do to squad harmony if we bought Rabiot in on twice as much money (potentially) as Lucas Torreira?

Some will say that Rabiot is superior to Xhaka and therefore justifies the higher salary. However Emery is unlikely to see it that way.

Xhaka is box-to-box in the current set up, with Torreira as the more defensive option. Rabiot would more likely be competing with Torreira to play behind Xhaka.

Regardless, all 3 are close when it comes to their talent. To have vastly different salaries could be dangerous.

As seen, Rabiot would not be guaranteed a starting place at Arsenal. Himself, Xhaka and Torreira would be rotated – so would all still get plenty of game time. Would Rabiot go from regular starter at PSG to rotational starter at Arsenal?

A move for Rabiot would be a positive one for Arsenal. There are plenty of minutes to accommodate 3 top class midfielders and still find enough time to bleed through Matteo Guendouzi.

Guendouzi is still just 19 and would not have expected to have played so much this season – 9 starts in total in the league. He is still developing and is not yet at the standard of Rabiot, Torreira or Xhaka.

You can easily see a situation that in 3 years time, Arsenal cash in on a then 29-year-old Xhaka and promote Guendouzi. He will still be just 22-years-old (the same age as England’s next big talent Harry Winks is now!).

Guendouzi, Xhaka, Ramsey & Torreira have started 44 league games between them this season; so it is clear that there are plenty of games to go around.

The one loser would be Ainsley Maitland-Niles, but he would still have a future at the club.

Firstly he is a home-grown talent; which is very important. Secondly he can cover central midfield, left and right back, and is competent on the flanks.

Maitland-Niles is still just 21. He would get plenty of game time in the cups and would get the odd league game. His future at Arsenal is as a utility man.

Would I sign Rabiot on a free? Yes

Keenos

Arsenal to switch focus to the cups

2 Replies

The defeat against Southampton have re-calibrated some fans expectations.

Personally I always thought this season, our minimum expectation would be to see us challenge for top 4 once more. A good season would be finishing 3rd (I expected Manchester City to run away with it, and Liverpool to finish adrift of them, but well ahead of 3rd). An average season would be 5th, just a handful of points behind 4th.

Despite losing to Southampton, my expectations have not changed. We are just 3 points of Chelsea in 4th, and 5 points behind Tottenham in 3rd.

Over at McBookie, you can get odds of 13/8 for Arsenal to finish top 4. These seem extremely long considering that there is just 3 points between us in 5th and Chelsea in 4th.

With fans changing their expectations, I have seen some say we should focus on top 4 rather than go for one of the cups. We are 6th favourites to win the FA Cup, 3rd favourites in the League Cup and 2nd favourites in the Europa League. The 6/1 on offer for the Europa League look attractive.

I would not sacrifice the League Cup this week for the weekend game against Burnley.

Firstly it is against Spurs. At no point is losing to Tottenham an “acceptable sacrifice”.

We need to take the game seriously and start off the next 22 game unbeaten run.

Manchester City away to Leicester City is not a foregone conclusion, and neither is Chelsea at home to Bournemouth. We could quite easily see ourselves in a semi-final against Leicester City, Middlesbrough or Bournemouth.

I would always take a trophy above finishing top 4.

And then we have the FA Cup. We face either Blackpool or Solihull Moors. It is another competition we must take seriously.

In 2019 we have the Europa League. By the time you read this we would know who we have in both the 2nd round and whatever round is after (is it last 64 or 32?)

The Europa League is perhaps an easier route to the Champions League than finishing top 4.

We were unlucky last year (or masters of our own downfall). We faced Atletico Madrid and it was woeful finishing and a defensive error that cost us the game, the trophy, a place in the Champions League and ultimately Arsene Wenger his job.

The Europa League is the competition we should take so seriously.

Fans argue over “trophy or top 4”. Well winning the Europa League gets you a trophy and that place in the Champions League.

In Unai Emery we have the right man for the Europa League. No one has won the competition more, and he has lifted the trophy on 3 of the last 5 occasions.

We have to be realistic in the league. It is going to take us time to sort out the mess Arsene Wenger left the squad in. Half a dozen transfer windows and £350million at least. Manchester City have the spending power and the Scousers are 3 years ahead of his.

Liverpool are running a similar self-sufficient model as we are.

Good coaching, good recruitment.

In 3 or 4 seasons time, Emery would have built a title challenging squad. In the meantime we need to keep growing and, unlike Liverpool, win a few trophies on the return to greatness.

Losing to Southampton changes nothing. It does not shift what our targets are. It just adjusts some fans expectations.

Back Emery, back the management team, back the Arsenal.

Keenos

Dispelling a Stan Kroenke myth

3 Replies

I am not one to defend Stan Kroenke, although in recent days I have found myself doing so a bit on Twitter.

Personally I do not think he is a bad owner. The only thing he did was let Ivan Gazidis and Arsene Wenger sail along too long, earning themselves millions.

In terms of an owner, he buys into the self-sufficient model that ensures longevity of a football club.

It is a self-sufficient model that sees the likes of Juventus, real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Manchester United dominate over long periods – I am talking about 50-years plus.

The likes of PSG, Manchester City, Chelsea. These are boom and bust models.

The owners are pumping in billions and unless they can break the glass ceiling and turn their sides into self-sufficient clubs making hundreds of millions from commercial revenue, they will eventually fall off. Whether it be due to the money drying up, boredom or death.

If you want success over a long period, you need to be self sufficient.

Liverpool run a similar model to Arsenal.

The owners, FSG, do not put in any money. They do not use their own funds to buy players. Liverpool have financed a title winning team due to good recruitment and good coaching; not through their owners pumping in billions.

Stan Kroenke’s biggest criticisms seems to come from an Evening Standard article in 2016, where the headline was Stan Kroenke: I didn’t buy Arsenal stake to win trophies.

It was only this afternoon that I actually read the article. Before, that I had just followed what everyone had said on Twitter. That Kroenke was not in Arsenal to win trophies. This is what he actually said:

Speaking at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in Boston he said: “For me, being an individual owner, I have to have some sort of reality involved.

“If you want to win championships then you would never get involved. I think the best owners in sports are the guys that sort of watch both sides a bit. If you don’t have a good business then you can’t really afford to go out and get the best players unless you just want to rely on other sources of income.

“Over there [in the Premier League] it was sort of like ‘well, we’ve got guys from the Middle East, the oil price is over $100, they can spend anything they want’.

“But the problem I saw with all of that; those people can lose interest. It doesn’t mean that they will, but I sort of threw that out there: ‘What happens when the Middle Eastern family, this thing’s costing a lot of money and they decide to go home?’ I said what really happens in those situations is the fans get hurt because the players get picked up and paid if they’re good, the front office gets other jobs.”

At no point did Kroenke say “I didn’t buy Arsenal stake to win trophies”.

So let’s delve down into what he actually said.

We’ve got guys from the Middle East, the oil price is over $100, they can spend anything they want’ – What he is clearly talking about is Manchester City. That the wealth they have is incredible.

If you want to win championships then you would never get involved – The closest quote to the “I do not want to win trophies” misconception.

When you put these two together, it is clear what he is saying.

He is not involved in football just to win titles. That if you came in to football as an owner just to win titles, you are buying the club for the wrong reason. That with the financial wealth of Manchester City owners, even as a billionaire you can not bankroll your club to success.

Whilst Kroenke has a net worth of around $8billion, he does not have billions available to pump into Arsenal. Any fan that thinks he does is unrealistic.

The Manchester City owners are only in football to win championships. Sheikh Mansour, has an estimated individual net worth of at least £17 billion and a family fortune of at least $1 trillion.

As Stan Kroenke says, they can spend anything they want.

Their is a fabulous story around Simon Jordan and how buying a football club is the quickest way for a rich man to become poor. If you attempt to bankroll your club into winning trophies, there will always be someone richer, who can outspend you. And eventually you run out of money.

This is exactly what Kroenke was talking about in 2016.

The Evening Standard were so concerned with the sensationalist headlines that they ignored two key aspects of the interview:

“I think the best owners in sports are the guys that sort of watch both sides a bit. If you don’t have a good business then you can’t really afford to go out and get the best players unless you just want to rely on other sources of income.”

He is talking about running the club like a business. That once you have the business side sorted (ie commercial revenue) you can then go out and get the best players. That then leads to success. You do not have to rely on other sources of income.

‘What happens when the Middle Eastern family, this thing’s costing a lot of money and they decide to go home?’ I said what really happens in those situations is the fans get hurt because the players get picked up and paid if they’re good, the front office gets other jobs.”

Did we not all say similar about Roman Abramovich? What happens when he gets bored? Deported? Or worse? you end up with a club billions in debt, no way to function. And ultimatel it is the fans that lose out.

What Kroenke was clearly talking about is that you do not buy a football club to just win trophies. You buy it to be part of something. To build something.

Just like as a fan you do not support the club you love due to trophies.

If fans only supported their club to win championships, no one would go to the hundreds of games up and down the football pyramid. They would change the club they “support” depending on who is the successful side of the day.

Kroenke is saying ownership is the same. You do not get into football – or any sport – just to win trophies. You need to have “some reality involved”. you can not expect to compete when your opposing owners can spend 1/3 of your net worth bank rolling your opponents.

It is not defeatist.

Look at Leicester. Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha did not buy Leicester to win the league title. He knew that he did not have the financial strength to bank roll them to the league. But they won it. Through good recruitment, coaching and togetherness.

And I bet the Leicester City title success was sweeter than any bankrolled success at Manchester City.

Kroenke did not buy Arsenal with the goal of bankrolling us to success. He bought the club to build something, to grow the side. And we are now growing.

It is perhaps time to put the “Kroenke did not buy Arsenal to win trophies” to bed.

He did buy us to win trophies, but win trophies the right way. Through running a successful business, being self-sufficient.

Kroenke can not bankroll us to success, nor should he have to.

Is the sole reason you follow Arsenal to win trophies?

Keenos