Clubs Interested In Bendtner

[gzagee]

AW won't buy a top top striker.

To buy a striker of RvP's calibre who will stay fit, hell is there even another striker in the World that exists who is that player?

I haven't seen him.

And you'd rather we sold the only player of that mould, should he suffer another injury.
Makes perfect sense.

It does make perfect sense when that player becomes detrimental to this team.

Or should i quote the team cycle of what happens when RvP gets injured and comes back for umpteenth time?

And Bendtner hasn't also had his fair share of injuries??
Look, we don't sell our best striker because he spends 3weeks/a month out. Especially if the back-up options aren't that good.
Even combined Chamakh/Bendtner aren't very mobile (i.e. they don't know how to lose their marker) and sure as hell don't have the propensity to do the extraordinary on a regular basis.
Both could play alongside RvP or Walcott but, in tandem they are not dynamic.
If you sell RvP then you buy someone of top quality.

3 weeks or a month? This is a player who is regularly our for more than half a season at time.

Not saying he should be sold now, but one big injury, and who can't see it, and he should go.

As for not being able to lose their marker, Chamakh i agree, but Bendtner is very rarely if ever marked out of a game, its arguably his strongest attribute i.e. Ghosting into the box, he is very rarely picked up.

And we will never know how good they are if they don't play, or at least play in their proper positions.

Walcott - Bendtner would be a great parternship IMO.

Even if RvP was sold, AW wouldn't bring in anyone near as quality, he would probably put Vela up front.

This has been one of if not RvP's best seasons in terms of playing time, so i'm basing my opinion more upon that when i say 3wks/1month. He hasn't had a big injury yet (touch wood) and we've seen the benefits.
Bendtner only 'ghosts in' cos he starts from a wide position. That is he starts at the right or left of 3.
And we've seen what happens when he starts up front, he continually drifts wide when we need HIM in the box!
However, I think both he and Walcott or Chamakh/Walcott would be interesting propositions. Whether Wenger will explore that, who knows?
Bendtner is improving and will improve but, he's 23 now. Most strikers of that age are starters. If AW doesn't have as much faith in Bendy as he has in himself then a new start may be a good idea, i reckon.

[GunnGunn]

The reason he drifts out wide is because when he usually starts up front he has no support.

The last time Bendtner had a prolonged run up front with a nearly full strength team behind him, he scored 9 goals in 11 games...

As for being a starter, he could be a starter, if AW would man up to the fact that the 4-3-3 is a load of bullshit.

I personally would like to see RvP and Bendtner up front, because they link up very well together IMO.

But you may be right, Bendtner doesn't have the time to sit about waiting for his big chance, and by the time AW starts losing faith in Van Persie, he could be 25 or older.

So maybe a move would be best for him...

Thing is though i think we would live to regret it.

[Est83]

Who cares if Bendtner leaves... Aliadiere is back training with us

[maslo]

The reason he drifts out wide is because when he usually starts up front he has no support.

The last time Bendtner had a prolonged run up front with a nearly full strength team behind him, he scored 9 goals in 11 games...

As for being a starter, he could be a starter, if AW would man up to the fact that the 4-3-3 is a load of bullshit.

I personally would like to see RvP and Bendtner up front, because they link up very well together IMO.

But you may be right, Bendtner doesn't have the time to sit about waiting for his big chance, and by the time AW starts losing faith in Van Persie, he could be 25 or older.

So maybe a move would be best for him...

Thing is though i think we would live to regret it.

dont think 4-3-3 is bullshit most of the succeful teams in europe are playing with a variation of this formation, its just wengers stubborness to ignore 4-4-2 as a plan b thats the problem.

have to say i think he will go, i dont think he is good enough or will be good enough to be our "star" forward, he can slot in well as a backup but i can;t see him as more than tht and he has too much ambition to sit on the bench for too much longer.

[Van The Man Persie]

The only player I can think of that benefits form the 4-3-3 is Theo, and he's proabably ready for the striker role in a 2 striker formation now anyway. Everyone, and I mean everyone, from the fullbacks, to Arshavin, Song, every striker and every so-called wide midfielder, would be better in the 4-1-3-2.

Our CMs arent good enough to play in a 4-4-2

Wenger believes a 4-5-1/4-3-3 which we play now brings out the best in Cesc having 2 people watching his back. The fact no one else seems to flourish in it is ignored.

[GunnGunn]

We are in England, and the long ball boys can easily deal with our 4-3-3 or any variation of it.

Hence bullshit.

[Est83]

The only player I can think of that benefits form the 4-3-3 is Theo, and he's proabably ready for the striker role in a 2 striker formation now anyway. Everyone, and I mean everyone, from the fullbacks, to Arshavin, Song, every striker and every so-called wide midfielder, would be better in the 4-1-3-2.

Our CMs arent good enough to play in a 4-4-2

Wenger believes a 4-5-1/4-3-3 which we play now brings out the best in Cesc having 2 people watching his back. The fact no one else seems to flourish in it is ignored.

4-1-3-2

Fabianski
Sagna Djourou TV Clichy
Song
Wilshere/Ramsey Cesc Nasri/Arshavin
Bendtner/Theo RvP

Cesc is still utilised in the advanced playmaker role with protection from Song (who would have a deeper role).
Bendtner, Theo, Vela and whoever else will get more gametime upfront, and will all play better in the 2 striker formation. Lets face it, Theo and Vela are only ever gonna flurrish as one of two strikers, and Bendtner/Chamakh need gametime and more support than they get in the 4-3-3.
Nasri/Arshavin will benefit form a slightly more central role, and the young and speedy playmakers Ramsey and Jack are more than capable or playing a slightly wider role than they play in the 4-3-3, whilst also being in more advanced roles than they would be in the 4-3-3.
Sagna and Clichy were also a hell of a lot more consistent in the 4-4-2.

I think they're all good enough and would play better in this formation, and Cesc can play anywhere in midfield. But like you said, it could be all down to Cesc. He gets more goals in this formation, and we know the little bugger has a lot of player power (starting half-fit against Barca )

[gzagee]

@ Est: we need our FBs to proivde the natural width and ability to cross. As has been seen, that ability is sporadic.

[GunnGunn]

@ Est: we need our FBs to proivde the natural width and ability to cross. As has been seen, that ability is sporadic.

Is it?

Or is it just that we have too many players who don't get into the box?

Sagna has improved his crossing so much this season and we haven't really seen the benefit of it...

[Van The Man Persie]

Combination of both.

The crosses arent great but we never have anyone in the box anyway. A front 2 of RVP and Chamakh would be great.

[gzagee]

@ Est: we need our FBs to proivde the natural width and ability to cross. As has been seen, that ability is sporadic.

Is it?

Or is it just that we have too many players who don't get into the box?

Sagna has improved his crossing so much this season and we haven't really seen the benefit of it...

Combination of both.

The crosses arent great but we never have anyone in the box anyway. A front 2 of RVP and Chamakh would be great.

Chamakh is a good header of the ball, as has been proved by some of his headed goals this term. However, since he's dropped off shape we haven't got anyone else to attack the ball in the box.
Sagna has improved ten-fold, however it doesn't mean he's that great at crossing.
Clichy's crossing has gone the opposite direction, but I can't remember if or not he was that good at crossing in the first instance.

[Est83]

Sagna has definitely got a good cross on him, but fair point about Clichy, I remember seeing good crosses once upon a time but even then, crossing was never his thing.

But GG makes a good point. Both fullbacks gave us great width in the 4-1-3-2, they worked so well with the wider midfielders, but have they ever had anyone to really aim for? If either Bendtner or Chamakh were regulars they would have a real reason to cross.

[StLGooner]

We don't really play the correct style of football to have guys in the box on the reg to get on the end of those crosses though. That is part of the problem too.

[GunnGunn]

Sagna has definitely got a good cross on him, but fair point about Clichy, I remember seeing good crosses once upon a time but even then, crossing was never his thing.

But GG makes a good point. Both fullbacks gave us great width in the 4-1-3-2, they worked so well with the wider midfielders, but have they ever had anyone to really aim for? If either Bendtner or Chamakh were regulars they would have a real reason to cross.

Agreed.

I was going to start a thread about this.

Given we are a ball playing team, i don't believe our FB's do us any favours, or indeed any of our players do us any favours by crossing into the box.

99% of the time, and that is literal, our attacks break down.

We never have anyone in the box to attack the ball, its a massive weakness.

Seeing as we usually get countered regardless of whether our players are in the box or not, surely common sense implied that if you are going to get countered anyway, then you should just pack the box with attacking players to increase your chances of getting a goal and have faith in the players hanging back to defuse the counter attack?

Its not going to make any difference if our players are on the egde of the box or well inside it, we get countered all the same, so lets at least give ourselves a fighting chance or getting a goal.

[Est83]

With two strikers and one of them being iether Chamakh or Bendtner, I think 9 times out of 10 we will have someone in the box.

We've seen it all too often, great play in wider areas, their fullbacks taken out of the game, get to the byline... then... take a second to reflect, relax, take a breath, then pull it back and pass it across the front of the box

In a situation where the opponents might have their box packed out, waiting for us to f**k up in our attampts to break them down, then you can garuntee RvP will drift to the edge of the box. But that's fine with me, I expect him to do that, and I don't think he's comfortable with the ball being more than 2cms off the turf at any given time anyway. But with a second striker, that run to the byline wont go to waste. RvP will still be on the edge of the box, and either Bendtner or Chamakh will be another option in the box.

I think Hartson was the last striker we had who was decent in the air. We've now got two strikers who can regularly score with their head... bloody use them! It's not gonna happen in the 4-3-3 because of the pace of our attack. For some reason we don't think it's fair to attack unless the opposition are in their box and have atleast five minutes to prepare for our death by sideways passing technique!