Goonersworld

I don't think that is the widely used general understanding/meaning of a "luxury player"

Nah I gotta go with GA with this one. To me the definition of luxery is something you can afford not to have.

I need a car. That's not luxery. Just like Arsenal needs Ozil to compete for trophies.

It would be a luxery decision if I went with a sports car.


Having said all of this, I understand what Hothead is trying to say. I think everyone needs to understand Mesut Özil IS a world class playmaker. Playmaker. Not playfinisher. He makes the play, our other players need to make the goals.

So in some sense Ozil performing well depends on his team players. That doesn't mean we don't need Ozil. It means we need to buy better f***ing team players for Mesut.

theHotHead wrote:I don't think that is the widely used general understanding/meaning of a "luxury player"

I know, but have you notice it's only used for players to disparage them? No one calls Hazard a luxury player when Chelsea's winning the league, no one throws that label at KdB, but when the going gets tough like it did in Mou's final season at Chelsea, this label comes out

To me luxury player means = A player who offers lots of creativity, high level skill, looks good while doing it .......... but not much else.

No tracking back, no tackles, no man marking, not lots of ground being covered.

Flair players often have these tendencies not to do that, we don't count strikers because of where they play, but midfielders are usually required to do the above unless they are a pure CAM and the manager isn't a dim wit who doesn't have CM's to cover them (like Wenger doesn't).

I've always considered Bergkamp a luxury player.

Ronnierec where I don't think your on the same page as mine and Hotheads description is that you think we mean luxury as in "excess to requirements" well that's not my definition ............

A Ferrari is a luxury, a Ford Focus is not, yes the argument is if you just need to get around then the Ferrari is an expensive luxury, unless ............ your in a competitive race, then the Ferrari isn't a luxury, its a better made, faster car that all of a sudden isn't just a stylish good looking ride, its now a required front runner in a drag race because of that excess performance.

That is not the same as saying its all style and no substance and not needed.

Only people who don't think we're in a competitive race think luxury players are not necessary.

Barcelona is full of luxury players, they seem to do ok.

........... I do agree though, his detractors are using that term to create the narrative that players like that aren't needed so it would be probably better to not use the term.

DiamondGooner wrote:To me luxury player means = A player who offers lots of creativity, high level skill, looks good while doing it .......... but not much else.

No tracking back, no tackles, no man marking, not lots of ground being covered.

Flair players often have these tendencies not to do that, we don't count strikers because of where they play, but midfielders are usually required to do the above unless they are a pure CAM and the manager isn't a dim wit who doesn't have CM's to cover them (like Wenger doesn't).

I've always considered Bergkamp a luxury player.

Ronnierec where I don't think your on the same page as mine and Hotheads description is that you think we mean luxury as in "excess to requirements" well that's not my definition ............

A Ferrari is a luxury, a Ford Focus is not, yes the argument is if you just need to get around then the Ferrari is an expensive luxury, unless ............ your in a competitive race, then the Ferrari isn't a luxury, its a better made, faster car that all of a sudden isn't just a stylish good looking ride, its now a required front runner in a drag race because of that excess performance.

That is not the same as saying its all style and no substance and not needed.

Only people who don't think we're in a competitive race think luxury players are not necessary.

Barcelona is full of luxury players, they seem to do ok.

........... I do agree though, his detractors are using that term to create the narrative that players like that aren't needed so it would be probably better to not use the term.

Well said, DG.

Bottom line is : we keep getting trounced in important games with our luxury player as playmaker and are falling further and further behind ( missed top 4 for the first time ever).
Let's end the experiment NOW. It hasn't worked.
Arsenal with Cesc as playmaker was never this awful.

L

Did Cesc win a single trophy after becoming a regular in our first team?

Tbh the ozil work ethic thing is a bit weird to me. How many goals have we directly conceeded due to his lack of effort?

People follow this sky sports narrative so consistently that we never challange it? I cant really think of any instances where he is directly to blame for the tide turning or conceeding goals? I'd need some examples there.

ALLCAPS_ wrote:Tbh the ozil work ethic thing is a bit weird to me. How many goals have we directly conceeded due to his lack of effort?

People follow this sky sports narrative so consistently that we never challange it? I cant really think of any instances where he is directly to blame for the tide turning or conceeding goals? I'd need some examples there.

Haven't watched many games this season have you?

There are countless examples of us conceding after he or xhaka gifted the ball to the opponent.

andrew just hates muslims tbf

Sims wrote:andrew just hates muslims tbf

didn't even know he was muslim.
That's how little I care

i get the argument- luxury... but like someone said above- the term is iffy at best.

good teams need good players to play good to win stuff.

having good players is a luxury lesser teams dont have? shrug.

ozils been on form and its very pleasant to witness

This discussion is going down to a new low...
Now Ozil is blamed for the goals that we conceded???
How difficult to understand that bar Sanchez, Ozil has the most touches most passing of the whole team, having some turnovers and interceptions is nothing outrageous.
Pointing directly to Ozil for causing us a lot of goals is pathetic.

So Cech, Kos, Mustafi, Bellerin, Monreal, all defensive players should be blamed for not getting us enough goals!!!!!

Andrew wrote:

ALLCAPS_ wrote:Tbh the ozil work ethic thing is a bit weird to me. How many goals have we directly conceeded due to his lack of effort?

People follow this sky sports narrative so consistently that we never challange it? I cant really think of any instances where he is directly to blame for the tide turning or conceeding goals? I'd need some examples there.

Haven't watched many games this season have you?

There are countless examples of us conceding after he or xhaka gifted the ball to the opponent.

No there aren't .... you just make shit up .... and what's Xhaka got to do with it?

Ozil has a higher work-rate than any other player in the Arsenal squad ... in terms of yards covered ... but 90% of that work is done going forward ... that's his feckin' job ....

ALLCAPS_ wrote:Tbh the ozil work ethic thing is a bit weird to me. How many goals have we directly conceeded due to his lack of effort?

People follow this sky sports narrative so consistently that we never challange it? I cant really think of any instances where he is directly to blame for the tide turning or conceeding goals? I'd need some examples there.

There are hardly any if any, its like you say, the usual narrative that has no substance. Just like the Ozil is lazy narrative which is proven to be absolute bollox. But many people get their opinions from the media and are unable to form their own opinions.

How many goals have been conceded due to Ozil losing the ball? Probably only one in all the time he has been at Arsenal.