Özim wrote:LMAO wrote:Dejan wrote:High reward based on what? A good interview?LMAO wrote:Özim wrote:Anyone care to explain their decision to pick Arteta over Ancelotti and the basis for this, I’d be very interested?
Go back to when the hires were made.
Ancelotti was coming off two underperformances at Bayern and Napoli. His Bayern got smacked by Madrid and his protégé (albeit one of the best club sides of all-time in fairness) in the quarters of the CL, and his Napoli failed to advance from their CL group and lost to Emery's Arsenal in the quarters of the EL. For a cup manager, it wasn't looking pretty. Also, Napoli went from finishing 4 points off Juve to finishing 11 points behind.
Arteta had a blank slate. It was high-risk, high-reward.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk
"a blank slate"
Said when Arteta was hired that it could go great and we could have the next hotshot manager who takes Arsenal back to the top of the mountain (the high-reward part), or it could be a dumpster fire due to his inexperience (the high-risk part).
Probability would suggest the latter was much much much more likely, this is no different to deciding to give Xhaka the job (if he’d done his badges), there’s zero evidence he’s qualified, it’s basically a stab in the dark in the hope we by some miracle stumble upon someone decent.
Yes, but remember your question was about Arteta versus Ancelotti, and at the time of hire, Ancelotti looked like expired goods. So may as well take the risk that the new guy can produce instead of going with someone who looked to be on the decline.
I said when Arteta was hired that he wasn't my first (or fifth) choice, but if we went back and had to make that gamble again based on the information available (tabula rasa Arteta or past it Ancelotti), then I'd take Arteta 10/10 times.